[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think you are right. Conservatives will flock to the polls in November in outrage because the SCOTUS upheld a "GOP proposal originally proposed by Conservative think tanks". Which is quite indicative of the political insanity on the right these days. In any event, to repeal Obamacare the GOP would not only have to win the Presidency, but they would also have to have a 60+, filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Accomplishing both is a tad bit optimistic n'est-ce pas?

OAW

The GOP may have proposed it but it wasn't enacted. States and the FedGov are different animals and you ignore the reasons why it was enacted in MA, with its liberal democratic majority. Is it a TAX as the SCOTUS says or NOT, like Owe-bama has stated?

4 months to get as many conservatives lined up to vote the Democrats out of office will be enough. As pissed as they are right now, you may just have that 60+ majority in the Senate. Even the Democrats at risk of losing their office are skipping the Democratic Convention, and staying far away from Owe-bama. His smugness will really irritate the right and the middle. I think it may add as much as 5% to the rights voting power this fall.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The GOP may have proposed it but it wasn't enacted. States and the FedGov are different animals and you ignore the reasons why it was enacted in MA, with its liberal democratic majority.

But that begs the question ....

Why propose something at the federal level that you consider to be "unconstitutional"?

Answer? The GOP didn't consider it to be "unconstitutional" under the Clinton Administration when it was their "private sector, market oriented" alternative to the "public sector, single payer oriented" approach favored by the Dems. Yet now when a Democratic President embraces that approach all of a sudden we have GOP politicians who are ON RECORD supporting it before ... but now they have their panties all in a bunch about it? I mean I can somewhat understand if people aren't old enough to recall the health care debate during the Clinton Administration. Then it might make a bit of sense if the blatant hypocrisy isn't glaringly obvious to you. But if you do recall ... or if you just take a moment to familiarize yourself with the positions taken by the GOP then and compare them to the positions being taken now ... then there really is only one credible conclusion to reach. The GOP opposition to the individual mandate isn't even ideological despite the pretense otherwise. If it were they would have opposed it then as they do now. On the contrary, it is purely political. Plain and simple.

OAW

[Chongo]

The House, Senate, and White House


So much no for "No Tax Increase"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So much no for "No Tax Increase"

More silver-lining!

[turtle777]

The only open question for me: who stole Roberts' balls ?

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The only open question for me: who stole Roberts' balls ?

-t

His conscience?

[BadKosh]

So will the IRS start coming after the uninsured?

[OAW]

The actual ruling can be found here for those who are interested in reading the legal reasoning for themselves.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So will the IRS start coming after the uninsured?

The legislation states that the IRS can assess a tax on those uninsured who can afford to purchase insurance who choose not to do so. So one could argue that it's a voluntary tax.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The GOP didn't consider it to be "unconstitutional" under the Clinton Administration when it was their "private sector, market oriented" alternative to the "public sector, single payer oriented" approach favored by the Dems. Yet now when a Democratic President embraces that approach all of a sudden we have GOP politicians who are ON RECORD supporting it before ... but now they have their panties all in a bunch about it? I mean I can somewhat understand if people aren't old enough to recall the health care debate during the Clinton Administration. Then it might make a bit of sense if the blatant hypocrisy isn't glaringly obvious to you. But if you do recall ... or if you just take a moment to familiarize yourself with the positions taken by the GOP then and compare them to the positions being taken now ... then there really is only one credible conclusion to reach. The GOP opposition to the individual mandate isn't even ideological despite the pretense otherwise. If it were they would have opposed it then as they do now. On the contrary, it is purely political. Plain and simple.

And why didn't the dems support it back then, if they support it now? Either your one-sided bias is just as hypocritical as that which you scorn, or the current proposal actually is different enough to justify changing one's mind on it

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Obamacare killed the economy!

You guys have anything of substance to add? I about shit myself when I heard Roberts sided with the liberal side of the court for a 5-4.

me too!

Roberts of all people!

hurray for america!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And why didn't the dems support it back then, if they support it now? Either your one-sided bias is just as hypocritical as that which you scorn, or the current proposal actually is different enough to justify changing one's mind on it

The Dems support universal health care coverage. Their preferred method for achieving that goal has always been a "public sector oriented, single payer" insurance system. But that approach had little chance of passage so during the Clinton Administration they proposed a system of regional health alliances with an employer mandate to provide insurance ... subject to tight regulations on insurers and providers through cost controls and volume purchasing groups. So they opposed the GOP alternative of an individual mandate not on constitutional grounds ... but because they didn't believe it would go as far as their own approach toward achieving the goal of universal coverage. And they are right because while Obamacare is expected to expand health coverage to 32 million people who are presently uninsured, it is still not expected to achieve the goal of universal coverage. So why did the Dems support it now? Or better yet the question should be why did the Dems vote for it now? Because during the Clinton Administration we had a divided government and there was little to no chance that anything would get passed. So Congressional inertia kicked in and both sides stuck to their preferred positions because it wasn't going anywhere anyway. But in 2008 the Dems controlled Congress with a 60 vote majority in the Senate ... as well as the White House. It was an unprecedented opportunity to get something done. So even though the Democratic base still preferred "Medicare for all" (a big chunk of the opposition to Obamacare is precisely because it is NOT that) ... the Dems in Congress along with President Obama decided to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I said it before ... while the Dems had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate they did NOT have a progressive, filibuster proof majority. The only way to get anything passed was to appease the Blue Dog Democrats and not only abandon "single payer" but to throw the "public option" under the bus as well.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

I'm just here to watch the conservatives weep. Please begin while my popcorn is still warm.

[BadKosh]

Not weeping, but Pissed.

[OAW]

The interesting thing to me is that our good friends on the right clearly oppose single payer. They oppose an employer mandate to provide insurance. And they were for an individual mandate to purchase insurance before they were against it. Which sounds to me like they pretty much are opposed to any government action to achieve universal or even expanded health care coverage. Or am I missing something?

OAW

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Which sounds to me like they pretty much are opposed to any government action

Fixed that for you.

I am actually surprised. I understood that the mandate could be construed as a tax, but I didn't think it would be a valid legal argument. Shows what I know.

[stupendousman]

I don't get the hurrahs from the left.

The court essentially labeled Obama's branding of his tax and spend plan hogwash. They didn't uphold the idea that Congress can force someone to buy something against their will. They said that Obama's plan was to raise taxes on middle Americans so that they can increase spending. The court has essentially branded Obama a liar when he tried to spin this as not a plan to tax and spend. He couldn't get it passed with such a plan because the people he had to bribe knew that they'd pay at election time if it could be shown that they supported a plan to raise middle class taxes so that poor people could have the same health care as they did.

Now all those folks just had their knees knocked out from under them, without a"shield" that the White House will be able to use now that the Supreme Court has ruled overwhelmingly that Obama's plan was to tax and spend, not just compel people to do what they had already planned on doing anyways.

So, now you have conservatives and tea party bases energized to remove Obama to repeal an unpopular program that has been officially designated by one branch of the United States government as a tax plan, which will be used to remove a lot of Democrats who voted for it out of office due to the fact that it's clear now that both they and Obama where lying when they c;laimed this wasn't a tax plan.

Victory? Maybe. It seems entirely pyrrhic to me. Republicans will win big in November and much of it will be repealed because it would have never passed in the first place had Obama just not lied about it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Dems support universal health care coverage. Their preferred method for achieving that goal has always been a "public sector oriented, single payer" insurance system. But that approach had little chance of passage so during the Clinton Administration they proposed a system of regional health alliances with an employer mandate to provide insurance ... subject to tight regulations on insurers and providers through cost controls and volume purchasing groups. So they opposed the GOP alternative of an individual mandate not on constitutional grounds ... but because they didn't believe it would go as far as their own approach toward achieving the goal of universal coverage.
...
Because during the Clinton Administration we had a divided government and there was little to no chance that anything would get passed.
...
ut in 2008 the Dems controlled Congress with a 60 vote majority in the Senate ... as well as the White House. It was an unprecedented opportunity to get something done.

You're not making any sense. 15 years ago they had options A, B, and C. They wanted A or B but the opposition would only agree to C. They scoffed at C so they achieved Z: nothing. Now their so-called "unprecedented opportunity" allowed them to forcefully achieve... C, exactly what wasn't good enough for them 15 years ago. If today's situation is so much stronger, why are they happy to eat the dogfood that they wouldn't touch back then? Why aren't you decrying their failure to agree to this 15 years ago, sentencing the American people to 15 years of "no solution?"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't get the hurrahs from the left.

The court essentially labeled Obama's branding of his tax and spend plan hogwash. They didn't uphold the idea that Congress can force someone to buy something against their will. They said that Obama's plan was to raise taxes on middle Americans so that they can increase spending. The court has essentially branded Obama a liar when he tried to spin this as not a plan to tax and spend. He couldn't get it passed with such a plan because the people he had to bribe knew that they'd pay at election time if it could be shown that they supported a plan to raise middle class taxes so that poor people could have the same health care as they did.

Now all those folks just had their knees knocked out from under them, without a"shield" that the White House will be able to use now that the Supreme Court has ruled overwhelmingly that Obama's plan was to tax and spend, not just compel people to do what they had already planned on doing anyways.

So, now you have conservatives and tea party bases energized to remove Obama to repeal an unpopular program that has been officially designated by one branch of the United States government as a tax plan, which will be used to remove a lot of Democrats who voted for it out of office due to the fact that it's clear now that both they and Obama where lying when they c;laimed this wasn't a tax plan.

Victory? Maybe. It seems entirely pyrrhic to me. Republicans will win big in November and much of it will be repealed because it would have never passed in the first place had Obama just not lied about it.

All this text, but I have a hard time believing those on the right wouldn't rather the mandate got overturned instead of this presumptively "energized" base.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't get the hurrahs from the left.

The court essentially labeled Obama's branding of his tax and spend plan hogwash. They didn't uphold the idea that Congress can force someone to buy something against their will. They said that Obama's plan was to raise taxes on middle Americans so that they can increase spending.

Well it really isn't that quite that simple. It basically came down to two questions ....

Is Obamacare unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause? - This was a 5-4 decision saying YES with the conservative wing in the majority.

Is Obamacare unconstitutional under the Tax and Spend Clause? - This was a 5-4 decision saying NO with the liberal wing along with Chief Justice Roberts in the majority.

So Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito ruled against the legislation under both clauses. Whereas Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan ruled for it under both clauses. The tie breaker came down to Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning that the law was constitutional under the power of Congress to levy taxes. From the ruling itself ....

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it 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 taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.

The irony here is that Chief Justice Roberts applied a very "conservative" standard towards the question of constitutionality. Respect for precedent, judicial restraint, and a general reticence toward overturning duly passed legislation of the elected branches of government. If nothing else, we do live in interesting times ...

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're not making any sense. 15 years ago they had options A, B, and C. They wanted A or B but the opposition would only agree to C. They scoffed at C so they achieved Z: nothing. Now their so-called "unprecedented opportunity" allowed them to forcefully achieve... C, exactly what wasn't good enough for them 15 years ago. If today's situation is so much stronger, why are they happy to eat the dogfood that they wouldn't touch back then? Why aren't you decrying their failure to agree to this 15 years ago, sentencing the American people to 15 years of "no solution?"

You are presuming that C had a reasonable chance of passage given the political climate under the Clinton Administration. And it most assuredly did not. You do recall that this was the era of government shutdowns resulting from the political battles between President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich right? Moreover, let's not gloss over the fact that the Dems NEVER argued that C was "unconstitutional"! My point here is that the individual mandate was a GOP proposal at the time. Whether or not it could have actually passed Congress is immaterial. All I am saying is that it strains credulity for elected officials to propose a particular legislative approach one day ... and then turn around and swear on a stack of bibles that they truly believe it to be "unconstitutional" the next.

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

All this text, but I have a hard time believing those on the right wouldn't rather the mandate got overturned instead of this presumptively "energized" base.

It would be much easier if the courts had overturned it.

But, this wasn't really the ruling either the left or right had expected though. Both sides thought that if it wasn't struck down, it would be a win for Obama. No one had really thought that it could stand and STILL be a really bad thing for Obama in the end or that the court would simply call Obama on his BS lies regarding whether or not this was a plan to tax and spend. They didn't rule positively for Obama's plan. They ruled positively for what he claimed his plan wasn't, which will cause him lots of problems in the coming months.

Again, a pyrrhic victory.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

All I am saying is that it strains credulity for elected officials to propose a particular legislative approach one day ... and then turn around and swear on a stack of bibles that they truly believe it to be "unconstitutional" the next.

As you said above, that would be "purely political"

You are presuming that C had a reasonable chance of passage given the political climate under the Clinton Administration. And it most assuredly did not. You do recall that this was the era of government shutdowns resulting from the political battles between President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich right? My point here is that the individual mandate was a GOP proposal at the time. Whether or not it could have actually passed Congress is immaterial.

This too is "purely political"

Both sides are "politicians," they don't hide this fact. Accusing them of acting "political" is redundant, and singling out one side for it is childish.

[The Final Dakar]

I guess the question I've had in mind but couldn't formulate is, does anyone thing Robert's reasoning is flawed?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

As you said above, that would be "purely political"


This too is "purely political"

Both sides are "politicians," they don't hide this fact. Accusing them of acting "political" is redundant, and singling out one side for it is childish.

Fair enough. But when it comes to "violence" there is "punch you in the face" and there is "shoot you in the head with a machine gun". Sure they are essentially the same in kind but vastly different in degree. One would think that provoking a constitutional crisis or bringing the nation to the brink of default would be oriented in "principle" and not "political"? Yet clearly that is not the case with the modern GOP. Nothing like a good false equivalency on a hot summer day right?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

One would think that provoking a constitutional crisis or bringing the nation to the brink of default would be oriented in "principle" and not "political"? Yet clearly that is not the case with the modern GOP. Nothing like a good false equivalency on a hot summer day right?

Bringing a case to the supreme court is a "crisis?" That's fanboi talk. The "brink" of default is nothing; actual default would have been something to complain about. More blame rests on those that ran up the debt to be defaulted on in the first place anyway. If this is "machine gun to the face" to you, then that is your false equivalency. Reigning in unaffordable government expansion is a worthy goal, and there's nothing wrong with using all the legitimate tools of government to do it. If they were going this far just to win an election, or to implement a cover-up, instead of guide important policy directions, that would be more debatable. You're really over-reacting here by a wide margin.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The interesting thing to me is that our good friends on the right clearly oppose single payer. They oppose an employer mandate to provide insurance. And they were for an individual mandate to purchase insurance before they were against it. Which sounds to me like they pretty much are opposed to any government action to achieve universal or even expanded health care coverage. Or am I missing something?

OAW

I honestly don't think they know what they want. I mean, they know they don't want government to have anything to do with health care, but I don't think they really know how to fix what we have now to make it work. I'm sure there are some on the right that do, but on the whole the only thing they seem unified on is making sure Obama's plans don't work.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I honestly don't think they know what they want. I mean, they know they don't want government to have anything to do with health care, but I don't think they really know how to fix what we have now to make it work. I'm sure there are some on the right that do, but on the whole the only thing they seem unified on is making sure Obama's plans don't work.

Kinda like how the left thinks about the budget

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Kinda like how the left thinks about the budget

That they don't know what they want, or that they are hellbent on blocking everything the right wants?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I guess the question I've had in mind but couldn't formulate is, does anyone thing Robert's reasoning is flawed?

His argument is one I hadn't considered before, since the administration assured everyone that this wasn't a tax.

I'm still debating internally, but I'm leaning towards thinking he's right. It is a tax, despite what Obama falsely claims, and the courts can't really decide to repeal a tax voted on by Congress.

Had some elected officials knew that the court would end up officially declaring it a tax, I'm guessing many Democrats that where bribed late in the game wouldn't have bitten, knowing that they'd have little plausible deniability for raising taxes on the middle class to increase spending on new social programs.

[The Final Dakar]

Actually they have perfect plausible deniability. It's the courts that "made" it a tax.

[P]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The only open question for me: who stole Roberts' balls ?

That is unfair. It would have been very easy for Roberts to go along with the conservative wing, let Scalia write a scathing opinion and just concur silently. Instead he truly considered the question before him, came to a conclusion and and wrote it - and this despite that he seems to not like the setup. He did his job, which makes him almost unique in this tangled mess.

I've read enough commentaries to understand the majority's reasoning. Does anyone have a link to an understandable analysis of why the minority thought that it was unconstitutional?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Bringing a case to the supreme court is a "crisis?" That's fanboi talk.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying that bringing a case to the SCOTUS is a "crisis" in and of itself. I'm saying that bringing a case that involves such a large sector of the economy to the SCOTUS ... when you know good and well that you really don't think it's unconstitutional since you were the ones who proposed it in the first place ... is EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE considering the huge consequences and economic disruption that would ensue if it was overturned.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The "brink" of default is nothing; actual default would have been something to complain about.

Tell that to Moody's which downgraded the US credit rating because it was brought to the "brink". Something which had never happened before. Not because they didn't think the US was ABLE to pay its debts. But because they were less confident in the US government's POLITICAL WILL to honor its debts.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

More blame rests on those that ran up the debt to be defaulted on in the first place anyway. If this is "machine gun to the face" to you, then that is your false equivalency.

Indeed. And the very people who brought the nation to the "brink" of default were the very same people who voted for the legislation that ran up said debt in the first place! Again, raising the debt limit was not about enabling a new spending spree. It was absolutely, 100% necessary so that funds could be borrowed to pay for legislation already enacted. Especially when these very people were dead set against enacting the necessary taxes to pay for it. Because being fiscally responsible would have been too much like right.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Reigning in unaffordable government expansion is a worthy goal, and there's nothing wrong with using all the legitimate tools of government to do it. If they were going this far just to win an election, or to implement a cover-up, instead of guide important policy directions, that would be more debatable. You're really over-reacting here by a wide margin.

Indeed it is a worthy goal. But I seriously do see it as "going this far just to win an election". Because what else could it be given the circumstances? Unless, of course, one thinks it's "legitimate" to 1) take out a loan for a car that obligates you for future payments, 2) cut your hours in half at your job because you really don't feel like working full time, and then 3) telling your wife that you refuse to borrow money from your brother-in-law so you can make the car note that you signed?

I'm just saying ....

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Actually they have perfect plausible deniability. It's the courts that "made" it a tax.

The courts didn't make it anything. They had no hand in creating the legislation. t just stated the obvious, on the record, officially.

They essentially said that Obama's claim that this wasn't a tax was BS. It was, and there's nothing they can do about it. Seems like pretty simple logic to me. All those folks who thought that they'd have nothing to lose if they voted and it was repealed, or could at least hide behind the idea that the court approved a mandate to get people to spend money for certain things and it not be a "tax" on the middle class probably aren't feeling real great about their decision right now. They're going to find themselves right back in the same stew the left themselves in when they originally had planned not to vote for higher taxes for increased spending on social programs back before Obama tried to give them some plausible deniability.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The courts didn't make it anything. It just stated the obvious, on the record, officially.

Alright, we're getting into semantic bullshit, I'm done.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The only open question for me: who stole Roberts' balls ?

-t

No one. Simply being ruled Constitutional does not mean it is good or bad legislation. He obviously has a bone to pick with wealthy retirees. The very poor will not pay the new tax. However, the 500 billion cut from Medicaid will get more wealthy seniors off the Golf Course. I'm ok with that. They live longer due to medicine, well, pay more. I'm down with it.

Justice Roberts today showed his David Souter side. Get used to it. He is young. If I were him I'd enhance my security.
Too many Sociopaths on the extreme right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by P 

That is unfair. It would have been very easy for Roberts to go along with the conservative wing, let Scalia write a scathing opinion and just concur silently. Instead he truly considered the question before him, came to a conclusion and and wrote it - and this despite that he seems to not like the setup. He did his job, which makes him almost unique in this tangled mess.

I've read enough commentaries to understand the majority's reasoning. Does anyone have a link to an understandable analysis of why the minority thought that it was unconstitutional?

I was going to say that it takes more balls to go against your own party, but then I stopped myself and thought that it would be even better if the supreme court justices were non-partisan to begin with, but it's kind of hard to see it this way, sadly.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Alright, we're getting into semantic bullshit, I'm done.

I think that was Robert's argument in a nutshell.

[OAW]

Indeed it is "semantic b*llshit". But the law is all about semantics n'est-ce pas?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here - here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average - our families - in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that.

That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy ...

OBAMA: No, but - but, George, you - you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any ...

Obama on whether individual mandate is a tax: It is absolutely not; | Fox News

An "individual mandate" which requires a person to have health insurance is not a "tax increase" per se as President Obama argued above. But clearly the "penalty" imposed if one chooses not to ... payable to the IRS ... is a freaking tax anyway you slice it. To claim otherwise would be retarded. Is it splitting hairs? Absolutely. Is it "nuanced" to the point of being "disingenuous"? Perhaps depending on how you look at it. But that's precisely what the Solicitor General Don Verrilli argued before the SCOTUS on behalf of the Obama Administration. He basically contended that the "individual mandate" was constitutional under the Commerce clause ... but he also made a secondary argument that the "penalty" was constitutional under the Tax and Spend clause.

Health care ruling: Don Verrilli emerges victorious - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying that bringing a case to the SCOTUS is a "crisis" in and of itself. I'm saying that bringing a case that involves such a large sector of the economy to the SCOTUS ... when you know good and well that you really don't think it's unconstitutional since you were the ones who proposed it in the first place ... is EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE considering the huge consequences and economic disruption that would ensue if it was overturned.

Highly selective gullibility. How do you know it wasn't "EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE" not to have this measure 15 years ago when the dems discarded it? How do you know the right wasn't proposing an intentionally unconstitutional proposal the last time? How do you know the "huge consequences and economic disruption" won't be from NOT overturning it? You assume they're playing the game now but weren't back then, just to put them in a poor light now. It's just partisan on your part, plain and simple.

Tell that to Moody's which downgraded the US credit rating because it was brought to the "brink". Something which had never happened before. Not because they didn't think the US was ABLE to pay its debts. But because they were less confident in the US government's POLITICAL WILL to honor its debts.

Long time coming. We're not fiscally responsible, and haven't been since the cold war. We don't deserve a AAA rating.

Indeed. And the very people who brought the nation to the "brink" of default were the very same people who voted for the legislation that ran up said debt in the first place! Again, raising the debt limit was not about enabling a new spending spree. It was absolutely, 100% necessary so that funds could be borrowed to pay for legislation already enacted. Especially when these very people were dead set against enacting the necessary taxes to pay for it. Because being fiscally responsible would have been too much like right.

Indeed it is a worthy goal. But I seriously do see it as "going this far just to win an election". Because what else could it be given the circumstances? Unless, of course, one thinks it's "legitimate" to 1) take out a loan for a car that obligates you for future payments, 2) cut your hours in half at your job because you really don't feel like working full time, and then 3) telling your wife that you refuse to borrow money from your brother-in-law so you can make the car note that you signed?

Educate me on how the Right signed off on the spending spree. I think it's more like they don't want to borrow from the brother-in-law to pay for a car they voted against but was bought in spite of their ardent objection.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That they don't know what they want, or that they are hellbent on blocking everything the right wants?

Both. They don't have any ideas on how to get it under control, and their policy is to avoid discussing it until their spending agenda is passed (which is in direct conflict with the goal of lowering costs).

[ironknee]

do you guys want to see Roberts' long form birth certificate now?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed it is "semantic b*llshit". But the law is all about semantics n'est-ce pas?



Obama on whether individual mandate is a tax: It is absolutely not; | Fox News

An "individual mandate" which requires a person to have health insurance is not a "tax increase" per se as President Obama argued above. But clearly the "penalty" imposed if one chooses not to ... payable to the IRS ... is a freaking tax anyway you slice it. To claim otherwise would be retarded. Is it splitting hairs? Absolutely. Is it "nuanced" to the point of being "disingenuous"? Perhaps depending on how you look at it. But that's precisely what the Solicitor General Don Verrilli argued before the SCOTUS on behalf of the Obama Administration. He basically contended that the "individual mandate" was constitutional under the Commerce clause ... but he also made a secondary argument that the "penalty" was constitutional under the Tax and Spend clause.

Health care ruling: Don Verrilli emerges victorious - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

OAW

Here is the problems.

Precedence. All but one or 2 states already require every person who drives to have liability insurance as a condition.

Argument, driving is optional. Yes it is.

Medical delivery, all hospitals are required to provide medical care even if a person has no insurance.

Argument, because hospitals are already required to provide medical care, mandatory medical insurance is justified, because the medical services people get are not optional so coverage should not be either.

I kinda agree with that.

My problem with Obama Care is the 2 different insurance systems, the private and the public can not work together in its current structure. The tax payer will foot the majority of the bill on one end while paying a lot more for insurance on the other end. Because insurance companies have to accept pre-existing conditions and they also know that every one HAS to have insurance will just jack up the prices for every one to maintain profit levels. So the middle class person who can't qualify for medicad will be paying taxes into medicad while paying more for personal insurance. Its a lose lose for people and a big win for private insurance companies.

A lot of aspects of the ObamaCare are good, but fail in the most important ways and is just going to cost a arm and a leg for every one. This is going to remove a lot of disposable income from people hurting the economy more. Medium size businesses are going to shed employees to save on medical costs. This will hurt the economy even more.

I don't think the constitutional issues around this issue was the biggest problem. Its the system itself that is going to bankrupt America that is.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm just here to watch the conservatives weep. Please begin while my popcorn is still warm.

I'm not weeping, I'm intrigued. It'll be interesting to watch the Federal budget totally collapse under its own weight. I have my popcorn in hand.

The state of TN has already stated they won't enforce the mandate, as have a dozen other states, and there really isn't much the Feds can do about it. *shrug*

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Educate me on how the Right signed off on the spending spree. I think it's more like they don't want to borrow from the brother-in-law to pay for a car they voted against but was bought in spite of their ardent objection.

- Bush Tax Cuts
- Iraq War
- Afghanistan War
- Medicare Part D

All enacted by the GOP during the Bush II Administration on the federal government credit card. And they made absolutely no fuss whatsoever about "borrowing from the brother-in-law" to make those payments under the Bush II Administration. But when the payments came due under the Obama Administration ...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've been following politics since President Reagan was in office. And the fact of the matter is that the GOP only concerns itself with the deficit when there's a Democrat in the White House. When they have full control, their attitude is exactly as Vice President Cheney said ... "Deficits don't matter." But I will say this. The GOP is masterful at messaging. They have huge segments of the US electorate totally convinced that they are a small-government, anti-deficit, and low-taxes party. When the reality is that if you pay attention not to what they SAY but to what they DO... they clearly are only the latter.



OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

the fact of the matter is that the GOP only concerns itself with the deficit when there's a Democrat in the White House. When they have full control, their attitude is exactly as Vice President Cheney said ... "Deficits don't matter."

Caring about it half the time is better than never caring at all

But I will say this. The GOP is masterful at messaging. They have huge segments of the US electorate totally convinced that they are a small-government, anti-deficit, and low-taxes party. When the reality is that if you pay attention not to what they SAY but to what they DO... they clearly are only the latter.

Again, halfway there is better than none of the way there

-Bush Tax Cuts
-Iraq
-Afghanistan

Tax cuts are not spending. Taxes aren't earnings, they're more like spending your nest egg. The government doesn't earn taxes; taxes are a necessary evil, and high taxes are not equivalent to low taxes. The purpose of budgeting is to lower taxes, not vice versa.

Wars are also a necessary evil, but hardly partisan and they are temporary and constitutional. Wars end, entitlements don't.

That projection for "Health reform and entitlements" is bullshit. That's like assigning a negative cost projection to the Iraq war because the profiteering would eclipse the costs.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Caring about it half the time is better than never caring at all


Again, halfway there is better than none of the way there

Nice!

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Tax cuts are not spending.

The fallacy with this argument that we so often hear is that it's rooted in the erroneous premise that only spending contributes to the deficit. When the reality is that the deficit is a function of taxes AND spending. Sorry, but you can't just focus on one aspect of the formula. At the end of the day, math is math.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The fallacy with this argument that we so often hear is that it's rooted in the erroneous premise that only spending contributes to the deficit. When the reality is that the deficit is a function of taxes AND spending. Sorry, but you can't just focus on one aspect of the formula. At the end of the day, math is math.

You say that as if the deficit was the end goal. It's not. The only reason to care about the deficit is to avoid having to raise taxes to cover it. We humans exist outside of government. The role of government is to serve we humans. You don't serve us by taxing us. You serve us by treading as lightly as possible.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Both. They don't have any ideas on how to get it under control, and their policy is to avoid discussing it until their spending agenda is passed (which is in direct conflict with the goal of lowering costs).

I'm sure they can do far more, but on the other hand, if you get our medical costs under control you get our debt under control.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

if you get our medical costs under control you get our debt under control.