Jump to content

chasfh

Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act

Recommended Posts

There is some evidence that everyone is getting this wrong, that this is a HUGE win for conservatives. Once the reality sinks in the left is going to feel like Bubba in 1984.

1) By defining the Mandate as a tax:

a)gives Romney a big hammer to pound Obama with.

b)Eliminates the need for a filibuster proof majority to overturn it, now it can be overturned in reconciliation with 50 or 51 votes.

c) Invites another challenge on the constitutional basis of a tax that originated in the Senate which is specifically prohibited.

2) It looks like that in exchange for the above Roberts and the court severely curbed Congressional powers under the Commerce clause which has been the instrument of increasing federal leverage since the New Deal.

As I read somewhere today, most of the Court was playing poker (worrying about this hand) and Roberts was playing chess (looking 15-20 moves/years ahead).

The Supreme Court

Roberts health care opinion, Commerce Clause: The real reason the chief justice upheld Obamacare. - Slate Magazine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a)gives Romney a big hammer to pound Obama with.

a) Romney is going to have a couple of problems in doing this.

1) The law is basically the fraternal twin of his Mass. Law

2) Obamacare as Obamacare is unpopular.... the individual components of Obamacare actually poll pretty well

I think he's going to have his moment here, and move back to more fertile ground: the economy

b)Eliminates the need for a filibuster proof majority to overturn it, now it can be overturned in reconciliation with 50 or 51 votes.

He still has to stand election and win first, which is not only not a guaruntee, but he's actually losing slightly at the moment... I'd say that an unconstitutional ruling would have been a bigger win for conservatives on this front.

c) Invites another challenge on the constitutional basis of a tax that originated in the Senate which is specifically prohibited.

I don't think that dog is gonna hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that dog is gonna hunt.

Why not? Was the constitution amended on that? I sincerely don't understand why you think that might not be valid.

and BTW, I agree entirely that Romney has to win AND they need to take the Senate to repeal so that's a pretty steep hill to climb but perhaps less steep than 60 votes in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) Obamacare as Obamacare is unpopular.... the individual components of Obamacare actually poll pretty well

I doubt the popularity will remain IF he can frame it as a multi Trillion $ tax increase. Success or failure on that point probably determines how much of an issue it becomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is some evidence that everyone is getting this wrong, that this is a HUGE win for conservatives. Once the reality sinks in the left is going to feel like Bubba in 1984.

1) By defining the Mandate as a tax:

the denial that the mandate was a tax was always for political consumption, not legal theory. With the deed done, if you get the uninsured to even smaller percentages of the population (which is the whole object) then such a small % of the pop will pay the 'tax' that it will have little bite as a political issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt the popularity will remain IF he can frame it as a multi Trillion $ tax increase. Success or failure on that point probably determines how much of an issue it becomes.

How on earth can you construe it as a conventional multi trillion $ tax increase? If you simply buy health insurance, it's a $0.00 dollar tax.

Sorry, this argument simply falls flat with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One analogy I saw is Obama wins the battle but Roberts win the war because of the striking it down under Commerce.

And yes, the Tax thing was political. The administration had it as a tax in one of hteir 3 arguments in support it. So you have the President telling the public one thing and his lawyer telling the court another. Is that lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

What I suspect happens is justices and judges figure out what they want to rule then try to frame the decision to fit that argument. In other words "I want this outcome because that's "my side"... how can I figure that out?". .

Well we certainly know some do this, and recently in Scalia's case he isn't even shy anymore about putting his politics out there for public view on a regular basis, which is sort of a low in bad judicial form IMO anyway. But in the past it has certainly been true on the liberal side as well. I remember an interview a number of years ago with Brennan after he had retired in which he admitted to this very strategy.

Whether they all do it? All we can do is hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One analogy I saw is Obama wins the battle but Roberts win the war because of the striking it down under Commerce.

And yes, the Tax thing was political. The administration had it as a tax in one of hteir 3 arguments in support it. So you have the President telling the public one thing and his lawyer telling the court another. Is that lying?

I'm sure I mind if Roberts 'wins the war'. It seems like he has started to separate himself from the loony right a little. A somewhat 'honest broker' as CJ would not be a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope by virtue of being alive they don't rule that I have to eat green beans next, yuck!

I don't know about green beans, but what about if you get to live? Death panels bro. The UK's socialist healthcare system euthanizes 130,000 people a year.

In a recent exposé, Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent, revealed that of the 450,000 patients who die annually under the care of the NHS, 130,000 of them were on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is a process whereby a doctor identifies a patient who is likely to die and that patient is then heavily sedated while treatment is withdrawn, “including the provision of water and nourishment by tube.”

“If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths,” Pullicino said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I am Allan Mullaly or any CEO in America, I drop all of my employees who aren't contractually obligated tomorrow!

Because companies thrive without their talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about green beans, but what about if you get to live? Death panels bro. The UK's socialist healthcare system euthanizes 130,000 people a year.

Obamacare isn't even remotely similar to the UK's healthcare system bro.

Do you have a link to that thing you posted?

The only death panels in this country are private insurers who withhold treatment when its profitable for them to do so.

Edited by pfife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Savage blamed the Roberts "switch" on his epilepsy medication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One analogy I saw is Obama wins the battle but Roberts win the war because of the striking it down under Commerce.

And yes, the Tax thing was political. The administration had it as a tax in one of hteir 3 arguments in support it. So you have the President telling the public one thing and his lawyer telling the court another. Is that lying?

What was the president calling it?

It's been long known and discussed in this forum that it was a tax. That was intentionally done for exactly the reason it passed today, because its obvious to almost everyone, except people who think the 16th amendment was never passed, that Congress has the power to tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Savage blamed the Roberts "switch" on his epilepsy medication.

love the implicit conservative arrogance. "we had to be right, if you disagree you're on drugs".

total hack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269315_10151868331140472_737439084_n.jpg

fwiw, big brother isn't forcing you to buy healthcare, he's taxing you if you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What was the president calling it?

It's been long known and discussed in this forum that it was a tax. That was intentionally done for exactly the reason it passed today, because its obvious to almost everyone, except people who think the 16th amendment was never passed, that Congress has the power to tax.

He was calling it something other than a tax, wasn't he? In the stephanopolous interview? Wasn't the whole political argument against it raising taxes on the middle class that it wasn't a tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was calling it something other than a tax, wasn't he? In the stephanopolous interview? Wasn't the whole political argument against it raising taxes on the middle class that it wasn't a tax?

I don't remember what he called it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question I've not seen addressed - all those waivers that were handed out to unions, etc on the mandate. Are they still valid? Can you hand out waivers on taxes to one group and not another? I really don't think a complete waiver is comparable to a tax deduction, I guess we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That interview looks like Obama said its not a tax increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Congress never comes out with a tax if we don't buy tickets to NBA games each year.....cause i really freaking hate the NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To quote Mike Tyson, I think I just had an ephithany.

When one person gets a tax credit doesn't that by default mean that the person who doesn't get the credit pays a tax for not participating in whatever activity warrants the credit? If you have kids and get the tax credit then those without kids pay higher taxes. Does the absence of a tax credit = a tax? The government says "We want the public to drive electric or hybrid vehicles. Those that do get a tax credit. Those that choose not to purchase one, do not get the credit. Their taxes are higher". What is the difference?

So people who don't have a mortgage are being taxed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...