Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 110
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    The supreme court upheld Obama care.


    Reasoning behind upholding it.
    The first issue that comes to mind is the way it was upheld. I thought it would fail because it relied on the congresses powers regarding interstate commerce. The Court said it couldn't stand on those grounds but could be seen as a tax. So it was upheld as a tax.

    The conflict
    So the situation is that congress passed it as a mandate regulating commerce, then the courts said congress was incorrect. That doesn't make sense to me. Because congress was trying to do one thing, and all the court did was re-define it completely. I thought the court should have judged it as it was presented to the people and argued for. Instead congress was able to argue to the judges something completely opposite to what the people were told. (back to reasoning) The reasoning behind it was that it isn't the courts job to protect the people for the effects of their votes as long as the court can find a way to justify the actions legally. They did, so basically we elected people who were willing to lie to us in order to get something passed.


    Application to my life.
    So now 2014 is the magic date, I am not sure how I personally fit into this bill. I priced insurance and it came out to be anywhere between $134 - $922/mo

    So if I must have insurance then my taxes went up by at least $134 a month (for cheap stuff). I am not sure what the op out penalty will be. I have had several people say it is 30% cheaper to just pay the penalty. .. So that would be a tax increase of $100 a month on me personally. Everyone says this will drive up healthcare costs, so it may be a lot more by the time it actually applies to me.




    Discussion
    What do you think of the ruling? Did they get it right/wrong, why?
    How does Obama Care Tax effect you personally or your business?
    What other thoughts do you have on it, is this ultimately good or bad? Why?
    To serve man.

  2. Likes chadn737 liked this post
  3. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Keep in mind the tax issue was argued before the court, but it was done on the first day before the Obama team made their case for it. Not many paid attention to that first day thinking it was irrelevant to the case.

    Right or wrong: Technically right, but not sure I'd rule it that way.

    Affect me: Not much, I have insurance already as does my wife. My benefits are a bit better due to the legislation (more coverage for preventative care which I use more of than not)

    Good or bad: Not sure, but I am pleased by it. I think we need to try this solution out, give it a bit of time and see how it goes. It wasn't my first choice but its at least something. I want to see insurance go from employer to employee controlled.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #3
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Interestingly, what the Court has in effect said is that both Congress at the time and the President were either a) incompetent or b) lying when they said that it wasn't a tax. It is a frankly bizarre decision where Congress on the record refuses to use the word tax, the President argues it isn't a tax, the solicitor doesn't even argue its a tax, but the Court still pulls the tax clause out of the dark under the presumption that all activity done by the IRS is by necessity a tax and therefore legal.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Keep in mind the tax issue was argued before the court, but it was done on the first day before the Obama team made their case for it. Not many paid attention to that first day thinking it was irrelevant to the case.
    I heard the first day stuff, who argued for it? as far as I know it was the same guy as the other 2 days.

    Quote Originally Posted by SQUATCH
    Interestingly, what the Court has in effect said is that both Congress at the time and the President were either a) incompetent or b) lying when they said that it wasn't a tax. It is a frankly bizarre decision where Congress on the record refuses to use the word tax, the President argues it isn't a tax, the solicitor doesn't even argue its a tax, but the Court still pulls the tax clause out of the dark under the presumption that all activity done by the IRS is by necessity a tax and therefore legal.
    Yea, that is the only thing that bothers me on the ruling. If congress says it means for the law to be taken X way, then that is how the courts should consider it IMO.
    The way Obama argued for it, and how it was argued to the congress was that it WASN'T a tax. Taking the view that congress can do whatever it wants as long as the courts can find a way to justify it, seems to be a very lose and dangerous way to do it. On the other hand, it seems silly to say that congress can't do something when they have the power to do it on the soul basis of congress siting the wrong amendment as it's source of power.
    To serve man.

  6. #5
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Well this was most likely an attempt by Chief Justice Roberts' to change the view of the Court. He had warned before the session began that he thought people saw the Court as too political following Citizens United so I think in his mind he was taking back left to minimize that view point.

    That is really the only explanation for Chief Justice Roberts' vote here. It was likely that he would have voted on this side if either Justices Kennedy or Scalia voted this way so that he could control the opinion writing, but to do so on his own really indicates to me that he was taking a political approach here. It also explains the odd ruling break down on Alvarez as well.

    I also don't think the absurdity of the opinion is beyond Chief Justice Roberts' comprehension. He rules it both a tax (when refering to the mandate itself) and a penalty (when ruling on the anti-injunction act). I think he was trying to limit the importance of the precedent for future Courts in this way because self-contradictory cases are rarely used before SCOTUS since it allows the Justices to cite a Solicitor's own case law against him.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't understand how it could have been funded without taxes. My understanding was that it was being funded by the money from closing the loopholes in Medicaid. And that money has to come from taxes and any shortfall would still have to come from taxes.

    Either way, we taxpayers are funding it so what's the surprise.

    I'd also heard that it was the court that had asked for the third tax argument so it seemed as if from the beginning the commerce clause was not going to be sufficient to support the bill.

  8. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I don't understand how it could have been funded without taxes
    No, it is being called a tax. It is not a mandate supported by taxes, it is a tax itself.
    The surprise is that it was argued as a mandate that would be supported by taxes.
    To serve man.

  9. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, it is being called a tax. It is not a mandate supported by taxes, it is a tax itself.
    I don't understand the distinction you are making and also, I thought it the tax was the punishment for those going for the free-ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The surprise is that it was argued as a mandate that would be supported by taxes.
    How else could it have been supported though? Taxes are the only source of income. I think the decision forced it into the open hence the surprise but I don't understand how people thought it was being paid for.

  10. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I don't understand the distinction you are making and also, I thought it the tax was the punishment for those going for the free-ride.
    The distinction is this, as I understand it.
    The bill was passed as a "penalty" for commerce actions.
    It was ruled const as a declared tax on citizens of a specific grouping.

    The "tax as punishment" is not what was argued in the court or the congress.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    How else could it have been supported though? Taxes are the only source of income. I think the decision forced it into the open hence the surprise but I don't understand how people thought it was being paid for.
    Well, if it is a tax, it isn't paying for anything specific.. it is just a tax. They can repeal all the other stuff and keep the tax if they wish.
    The mandate is not something to be supported by taxes, it is a tax itself. As ruled by the courts.
    The way it was presented to congress and the people was that it was not a tax, but something that would be supported by other taxes. Or specifically a tool of regulating commerce.

    Again, the surprise comes from believing congress' definition of the bill, and watching the supreme court re-define it in order to make it const.
    To serve man.

  11. #10
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don't understand the distinction you are making and also, I thought it the tax was the punishment for those going for the free-ride.
    Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. That is exactly what it is, but the problem is, that is unconstitutional. The Federal Government cannot fine individuals for economic inactivity, even Chief Justice Roberts says that in his brief. Rather, the Court has found that this is simply a tax on the lower class to support the cost of the reforms.

    At no point was this mandate considered part of funding for the bill, especially by the President who famously claimed it wasn't a tax and that taxes would not be raised to pay for the implementation.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I heard the first day stuff, who argued for it? as far as I know it was the same guy as the other 2 days.
    It was Robert Long, a private atourney appointed by the court to make the argument. Now he was arguing that they should not even be considering the suit, and it was clear the court wasn't much interested in not hearing it, but his case was predicated on the statute being a tax and when I listened to him I rather agreed (though to court watchers at the time they seemed to be dismissing the argument in comments).

    You can read a bit about it at this link
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-obamacar...the-first-day/

    So while he kind of failed to make his actual case, apparently his tax argument carried the day in a different respect.

    ---------- Post added at 08:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 AM ----------

    The tax ruling makes some sense to me but it also leads to some huge questions about a limiting principle. I didn't read the whole judgement (its some 200 pages I understand).

    If you aren't insured, you pay as part of your IRS filing a given amount. That amount is modified by your income level etc as other taxes are. It is effectively the same as if you got a tax credit for having insurance but they raised everyone taxes by a flat value. Its paid like a tax, collected like a tax, and accounted for as a tax. Its just congress decided not to call it a tax. They wanted to use the commerce clause and not be arguing at cross purposes so they didn't call it a tax. I think originally they were going to but changed it for legal strategy, turns out the wrong legal strategy.

    But the court just called it like they saw it anyhow. If you want to argue against it then you have to explain how any given tax credit or assessment is not a penalty. I pay the no dependents penalty on my taxes for instance. Some of my friends pay the "I don't own a house" penalty which is pretty damned huge btw. We don't call them penalties but the net result is the same as if they were assessed for not doing something rather than getting a break for doing something.

    If the court simply treated anything the congress said at face value, they could perhaps never overturn any law if congress was savvy enough to claim it was something its not. Of course normally we like that when it works in favor of limiting power, but in this case it was limiting the power of the court. It shouldn't be too much of a shocker that Roberts dodged trying to countermand the legislature unless he had no choice. That is the whole notion of judicial restraint. If you can see justification to not interfere, that's what you do. In this case he modified the act of congress as little as he could see his way to and nearly manufactured the rationale to do so. That is actually more or less the rationale behind putting him on the court, he would not be an activist who tried to change legislation.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  14. #12
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Its just congress decided not to call it a tax.
    Its more than that. Congress explicitly chose not to call it a tax, just as the executive branch argued the same thing. Congress' intent is relevant in this case and it is frankly stunning that SCOTUS chose to ignore it. I remember listening to an oral argument at SCOTUS a few months ago with Sotomeyer was asking just that (it was a different issue), why didn't Congress use the word person if they were implying personhood rather than individual? The exact language used in the bill is massively relevant to what is actually happening.


    As for the tax/penalty argument you bring up. Could you impose a "tax" on anyone not purchasing a fire-arm? What about not engaging in heterosexual activity? What if they passed a law saying anyone who engages in homosexual activity pays a $1M tax? Is that Constitutional?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Its more than that. Congress explicitly chose not to call it a tax, just as the executive branch argued the same thing.
    Congress could pass a law declaring you are a duck not a human being. But that won't meant the supreme court would agree with them when they try to take away your rights. Just because they claim something doesn't make it true.

    ---------- Post added at 09:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As for the tax/penalty argument you bring up. Could you impose a "tax" on anyone not purchasing a fire-arm? What about not engaging in heterosexual activity? What if they passed a law saying anyone who engages in homosexual activity pays a $1M tax? Is that Constitutional?
    Yes and yes which is what is worrisome about this on its face. I would hope they put some kind of limits on this kind of thing in the decision, set some outlines for when a targeted tax is appropriate or when it is not.

    Now it could be that either of those would run afoul of the right to bear arms or the right to privacy and thus could be struck down on those grounds. But lets say a tax on anyone not wanting to subscribe to national geographic... that would not run aground of any specific protection in the constitution.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #14
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Congress could pass a law declaring you are a duck not a human being. But that won't meant the supreme court would agree with them when they try to take away your rights. Just because they claim something doesn't make it true.
    So you are saying that Congressional intent is irrelevant to SCOTUS interpretation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Yes
    Ok, as long as your position is clear here.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The distinction is this, as I understand it.
    The bill was passed as a "penalty" for commerce actions.
    It was ruled const as a declared tax on citizens of a specific grouping.

    The "tax as punishment" is not what was argued in the court or the congress.
    But it's not being funded by this punishment. Isn't this the same thing as garnishing for child care and such?
    And I'd have to look at the details but it doesn't seem any worse than forcing people to pay taxes for roads and other shared resources or forcing people to have drivers insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, if it is a tax, it isn't paying for anything specific.. it is just a tax. They can repeal all the other stuff and keep the tax if they wish.
    The mandate is not something to be supported by taxes, it is a tax itself. As ruled by the courts.
    The way it was presented to congress and the people was that it was not a tax, but something that would be supported by other taxes. Or specifically a tool of regulating commerce.
    The mandate is not supported by taxes at all - it is to catch free-loaders. The act is supported by closing some medicare loophole and shutting down fraudsters.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again, the surprise comes from believing congress' definition of the bill, and watching the supreme court re-define it in order to make it const.
    I don't think there was anything untoward or surprising here. It's all about the individual mandate not the entire bill. I think the bill might have stood without the mandate but it would have to be put in place at some point because it's the only provision that prevents free-loading.

    ---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. That is exactly what it is, but the problem is, that is unconstitutional. The Federal Government cannot fine individuals for economic inactivity, even Chief Justice Roberts says that in his brief. Rather, the Court has found that this is simply a tax on the lower class to support the cost of the reforms.
    He is explicitly saying the tax is a constitutional. He was saying the commerce clause was an unconstitutional.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    At no point was this mandate considered part of funding for the bill, especially by the President who famously claimed it wasn't a tax and that taxes would not be raised to pay for the implementation.
    I don't think the bill was supported per se by taxes. The taxes were to catch free-loaders who expect free health-care and not pay for it when they otherwise should be able to afford it. And it's only 2.5% of the AGI, which doesn't really seem much at all - about $1000 a year for an average income of ($41K); less than $100 a month.

    Otherwise, it would be like the British National Insurance which is a true tax on all individuals used to pay for health care directly; i.e. the single payer solution. And this makes more sense and is more transparent IMO.

    What's happening now is that we're overpaying bean counters who add zero value to the whole process.

  18. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It was Robert Long, a private atourney appointed by the court to make the argument. Now he was arguing that they should not even be considering the suit, and it was clear the court wasn't much interested in not hearing it, but his case was predicated on the statute being a tax and when I listened to him I rather agreed (though to court watchers at the time they seemed to be dismissing the argument in comments).
    Thanks, I was unclear on that. Still the gov was allowed to argue out of both sides of it's mouth. Which is confusing.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    But it's not being funded by this punishment. Isn't this the same thing as garnishing for child care and such?
    And I'd have to look at the details but it doesn't seem any worse than forcing people to pay taxes for roads and other shared resources or forcing people to have drivers insurance.
    I don't really care what it is funding. I am not arguing against the ruling personally.
    I just don't think it makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    The mandate is not supported by taxes at all - it is to catch free-loaders. The act is supported by closing some medicare loophole and shutting down fraudsters.
    You keep using the term "free-loaders", but that is incorrect.
    This catches anyone who doesn't have insurance, not simply those who use healthcare without paying. I pay my healthcare cash, yet I will have to pay a penalty now.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I don't think there was anything untoward or surprising here. It's all about the individual mandate not the entire bill. I think the bill might have stood without the mandate but it would have to be put in place at some point because it's the only provision that prevents free-loading.
    What is surprising is that the mandate passed congress as a mandate, and passed the court as a tax, and not a mandate.

    It is worded as a mandate to do X or else you will be punished. Like getting a ticket for speeding or not having your license.

    But passed the court as a tax aimed at a specific group of people.

    Those two are not the same and have some very important differences.

    The first presumes congress has the power to force on pain of penalty a specific economic transaction.

    The second presumes congers has the power to tax any group,



    What is surprising is something written in line with the first can be twisted to mean the second. Or "construed" as the court put it.
    To serve man.

  19. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Thanks, I was unclear on that. Still the gov was allowed to argue out of both sides of it's mouth. Which is confusing.
    That's not quite it. The government didn't hire that guy or advocate that position, the Supreme Court did. No one was representing that view, so the court appointed someone to argue it.

    This article talks about the process some
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/us/14bar.html

    My impression is it most often happens when one of the sides in the case has changed strategy from what they had in the original trial in lower courts to some new position and the court feels the issue remains relevant to why they took the case in the first place. Even if they don't end up going with the argument, they want it to be made so that area of law can be settled in some fashion.

    This part of the article is great stuff.... (though not too relevant to my explination above)
    In between, a host of prominent lawyers have made their way to the lectern to argue for proposition rather than a client. One was a 33-year-old lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr., who is now chief justice of the United States.

    He may have done his job a little too well, convincing the court in 1989 to rule unanimously that the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause applies not only to criminal penalties but also to some civil fines. The court overruled that decision in 1997.

    Chief Justice Roberts wrote last year that he considered that shift in the court’s position “a cautionary tale” about “yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle.” He did not mention his own role in persuading the court to take a wrong turn.


    ---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you are saying that Congressional intent is irrelevant to SCOTUS interpretation?
    No I'm saying that their intent is not as important as what they actually did. So they can intend for it to be a penalty, but if it in every way resembles a tax, then their intent is irrelevant because it is in fact for all practical purposes a tax. So SCOTUS is not deciding what congress intended, they are deciding what congress actually did. Congress, if they don't like it could change the law so it doesn't work like a tax if they don't want it treated as one.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The supreme court upheld Obama care.


    Reasoning behind upholding it.
    The first issue that comes to mind is the way it was upheld. I thought it would fail because it relied on the congresses powers regarding interstate commerce. The Court said it couldn't stand on those grounds but could be seen as a tax. So it was upheld as a tax.

    The conflict
    So the situation is that congress passed it as a mandate regulating commerce, then the courts said congress was incorrect. That doesn't make sense to me. Because congress was trying to do one thing, and all the court did was re-define it completely. I thought the court should have judged it as it was presented to the people and argued for. Instead congress was able to argue to the judges something completely opposite to what the people were told. (back to reasoning) The reasoning behind it was that it isn't the courts job to protect the people for the effects of their votes as long as the court can find a way to justify the actions legally. They did, so basically we elected people who were willing to lie to us in order to get something passed.
    Huh? The Court ruling that it passes muster as a tax doesn't mean that when it was passed the folks who wrote or voted for it considered it an exercise of the taxing power.


    What do you think of the ruling? Did they get it right/wrong, why?
    I think they got it right on the Commerce Clause. On the tax issue, it's hard to say - there are legitimate arguments in both directions - but I found the dissent more compelling (mainly because of the "exemptions" argument). All that said, I don't think that the decision has any profound constitutional implications beyond the Commerce Clause.

    ---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The way Obama argued for it, and how it was argued to the congress was that it WASN'T a tax. Taking the view that congress can do whatever it wants as long as the courts can find a way to justify it, seems to be a very lose and dangerous way to do it. On the other hand, it seems silly to say that congress can't do something when they have the power to do it on the soul basis of congress siting the wrong amendment as it's source of power.

    Except that's not the rule of statutory construction. In fact, there's a word that the right has long used for judges who refuse to uphold laws where there is a plausible interpretation of those laws that would leave them constitutional: "activists"

    ---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well this was most likely an attempt by Chief Justice Roberts' to change the view of the Court. He had warned before the session began that he thought people saw the Court as too political following Citizens United so I think in his mind he was taking back left to minimize that view point.

    That is really the only explanation for Chief Justice Roberts' vote here. It was likely that he would have voted on this side if either Justices Kennedy or Scalia voted this way so that he could control the opinion writing, but to do so on his own really indicates to me that he was taking a political approach here. It also explains the odd ruling break down on Alvarez as well.

    I also don't think the absurdity of the opinion is beyond Chief Justice Roberts' comprehension. He rules it both a tax (when refering to the mandate itself) and a penalty (when ruling on the anti-injunction act). I think he was trying to limit the importance of the precedent for future Courts in this way because self-contradictory cases are rarely used before SCOTUS since it allows the Justices to cite a Solicitor's own case law against him.
    Squatch - you do realize that the dissent agreed that distinction was entirely possible and non-contradictory, right?
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  21. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't really care what it is funding. I am not arguing against the ruling personally.
    I just don't think it makes sense.
    The entire case didn't make sense other than it was a pure act of politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You keep using the term "free-loaders", but that is incorrect.
    This catches anyone who doesn't have insurance, not simply those who use healthcare without paying. I pay my healthcare cash, yet I will have to pay a penalty now.
    Sure, that's great but now you have forced the tax payer to take on your health insurance risk. Why is it fair that I have to foot the bill should you or your family ever get long term sickness? As a society, why should an entire family's future be bankrupt and destroyed through getting sick?

    It's just like car insurance, you are a potential beneficiary to emergency health care, which I have to pay for as a taxpayer; and you too, since I assume you are a taxpayer. That kind of care costs a great deal more and is less beneficial than up front preventative care or dealing with the issue before it gets that serious.

    It's an example of a moral hazard: you are taking on a risk because you don't have to suffer the consequences when the worst case scenarios kick in. You will always get the care you need but overall are spending more money to get it and the taxpayer foots the bill. And if you end up being bankrupt, you end up affecting your entire family, who may or may not be innocent in that decision.

    Before ObamaCare entire lives were ruined for generations; I don't see why you would want that to continue!

    I don't know your circumstances but I would hope the numbers make sense: whatever you are paying total in cash should be less than what you'd have to pay for insurance. Or you pay the 'penalty' or the mandate fee which is tiny and get the insurance anyway!

    Check this out to see how the law affects you directly: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...means-for-you/. For an average family:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1i7Gw.jpg 
Views:	53 
Size:	63.1 KB 
ID:	3188
    which much says that if you don't pay $4000 a year for insurance then you will be subject to a penalty of $1700. Kinda weird but I guess it is saying that it's better to pay the penalty! Looks like a sneaky way to get National Insurance in.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is surprising is that the mandate passed congress as a mandate, and passed the court as a tax, and not a mandate.
    Nothing has changed in the text. It is still a mandate with the penalty collected via the tax system. It's no different from garnishing wages for child support.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is worded as a mandate to do X or else you will be punished. Like getting a ticket for speeding or not having your license.

    But passed the court as a tax aimed at a specific group of people.

    Those two are not the same and have some very important differences.

    The first presumes congress has the power to force on pain of penalty a specific economic transaction.

    The second presumes congers has the power to tax any group,
    What is surprising is something written in line with the first can be twisted to mean the second. Or "construed" as the court put it.
    Either way, however it has been portrayed, it has been deemed constitutional to collect the tax. And only for those that have insufficient insurance.

    But congress does have the power to force a specific transaction already: it's called federal income taxes and garnishments.

    Also, congress does have the power to tax any group: that's why income taxes run on a scale.

    I just don't see what is particularly new here. It's not even a change in interpretation because both arguments would still apply and both have always been there; expressed or implied. So if neither the Democrats or the Republicans raised it then that's an oversight that has now been clarified. What's the big deal. Take your cheap insurance and quit complaining :-)!
    Last edited by SharmaK; June 29th, 2012 at 05:34 PM.

  22. #20
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That's not quite it. The government didn't hire that guy or advocate that position, the Supreme Court did. No one was representing that view, so the court appointed someone to argue it.
    Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Sure, that's great but now you have forced the tax payer to take on your health insurance risk
    False, you take that risk upon yourself and then act like it gives you power over my life.

    That is like me saying I'm going to pay your car insurance... and now I get to pick your car for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Why is it fair that I have to foot the bill should you or your family ever get long term sickness? As a society, why should an entire family's future be bankrupt and destroyed through getting sick?
    You don't have to foot the bill. You have decided to foot the bill and support footing the bill.
    Your decision doesn't give you the moral right to impose your will on me. If you don't like my decisions, stop paying for stuff and giving it to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    It's just like car insurance, you are a potential beneficiary to emergency health care, which I have to pay for as a taxpayer; and you too, since I assume you are a taxpayer. That kind of care costs a great deal more and is less beneficial than up front preventative care or dealing with the issue before it gets that serious
    False, I don't HAVE to get a car, and I don't HAVE to get health-care.
    If you wanted to regulate it similarly and make the comparison, you would say that anyone getting healthp-care has to have insurance.
    The way it is now, you are forcing people who don't have a car to buy car insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    It's an example of a moral hazard: you are taking on a risk because you don't have to suffer the consequences when the worst case scenarios kick in. You will always get the care you need but overall are spending more money to get it and the taxpayer foots the bill. And if you end up being bankrupt, you end up affecting your entire family, who may or may not be innocent in that decision.
    I should be free to take risks upon myself and my family.
    Anything less is strait up tyranny.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I don't know your circumstances but I would hope the numbers make sense: whatever you are paying total in cash should be less than what you'd have to pay for insurance. Or you pay the 'penalty' or the mandate fee which is tiny and get the insurance anyway!
    Look don't be lose and foolish with the numbers.
    If my deductible is 2,500. Then I have to pay that much before they pay for anything at all!
    That means, unless I'm spending 2,500 or more, then it ISN'T cheaper to have insurance.

    Because if insurance costs me 2k a year, then my health-care would cost $4,500 a year.

    I have 5 kids, and my health-care costs have almost never been more per month than the premiums for a family plan.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Either way, however it has been portrayed, it has been deemed constitutional to collect the tax. And only for those that have insufficient insurance.
    No, it is not the case that either way it was constitutional.
    One way was specifically called unconst. I don't think you understand what is being said here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    But congress does have the power to force a specific transaction already: it's called federal income taxes and garnishments.
    No, this is not like the income tax...
    And are you calling a tax a commerce transaction? If so, I don't think you know what is going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I just don't see what is particularly new here. It's not even a change in interpretation because both arguments would still apply and both have always been there; expressed or implied. So if neither the Democrats or the Republicans raised it then that's an oversight that has now been clarified. What's the big deal. Take your cheap insurance and quit complaining :-)!
    What is new to me is the Court re-writing congressional law, calling something a tax that isn't written like a tax.
    I'm not saying it is "wrong", just new to me and apparently a lot of people. As for taking my cheap insurance... first it isn't cheap as it is coming at the price of my freedom. Second, we will see how long it stays monetarily cheap.



    ** Note on cheap insurance.
    What I need is coverage of catastrophic health problems. So if I get cancer, I need a plan that will pay 100% after my deductible.
    Why? Because if I get a bill for 1million, and I owe 20% or 200k after insurance. Then I am still over exposed to the risk.
    The plans that do what I need cost closer to $900 a month. Anything less doesn't serve the purpose of insurance, which is to bring risk to a level I am able to handle. So it is better for me and my family for me to buy a $30 life insurance policy get cancer and be allowed to die.

    The problem is, the gov insists on protecting me from that decision, and would rather I pay $150 a month for coverage that will not offer me the protection I need, but will help everyone feel better as they trample my rights to make decisions for me and my family.

    In the words of many wise movies
    STOP HELPING ME!
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 4th, 2012, 12:31 PM
  2. Supreme Court Contempary Bais
    By Turtleflipper in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 10:40 AM
  3. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
    By xB3ngALidiVaX in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 25th, 2005, 02:39 PM
  4. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
    By xB3ngALidiVaX in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 25th, 2005, 02:39 PM
  5. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 03:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •