Obamacare Constitutional - A great day for America, and therefore the world.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not talking about unemployment.

You're talking about people that do not have insurance. If you want I can go quote by quote and hold your hand through the logic.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

not really, it'll get repealed or states will sue/opt out anyway

its a garbage law that the vast majority of Americans didnt want, and with good reason

What were the polls back in 2009. Not now since the ad campaign has been going steady and Obama moved away from it for fear of it being overturned.

I must say that I like how you think that after the SCOTUS said it was legal that it's now not going to be. SCOTUS just ruled and posture all you want but it is what it is.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm taking extra umbrage here because I feel like the majority opinion has exposed the fraud for what it is. Like Roberts said, it's not the Court's place to rewrite the law, so most of my disgust is directed at the legislators and the administration. But that's exactly what the Court did is rewrite the law.

The statute calls the failure to follow the mandate a penalty.

The word choice is the key to having this bill passed and the key to having it upheld. The majority opinion goes to great lengths to uphold the bill, and I believe they have overreached. It's right there in the opinion, it's not like I'm making an argument out of nothing.

Can a tax also be a penalty? Are the two mutually exclusive? Again, the court time and again has ignored labels and looked to see what something does. Word choice is meaningless in that context.

And I also fail to see how the Supreme Court can overreach. Typically that implies someone overreaching their authority however there is no greater legal authority in this country. I know you're an attorney but this just sounds like sour grapes.

 

[peplaw06]

Can a tax also be a penalty? Are the two mutually exclusive? Again, the court time and again has ignored labels and looked to see what something does. Word choice is meaningless in that context.

Word choice meaningless? Come on. Statutory construction is a remedial appellate court theory that when interpreting the law, the court presumes that a legislature says in a statute what it means and that each word is chosen for a purpose.

And I also fail to see how the Supreme Court can overreach. Typically that implies someone overreaching their authority however there is no greater legal authority in this country. I know you're an attorney but this just sounds like sour grapes.

I don't mean overreaching in the sense that the SCOTUS didn't have the authority to act. I mean overreaching in the sense that they stretched to great lengths to read into the statute what wasn't there in order to save it, in my opinion beyond what their traditional canons of construction allow.

And news has broken today that Roberts had apparently voted to overturn the statute after oral arguments were held and changed his vote later. Speculation is he was more concerned about the public perception of a "partisan" court than what he was supposed to be concerned with... the constitutionality of the statute.

 

[peplaw06]

I'll just add, from Saclia's dissent...

We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a penalty.

Pesky word choices.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, SCOTUS has a long history of looking at what a thing does instead of what it is called. If you care not to believe it then oh well. The ruling stated that Congress had the right to implement payment through the tax code which is exactly what the statute does. You can quibble over the semantics of tax and penalty all day long.

That's also not saying that they overreached; that is saying that they wee wrong. Good luck with that.

And that 'news' broke the day of the ruling. He has made comments when asked about it to the contrary while refusing to acknowledge the criticism.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll just add, from Saclia's dissent...



Pesky word choices.

Did the majority opinion even claim that it was a tax? i thought they just said they had the right to implement payment through the tax code which is what it did.

 

[peplaw06]

Again, SCOTUS has a long history of looking at what a thing does instead of what it is called. If you care not to believe it then oh well. The ruling stated that Congress had the right to implement payment through the tax code which is exactly what the statute does. You can quibble over the semantics of tax and penalty all day long.

So Scalia's wrong? He soundly deconstructed Roberts' cited precedent in his dissent. But hey, what does he know? Fuzzy Lumpkins says otherwise.

That's also not saying that they overreached; that is saying that they wee wrong. Good luck with that.

Now who's quibbling over semantics?

And that 'news' broke the day of the ruling. He has made comments when asked about it to the contrary while refusing to acknowledge the criticism.

Of course he hasn't acknowledged it. It would make the chief justice appear susceptible to media scrutiny, which would essentially make the Court useless.

 

[peplaw06]

Did the majority opinion even claim that it was a tax? i thought they just said they had the right to implement payment through the tax code which is what it did.

...

The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.

 

[dbair1967]

What were the polls back in 2009. Not now since the ad campaign has been going steady and Obama moved away from it for fear of it being overturned.

I must say that I like how you think that after the SCOTUS said it was legal that it's now not going to be. SCOTUS just ruled and posture all you want but it is what it is.

The polls have been consuistent on this subject since the day the concept was broached, the majority of people dont want it.

Most people who think logically can see how its going to do nothing except decrease the quality and access to care, along with being an utter money pit to pay for.

As for your other comment, alcohol was once made illegal and then they changed the law remember?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You're talking about people that do not have insurance. If you want I can go quote by quote and hold your hand through the logic.

Ok, I'll wait till you point out where I said UNEMPLOYMENT, which is sometimes the by-product of being laid off.

None of which I said by name or referred to.

 

[Jon88]

 

[jiggyfly]

The polls have been consuistent on this subject since the day the concept was broached, the majority of people dont want it.

Most people who think logically can see how its going to do nothing except decrease the quality and access to care, along with being an utter money pit to pay for.

As for your other comment, alcohol was once made illegal and then they changed the law remember?

Oh really the majority?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

I see you continue to make things up as you go along.

 

[peplaw06]

Oh really the majority?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

I see you continue to make things up as you go along.

lol

An 8.6 percentage point average opinion against the bill with 10% undecided. Sounds like the majority to me.

 

[Hoofbite]

The polls have been consuistent on this subject since the day the concept was broached, the majority of people dont want it.

Most people who think logically can see how its going to do nothing except decrease the quality and access to care, along with being an utter money pit to pay for.

As for your other comment, alcohol was once made illegal and then they changed the law remember?

How does the quality decrease? Reimbursement rates will be tied to quality so it's a little odd that providers would deliberately forfeit money by providing crappier service.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The polls have been consuistent on this subject since the day the concept was broached, the majority of people dont want it.

Most people who think logically can see how its going to do nothing except decrease the quality and access to care, along with being an utter money pit to pay for.

As for your other comment, alcohol was once made illegal and then they changed the law remember?

No, they haven't.

The American public has been deeply divided from the start over the health care reform law now before the U.S. Supreme Court, though opinion has generally tilted more negative than positive over the past two years. A majority of Americans disapprove of a key component of the law, which requires most individuals to be covered by health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. (See more below.)

According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in mid-June – in advance of the court’s ruling – 48% of the public disapprove of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, while 43% approve. That’s little different from April 2010 – shortly after the law was enacted – when 44% said they disapproved and 40% said they approved.

The June survey also shows the public is unlikely to be satisfied with the Supreme Court’s ruling – no matter what the court decides. Whether the Court decides to uphold the entire law, overturn the entire law, or reject the “individual mandate” while allowing the rest of the law to remain in place, fewer than half of Americans say they would be happy with the decision.

The public’s expected reactions track along partisan lines. Most Democrats would be happy if the law is upheld, while most Republicans would be happy if it is thrown out. The other widely discussed possibility – that the court could reject the individual mandate while keeping the rest – does not satisfy either side.


A More Wary Public

An earlier Pew Research Center survey finds that the public has become more wary of the government’s role in health care since the early days of the debate over the legislation in 2009. About six-in-ten (59%) now say they are concerned that the government is becoming too involved in health care, according to the Pew Research Center’s 2012 American Values Survey, released in June. That’s up 13 points since 2009. Still, about eight-in-ten (82%) agree that the government needs to do more to make health care affordable and accessible.
A Deepening Partisan Divide

The partisan divide over the government role in health care, already large in 2009, has only grown larger. Today, 88% of Republicans express concern about the government becoming too involved in health care; 37% of Democrats agree. This 51-point gap is the single largest partisan divide of the 79 items included in the values survey.

The divide over health care fits a broader pattern of growing partisan disagreement over the role and effectiveness of government. For example, the values study shows that Republicans have become much less supportive over the past 25 years of the notion that government should help those in need, while Democratic attitudes are little changed. (See full slideshow of findings.)

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/15/obama-health-care-law-where-does-the-public-stand/

< 50% is not a majority

And you are right that since LBJ's Great Society the GOP has shifted back to what they were in the days of Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft. Look at Congressional votes from the early 1930s and you will note a similar trend. Do you think that FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were right or that two of the reputed worst presidents in our nations history were?

Personally, I think this country needs a man like Theodore Roosevelt in the worst way.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So Scalia's wrong? He soundly deconstructed Roberts' cited precedent in his dissent. But hey, what does he know? Fuzzy Lumpkins says otherwise.

Now who's quibbling over semantics?

Of course he hasn't acknowledged it. It would make the chief justice appear susceptible to media scrutiny, which would essentially make the Court useless.

Ahh, now the butthurt is coming out. I don't matter. Roberts does and his opinion is clear.

And YOU have not acknowledged that the Robert's opinion said it was okay to implement the penalty through the tax code which is exactly what the statute DOES- rather than this quibbling over the semantics of the word tax or penalty. When it comes down to the jist of the argument it makes that distinction irrelevant. Scalia's opinion was in the minority but that does not say its without merit. But saying that its a reach to look at the action of the bill rather than quibbling over semantics is wrong IMO and does have precedent.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ok, I'll wait till you point out where I said UNEMPLOYMENT, which is sometimes the by-product of being laid off.

None of which I said by name or referred to.

I never said you said it was. Are a lot of people without insurance simply unemployed? It's called a logical extension of what you state. it's not my fault youre myopic.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also wanted to add the mission statement for the IRS.

The IRS Mission
Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.

This mission statement describes our role and the public’s expectation about how we should perform that role.

In the United States, the Congress passes tax laws and requires taxpayers to comply.
The taxpayer’s role is to understand and meet his or her tax obligations.
The IRS role is to help the large majority of compliant taxpayers with the tax law, while ensuring that the minority who are unwilling to comply pay their fair share.

The penalty is assessed by the IRS.

 

[peplaw06]

Ahh, now the butthurt is coming out. I don't matter. Roberts does and his opinion is clear.

I thought I might be able to go the rest of my life without being able to hear that word. Thanks for bringing that over from the zone. I hope you continue to use it like a four year old.

You haven't even read the opinion, so you don't know what's clear and what's not.

And YOU have not acknowledged that the Robert's opinion said it was okay to implement the penalty through the tax code which is exactly what the statute DOES- rather than this quibbling over the semantics of the word tax or penalty. When it comes down to the jist of the argument it makes that distinction irrelevant. Scalia's opinion was in the minority but that does not say its without merit. But saying that its a reach to look at the action of the bill rather than quibbling over semantics is wrong IMO and does have precedent.

Penalties have to be implemented through the tax code... It doesn't mean every penalty is a tax. Again, the semantics are what's important. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about appellate procedure and appellate theories would know that. You don't. But I guess you're entitled to your uneducated opinion.