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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh TV newscasts. At least it wasn't FOX or MSNBC.

How about this one reported by Reuters:

(Reuters) - Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

"As an American it just bothers me that with all of our know-how, all of our wealth, that we are not assuring that people who need healthcare can get it," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis told reporters in a telephone briefing.

Previous reports by the nonprofit fund, which conducts research into healthcare performance and promotes changes in the U.S. system, have been heavily used by policymakers and politicians pressing for healthcare reform.

Davis said she hoped health reform legislation passed in March would lead to improvements.

The current report uses data from nationally representative patient and physician surveys in seven countries in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is available here

In 2007, health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007. New Zealand spent the least at $2,454.

This is a big rise from the Fund's last similar survey, in 2007, which found Americans spent $6,697 per capita on healthcare in 2005, or 16 percent of gross domestic product.

"We rank last on safety and do poorly on several dimensions of quality," Schoen told reporters. "We do particularly poorly on going without care because of cost. And we also do surprisingly poorly on access to primary care and after-hours care."

NETHERLANDS RANKED FIRST OVERALL

The report looks at five measures of healthcare -- quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives.

Britain, whose nationalized healthcare system was widely derided by opponents of U.S. healthcare reform, ranks first in quality while the Netherlands ranked first overall on all scores, the Commonwealth team found.

U.S. patients with chronic conditions were the most likely to say they gotten the wrong drug or had to wait to learn of abnormal test results.

"The findings demonstrate the need to quickly implement provisions in the new health reform law," the report reads.

Critics of reports that show Europeans or Australians are healthier than Americans point to the U.S. lifestyle as a bigger factor than healthcare. Americans have higher rates of obesity than other developed countries, for instance.

"On the other hand, the other countries have higher rates of smoking," Davis countered. And Germany, for instance, has a much older population more prone to chronic disease.

Every other system covers all its citizens, the report noted and said the U.S. system, which leaves 46 million Americans or 15 percent of the population without health insurance, is the most unfair.

"The lower the performance score for equity, the lower the performance on other measures. This suggests that, when a country fails to meet the needs of the most vulnerable, it also fails to meet the needs of the average citizen," the report reads.

or for good measure this one from the same ABC:

At a time of unprecedented wealth in the United States, 44 million Americans are uninsured and receive second-class health care, if they receive any at all, according to a consumer advocacy group.

“The plight of the uninsured is getting worse while the burden of paying for health care is getting heavier for the poor and middle class,” says Consumers Union Washington spokesman David Butler.

Given the trillion dollar budget surplus in the U.S., Butler believes it is time for the federal government to make a bolder attempt at providing the country with a national health care system.

In its September issue of Consumer Reports the group sums up a six-month investigation into the state of U.S. health care. Blaming welfare reform and a lack of marketplace initiatives to provide adequate medical care for the poor, the report states the health care system is increasingly unable to provide treatment for working Americans who do not qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford insurance on their own.

The U.S. spends more of its GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet the quality of care that the uninsured receive is getting worse and will continue to deteriorate as their numbers go up, says Trudy Lieberman the report’s author and director of the Center for Consumer Health Choices at Consumers Union. She predicts that in five years there will be 47 million uninsured Americans.

Perceived Worthiness

“They put up with care the rest of us who are insured would never put up with,” Lieberman, said at a news conference in Washington today.

The kind of health care the uninsured receive depends on their age, where they live and what programs may exist in their area, how much money they can scrape together to pay for care and on their “perceived worthiness,” the report said. Meanwhile, it said, emergency rooms, community clinics, pharmaceutical -industry programs and charity care, which have long been relied on to provide a safety net for the uninsured, don’t catch everyone in need.

“We’re talking about a patchwork quilt that is threadbare,” Robert Cosby, executive director of the Non-Profit Clinic Consortium in Washington, said at the news conference.

The number of people seeking care from federally funded clinics Consumers Union reports, has gone up 45 percent in the last decade, while the 3,000 federally funded clinics in the U.S. only meet 6 percent of the dental care needs of the uninsured.

Marketplace Response

A second report released by Consumers Union said that the marketplace is not adequately responding to the growing number of uninsured.

Insurers have a financial interest in covering the healthiest population creating a health care divide, said Gail Shearer, author of the second study. She said the sickest 10 percent of the population accounts for about 68 percent of health care expenditures.

An effort by President Clinton early in his administration to enact universal health coverage for Americans failed after lawmakers could not agree how to do it.

Current proposals to expand medical savings accounts and tax credits to help pay for insurance are unlikely to significantly reduce the number of uninsured, the report said.

Shearer said she hoped the studies would give an election-year voice to the uninsured at a time of huge projected budget surpluses.

The group is recommending that Congress enact legislation to ensure health coverage for all children and to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the elderly.

The group also said Congress should take steps to reduce the number of uninsured adults and reject programs, such as tax-favored medical savings accounts, that favor the healthy over the sick.

“It’s time to bring the national health care issue back to the federal government’s table,” said Butler.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=118050&page=1#.T_TSHvWqanM

Then of course there is the WHO who you just discount out of hand as a bunch of communists. Very convenient.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We should abandon the thing and kick it out of our country.

Its a cess pool of corruption and anti-Americanism, and has been for decades. Anybody with half a fucking brain can see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

 

[Hoofbite]

[video=youtube;sXJgkvF19QA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJgkvF19QA[/video]

This is just the first of many I will post.

I have quite a few at work on my laptop from soemone who has spent extensive amount of time and resources researching this, and they are quite infomative.

You realize that America isn't going to that sort of system, don't you?

I hope that your entire argument isn't based on something that isn't going to happen.

Last time I checked premiums, deductibles and co-pays will still be in place.

[tinhat]Then again, this is just the first step until we're all enslaved like those other counties[/tinhat]

 

[Hoofbite]

We should abandon the thing and kick it out of our country.

Its a cess pool of corruption and anti-Americanism, and has been for decades. Only those with half a fucking brain can see it.

FIFY.

 

[peplaw06]

Good lord, you're clueless fuzzy. Still haven't read the opinion. Still don't realize that Roberts was out there on his own. Yeah it's the majority opinion, but the liberal wing was going to uphold this on the commerce clause, not the tax argument.

Courts get it wrong sometimes. They did here.

 

[dbair1967]

You realize that America isn't going to that sort of system, don't you?

I hope that your entire argument isn't based on something that isn't going to happen.

Last time I checked premiums, deductibles and co-pays will still be in place.

[tinhat]Then again, this is just the first step until we're all enslaved like those other counties[/tinhat]

Are you honestly this brainwashed by Obama?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good lord, you're clueless fuzzy. Still haven't read the opinion. Still don't realize that Roberts was out there on his own. Yeah it's the majority opinion, but the liberal wing was going to uphold this on the commerce clause, not the tax argument.

Courts get it wrong sometimes. They did here.

Sure do not discuss the substantive points specifically about semantics. Just move those goal posts.

All you do now is try to do these lame characterizations like 'out on his own.' I have a question: what does '5-4' mean? Do you understand the notion of mutual exclusivity? Does the idea that while they may have felt the commerce clause assertion was valid, it in no way precluded them from agreeing with another position, escape you? The count was 5, it was not 1. It was 5.

Rather than make claims without substance about cluelessness let's look at statements by you which were plain wrong.

For example

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.

It's real simple.

a) There are no penalties not arisen out of taxes collected by the IRS. Your lack of a response means no contest on that point.
b) I just quoted you multiple sources including Circuit and Supreme Courts that point out that what something does at the very least can be more important than the label.

And surprise surprise from the ruling:

That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.

You have also stated that the government never argued that it was a tax. The court seems to think differently:

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “hared responsibility payment,” as thestatute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors astaxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement topay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assessand collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax:it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n. 4 (1953). Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billionper year by 2017. Congressional Budget Office, Paymentsof Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Apr. 30, 2010), in SelectedCBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation,2009–2010, p. 71 (rev. 2010). It is of course true that the Act describes the payment asa “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewedas an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to anyparticular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

I think its you that does not understand. Congress cannot just change labels of things to try and do an end around the constitution just as a person or persons cannot change labels in order to do an end around on laws. When it comes to evaluating either of those things it is completely reasonable to look as to what something does rather than what it is called.

It walks talks and acts like a tax so in respects to reviewing constitutionality it IS a tax.

It's amazing for as much as you claim that I have not read the opinion on closer inspection what I am saying is EXACTLY what the court did.

On a final note, notions of 'right' or 'wrong' are subjective garbage. You know exactly what the objective legal standard is.

 

[Hoofbite]

Are you honestly this brainwashed by Obama?

Show me anything that says this is a Canada-like system.

 

[dbair1967]

Show me anything that says this is a Canada-like system.

Its the first step in what obviously will be a Government run, single payor system down the road. The writing is clearly on the wall.

 

[Hoofbite]

Its the first step in what obviously will be a Government run, single payor system down the road. The writing is clearly on the wall.

So the current legislation isn't that and your argument is based on little more than party rhetoric?

You could have just said so from the start.

 

[DragonCowboy]

Its the first step in what obviously will be a Government run, single payor system down the road. The writing is clearly on the wall.

Honestly, I don't see why this would be so terrible. I don't think it's possible with the blood sucking leeches that are insurance companies. But when you have non-profit insurance companies that will definitely keep prices down. As it is now the individual mandate is mainly there because of leech-y insurance companies.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So the current legislation isn't that and your argument is based on little more than party rhetoric?

You could have just said so from the start.

It's not even GOP rhetoric. Boehner and co. don't talk like that because it becomes a big negative talking point to the independents that are important for winning elections. This type thing and the rest of the red scare tactics comes from the AM radio talk show circuit and other 'conservative' media outlets.

 

[peplaw06]

wall o text

Lookit Fuzzy. Tax law is complicated. You can't just google search the ruling and act like you know the ins and outs of it. You obviously haven't read the opinion, and you clearly haven't read Scalia's dissent. Even if you did now, you wouldn't understand it all. I don't understand it all. I'm not a tax attorney. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain this shit to you.

What I can tell you without a doubt, is the distinction between a penalty and a tax is not semantic. The tax code is fraught with definitions of different methods the IRS collects revenue. Taxes, penalties, exactions, capitations, etc. They all have unique definitions, and specific methods of implementation and collection.

You have also stated that the government never argued that it was a tax.

I never said that. I have stated that the government argued in front of the supreme court that it was a tax as an alternative argument to the commerce clause. What I have said is the government, outside the supreme court arguments, have stated since 2009 that it's not a tax... and they continue to state it, even in the face of Roberts' opinion. That tell ya something? If not, it should.

On a final note, notions of 'right' or 'wrong' are subjective garbage. You know exactly what the objective legal standard is.

I'm allowed to have a subjective opinion, no matter how much you don't like it. The legal standards here are not objective. If they were, it would have been a 9-0 decision. If it were objective, the tax argument would have been the government's primary argument. If it were objective the administration and congress wouldn't be continuing to state that it's not a tax. I feel like the Court got it wrong and re-wrote the ACA to uphold its constitutionality. If you disagree, so be it... But I'm not inclined to give a whole lot of weight to someone who's going to argue the merits of the court's opinions without reading them.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lookit Fuzzy. Tax law is complicated. You can't just google search the ruling and act like you know the ins and outs of it. You obviously haven't read the opinion, and you clearly haven't read Scalia's dissent. Even if you did now, you wouldn't understand it all. I don't understand it all. I'm not a tax attorney. But I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain this shit to you.

What I can tell you without a doubt, is the distinction between a penalty and a tax is not semantic. The tax code is fraught with definitions of different methods the IRS collects revenue. Taxes, penalties, exactions, capitations, etc. They all have unique definitions, and specific methods of implementation and collection.

I never said that. I have stated that the government argued in front of the supreme court that it was a tax as an alternative argument to the commerce clause. What I have said is the government, outside the supreme court arguments, have stated since 2009 that it's not a tax... and they continue to state it, even in the face of Roberts' opinion. That tell ya something? If not, it should.

I'm allowed to have a subjective opinion, no matter how much you don't like it. The legal standards here are not objective. If they were, it would have been a 9-0 decision. If it were objective, the tax argument would have been the government's primary argument. If it were objective the administration and congress wouldn't be continuing to state that it's not a tax. I feel like the Court got it wrong and re-wrote the ACA to uphold its constitutionality. If you disagree, so be it... But I'm not inclined to give a whole lot of weight to someone who's going to argue the merits of the court's opinions without reading them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the tax law. Again, so perhaps you can understand it clearer this time: when the Supreme Court looks to the constitutionality of a law they are not restricted in any way shape or from by what the legislature calls the law or portions of the law. Instead they look to see what the law actually does. There is a legal definition of what a tax is and that is not limited by the tax law. You do not even make an argumetn about what it says in tax law you just claim that one might be able to be made. gmfb.

Its really a simple concept and it completely eludes you. Either that or you are being intentionally obtuse.

For example if what you say is correct then congress could pass a law stating that women had to be sequestered during voting hours and callit "happy fun nondiscriminatory time" and your saying that the argument that it says nondiscriminatory is in the statute, they called it that consistently during deliberations and future discussions so its not discriminatory and passes muster of the 14th and 17th amendments. If the pass a law talking about "happy fun nondiscriminatory time" then yes its valid in the context of other laws but that does not necessarily make it valid from the skein of the constitution

Same holds true for contracts and the law. The NFL's argument that it says 'competitive balance' in their contracts and charters does not preclude the court from viewing it as an unfair restriction of trade in regards to the law.

And again with your characterizations. The argument that it was valid under the commerce clause isn't even mutually exclusive with the argument that it is valid under there right to levy taxes. Again during the first day of deliberations they stated that it was a tax and Sotamayor took them to task over it. Both arguments were made in court and 5 members of that court agreed with it. Maybe you feel you can just discount an argument out of hand by deeming it not the 'primary' one but we both know thats bullshit.

And on a final note: are you familiar with the concept of stare decisis? So let me ask you: when a future court gets a case regarding penalties due to inaction levied by the feds, which decision will they honor? The majority opinion or the dissenting opinion? So in lower courts which one will be the defining legal standard?

I guess you can hope that in 70 years that SCOTUS will review a similar case and go Plessy v Ferguson on it but i wouldn't hold my breath.

SCOTUS has ruled and it is now case law. Deal with it.

 

[peplaw06]

^^

Still hasn't read the opinions. Won't respond to direct questions. Thinks it's black and white.

Deal with it.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[superpunk]

I just think it's mad cool that the healthcare bill is gonna stand we're well on our way to being civilized, guys - and saving tons of money on medical care for Americans.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^^

Still hasn't read the opinions. Won't respond to direct questions. Thinks it's black and white.

Go fuck yourself.

:tear

You asked a single question:

That tell ya something?

And I did answer it:

And again with your characterizations. The argument that it was valid under the commerce clause isn't even mutually exclusive with the argument that it is valid under there right to levy taxes. Again during the first day of deliberations they stated that it was a tax and Sotamayor took them to task over it. Both arguments were made in court and 5 members of that court agreed with it. Maybe you feel you can just discount an argument out of hand by deeming it not the 'primary' one but we both know thats bullshit.

And I obviously read the decisions. I quoted portions of them for you in an earlier post. Petulance is only cute in children and even then only for so long.

On a final note, seeing that you took me to task for supposedly not answering a question and me not wanting you to be a hypocrite how about you answer this question:

And on a final note: are you familiar with the concept of stare decisis? So let me ask you: when a future court gets a case regarding penalties due to inaction levied by the feds, which decision will they honor? The majority opinion or the dissenting opinion? So in lower courts which one will be the defining legal standard?

Which decision of the high court will be honored by every lower court in the land?

Like I said: deal with it.

 

[Midswat]