View Full Version : Political Ramifications of SCOTUS ruling
BPTactical
06-28-2012, 09:49
Ok, two sides to the ruling politically:
1- big win for Obozo and raises his re-election chances.
2- big motivator for the Right and undecided who don't care for Obamacare.
Discuss in a civil and polite manner.
CrufflerSteve
06-28-2012, 09:52
I can see one negative for Nobama.
He's raising taxes! The mandate is now a tax.
Romney can't do this because it could bounce back on him but the political scene has lots of pit bulls for hire who will do it.
Steve
ScooterCO
06-28-2012, 09:53
What the F.....
We are all F...ed
Pass the ammo, the revolution should start now!
yankeefan98121
06-28-2012, 09:56
Ok, two sides to the ruling politically:
1- big win for Obozo and raises his re-election chances.
2- big motivator for the Right and undecided who don't care for Obamacare.
Discuss in a civil and polite manner.
I see this as a silver lining for Romney campaign, so #2
I just ran outside with my rifle in hand. I was the only one out there, so it must not be "go-time" yet....
Unfortunately, the voters don't get to see the ramifications of Obamacare until after the election. The shit won't hit the fan until 2014; I love the fact that the date is set to start this nightmare after Obama's re-election. I know for myself and my wife that we will lose around 10% of our income to so-called Cadillac Plan taxes because of our health benefits. My parents will be greatly impacted by changes to Medicare. When this reduces the quality of health care and people pay out the a$$ for it, then it will be a campaign issue. The state of the economy will be the deciding factor in November. Ultimately, Obama and the socialists wanted to create the entitlement and they now succeeded in doing so.
ScooterCO
06-28-2012, 10:37
One more entitlement program for the sheepel, was the ultimate goal. We are sinking as a country. The masses don't see it as this. The more the Dems can get on the teet, the better their job security.
#2
I think this will motivate the right even more so than they are now. The undecided folks that disagree will now sway to the right and vote against Orighteousone.
We better hope I am right....
ChadAmberg
06-28-2012, 10:52
Remember, 55%+ of the population does not want obamacare, that should throw a few more % points into the R column from the undecideds.
Short term positive for Bama, people now know that the only way to get rid of this law is at the ballot box. The 49% that strongly oppose this law will vote correctly and the 39% who strongly favor the law will vote for the POTUS. Looks like a possible few point gain on election day to me. Who knows where the undecided will fall.
Remember, 55%+ of the population does not want obamacare, that should throw a few more % points into the R column from the undecideds.
Yes, but what percentage of that population has insurance and won't have to pay the 1% tax?
I've read some this morning but I am curious to see if this will affect people of medicaid, medicare, etc etc. how it will effect the businesses, the insurance companies, and the people paying for insurance. I know for fact since the law went into place my health coverage got worse and I paid more. So as far as I'm concerned it is definitely shit.
DeusExMachina
06-28-2012, 11:17
Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad? It's a fee for people that wait until they're sick to get health insurance. Sounds kind of fair to the insurance companies.
So the gov taxing people to help out private industries is ok? Seriously?
UncleDave
06-28-2012, 11:59
Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad? It's a fee for people that wait until they're sick to get health insurance. Sounds kind of fair to the insurance companies.
You cannot legislate responsiblity or morality that is the problem with the government getting involved in things that are not their concern.
Zundfolge
06-28-2012, 12:02
I believe the decision will end up being Obama's Waterloo.
Downside is it has cost us the basic fundamentals of liberty so it's going to be a pryic victory this November.
ONLY way I can see this working out with the survival of the Republic (and liberty in general) is if Tea Party conservatives take control of the house and senate, then President Romney becomes 100% self serving and does what the congress tells him to do (seeing the writing on the wall for the "Establishment Republican" way).
Then we'll need to fast track a couple of constitutional amendments making it 100% illegal for the state to force you to buy anything and outlawing the federal government from providing health care services.
Then maybe ... just maybe we'll see liberty survive another generation.
I just ran outside with my rifle in hand. I was the only one out there, so it must not be "go-time" yet....
It will never be time to go, this country it too fucking soft as a whole to do anything.
SuperiorDG
06-28-2012, 12:05
Why is it always 5-4 or 4-5 is this suppose to make me feel better?
Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad? It's a fee for people that wait until they're sick to get health insurance. Sounds kind of fair to the insurance companies.
You seriously think is is perfectly acceptable that I am being taxed for simply existing?
I carried insurance for 1 year, saw 2 doctors for a shoulder injury. Excluding that, I haven't presented a need to seek healthcare in over a decade. So now, I get to put up a chunk of my paycheck to pay to either buy insurance for myself, or pay the fine to fund medical care needed for those laid off by businesses unloading payroll to pay for Obamacare. Fuckin great. Woohoo!
What the F.....
We are all F...ed
Pass the ammo, the revolution should start now!
I'm with you! But the sheep will continue until one day they wake up and they can't take a piss without getting permission from the government. Wake up and smell the socialism!
Let's hope Romney can pull a win out this year otherwise I fear that we might get more than just 4 more years under Comrade Barack. [Rant1]
JohnTRourke
06-28-2012, 12:22
America is over.
the Constitution died today.
fucking sad.
Discuss in a civil and polite manner.
That's not how things work here. You can't just make up rules.
I just ran outside with my rifle in hand. I was the only one out there, so it must not be "go-time" yet....
[ROFL1]
Well played, sir.
HBARleatherneck
06-28-2012, 12:33
the problem is, we have a large segment of the population that pays no taxes, gets free healthcare now, gets food stamps, money assistance, section 8 houseing.. so, how is taxing everyone going to make these people pay for insurance? they dont pay for anything now. they have little to no income to tax. and this will just give them incentive to work less.
UncleDave
06-28-2012, 12:34
I ran outside with my rife in my hand too. But that was because I was packing for the fire.
[LOL]
gets free healthcare now
How?
That's not how things work here. You can't just make up rules.
Someone is feeling a little rebellious
How?
Medicaid
Leaves no real reasons to try to succeed. Sit at home, collect TANF, food stamps, Medicaid and Obummer will take care of you.
How?
If they don't have it, and can't afford the hospital bills due to lack of income they eventually don't have to pay it... Not entirely sure how it works, probably messes up their credit from all the unpaid bills, but a hospital can't refuse to treat you just because you can't afford to pay for the treatment. [Mad]
HBARleatherneck
06-28-2012, 12:39
How?
medicaid, chp, etc. lots of people get free healthcare based on their low income.
How?
Read This (covering adults without children):
http://www.ncbr.com/article/20120628/NEWS/120629936
I am extremely familiar with Colorado Medicaid...the budget buster! Although, I am most concerned by both my family benefit packages being taxed.
You cannot legislate responsiblity or morality that is the problem with the government getting involved in things that are not their concern.
That won't stop both sides of the political aisle from doing just that, for eternity.
This brings to mind, what happens when the gooberment decides that my VA coverage for being in the 50%+ club isn't adequate healthcare and starts taxing me? My job doesn't offer healthcare coverage and I hardly ever go to the doctor as it is... WTF? It seems stupid to force people to buy something they won't need.
Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad? It's a fee for people that wait until they're sick to get health insurance. Sounds kind of fair to the insurance companies.
You seriously think is is perfectly acceptable that I am being taxed for simply existing?
It's far more than that. You can now be taxed/penalized for not doing/buying something. If congress decides everyone needs to drive a hybrid, but I don't want one, they can tax me for not buying one. I hate the taste of liver but congress decides everyone should eat it - they can tax me for choosing not to eat liver. This has given congress unlimited power. There is nothing they cannot do via coercive taxation that forces people to participate in an existing market, or creates a new market, they then regulate via the commerce clause.
I can see this happening - In the future congress decides in order to curb unsustainable population growth, mass birth control is necessary. Women who choose not to take one of several approved chemical birth control methods provided by government sanctioned corporate suppliers are subject to a 'shared excess population burden' penalty. This penalty will still apply to women who don't plan to have any children or would rather use natural birth control methods allowed by their own conscience/religious teachings. I know there are plenty of you who have religious objections to artificial birth control and family planning. Welcome to the new Amerika.
There is something very wrong happening in this country and John Roberts is no friend to liberty. The ideas of limited government and personal freedom died today.
JohnTRourke
06-28-2012, 13:14
Medicaid
Leaves no real reasons to try to succeed. Sit at home, collect TANF, food stamps, Medicaid and Obummer will take care of you.
exactly
for 25 years i've been stupid
working hard, playing by the rules, paying ridiculous amount of taxes
no more
i'm done
bring me my free shit
I'm done "contributing"
you wanted it, you got it, I no longer will be pulling the wagon, I'll be sitting my fat ass inside of it. Pull faster you donkeys.
It's far more than that. You can now be taxed/penalized for not doing/buying something. If congress decides everyone needs to drive a hybrid, but I don't want one, they can tax me for not buying one. I hate the taste of liver but congress decides everyone should eat it - they can tax me for choosing not to eat liver. This has given congress unlimited power. There is nothing they cannot do via coercive taxation that forces people to participate in an existing market, or creates a new market, they then regulate via the commerce clause.
I can see this happening - In the future congress decides in order to curb unsustainable population growth, mass birth control is necessary. Women who choose not to take one of several approved chemical birth control methods provided by government sanctioned corporate suppliers are subject to a 'shared excess population burden' penalty. This penalty will still apply to women who don't plan to have any children or would rather use natural birth control methods allowed by their own conscience/religious teachings. I know there are plenty of you who have religious objections to artificial birth control and family planning. Welcome to the new Amerika.
There is something very wrong happening in this country and John Roberts is no friend to liberty. The ideas of limited government and personal freedom died today.
I agree with what you said. The feds did it to bring states inline and now they are going to do it with individuals. [Bang][Rant1][Rant1][Rant1][AR15][AR15][AR15]
This is absolutely an assault on liberty! Roberts really betrayed us![Rant1]
Forget gun control. By the time they get done with us, no one is going to have enough money to buy/shoot guns.
DeusExMachina
06-28-2012, 13:43
I think everyone's being a little over dramatic.
The bill removed a whole bunch of ways that insurance companies can fuck you over. Like not insuring you due to pre-existing conditions, instituting lifetime caps, dropping you for no reason, etc. In my opinion, there's a lot of good there.
In return, if you do not purchase insurance, you have to pay a tax to the IRS. Which in 2014 will be $95 per adult. This is because there will be people who will want to wait to get insurance until they are sick, because the insurance companies will have to give it to them regardless. That is unless health insurance will cost someone more than 8% of their income, and then this fee is not applied.
This is not end of the world type stuff, people.
I think the cost goes up to something like $690/person/year in 2016. Which is still cheaper than any private insurance plan.
flan7211
06-28-2012, 13:58
I think everyone's being a little over dramatic.
The bill removed a whole bunch of ways that insurance companies can fuck you over. Like not insuring you due to pre-existing conditions, instituting lifetime caps, dropping you for no reason, etc. In my opinion, there's a lot of good there.
In return, if you do not purchase insurance, you have to pay a tax to the IRS. Which in 2014 will be $95 per adult. This is because there will be people who will want to wait to get insurance until they are sick, because the insurance companies will have to give it to them regardless. That is unless health insurance will cost someone more than 8% of their income, and then this fee is not applied.
This is not end of the world type stuff, people.
I see your point, but the insurance is not the point. It is the fact that the feds are requiring you to pay for a service that you can't avoid. It makes sense when they make you buy auto insurance, you drive. If they make you buy health insurance there is no opt out. You can avoid driving you can't avoid this. This is a tax you can't avoid. Every other tax in this nation can somehow be avoided. Don't purchase a product, don't have an income, or don't use a service. Being alive under this constitutes a tax. That is a dangerous road, as all voluntary action has ended. At least the states can opt out but at what other cost? Transportation funds, FEMA response, or federal law enforcement? This is the gross bastardization of the commerce clause. It was created to prevent states from putting duties and tariffs on each other not federal power over all goods and services.
I think everyone's being a little over dramatic.
The bill removed a whole bunch of ways that insurance companies can fuck you over. Like not insuring you due to pre-existing conditions, instituting lifetime caps, dropping you for no reason, etc. In my opinion, there's a lot of good there.
In return, if you do not purchase insurance, you have to pay a tax to the IRS. Which in 2014 will be $95 per adult. This is because there will be people who will want to wait to get insurance until they are sick, because the insurance companies will have to give it to them regardless. That is unless health insurance will cost someone more than 8% of their income, and then this fee is not applied.
This is not end of the world type stuff, people.
So, force me to buy something from the private sector, or tax my existence?
As far as I am aware, in this state, if you don't pay your medical bills, they sue you and garnish your paycheck anyway.
You don't have cable, therefore you are more likely to steal it. You will now either obtain cable or send the government money to pay for the people who steal cable.
Good riddance. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/guns/headshot-suicide.gif
Rucker61
06-28-2012, 14:02
I think everyone's being a little over dramatic.
The bill removed a whole bunch of ways that insurance companies can fuck you over. Like not insuring you due to pre-existing conditions, instituting lifetime caps, dropping you for no reason, etc. In my opinion, there's a lot of good there.
In return, if you do not purchase insurance, you have to pay a tax to the IRS. Which in 2014 will be $95 per adult. This is because there will be people who will want to wait to get insurance until they are sick, because the insurance companies will have to give it to them regardless. That is unless health insurance will cost someone more than 8% of their income, and then this fee is not applied.
This is not end of the world type stuff, people.
Don't rock the boat. Obama could cure cancer and the other side would bitch because he make all those oncologists unemployed.
I think everyone's being a little over dramatic. In my opinion, there's a lot of good there. This is not end of the world type stuff, people.
It is wonderful if you believe in government coercion if not flat out extortion.
It is wonderful if you believe in higher insurance premiums.
It is wonderful if you believe in higher taxes to cover expansion of medicaid when the states can't afford it.
It is wonderful if you believe in taxing workers health benefits.
It is wonderful if you believe in reducing benefits to seniors.
It is wonderful if you believe in increasing the national debt ultimately destroying the economy.
All of you healthy hardworking people that produce more than you take line up and give your pound of flesh for the common good! ...you know...it is all about community and the collective good.
Yeah, it is all just f*cking great....can't want to be bent over!
flan7211
06-28-2012, 14:08
Don't rock the boat. Obama could cure cancer and the other side would bitch because he make all those oncologists unemployed.
Dude if they actually cared about the uninsured they could have created a federal insurance funded by tax dollars that people could volunteer for and pay for what they could. They could also have eliminated access for free riders such as frequent visitors, illegals, or the super poor. They didn't, this is a power grab and nothing else.
Zundfolge
06-28-2012, 14:16
The bill removed a whole bunch of ways that insurance companies can fuck you over. Like not insuring you due to pre-existing conditions, instituting lifetime caps, dropping you for no reason, etc. In my opinion, there's a lot of good there.
This drives me nuts, how anyone can think that forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is even remotely a good idea ... seriously its the equivalent of forcing car companies to cover pre-existing damage. So I could go buy the shell of a car from a junk yard and force my insurance company to restore it for me for free? Getting rid of the lifetime cap means they have to restore it and then modify it.
Plus, dropping you for "no reason" is just stupid ... it would be like McDonalds telling someone in line that they won't sell them a burger, all they do is lose a customer. I guarantee you most of those "dropped for no reason" folk were dropped for a reason.
See the purpose of Insurance is to protect you from an UNEXPECTED loss (and make a profit doing so), once you remove the word "Unexpected" its no longer Insurance, its Welfare. Forcing private companies providing welfare is just communism, plain and simple (and its not economically sustainable either).
This is not end of the world type stuff, people.No, its the end of the free world. Its also the end of the Insurance industry and probably the US (if not global) Economy. Everyone can now expect their insurance to rise significantly.
DeusExMachina
06-28-2012, 14:21
This drives me nuts, how anyone can think that forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is even remotely a good idea ... seriously its the equivalent of forcing car companies to cover pre-existing damage. So I could go buy the shell of a car from a junk yard and force my insurance company to restore it for me for free? Getting rid of the lifetime cap means they have to restore it and then modify it.
Plus, dropping you for "no reason" is just stupid ... it would be like McDonalds telling someone in line that they won't sell them a burger, all they do is lose a customer. I guarantee you most of those "dropped for no reason" folk were dropped for a reason.
See the purpose of Insurance is to protect you from an UNEXPECTED loss (and make a profit doing so), once you remove the word "Unexpected" its no longer Insurance, its Welfare. Forcing private companies providing welfare is just communism, plain and simple (and its not economically sustainable either).
No, its the end of the free world. Its also the end of the Insurance industry and probably the US (if not global) Economy. Everyone can now expect their insurance to rise significantly.
All I got out of this is you're comparing human life to a junkyard car.
Practice you Heil Obama salutes.
Zundfolge
06-28-2012, 14:23
All I got out of this is you're comparing human life to a junkyard car.
[Bang]
Then attempting to explain it to you any further is pointless.
I know you think now all your health care worries are gone and mama government is going to take care of you and protect you from the evil greedy capitalists (doctors and insurance companies) ... but now your life will be shorter, poorer, less healthy and much less free as will mine as will everyone here.
DeusExMachina
06-28-2012, 14:24
[Bang]
Then attempting to explain it to you any further is pointless.
I know you think now all your health care worries are gone and mama government is going to take care of you and protect you from the evil greedy capitalists (doctors and insurance companies) ... but now your life will be shorter, poorer, less healthy and much less free as will mine as will everyone here.
Good, please stop trying to make awful analogies and put words in my mouth. We'll both be better off.
Dude if they actually cared about the uninsured they could have created a federal insurance funded by tax dollars that people could volunteer for and pay for what they could. They could also have eliminated access for free riders such as frequent visitors, illegals, or the super poor. They didn't, this is a power grab and nothing else.
You mean single payer healthcare? Didn't everyone freak out about that when it was on the table in 2009?
flan7211
06-28-2012, 14:30
You mean single payer healthcare? Didn't everyone freak out about that when it was on the table in 2009?
I honestly wouldn't think that would be the end of the world as long as it was a temporary program.
Byte Stryke
06-28-2012, 14:36
I got to work today and was notified that our carrier was increasing our premiums...
12%
Yes, that fast
That's 12% of an already $780 a month for 3 people.
I haven't seen a physician since 2008
$%&# Obamacare
Sharpienads
06-28-2012, 14:47
This drives me nuts, how anyone can think that forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is even remotely a good idea ... seriously its the equivalent of forcing car companies to cover pre-existing damage. So I could go buy the shell of a car from a junk yard and force my insurance company to restore it for me for free? Getting rid of the lifetime cap means they have to restore it and then modify it.
Plus, dropping you for "no reason" is just stupid ... it would be like McDonalds telling someone in line that they won't sell them a burger, all they do is lose a customer. I guarantee you most of those "dropped for no reason" folk were dropped for a reason.
See the purpose of Insurance is to protect you from an UNEXPECTED loss (and make a profit doing so), once you remove the word "Unexpected" its no longer Insurance, its Welfare. Forcing private companies providing welfare is just communism, plain and simple (and its not economically sustainable either).
No, its the end of the free world. Its also the end of the Insurance industry and probably the US (if not global) Economy. Everyone can now expect their insurance to rise significantly.
+1
My wife has Type 1 diabetes and even she doesn't think pre-existing conditions should be covered. It doesn't make any sense.
And your anology with the car is spot on.
Zundfolge
06-28-2012, 14:48
Good, please stop trying to make awful analogies and put words in my mouth. We'll both be better off.
My analogy was perfect.
There is zero difference between expecting a car insurance company to repair damage done to your car before you bought the policy and expecting a health insurance company to cover an illness you had before you bought the policy.
In fact the car insurance company and the health insurance company call it the exact same thing; a pre-existing condition.
jackthewall81
06-28-2012, 14:49
I got to work today and was notified that our carrier was increasing our premiums...
12%
Yes, that fast
That's 12% of an already $780 a month for 3 people.
I haven't seen a physician since 2008
$%&# Obamacare
Can't the states revoke Obamacare? I would be shocked it Georgia didn't.
Rucker61
06-28-2012, 14:58
My analogy was perfect.
There is zero difference between expecting a car insurance company to repair damage done to your car before you bought the policy and expecting a health insurance company to cover an illness you had before you bought the policy.
In fact the car insurance company and the health insurance company call it the exact same thing; a pre-existing condition.
I guess the difference is your car doesn't die.
I guess the difference is your car doesn't die.
Only if you let it. You can always PAY and have it fixed, after all this is a capitalist country, no?
Zundfolge
06-28-2012, 15:08
I guess the difference is your car doesn't die.
An irrelevant appeal to emotion.
So because something is more important that means you have the right to steal? Because that's basically what forced coverage of pre-existing conditions is ... it goes against the entire purpose and design of Insurance and (like I said before) turns Insurance into Welfare.
Hell since health care is so important maybe we should just force all doctors and nurses into indentured servitude.
Folks this isn't about health care this is about basic liberty. I guess the solace I can take from this is that those that don't see how damaging this is to liberty will be comfortable in their chains.
Rucker61
06-28-2012, 15:12
Only if you let it. You can always PAY and have it fixed, after all this is a capitalist country, no?
The US has elements of a lot of different economic models. I'm saying that one reason that people are for the Act is to keep people from dying (pre-exsting conditions). A dent in your car doesn't eventually make your whole car fall apart.
More people admitted to the hospitals,,, will not becoming out walking.
And amazingly, the Gubment can now feed the hungry as food trucks are seen leaving the rear of the hospital and later distributing weeks of food to the poor.
The US has elements of a lot of different economic models. I'm saying that one reason that people are for the Act is to keep people from dying (pre-exsting conditions). A dent in your car doesn't eventually make your whole car fall apart.
The sick man who can afford to get well only temporarily burdens his family. The sick man who cannot afford to get well- in our current society- will now burden the rest of us forever. Everything must be done to the betterment of the state comrades... stop this dissent and get back to work for the betterment of the state! Everything will be taken care of! [Bang]
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Obama-Sign-Hammer-Sickle-Sticker-nobama-symbol-anti-/09/!B64zVGgBWk~$(KGrHqIOKjwEylRCJbK7BMykT4!+ng~~-1_35.JPG
[Rant1]
Remember the quote: "A government big enough to provide you with everything is a government big enough to take everything you have."
"Communism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak. In Communism, inequality comes from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence." -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
The US has elements of a lot of different economic models. I'm saying that one reason that people are for the Act is to keep people from dying (pre-exsting conditions). A dent in your car doesn't eventually make your whole car fall apart.
Speaking of horrible analogies....
Insurance is not the end all be all. Just because you have insurance doesn't mean you are healthy, people who have insurance die everyday. You are trying to make it sound as if people who don't have insurance can't get treatment and you are barking up the wrong tree. We know the truth and we see the big picture in all of this. Put down the kool-aid and put a band-aid on that bleeding heart of yours.
Sharpienads
06-28-2012, 15:21
I guess the difference is your car doesn't die.
I guess the real difference is health insurance doesn't equal health care.
Rucker61
06-28-2012, 15:25
I guess the real difference is health insurance doesn't equal health care.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on this?
Sharpienads
06-28-2012, 15:26
Just because everybody has health insurance doesn't mean they can get adequate health care. Simple supply and demand.
Rucker61
06-28-2012, 15:31
Just because everybody has health insurance doesn't mean they can get adequate health care. Simple supply and demand.
Good point. I wonder what the supply chain for new health providers looks like at this time. Might be time to switch careers.
Comrades! Has no one realized the increased burden this will already place on our healthcare system? Sure insurance companies could potentially make more money off this, ya know, because between now and 2014 everyone is gonna run out and get health insurance so they don't get taxed, increasing the customer base- but also putting more people into the system and if you got it, better use it. I anticipate longer lines at doctors offices and hospitals.
I'd like to see what it's going to cost an average healthy person a year for insurance, and then see if it stacks up to that $95 tax. I'm still not happy, it seems like we're getting that treatment we all dreaded. "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"
Has no one realized the increased burden this will already place on our healthcare system?
The goobernment sure has, in fact they are counting on it. This is the entire point of this legislation. It's not to make sure everybody has insurance so everyone can survive as many ignorant liberals want you to believe, they know damn well that no one is refused treatment as is. They are banking on insurance failing. Then they get to take over health care in this country which is something like 18% of the economy. You think the lines at the DMV are long, wait till they take over health care.
The goobernment sure has, in fact they are counting on it. This is the entire point of this legislation. It's not to make sure everybody has insurance so everyone can survive as many ignorant liberals want you to believe, they know damn well that no one is refused treatment as is. They are banking on insurance failing. Then they get to take over health care in this country which is something like 18% of the economy. You think the lines at the DMV are long, wait till they take over health care.
That is what I fear the most... I guess we must prepare for the apocalypse...
I saw this quote recently in an email but can't attribute to who wrote it, but it was written post WWII Germany, that's all I know.
"When the cemeteries can no longer sustain the rotting corpses, when the mortuaries are overflowing with the freshly fallen, when the dead begin to pile on the streets and the festering corpses begin to rot, a plague unlike any the world has ever seen will sweep the land and cleanse the face of this world... that will be the end of humanity- when there are too many sick for the few doctors to tend to, when the population of takers outweighs the population of givers by too much of a margin to sustain. It will not be by debris falling from the sky, some great and terrible weapon we created, no, we will destroy ourselves in a way that will sneak up on us- we will invite the death, the destruction, and the pestilence when we ask our betters to care for us; for we had become lazy, sodden, and complacent. I am just thankful it was stopped by those who still hold dear the freedoms and personal responsibility that disallows the socialist tyranny from controlling the world as Hitler had dreamed."
The impact on small business will be devastating.
Comrades! Has no one realized the increased burden this will already place on our healthcare system? Sure insurance companies could potentially make more money off this, ya know, because between now and 2014 everyone is gonna run out and get health insurance so they don't get taxed, increasing the customer base- but also putting more people into the system and if you got it, better use it. I anticipate longer lines at doctors offices and hospitals.
I'd like to see what it's going to cost an average healthy person a year for insurance, and then see if it stacks up to that $95 tax. I'm still not happy, it seems like we're getting that treatment we all dreaded. "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"
F that. The tax will be cheaper than any healthcare plan.
F that. The tax will be cheaper than any healthcare plan.
That's the problem, most companies will drop coverage because it will be cheaper to pay the "tax" then it will be to provide insurance for their employees (since many employers pay a portion of those benefits). This will further burden the insurance companies making it impossible for them to stay in business. It also insures big brother has their foot in the door to take everything over when the shit hits the fan.
This will further burden the insurance companies making it impossible for them to stay in business.
Or they lower their rates back down towards what they were back in 2009, before the law passed.
JohnTRourke
06-28-2012, 17:24
Folks this isn't about health care this is about basic liberty. I guess the solace I can take from this is that those that don't see how damaging this is to liberty will be comfortable in their chains.
Yeppers
hope those subjects enjoy their chains in comfort.
How do you guys survive when you believe every little thing means the death of liberty and our country as we know it? I'd figure you'd have stroked out years ago...
Certainly this is one of the more serious things that they've done, but you guys make a huge deal out of every little thing.
THEY ARE TAXING SODA POP! THIS HOW DEMOCRACY ENDS! WE ARE ALL SLAVES TO THE POLITICAL MACHIEN NOW
this is just one more thing that is going to cause inflation to go nuts. Unless you have a lot of excess money etc in your life...get ready to look at what the bare minimum you need to survive is.
jerrymrc
06-28-2012, 17:35
And amazingly, the Gubment can now feed the hungry as food trucks are seen leaving the rear of the hospital and later distributing weeks of food to the poor.
Soylent Green is good stuff. [Beer]
Look on the bright side, the ruling would allow you as President to pass a law making everyone buy a gun.
Look on the bright side, the ruling would allow you as President to pass a law making everyone buy a gun.
For national security and the public good.
Sharpienads
06-28-2012, 17:57
Look on the bright side, the ruling would allow you as President to pass a law making everyone buy a gun.
Wouldn't be the first time... kinda...
Or they lower their rates back down towards what they were back in 2009, before the law passed.
So you want them to offer more but charge less....interesting.
Who in their right mind is going to pay for insurance when you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions? People will get injured or sick call and up ad insurance see the doctor, then cancel it after treatment (just like tons of people do nowadays with car insurance). are you under the impression that insurance companies will thrive having to constantly dish out for every little thing wrong with everyone in the country?
And amazingly, the Gubment can now feed the hungry as food trucks are seen leaving the rear of the hospital and later distributing weeks of food to the poor.
Soylent Green is People!
stevelkinevil
06-28-2012, 18:09
I just ran outside with my rifle in hand. I was the only one out there, so it must not be "go-time" yet....
Yeah seriously can it be go time yet? [Mad]
Yeah seriously can it be go time yet? [Mad]
After the economy completely collapses, it will be go time...people will have nothing to lose.
There are 3 good things I see from yesterday's ruling:
1. Obamacare can only be funded as a TAX. Sucks, but the feds do have the constitutional authority to tax us for pretty much anything they want & now they can't call it "penalties" or "fees". 1/2 the country doesn't care, but at least it must be called what it is - the largest TAX increase in history.
2. The abuse of the commerce clause is over (hopefully). SCOTUS affirmed that the feds cannot force its citizens to purchase goods and/or services.
3. Power to the states - the feds cannot penalize states for not expanding Medicaid as dictated by Obamacare.
I still think Roberts knew what he was doing and didn't betray conservatives. He's playing a dangerous game to be sure, but for this to play out for the good - Romney, and the voters, must do their part November for the gambit to succeed.
68Charger
06-29-2012, 08:43
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders how they got to Roberts- did they buy him, or threaten him?
The next thing I'm concerned about is that early on my employer was one that was consulted about how private sector corporations would respond as the law was written... Their response? That the fine was cheaper than the costs of some of their health care plans.
You can already see their actions to try to get rid of the most expensive plans- but if you read the handwriting on the wall, one thing that may be in my future is more increases in health care costs (or I'll have to pay the tax myself)
Inconel710
06-29-2012, 08:44
There are 3 good things I see from yesterday's ruling:
1. Obamacare can only be funded as a TAX. Sucks, but the feds do have the constitutional authority to tax us for pretty much anything they want & now they can't call it "penalties" or "fees". 1/2 the country doesn't care, but at least it must be called what it is - the largest TAX increase in history.
2. The abuse of the commerce clause is over (hopefully). SCOTUS affirmed that the feds cannot force its citizens to purchase goods and/or services.
3. Power to the states - the feds cannot penalize states for not expanding Medicaid as dictated by Obamacare.
I still think Roberts knew what he was doing and didn't betray conservatives. He's playing a dangerous game to be sure, but for this to play out for the good - Romney, and the voters, must do their part November for the gambit to succeed.
I don't know that abuse of the Commerce Clause is over, but it should be easier to restrict in the future. Republicans can beat the tax drum, but if they don't have an alternative plan it won't help much. Romney needs to lay out a plan for what he'll do after repealing Obamacare.
The alternative is for everyone to get familiar with waiting for care, limits on care, and the Liverpool Care Pathway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_dying_patient).
From our cousins across the pond:
Top doctor's chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html
Everyone should now be motivated to vote in November. Not just sit at their computer & pontificate. Since the Bama has been POTUS my health insurance has gone from $4200 to over $11,500. That included a change to a cheaper policy somewhere in that time. Gotta luv all those folks who really believe insurance companies will give you something for free. Not a very good business model. Someone, that means some of us WILL pay. And someone else, that also means some of us will get it for "free".
Guess everyone will just cast their vote based on whatever side of that equation they are on.
Sharpienads
06-29-2012, 10:06
Obamacare can only be funded as a TAX. Sucks, but the feds do have the constitutional authority to tax us for pretty much anything they want...
I don't think this is true. Congress, per the Constitution (not that it really matters nowadays) can only levy taxes in certain ways. Taxing you for not not doing something is not a power they have.
I don't think this is true. Congress, per the Constitution (not that it really matters nowadays) can only levy taxes in certain ways. Taxing you for not not doing something is not a power they have.
Did you not hear the announcement yesterday?
Sharpienads
06-29-2012, 10:24
Did you not hear the announcement yesterday?
Yeah, I did, unfortunately. But that doesn't make it Constitutional.
Additionally, if the mandate is a tax, not a penalty, Obamacare is still unconstitutional because all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House. The bill, as passed, originated in the Senate.
Look on the bright side, the ruling would allow you as President to pass a law making everyone buy a gun.
Wouldn't be the first time... kinda...
Like Switzerland? They have a mandate that all males of military age must keep a firearm in the household for militia purposes! I like that! Can we be like them in that regard?[Beer][AR15]
Sharpienads
06-29-2012, 10:47
Like Switzerland? They have a mandate that all males of military age must keep a firearm in the household for militia purposes! I like that! Can we be like them in that regard?[Beer][AR15]
I was thinking more along the lines of the Militia Act of 1792, in which Congress said that males eligible for the militia had to have certain items, including a firearm, powder, etc.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Militia Act of 1792, in which Congress said that males eligible for the militia had to have certain items, including a firearm, powder, etc.
Oh kicking it old school... I'm totally behind that idea 110%. I was just referring to a more recent example. [Beer]
I don't think this is true. Congress, per the Constitution (not that it really matters nowadays) can only levy taxes in certain ways. Taxing you for not not doing something is not a power they have.
I can't remember the precedent, but it seems like I read a case that basically said they could.
So "medicare for all" would be constitutional - everyone pays 1% of their income to set up government-run health care. Obviously, this isn't what they did, but it would have been legal had they chosen that route.
But the dems swore up and down back in 2010 it was NOT a tax, until they had to argue in front of SCOTUS a few months ago. It was almost a side note...but I think Roberts ruled the way he did so that it MUST be considered a tax or else it wasn't constitutional.
DeusExMachina
06-29-2012, 11:21
An interesting comparison I read, for example a tax rebate for purchasing energy efficient windows.
If you don't buy the windows, you don't get the rebate. If you do, you get a rebate.
If you don't buy insurance, you pay a fee. If you do, you don't pay a fee.
Couldn't it be considered a rebate if you do purchase insurance?
Rucker61
06-29-2012, 11:26
Oh kicking it old school... I'm totally behind that idea 110%. I was just referring to a more recent example. [Beer]
The problem there is that by creating all that new demand, prices go up for the rest of us. I'm not done buying guns and ammo yet.
HBARleatherneck
06-29-2012, 11:26
delete
An interesting comparison I read, for example a tax rebate for purchasing energy efficient windows.
If you don't buy the windows, you don't get the rebate. If you do, you get a rebate.
If you don't buy insurance, you pay a fee. If you do, you don't pay a fee.
Couldn't it be considered a rebate if you do purchase insurance?
Rebate from what? Taxes? They wouldn't have gotten it passed that way because they would have to explain the significant tax increase first.
An interesting comparison I read, for example a tax rebate for purchasing energy efficient windows.
If you don't buy the windows, you don't get the rebate. If you do, you get a rebate.
If you don't buy insurance, you pay a fee. If you do, you don't pay a fee.
Couldn't it be considered a rebate if you do purchase insurance?
Not really. The rebate is a credit for purchasing something you can fully choose to opt out of.
Now if you didn't get windows and they gave you a tax for global warming because your energy needs are higher than others, that would be similar.
Sharpienads
06-29-2012, 11:41
I can't remember the precedent, but it seems like I read a case that basically said they could.
So "medicare for all" would be constitutional - everyone pays 1% of their income to set up government-run health care. Obviously, this isn't what they did, but it would have been legal had they chosen that route.
But the dems swore up and down back in 2010 it was NOT a tax, until they had to argue in front of SCOTUS a few months ago. It was almost a side note...but I think Roberts ruled the way he did so that it MUST be considered a tax or else it wasn't constitutional.
The only direct or capitation tax congress has the power to levy is on an individual's income. The amount of the "penaltax" (I just made that up, penalty+tax=penaltax) for not buying insurance is based off of your income, but is not a tax on your income. At least that is how I understand it. Other than an income tax, congress has the power to collect duties, impost, and excise taxes. The penaltax is none of these.
Did they argue that it was a tax in front of SCOTUS? I thought that was just something Chief Justice Roberts decided on his own, since the bill calls it a penalty. And again, if it is a tax, the bill is unconstitutional since it didn't originate in the House.
Not really. The rebate is a credit for purchasing something you can fully choose to opt out of.
Now if you didn't get windows and they gave you a tax for global warming because your energy needs are higher than others, that would be similar.
I agree here. Levying a tax against people for not having health insurance is complete bullshit. Like said before, what next? A hybrid tax for not driving a hybrid vehicle? Typically liberals don't get it. They suggest taxing vices and other things, but they don't realize that taxing things like, say alcohol, is no big deal for the rich, they can afford little things like that, but if you raise the tax on liquor the poor are also effected and thus it hurts them at a higher rate than the rich. The same thing will happen here- out of everyone who doesn't have insurance it will hurt those who refuse and make less money as 1% is a larger number for someone who makes $30,000/year than someone who makes $250,000/year, even if 1% of 250,000 is a bigger number.
Sharpienads
06-29-2012, 11:42
Not really. The rebate is a credit for purchasing something you can fully choose to opt out of.
Now if you didn't get windows and they gave you a tax for global warming because your energy needs are higher than others, that would be similar.
Which there is nothing stopping them from doing that, since you can now be penaltaxed for not doing anything.
DeusExMachina
06-29-2012, 11:43
I see the similarities in the argument. If they raised medicare taxes, then offered a rebate if you buy medical insurance, would it suddenly be okay?
I can't find evidence of the government raising taxes and then offering the window rebate, but I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised.
The only direct or capitation tax congress has the power to levy is on an individual's income. The amount of the "penaltax" (I just made that up, penalty+tax=penaltax) for not buying insurance is based off of your income, but is not a tax on your income. At least that is how I understand it. Other than an income tax, congress has the power to collect duties, impost, and excise taxes. The penaltax is none of these.
Did they argue that it was a tax in front of SCOTUS? I thought that was just something Chief Justice Roberts decided on his own, since the bill calls it a penalty. And again, if it is a tax, the bill is unconstitutional since it didn't originate in the House.
From what I have read, it was proposed as a "fee" at first by the democrats, republicans called it a tax. obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle and lower class ($250K).
But in discussions, they democrats still tried to propose it as a "fee" but the justices said it really is more of a tax, they didn't really deny the fact and kind of accepted the fact that it could be a "tax" if it would get passed as such.
With that in mind, Roberts sided with the liberals, "supposedly" in an attempt to look like an "umpire" and rule solely off the laws on the books, not based on judgements of opinions...as was intended of SCOTUS originally. He said elected officials are the ones the people put into power to make and vote for the laws, he simply judges whether the laws are legal and that is why he made his decision that way.
It has also been mentioned that Roberts could have used this as a way to show the American people that Obama did in fact "tax" them, like he said he would not do, in an effort to unseat him from the white house come november.
Which there is nothing stopping them from doing that, since you can now be penaltaxed for not doing anything.
That is my biggest problem with this entire thing. Getting taxed on something you don't have. Yes we all "own" health. it is called life. But to tax someone just for being, I don't and can not agree with.
Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad? It's a fee for people that wait until they're sick to get health insurance. Sounds kind of fair to the insurance companies.
The precedent has also been set that tax is no longer income based (punishing those who work hard) but is now behavioral based. This opens up a whole new can of worms that I do NOT want to see in a few decades if it continues to remain in place. I can't wait until the government decides that because I'm overweight I should pay an 'unhealthy' tax based on whatever THEY decide is healthy. I know people within an 'acceptable' BMI that drink, smoke and all sorts of fun things that make them unable to keep pace with me on anything physical. Do you think the gubment will be willing to sit down with each individual tax payer to make sure they're healthy or not? Either way, we're straying awfully far from a free nation on this one. Shit's going to get real on this one...
Besides... who is the single largest drain on the health and tax systems right now... people who don't pay tax. You see a philosophical problem here?
HoneyBadger
06-29-2012, 18:35
I can't believe I'm the first person to say this, but as someone with Tricare I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, not even Congress.
Sharpienads
06-29-2012, 18:57
I can't believe I'm the first person to say this, but as someone with Tricare I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, not even Congress.
Lol, me too. Thank God I've never had to use it.
To add to the discussion, there is wide disagreement even among conservatives, particularly lawyers about the ruling. I recommend reading different commentaries from conservatives, many of them lawyers. David Limbaugh has a good column at townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh. Hugh Hewitt aslo has some thoughts. Here are some good links generally to solid commentary pjmedia.com/jchristianadams, pjmedia.com, legalinsurrection.com, nationalreview.com, americanthinker.com, and volokh.com where David Kopel posts.
The takeaway is that the Supreme Court is not the great guardian angel ready to strike down laws to preserve liberty. While I am loath to admit it, the proper role of the court is not to act as a super legislature. While this court has provided some good rulings, including Heller, other times the Supreme Court has not struck down laws such as McCain Feingold.
Elections have consequences. As some comments here stated voters need to remember as Mike Rosen says Party matters. The Republican congress provided this result because they abandoned their principles, voters retaliated by electing a Democratic congress. Third party votes are a waste of a vote. Also the over reach of the liberals should demonstrate that judicial nominations and staffing of the executive branch are extremely important. No right is more endangered than the right to bear arms, so when someone is nominated it is better to support a conservative who agrees with us most of the time, than to criticize them on an issue and get a moderate or progressive.
We must also hold elected officials accountable, so that they appoint true conservatives, not squishy moderates, because the media says that is what people want.
A. Scalia is my favorite justice I have heard him speak a couple of times and he is opinionated and articulate. Moreover he is clear that the nine justices are not endowed with greater wisdom or intelligence than any of us, such that they should decide how we live our life. Nonetheless, I read the dissent regarding the taxing issue, and the majority opinion, I have to say that Roberts was right in both guiding the Court in its proper role, and the scope of the taxing power.
While the taxing power has been bastardized by Congress, far from the range of the founders, we have stood for it and sometimes supported it. There are many income tax provisions directed toward behavior: mortgage interest deduction, student loan deductions, and the employer insurance deduction that does not count health insurance benefits as income to employees. Roberts conclusion is the mandate is a tax, mainly because it is assessed through the IRS on income tax returns. In contrast to a "penalty" such as an OSHA violation assessed through another department, such as labor. Neither opinion goes into great detail about characteristics or factors to decide when a penalty is a tax or vice versa.
The courts, particularly in tax issues, analyze the substance over the form. So when Obama and progressives say it is not a tax, remember that is propaganda for the masses, and not evidence of what it really is, or how it functions. The Court found if it looks like tax, then it is a tax.
The ramifications are to elect Conservatives, repeal this monstrosity, and clean up the tax code in total so that it is not based on who hired a lobbyists. Anyone who has analyzed Obamacare realizes that it will not punish the health care industry, but rather is a payoff to them: everyone insured, prescriptions, etc.
Old government rule:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
New government rule:
If it exists, tax it.
Furthermore -
I can't wait until they apply this logic to their stupid green shit. They'll tax you if you don't buy a Chevy Volt because they want you to drive a green car and keep the goddam UAW in business.
If you don't buy solar panels they'll tax you.
If you don't buy tofu and eat it they'll tax you.
Endless possibilities and all for your own good.
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 06:25
New government rule:
If it exists, tax it.
But for God's sake, don't call it a tax.
FIFY.
The Obama administration is going balls to the wall to disagree with Chief Justice Roberts over the "penalty" not being a "tax". It's obvious the administration is very concerned about the republicans using the taxing provisions under O-Care as a political tool...which they should.
Oh, the irony. Being labeled a tax is the only thing that saved Obamacare. And the democrats know that's likely the final nail in Obama's political coffin...not to mention many democrats in the house and senate.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
FIFY.
The Obama administration is going balls to the wall to disagree with Chief Justice Roberts over the "penalty" not being a "tax". It's obvious the administration is very concerned about the republicans using the taxing provisions under O-Care as a political tool...which they should.
Oh, the irony. Being labeled a tax is the only thing that saved Obamacare. And the democrats know that's likely the final nail in Obama's political coffin...not to mention many democrats in the house and senate.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
I sure hope you're right.
I'm far outnumbered by people who think I should pay for their healthcare and since I don't want to they'll use the government to make me. Apparently I'm a big meanie.
Understand that I do not view the Federal Government as 'them', the Federal Government is me and decisions made by the Federal Government are made indirectly by me. I own it, the people who want entitlements take no ownership or responsibility, I think they failed their civics classes in school.
After I heard the decision I donated to Romney's campaign, first time I ever donated to a campaign and now I'm working on the ol' budget to see if I can donate more.
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 07:52
So do I!
I think Romney is going to push his "I'll repeal O-care" message fast and furious. And republicans in general are going to hammer democrats on this being the largest middle-class tax hike in history.
And the democrats are going to continue their "it's not a tax" message despite that being the only reason this abomination was salvaged. They're in a pretty tough spot this election cycle.
Romney needs to hammer this home, he has an uphill battle though with the mainstream media in Obama's pocket.
This decision illustrates why this election is so important. Do we want Obama to pick the next couple of justices? Of course we could also say that it doesn't matter who the justice is, they'll vote for socialism in any case.
I do not like this decision by the Chief Justice on its face however I've been reading conservative sites that say it might be a blessing in disguise.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-chief-justice-roberts-reenvisioned.html
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/did-deeming-the-individual-mandate-a-tax-promote-the-democratic-process.php
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 09:16
After doing a lot of reading from both sides and pro/con on the decision I've come to the conclusion I'm happy with what Roberts did.
Like one pundit said, "Obama won the battle for progressives, Roberts won the war for conservatives."
I can see new challenges based on Robert's ruling that the mandate is a tax. I see great new restrictions on the use of the commerce clause. States can't be bullied by the feds now for failing to implement the costly new Medicare provisions. Roberts may have handed the presidency to Romney...at a minimum he made Obama's job much harder.
I understand the dissent and would've been completely happy had Roberts voted that way. However, I'm coming to see Roberts' decision as basically doing his job properly...to assume that legislation is Constitutional unless it can be undoubtedly proven otherwise. He found a way to do it, he can't now be accused of "legislating from the bench" yet his decision places great restraint on the federal government. It also opens a real can of worms for Obama and the democrats seeking re-election.
I can live with it.
JohnTRourke
06-30-2012, 09:39
So do I!
I think Romney is going to push his "I'll repeal O-care" message fast and furious. And republicans in general are going to hammer democrats on this being the largest middle-class tax hike in history.
e.
Of course they will
Of course they won't actually repeal it either.
Bank it, it's a done deal, it won't change.
America: 4-19-1775 to 6-28-2012
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 10:29
I think your report of America's death is greatly exaggerated.
Obviously Romney can't repeal it unless legislation reaches his desk. The only way that's gonna happen is if the house/senate have republican majorities.
And if republicans hold a majority in both houses I will bank on it being a done deal. It WILL get repealed.
But, at a minimum Romney will issue waivers to all 50 states allowing them to opt out of O-care. Much of O-care may have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court (NOTE: not all of it was for those that aren't paying attention) but that doesn't make it the law of the land. Far from it.
For the life of me I can't understand why people are constantly being so overly dramatic. At the slightest problem we're constantly hammered with the "The US is over" and "this is the death of America".
WTF are you people gonna say when something really dramatic happens?
Mick-Boy
06-30-2012, 10:58
For those of you preaching the death of the American dream.
The Chief Justice Done Good
By Dov Fischer (http://www.americanthinker.com/dov_fischer/)
Chief Justice John Roberts has handed a remarkable victory to American conservatives by threading the judicial needle with perfect precision. The initial disappointment collectively felt by Americans who had hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Obamacare soon will be replaced, upon further reflection, by the excitement that will come with a fuller appreciation of what the Chief Justice has wrought.
First, almost completely unnoticed, the Chief Justice voted with his four conservative colleagues in drawing an unprecedented red line against Washington wielding the Constitution's Commerce Clause in the future to justify federal intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. This decision will restrict American Presidents and future Congresses for a generation and more.
Until Thursday's decision, for more than 70 years, virtually every leading Supreme Court decision on the reach of the Commerce Clause has sided with federal intrusion. Although there have been isolated exceptions -- e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limiting federal regulation regarding carrying guns near schools) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (limiting power of the federal government to expand rights of women to sue attackers) -- the leading cases on the Commerce Clause, often relying on precedents like Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (holding that Congress could prevent a person from growing wheat for his own personal consumption on his own private land), have held that the federal government can force Americans to do or not do, to buy or not buy, virtually anything if couched as an act to facilitate or regulate interstate commerce. Wickard "always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence." (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., dissenting, at 3.)
It was this very line of Wickard-consistent Supreme Court opinions that served as the basis for a long line of lower federal courts, both district courts and federal appeals courts, choosing to uphold ObamaCare as that bill was tested through the judiciary. However, with Chief Justice Roberts almost surreptitiously joining with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy in ruling that ObamaCare is barred by the federal Commerce Clause, a new era has begun in Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Every liberal citation to Wickard will be countered by a conservative citing to Chief Justice Roberts's opinion: "If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. . . . The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. . . . The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance." (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Slip op. at 3, 41-42, 44)
There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. An American cannot be compelled by federal mandate to eat or even to buy a proverbial stalk of broccoli. As a kosher consumer, the federal government cannot wield that clause to impose on me an obligation to purchase non-kosher food supplements. The rules guiding lower-court wrestling matches over federal power to invade Americans' private lives now have been reset remarkably by Chief Justice Roberts. Few today notice what he has done. Long after many of us are gone, this 5-4 opinion finally setting limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause will continue to affect American lives and protect private citizens from Washington's intrusions.
It is understandable that most Americans, who are not law school graduates, do not think in these terms, nor do most pundits outside the legal community who interpret news. However, attorneys and certainly law professors get it. We know what happened on Thursday. It was subtle and below the radar, like a tsunami beginning in the middle of an ocean, still days away from the shore. Only the trained insiders know what that rumbling will cause in the future. This was a tsunami, finally giving us our first Supreme Court precedential holding in nearly a century that reins in the federal government's unbridled abuse of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. And the liberals, excited as they understandably are by the temporary survival of ObamaCare, do not even realize what has happened to a pillar of their enterprise. And that is fine.
Secondly, Chief Justice Roberts has punted the whole ninety yards, so to speak, with the expertise of a professional football kicker whose team has the ball on its own 8-yard-line, then punts ninety yards, pinning the other team on their own two-yard-line. Had Chief Justice Roberts sided completely with his four conservative colleagues, Obamacare now would be off the political table for the November elections. Obama would be campaigning and mobilizing his troops' passions, arguing an urgent need to reconfigure the Court. Romney, by contrast, would be trying to mobilize passion for a lackluster campaign that is impelled legitimately by one crying urgency: jobs and the economy. However, Romney is not gifted at bringing people to their feet, not for applauding and possibly not for voting. He is competent, perhaps excellent, maybe even extraordinary -- but his blandness does not generate passion.
Jobs and the economy are critical issues, but tricky ones to explain. The federal government effectively shades statistics by hiding the full destructive impact of Obama's economic programs. People who cannot find work at the compensation level they need and for which they are qualified -- an enormous population subset we call the "under-compensated" -- nevertheless are counted as "employed" when they settle for jobs below their previous attained levels. Meanwhile, when others give up hope and stop looking for work altogether, resigning themselves to failure and long-term unemployment, they are deemed by statisticians to have removed themselves from the work force, so are not counted among the unemployed. We the more sophisticated observers of the political process understand these statistical anomalies. We understand that statistics declaring American unemployment at 8.2% really are closer to 12% and even 14% when we factor-in the plight of the underemployed and those who have given up hope.
Unlike the unemployment issue, where statistics are obfuscated, Obamacare is a signature campaign issue. It is clear, comprehensible, simple -- and despised. It galvanized, even helped create, the Tea Party. Passionate opposition against the law led to a convulsive November 2010 election that resulted in fabulous Republican gains and the worst "shellacking" experienced by any political party in the modern era. Two years have passed since 2010, and ObamaCare was about to be removed as a campaign issue in November.
Instead, even as he cast a powerful vote to rein in the Commerce Clause as our Founding Fathers intended for it to be applied against federal intrusiveness, Chief Justice Roberts returned Obamacare front-and-center back into the November elections debate. Defining it for what it really is -- a new, enormous federal tax on at least four million Americans (Slip op. at 37) -- the Chief Justice has lobbed a fat hanging curveball for conservatives to clobber. The ObamaCare tax does not apply to those who presently are untaxed, and it will not apply to the more wealthy, who will be excused because they carry health insurance anyway. Rather, the President who promised no new taxes against the middle class conclusively has been "outed" by the Chief Justice as having imposed the biggest tax on middle-class Americans in a generation.
Third, the Chief Justice has shifted the spotlight back onto Congress, primarily focusing its glare on the Democrat-run U.S. Senate, only four months before the elections. Republicans rapidly will beat down ObamaCare in the House like a piñata at a children's party. It is an easy target. It is excessive and intrusive. It is financially devastating, will cause employers to drop health coverage for their employees, and will force millions to lose their preferred doctors and instead to settle on government-supplied alternatives. Seniors will find that $500 million in coverage has been sliced out of their Medicare. Employers will continue resisting expanding their work forces and reviving the flagging labor market while the issue remains in flux, assuring stagnating unemployment numbers through November.
Fourth, the Chief Justice, while permitting the federal government to offer states more money to expand their Medicaid rolls beyond their fiscal capabilities, joined with his four conservative colleagues in banning Washington from penalizing states that turn down the federal inducements to march towards bankruptcy. As a result, the working poor will find that the federal government, while taxing them to buy new health coverage, has been left without a mechanism to compel others to pay for the ObamaCare state insurance exchanges. So the feds will have to pay for it in non-cooperating states that are more fiscally prudent. Only more taxes can pay for those costs.
So Congress has a massive new mess awaiting it, all as voters prepare to vote for a new Congress and for 33 United States Senate seats, 23 now held by Democrats and their two "independent" allies. House Republicans solidly will vote symbolically to overturn the legislative monstrosity, and they will find endangered House Democrats breaking ranks with their leadership to vote with them. Senate Democrats facing reelection will be caught in a vise. Harry Reid will be trying desperately to prevent a vote on ObamaCare repeal from reaching the Senate floor, even as national news coverage focuses on the two national parties' conventions. Obama's staff may be renting Greek or Roman columns, but the Republicans will be toppling the pillars of the failed Obama Presidency
This is going to be OK, even fun. Just wait and see. The Chief Justice done us good.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/m-the_chief_justice_done_good.html
I don't know how all this is going to play out, but I'm not ready to fly a white flag yet. Not by a damn long shot.
For those of you preaching the death of the American dream.
I don't know how all this is going to play out, but I'm not ready to fly a white flag yet. Not by a damn long shot.
Amen! We aren't licked till we quit. [Beer]
Goodburbon
06-30-2012, 11:55
The political fallout?
That "conservative" court we HAVE to preserve by electing Romney argument is dead. The "conservatives" have sold us out.
Now, tell me again why I should vote for a progressive Republican, vs a progressive Democrat? Be sure to insult me in the process, while you do the same thing over and over again hoping for better results each time. Explain to me in detail how you justify giving our country to a more and more progressive Republican party, while you ignore candidates you actually agree with because "the alternative is worse".
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 11:58
Every liberal citation to Wickard will be countered by a conservative citing to Chief Justice Roberts's opinion: "If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. . . . The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. . . . The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance." (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Slip op. at 3, 41-42, 44)
Do any of you not understand how significant that statement is? That is one of the MOST conservative rulings by a supreme court justice in our lifetimes.
ETA: Nevermind...stupid question apparently.
There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. An American cannot be compelled by federal mandate to eat or even to buy a proverbial stalk of broccoli. As a kosher consumer, the federal government cannot wield that clause to impose on me an obligation to purchase non-kosher food supplements. The rules guiding lower-court wrestling matches over federal power to invade Americans' private lives now have been reset remarkably by Chief Justice Roberts. Few today notice what he has done. Long after many of us are gone, this 5-4 opinion finally setting limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause will continue to affect American lives and protect private citizens from Washington's intrusions.
Yeah...let O-care be ruled constitutional. I'm OK with that because conservatives won several far more important battles with Roberts' ruling.
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 11:59
The political fallout?
That "conservative" court we HAVE to preserve by electing Romney argument is dead. The "conservatives" have sold us out.
Now, tell me again why I should vote for a progressive Republican, vs a progressive Democrat? Be sure to insult me in the process, while you do the same thing over and over again hoping for better results each time. Explain to me in detail how you justify giving our country to a more and more progressive Republican party, while you ignore candidates you actually agree with because "the alternative is worse".
Ya know...we can explain it to you but we can't understand it for you.
Goodburbon
06-30-2012, 12:10
Ya know...we can explain it to you but we can't understand it for you.
Bailey, we'll be at odds on this forever, and that's ok. I know where you're coming from but the net effect is us losing even when we "win" as long as most conservatives believe as you do.
JohnTRourke
06-30-2012, 12:10
And if republicans hold a majority in both houses I will bank on it being a done deal. It WILL get repealed.
bet accepted
by Dec 31st 2013?
repealed you win
not repealed I win
lunch of winner's choice.
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 12:15
bet accepted
by Dec 31st 2013?
repealed you win
not repealed I win
lunch of winner's choice.
I didn't realize it was a bet but, OK. I'll take that. Of course, I'm not going to bet that republicans keep the house and win the senate. So it may be a moot point.
Sharpienads
06-30-2012, 12:17
I didn't realize it was a bet but, OK. I'll take that. Of course, I'm not going to bet that republicans keep the house and win the senate. So it may be a moot point.
I think that's a pretty safe bet.
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 12:21
Bailey, we'll be at odds on this forever, and that's ok. I know where you're coming from but the net effect is us losing even when we "win" as long as most conservatives believe as you do.
Plenty of evidence has been presented that this was a big win for conservatives. You just have to take your "I hate the status-quo" blinders off long enough to look at the decision objectively.
As it's already been pointed out, several times, the Commerce Clause that liberals have used for decades to support their agenda was gutted on Thurs.
All Roberts actually did was say the "penalty" to be levied on people for not buying health care is actually a "tax" and congress has the authority to tax. Most people will buy health care anyway.
On every other point he agreed with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito and made several rulings against O-care and liberals in general.
In the months and years to come liberals will come to hate this ruling.
Bailey Guns
06-30-2012, 12:59
I think that's a pretty safe bet.
What, exactly? That O-care will be repealed or house/senate will stay/become republican?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.