Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[JimboDaMan]

So the govt lawyers were wrong in arguing it was not

and Obama lied about not raising taxes

Guess you had to wait to find out it was a tax along with how much they underestimated the costs

and people are still unhappy with it.

Does it hurt when you spin like that?

[sacase]

My girl and I were talking about this last night and it looks like I was right. I don't like the indicidual mandate but I said congress made it like that becaues they want to keep their jobs. Congress has the power to tax as they see fit, but if they called it a tax then many of them would lose their jobs, which is why the individual mandate exists. Its going to be interesting the next couple days to see how the spin machines spin this one. But I would wager that the GOP will be saying the Dems raised taxed during a recession.

[twa]

So clear this up for me... if you are paying for insurance, will you have to pay taxes directly related to this Act?

Not unless you are a employer...individuals will simply pay more taxes indirectly

[Koolblue13]

My opinion is (and was) it is a tax...and that is the only way it would be constitutional

so your opinion is Obama will ignore the courts ruling and still consider it NOT a tax because it is convenient ....gotcha

A fine is something that would pertain to an individual who doesn't comply, whereas a tax is something every single person pays, but can be exempt from. That's what I get from this.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

so your opinion is Obama will ignore the courts ruling and still consider it NOT a tax because it is convenient ....gotcha

He doesn't really have to do anything. Politically, he can say it's not a tax while living in a world where it's not overturned. The voters can treat that however they wish.

[HBnotBlades]

So clear this up for me... if you are paying for insurance, will you have to pay taxes directly related to this Act?

As I understand it, only if you drop your insurance plan. An extra tax will be levied against those without insurance.

[JMS]

I'm happy. This is pretty big for me, considering I just found out that I likely have a pretty serious pre-existing condition that would have made getting health insurance when I lapse at 27 extremely difficult.

Yeah Go figure? Now Insurance is affordable tor people who actually need it. What a revolutionary idea.

[NavyDave]

B. Allowing uninsured drivers on the road would be a disaster. I live in Texas - which is filled to the brim with uninsured drivers. It's a nightmare to deal with. I'm reaching the point where I think uninsured drivers who cause accidents should be charged with felonies.

Aren't illegal Aliens driving without insurance in Texas and Arizona? Now when illegal uninsured drivers get into multiple DUI accidents there, what do the authorities do? It's a no no to ask for papers such as license and registration from those who don't habla, right?

Heck whats to stop illegals from benefiting from Obamacare at the expense of legal taxpayers?

[ixcuincle]

http://twitter.com/LukeRussert/statuses/218381744561332224

A clearly elated Pelosi to the press: "Good afternoon! Pretty exciting day. A victory for America's families."

I think I threw up

How does she keep getting re-elected

[DjTj]

But it's not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act analysis. So it it was not a tax before it was a tax.

Or that "tax" means something different in the AIA than it does in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

LKB I agree about uninsured drivers....strangely just requiring it or a fine doesn't work

think health care will work out better?

What do you mean by "doesn't work?" Are you saying that it doesn't work because 100% of people don't have car insurance? Isn't it working if 90% of people have car insurance? Or if more people have car insurance than there would be if there wasn't a law? Just because we don't prevent 100% of murders doesn't mean that the laws against murder aren't working.

[The Evil Genius]

http://twitter.com/LukeRussert/statuses/218381744561332224

I think I threw up

How does she keep getting re-elected

She (her district) represents 4/5 of the city and county of SF. She's a moderate compared to some who live there.

*hides from Predicto*

Edited June 28, 2012 by The Evil Genius

[JMS]

http://twitter.com/LukeRussert/statuses/218378456763858944

I AGREE

I agree too, this was incredible painful for the administration and the country. This is with Obama being a pragmatist, proposing one of the plans originally and recently championed by some in the GOP. One wonders if Obama had actually attempted substantial reform what would have happenned? Likewise Obama here got Hospital companies, and drug companies on board in his favor ahead of time agreeing to a bill. The one oponent to this package was only the insurance companies. It's amaizing the fight they were able to mount on such a modest proposal.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 12:41 PM ----------

http://twitter.com/LukeRussert/statuses/218381744561332224

I think I threw up

How does she keep getting re-elected

Why is that quote so bad? It's modest, but it is something.. Pre-existing conditions go away... young people can stay on their familly plans longer, profits for insurance companies are capped at 25%, minimal services are established on policies, and a sort of competition is established..... I think all of that is a good thing for the consumer...

Not as good as it could be, but better.

Edited June 28, 2012 by JMS

[Baylor Alum]

Whatever you think about the decision, I think it takes the wind out of the sails of those who call the Supreme Court an activist Court. Chief Justice Roberts clearly disfavors the law and went to great pains to say so. Heck, how much more dirt could he throw on the ACA than he did when he said "Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences oftheir political choices."

But despite his beliefs, he decided the case on the law as he sees it. That is what a judge is supposed to do whether you agree with the decision or not. In fact, his decision to uphold it as a tax is contrary to his true belief. He doesn't think it is a tax. He thinks it is an unconstitutional command. But because calling it a tax is "fairly possible" then it has to be construed that way to save the statute. That is what being a good judge is about - staying faithful to the Constitution even when you have severe doubts doing so.

[thebluefood]

The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purposeof restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” §7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose todescribe the “hared responsibility payment” imposed onthose who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a“penalty.” §§5000A(, (g)(2). There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” wouldapply to a “penalty.”

Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty”rather than a “tax” is significant because the AffordableCare Act describes many other exactions it creates as“taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where Congress uses certain language in one part of a statuteand different language in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).

Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat it as such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functions like a tax. It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction

Question to our resident legal eagles out there: if Congress described the payment made by people who don't have insurance and aren't exempted by the Affordable Health Care Act a "penalty" instead of a "tax," doesn't that mean it's illegal, even if it "functions like a tax?" Maybe I'm reading into it too literally, but it seems like Congress made a distinction between penalties and taxes in the bill. A tax would be perfectly legal under the first article of the Constitution that says Congress has the right to levy taxes, duties, etc. A penalty, though, would imply that Congress is coercing citizens into purchasing health insurance. If Congress wrote "penalty" and meant "penalty," doesn't that make the Individual Mandate illegal? It almost seems like the SCOTUS is putting words in Congress' mouth.

Once again, this is a question and not a condemnation. Please tell me if I'm misreading this so I can more fully understand what's going on.

[Baylor Alum]

Or that "tax" means something different in the AIA than it does in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

.

I know. But I love to point out legal backbending even when it is technically correct. Like someone said, "law is fun."

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Once again, this is a question and not a condemnation. Please tell me if I'm misreading this so I can more fully understand what's going on.

Congress can call it "a banana" if they want. The court cares about what it is in reality.

I would really not read the Anit-Injunction stuff too closely. It doesn't matter in the end and will only serve to confuse you.

The court ruled that for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, it is not a tax. But for purposes of Article I, Section 8, it is a tax.

[greenspandan]

They've used "fine" and "tax" interchangeably, based on which one suited their needs at any given time.

It was deemed constitutional because the SCOTUS condisidered it a tax. $250k my ass.

don't worry, nobody believes you were about to vote for obama if not for supreme court semantics.

[The Evil Genius]

:doh:

STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON TODAY’S SUPREME COURT DECISION

June 28, 2012

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision today on President Obama’s health care bill:

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is disappointing. Obamacare is unpopular with the American people because it puts Washington in control of our health care choices and does nothing to address the real problems in our system – most importantly the rapidly rising and unsustainable costs. In fact, Obamacare does the opposite, driving up the cost of health care and, as a result, impedes the economic recovery this country so badly needs. Congress should immediately begin the process of repealing Obamacare and replace it with common sense reforms that ensure all Americans can get the care they need at a price they can afford.”

Edited June 28, 2012 by The Evil Genius

[thebluefood]

Congress can call it "a banana" if they want. The court cares about what it is in reality.

I would really not read the Anit-Injunction stuff too closely. It doesn't matter in the end and will only serve to confuse you.

The court ruled that for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act' date=' it is not a tax. But for purposes of Article I, Section 8, it is a tax.[/quote']

And since the Constitution trumps all other legal documents in the United States, its interpretation (or at least, the court's interpretation of the Constitution's interpretation) of the Individual Mandate is a tax and, therefore, legal, yes?

[Baylor Alum]

Question to our resident legal eagles out there: if Congress described the payment made by people who don't have insurance and aren't exempted by the Affordable Health Care Act a "penalty" instead of a "tax," doesn't that mean it's illegal, even if it "functions like a tax?" Maybe I'm reading into it too literally, but it seems like Congress made a distinction between penalties and taxes in the bill. A tax would be perfectly legal under the first article of the Constitution that says Congress has the right to levy taxes, duties, etc. A penalty, though, would imply that Congress is coercing citizens into purchasing health insurance. If Congress wrote "penalty" and meant "penalty," doesn't that make the Individual Mandate illegal? It almost seems like the SCOTUS is putting words in Congress' mouth.

Once again, this is a question and not a condemnation. Please tell me if I'm misreading this so I can more fully understand what's going on.

What CJ Roberts said is that for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, the label congress applies is dispositive. So if they call it a penalty and not a tax, the AIA does not apply. But for purposes of determining constitutionality, the Court is not bound by the label congress attaches to the term. Rather, they look to the substance of the regulation to determine whether it is a tax or a penalty. And Robert s believes it is a penaly (or command as he put it). But because reading it as a tax is "fairly possible" he felt constrained to construe it as a tax to save the statute from being held unconstitutional.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Baylor Alum

[greenspandan]

voters are really going to appreciate the GOP freaking out over this rather than the economy (and people aren't going to buy that this is a huge job killer, either).

[JMS]

Whatever you think about the decision, I think it takes the wind out of the sails of those who call the Supreme Court an activist Court. Chief Justice Roberts clearly disfavors the law and went to great pains to say so.

I think anytime the court overturns decades of precident like it did on campagn donations and freedom of speech, the activist label applies... whether they are always activitst or not. There is no doubt this court is changing things (activist) the only question is whether you think that's for the better or not.

Edited June 28, 2012 by JMS

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Someone tell me how this law puts "Washington in control of our health care choices." Then explain to me how it does so more than medicare already does. This is like "keep your government hands off my medicare" all over again.

[Kilmer17]

They argued it both ways. Which is neat.

He can say it's not a tax' date=' because he still views it as a penalty under the Commerce Clause. Law is fun.

Elections have consequences.[/quote']

The last bit should be on everyones mind at all times.

We get the Govt, and the legislation, we deserve.

I look forward to the next SCOTUS nomination battle too.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 12:55 PM ----------

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices- Chief Justice John Roberts.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Kilmer17

[JMS]

:doh:

Yeah I don't know what McCain is thinking. Healthcare is one of the most heavily regulated / controled segement of the economy and has been since 1940's. Every aspect of the system requires certifications, liscenses, and government oversite..... The government even interfears with competition in our healthcare system via the McCarran-Ferguson Act fo 1945.

fundimentally what makes obama care pragmatic and conservative is it is a reform of the existing system, not blowing up the existing system and creating something new.

Edited June 28, 2012 by JMS