As I predicted!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... comboPNE_p

Justice Roberts oks a tax.

Not only will the American People be voting for a president in November but they will also be voting whether or not they want affordable healthcare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/su ... l?_r=1&hpw


Telcoman

Romney has already promised to make this a political issue. He might have a little ammunition on his side given the lengths that political advisers will go to to smear the other side. We have the interview with Stephanopoulos (spelling) where Obama said it was most certainly not a tax, and now SCOTUS saying it is a constitutional permissible as a tax. but not otherwise under the commerce clause. Let's dance.

What bothers me about this decision is that the government seems to have been given a wide range of power to pass "tax" related bills. What if they decide to tax those who do not get a college education, or a library card, or perhaps those who do not vote in elections? Do they now have a loophole in such legislation by calling it proper exercise of congress's power to tax instead of what is patiently a penalty?

I'm sure corporate America will step up and take the high road here. You can bet the insurance companies will lose money on this one. /sarcasm.

R/T Hemi wrote: What bothers me about this decision is that the government seems to have been given a wide range of power to pass "tax" related bills. What if they decide to tax those who do not get a college education, or a library card, or perhaps those who do not vote in elections? Do they now have a loophole in such legislation by calling it proper exercise of congress's power to tax instead of what is patiently a penalty?

Exactly couldn't have said it better. What scares me though is this is just the beginning.

Surprised they didn't pick and choose different parts to strike down and up hold after seeing how sb1070 went.

R/T Hemi wrote:We have the interview with Stephanopoulos (spelling) where Obama said it was most certainly not a tax, and now SCOTUS saying it is a constitutional permissible as a tax. but not otherwise under the commerce clause. Let's dance.
/sarcasm.

The reason Obama said it was not a tax was to get enough republican votes to get the bill passed.
Many republicans are scared and fearful of Grover Norquest and the NRA. They could not vote for a tax increase without pissing off Grover.
The tax was written separately from the mandate clause just for that purpose.
Obama taught constitutional law and some conservative state judges upheld the bill so I find it hard to understand why so many thought it was going to be struck down.
Keep in mind justice Roberts was appointed by none other than GWB

Telcoman

Since we are now interchanging the words penalty and tax, lets rename the Income Tax to the Income Penalty, since its already a punitive tax anyway.

Im pretty shocked, I had my hopes up for a strike down, but Im not quite on suicide watch yet. We still have the election.

Its funny how politics go, BUT, one thing Roberts did by choosing Congressional Taxing Authority to uphold the tax, was allow conservatives to combat and possibly repeal the Act completely without fear of the Filibuster. Since its now simply a tax matter, it can be handled as such.

Its surprises me that they sourced the Child Labor case as support, they are really not that similar. One major difference, is the case of the Child Labor fines, and excise taxes too for that matter, the "tax penalty" is levied against action taken. Ive not given my memory and exhaustive search, but it seems to me that this is the first major if not the first period case of a "tax penalty" being levied for NOT TAKING and action, unless you wanna be nit picky and consider tax compliance fines and penalties, but I wasnt.

My worry now, is that we've opened the door for further imposition by the government, forcing us to do or not do Lord knows what, as long as they "tax" us as punishment it'll be fine. Each of those future mandates, if any, will all have their day in court Im sure, I just hope this ruling today doesnt stand as the hard and fast precedent for bypassing states rights using "Congressional Taxing Authority".

At least the court didnt completely insult our intelligence by claiming the law stood on its Commerce Clause merit.

Here are some of the items in the ACA that Romney wants to repeal on day 1 if he wins.

Simplified, the bill does a few big things:
• Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.
• Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.
• Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.
• Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.
• Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).
• Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it.
Here's what's important: According to the Census Bureau, 49.9 million Americans didn't have health insurance in 2009. Part of that is due to the weak economy; most of those without health insurance have a very low or nonexistent income. But a lot is due to soaring costs that have put insurance out of reach for the gainfully employed. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 69% of businesses offered workers health insurance in 2000. By 2009, that number had dropped to 60%. It's almost certainly lower today. Our health-care system doesn't work for far too many Americans, which likely explains why most of the policies outlined above are pretty popular. Most, that is, except the mandate to buy insurance:

Don't know about you but I'm tired of paying part of my healthcare premiums for people who either have no health insurance or refuse to pay for it.

If someone totals my G I expect them to have automobile insurance and their insurance company and mine will repair the vehicle.

After 2014 if you go to a hospital you will either have health insurance or pay a tax penalty

Telcoman

R/T Hemi wrote:What bothers me about this decision is that the government seems to have been given a wide range of power to pass "tax" related bills. What if they decide to tax those who do not get a college education, or a library card, or perhaps those who do not vote in elections? Do they now have a loophole in such legislation by calling it proper exercise of congress's power to tax instead of what is patiently a penalty?

I don't think this expands Congress's power in anyway. Congress's ability to impose taxes has not changed. Looking at the slippery slope aspect is a fallacy. Healthcare is something that often becomes used by those who are not insured. And ultimately, we all foot the bill for it. Yet, many that want to pay for it can't afford the premiums being charged because they have pre-existing conditions. There is no simple solution for this problem and people are not always going to like the solutions that will work.

bigbadberry3 wrote:Surprised they didn't pick and choose different parts to strike down and up hold after seeing how sb1070 went.

If you were the court, would you want to pick it apart? I believe the primary argument was the individual mandate. Since the decision was to uphold the mandate, there really isn't a reason to pick apart the rest. Its not the court's job to decide how to implement laws. If it had been struck down, there might be more validity to the idea, but even then, its not the court's job to implement law, so one through process was to let the lawmakers sort out how to fix the problems that would be created if the mandate was ruled unconstitutional.

By the way, does anyone have a link to the decision itself? I'd love to read it over.

Thanks,
I skimmed through about 30% of it so far and this is hugely more complex than most other court opinions I've read through. This is gonna take a while.

C-Kwik wrote:Thanks,
I skimmed through about 30% of it so far and this is hugely more complex than most other court opinions I've read through. This is gonna take a while.

This kind of sums it up thanks to The New York Times

"Mr. Romney Changes His Mind, Again
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp


Massachusetts residents who file a state tax return have to provide proof that they have health insurance. If they can afford insurance but don’t have it, they must “pay a penalty through their tax returns,” according to the state Department of Revenue’s Web site.
This is all thanks to former Gov. Mitt Romney, who set up the system — the best of its kind in the country — and is now trying to pretend he doesn’t remember how it works. On Monday, his campaign said Mr. Romney believed the identical requirement in President Obama’s health care law was a penalty, paid through the tax system. Two days later, Mr. Romney rushed to the cameras to contradict the campaign and insist the mandate was a tax.
Why the switch? As he has on so many issues, Mr. Romney caved to Republican conservatives who want him to campaign on the falsehood that the mandate is a vast tax increase on the middle class. The Supreme Court’s decision that the law is constitutional was disastrous to their cause, so they distorted its basic reasoning. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote that the mandate is legal under the Congressional taxing power, which Republicans took a step further, saying the mandate must now be a tax. And not just a tax, but a huge, oppressive tax, one of the largest in history.
It is, of course, no such thing. How many “oppressive taxes” are entirely optional? Anyone who does the smart thing and gets health insurance won’t have to pay it. It is, as Mr. Romney himself described it in 2006, a fee to promote “personal responsibility” and prevent healthy people from freeloading. (Among those who won’t be able to comply with the law are poor people living in states where Republican governors refuse to expand their Medicaid programs using federal dollars — though most of those people don’t make enough to have to pay the penalty.)
The tax-vs.-penalty debate is a legal and semantic issue that has no practical impact on the public, but making this argument says a great deal about Mr. Romney’s inch-deep position on health care. Since the beginning of his campaign, he has fled from his significant achievement in Massachusetts, hoping to attract conservatives who never trusted him.
His explanation has been that it is perfectly acceptable for a state to do something that would be economically ruinous for the federal government to try. He used the same rationale on Wednesday in explaining why the mandate was a pragmatic penalty in Massachusetts but an insidious tax in Washington.
He’d rather talk about this than admit he once had a good idea to cover people without insurance and that Mr. Obama was right to duplicate it. Now he has no plan except a promise to repeal a virtual carbon copy of his own program.
His hairsplitting argument over federalism obscures the real issue for most people: Is the health care system so broken that government must intervene to fix it so that tens of millions can get proper medical care?
Against all evidence, Mr. Romney and his party believe the private system will simply fix itself if government gets out of the way.
At least, that’s what he says he believes now."

Hope this helps ya

Telcoman

stebo0728 wrote:Since we are now interchanging the words penalty and tax, lets rename the Income Tax to the Income Penalty, since its already a punitive tax anyway.

Im pretty shocked, I had my hopes up for a strike down, but Im not quite on suicide watch yet. We still have the election.

Its funny how politics go, BUT, one thing Roberts did by choosing Congressional Taxing Authority to uphold the tax, was allow conservatives to combat and possibly repeal the Act completely without fear of the Filibuster. Since its now simply a tax matter, it can be handled as such.

Its surprises me that they sourced the Child Labor case as support, they are really not that similar. One major difference, is the case of the Child Labor fines, and excise taxes too for that matter, the "tax penalty" is levied against action taken. Ive not given my memory and exhaustive search, but it seems to me that this is the first major if not the first period case of a "tax penalty" being levied for NOT TAKING and action, unless you wanna be nit picky and consider tax compliance fines and penalties, but I wasnt.

My worry now, is that we've opened the door for further imposition by the government, forcing us to do or not do Lord knows what, as long as they "tax" us as punishment it'll be fine. Each of those future mandates, if any, will all have their day in court Im sure, I just hope this ruling today doesnt stand as the hard and fast precedent for bypassing states rights using "Congressional Taxing Authority".

At least the court didnt completely insult our intelligence by claiming the law stood on its Commerce Clause merit.

Reduces the deficit

CBO: Court ruling cuts cost of health-care law, but leaves 3 million more uninsured

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

HAHA, was just looking at that, what a joke. I disavowed the CBO long ago, when I realized they use "ceteris paribus" to support their findings. In other words, they do not consider market forces into their equations. This is an asinine approach to conducting real world economic studies. You go ahead and put that under your pillow if it helps you sleep, but I promise you, you can't trust a damn thing the CBO says.

stebo0728 wrote: You go ahead and put that under your pillow if it helps you sleep, but I promise you, you can't trust a damn thing the CBO says.

Well we can't trust Romney because he doesn't want the American people to see how he avoids paying taxes.
We can't trust Michele Bachman because she just makes s#it up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... _blog.html

I trust Obama because my 401k has risen sharply since Bush left office

You'd trust Obama under any circumstances, you're one of the great unwashed, and thats ok, I dont believe anyone ever considered your vote up for grabs.

Do I think Romney is the next Reagan? No, although it'd be funny if he were, since Obama is the reincarnation of Carter. But a president who could be even half a toad's hair further to the right would be an improvement. my only expectations for Romney, is that he stop the bleeding, as we're dangerously close to bleeding out. Obama has already proven that he has ZERO leadership, and his plan is NOT working. By his own standards, set forth in 2009, he should be done. Dont you remember the "If we dont have this economy turned around in the next 3 years, we'll be looking at a one term presidency" Well, its not turned around, its not even looking for u-turn spots yet.

stebo0728 wrote:http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/24/cbo ... -decision/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/08 ... arts-today

Telcoman

R/T Hemi wrote:What bothers me about this decision is that the government seems to have been given a wide range of power to pass "tax" related bills. What if they decide to tax those who do not get a college education, or a library card, or perhaps those who do not vote in elections? Do they now have a loophole in such legislation by calling it proper exercise of congress's power to tax instead of what is patiently a penalty?

very well said mate.
you can add: being over weight, eating junk food(soda?), driving a fast car, participating in extreme sports, etc.
most life insurances will not cover you for extreme sports, motorcycle riding, sky diving, etc. so who is to say that the government wont tax such dangerous activities claiming those sports cause more injuries = thus increasing the amount of medical bills your rack up.

there is a great anti-socialism quote: a government strong/big enough to give you everything you need, is a government strong/big enough to take everything you have/want away.

So....we've determined as a nation now that women have a right to birth control? Sorry but I disagree with this notion. Why dont people have a right to cholesterol medicine? Why dont they have a right to NSAIDS or Nitrates, or insulin for that matter? Theres nothing special about birth control that warrants this legislation. Women can buy it, or they can get insurance that chooses to cover the product. If they go without it, well "tough titties".

stebo0728 wrote:So....we've determined as a nation now that women have a right to birth control? Sorry but I disagree with this notion. Why dont people have a right to cholesterol medicine? Why dont they have a right to NSAIDS or Nitrates, or insulin for that matter? Theres nothing special about birth control that warrants this legislation. Women can buy it, or they can get insurance that chooses to cover the product. If they go without it, well "tough titties".

I AGREE 100%

so we refuse to supply real "MEDICINE" that heals ailments. We fail to supply medicinal marijuana to cancer patients.... but pregnancy prevention is what they set their sights too? REALLY? the liberals might as well supply clean needles to drug addicts..... oh wait, they already allowed that.

Why not teach using condoms? Why not teach keeping ones legs closed? Why not teach values to women to keep their number of partners to a minimum? Why not teach that unless you have ample income, and a willing partner = that having kids isnt even a thought to consider!?

Here is what the liberals dont understand = You cant get welfare without a kid. and if the liberals think that giving contraception out will prevent teenage pregnancy, they are very-very wrong. Not only will it not be taken by those who want welfare, but the ones who want welfare will continue to have more kids, because more kids = more welfare money.