Author Topic: Bottom Line on Obamacare  (Read 11024 times)

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Bottom Line on Obamacare
« on: June 29, 2012, 08:01:30 PM »
Regardless of my own political leanings, I take exception to this ruling because it amounts to a legal comedy of contradictions and blatant fallacies that cannot be reconciled with reality. And by blatant fallacies, I don't mean matters of opinion. Demonstrable, actual, factual fraud has been perpetrated upon the American people.

I read the 180+ page decision. In addition, I also read and re-read the Roberts opinion and the 70+ page dissent twice. Had this law been upheld on sound legal ground through the legitimate application of the constitution, then I would come to accept the result. However, this is simply not the case—and no argument can be made to the contrary. Unfortunately, winning trumps the truth every single time (especially in politics and law).

I'm not going to delve into the legalese too much, but in simple terms there are three glaringly obvious misstatements of fact  which ultimately preserved the individual mandate of the ACA (The affordable care act) as a constitutionally permissible tax.

(1)   On the first day of oral arguments, solicitor general Verrilli argued that the individual mandate was not a tax. On day two, he argued that it was a tax. When Justice Alito questioned Verrilli as to whether the Supreme Court had ever ruled that an aspect of legislation is a tax for one purpose while simultaneously not being a tax for another, Verrilli answered in the negative.  Yet, that is the crux of the Roberts opinion. On page 15 of the Roberts opinion he plainly states that the individual mandate is not a tax while on page 35 he opines the EXACT opposite. Throw in the following facts: Obama has repeated ad nauseum that the individual mandate is not a tax, the Federal Government argued in more than one of the district court cases which led to the SC showdown that the bill was not a tax and that the bill was RENAMED and restructured prior to its passage to purposely remove the tax label in an unsuccessful effort to shield Congressional Democrats from the 2010 midterm onslaught.

(2)   Even the liberal justices on the court DISSENT from Robert’s mindless theory that the individual mandate is a tax.

(3)   By legal definition and the plain statutory language of the ACA, the individual mandate is penalty and NOT a tax.  Page 18 of the dissenting opinion says in relevant portion: “In a few cases, this court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty.  But we have never held—never-- that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.”

I can go on and on—but the bottom line here is that this decision was upheld on an invalid and utterly dishonest legal premise.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2012, 09:27:59 PM »
Roberts is a traitor and should resign his seat immediately. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66458
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2012, 11:14:39 PM »
Regardless of my own political leanings, I take exception to this ruling because it amounts to a legal comedy of contradictions and blatant fallacies that cannot be reconciled with reality. And by blatant fallacies, I don't mean matters of opinion. Demonstrable, actual, factual fraud has been perpetrated upon the American people.

I read the 180+ page decision. In addition, I also read and re-read the Roberts opinion and the 70+ page dissent twice. Had this law been upheld on sound legal ground through the legitimate application of the constitution, then I would come to accept the result. However, this is simply not the case—and no argument can be made to the contrary. Unfortunately, winning trumps the truth every single time (especially in politics and law).

I'm not going to delve into the legalese too much, but in simple terms there are three glaringly obvious misstatements of fact  which ultimately preserved the individual mandate of the ACA (The affordable care act) as a constitutionally permissible tax.

(1)   On the first day of oral arguments, solicitor general Verrilli argued that the individual mandate was not a tax. On day two, he argued that it was a tax. When Justice Alito questioned Verrilli as to whether the Supreme Court had ever ruled that an aspect of legislation is a tax for one purpose while simultaneously not being a tax for another, Verrilli answered in the negative.  Yet, that is the crux of the Roberts opinion. On page 15 of the Roberts opinion he plainly states that the individual mandate is not a tax while on page 35 he opines the EXACT opposite. Throw in the following facts: Obama has repeated ad nauseum that the individual mandate is not a tax, the Federal Government argued in more than one of the district court cases which led to the SC showdown that the bill was not a tax and that the bill was RENAMED and restructured prior to its passage to purposely remove the tax label in an unsuccessful effort to shield Congressional Democrats from the 2010 midterm onslaught.

(2)   Even the liberal justices on the court DISSENT from Robert’s mindless assertion that the individual mandate is a tax.

(3)   By legal definition and the plain statutory language of the ACA, the individual mandate is penalty and NOT a tax.  Page 18 of the dissenting opinion says in relevant portion: “In a few cases, this court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty.  But we have never held—never-- that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.”

I can go on and on—but the bottom line here is that this decision was upheld on an invalid and utterly dishonest legal premise.


Great analysis George.

Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2012, 12:37:08 AM »
A wise getbigger once summed up this entire issue with all it's complex legal, economical, and constitutional repercussions, by saying:

"You're just angry that kids with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance now. "

-garebear




James

  • Guest
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2012, 05:56:31 AM »
Regardless of my own political leanings, I take exception to this ruling because it amounts to a legal comedy of contradictions and blatant fallacies that cannot be reconciled with reality. And by blatant fallacies, I don't mean matters of opinion. Demonstrable, actual, factual fraud has been perpetrated upon the American people.

I read the 180+ page decision. In addition, I also read and re-read the Roberts opinion and the 70+ page dissent twice. Had this law been upheld on sound legal ground through the legitimate application of the constitution, then I would come to accept the result. However, this is simply not the case—and no argument can be made to the contrary. Unfortunately, winning trumps the truth every single time (especially in politics and law).

I'm not going to delve into the legalese too much, but in simple terms there are three glaringly obvious misstatements of fact  which ultimately preserved the individual mandate of the ACA (The affordable care act) as a constitutionally permissible tax.

(1)   On the first day of oral arguments, solicitor general Verrilli argued that the individual mandate was not a tax. On day two, he argued that it was a tax. When Justice Alito questioned Verrilli as to whether the Supreme Court had ever ruled that an aspect of legislation is a tax for one purpose while simultaneously not being a tax for another, Verrilli answered in the negative.  Yet, that is the crux of the Roberts opinion. On page 15 of the Roberts opinion he plainly states that the individual mandate is not a tax while on page 35 he opines the EXACT opposite. Throw in the following facts: Obama has repeated ad nauseum that the individual mandate is not a tax, the Federal Government argued in more than one of the district court cases which led to the SC showdown that the bill was not a tax and that the bill was RENAMED and restructured prior to its passage to purposely remove the tax label in an unsuccessful effort to shield Congressional Democrats from the 2010 midterm onslaught.

(2)   Even the liberal justices on the court DISSENT from Robert’s mindless assertion that the individual mandate is a tax.

(3)   By legal definition and the plain statutory language of the ACA, the individual mandate is penalty and NOT a tax.  Page 18 of the dissenting opinion says in relevant portion: “In a few cases, this court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty.  But we have never held—never-- that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.”

I can go on and on—but the bottom line here is that this decision was upheld on an invalid and utterly dishonest legal premise.


George, No one truly knows but Roberts, but if you had to guess, why do you think he ruled this way? Seizure medication (as Michael Savage said)? Not as pro-constitutionalists as were were led to believe?  Did not want the SC to be seen as partisan?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2012, 06:27:30 AM »
George, No one truly knows but Roberts, but if you had to guess, why do you think he ruled this way? Seizure medication (as Michael Savage said)? Not as pro-constitutionalists as were were led to believe?  Did not want the SC to be seen as partisan?

there's another clear option you and others fantasizing over republicans being the saviors of free America are not considering lol...

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2012, 06:29:39 AM »
I don't think it was the seizure meds - Roberts has been very conservative since the incident.

I think he got soft on socialized medicine after sitting in a hospital bed scared for his life.  He probably thinks conservative is the way to go for plenty of things in society, but when it comes to healing illness and removing that fear of dying, everyone deserves the same.  

That's my guess... He had a near-death experience, realized how helpless that feels, and knows it can all be over at any second.  So he is a liberal on this one issue now.

James

  • Guest
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2012, 07:00:32 AM »
I don't think it was the seizure meds - Roberts has been very conservative since the incident.

I think he got soft on socialized medicine after sitting in a hospital bed scared for his life.  He probably thinks conservative is the way to go for plenty of things in society, but when it comes to healing illness and removing that fear of dying, everyone deserves the same.  

That's my guess... He had a near-death experience, realized how helpless that feels, and knows it can all be over at any second.  So he is a liberal on this one issue now.


fixed.



garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2012, 07:22:54 AM »
A wise getbigger once summed up this entire issue with all it's complex legal, economical, and constitutional repercussions, by saying:

"You're just angry that kids with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance now. "

-garebear




Thanks for taking note, bro.

I appreciate it.

G

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2012, 07:58:28 AM »
George, No one truly knows but Roberts, but if you had to guess, why do you think he ruled this way? Seizure medication (as Michael Savage said)? Not as pro-constitutionalists as were were led to believe?  Did not want the SC to be seen as partisan?


I think that Savage's comment is moronic to be honest with you.

Roberts caved to external pressures. He is concerned with the courts legacy (on his watch) and is determined to be remembered by Law School professors and the elites in the MSM as a hero. He abandoned the law and his principles in favor of praise and adulation. That is undoubtedly part of the explanation for his remarkable change of heart.

I also believe that Roberts is trying to have it both ways. He is being a little bit too clever by half. By leaving the law in tact and calling it a tax, he effectively punts the ball back to the public and leaves the possibility of repeal in the hands of the legislature. Extremely dangerous, reckless and quite frankly stupid calculation on his part. He can avoid personal responsibility for his legally fallacious opinion, while trumpeting his neutrality and pushing the issue back onto the table for the upcoming presidential/ congressional elections.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2012, 08:08:41 AM »
fixed.




Look at the facts.  Roberts is a lifetime conservative who gets soft on healthcare, after he has a health scare.  Do you have another theory?  I don't see how his medicine affects ONLY this aspect of his performance.

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2012, 09:09:30 AM »
Look at the facts.  Roberts is a lifetime conservative who gets soft on healthcare, after he has a health scare.  Do you have another theory?  I don't see how his medicine affects ONLY this aspect of his performance.

Is that why Roberts wrote his equally lawless opinion in the Arizona immigration case? His own healthcare scare?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2012, 09:22:37 AM »
Is that why Roberts wrote his equally lawless opinion in the Arizona immigration case? His own healthcare scare?

he wants to ensure 12 million illegals aren't sent back.  If they're sent back, they can't enjoy universal healthcare.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2012, 09:39:18 AM »
 :)



Fuck you.   For you to think this is anything but a complete disaster beyond words just shows why liar you are, not to mention a socialist piece of shit. 



he wants to ensure 12 million illegals aren't sent back.  If they're sent back, they can't enjoy universal healthcare.

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2012, 09:41:32 AM »
:)



Fuck you.   For you to think this is anything but a complete disaster beyond words just shows why liar you are, not to mention a socialist piece of shit. 



As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.

As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty — who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care — will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock is a clinical psychologist.


http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12523427?source=share_fb
G

Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2012, 11:29:29 AM »
there's another clear option you and others fantasizing over republicans being the saviors of free America are not considering lol...

Good post, hope people start to catch on...

Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2012, 11:34:46 AM »
Thanks for taking note, bro.

I appreciate it.



Fight the power!  8)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2012, 11:38:08 AM »
Consider the below examples I came up with now totally legitimate under Roberts’ treasonous decision. This does not even scratch the surface of the congress’ new powers:
 
Apple lobbies obama and the congress to force people to buy an ipad as part of an “education law” or face a tax penalty - legal
 
Ruger lobbies Romney to force Americans to buy firearms and take self defense classes under ‘anti-Crime” law or face a tax - legal
 
Chevy wants to recoup its losses from the bailout by lobbying congress to force us to buy a volt or face a tax - legal
 
Solyndra lobbies obama to force americans to buy its solar panels under new “Environmental Law” or face a tax - legal
 
NYSC lobbies Romney to force people to buy gym memberships under new “Anti-Obesity” law or face a tax - legal
 
Monsanto lobbies Obama to force american to buy tomatos, salads, etc under new “Safe Food” law or face a tax - legal
 
Trek lobbies the congress and president to force people to by a mountain bike as part of “anti-obesity” law or face a tax - legal
 
Valvoline lobbies president and congress to mandate proof of oil changes in your car every 4,000 miles as part of “transportation law” or face a tax - legal
 
American Standard lobbies president and congress to by new toilet bowl w new tech as part of “safe water” act or face a tax - legal
 
Johnson and Johnson lobbies congress to force women to use “green tampons” as part of a “environmental law” or face a tax, legal
 
National Assoc. of Realtors lobbies Romney and the Congress as part of a “Economic Growth Law” to force Homeowners to purchase mandatory home warranty for 5 years - Legal
 
See where this is going folks? Roberts is a traitor as he almost single handidly made us slaves this week to literally anything these thugs in the congress want to compel us into.






You liberals, communists, socialists, statists and thugs supporting this should consider the above when more thuggery is forced on you. 

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2012, 01:47:15 PM »
Consider the below examples I came up with now totally legitimate under Roberts’ treasonous decision. This does not even scratch the surface of the congress’ new powers:
 
Apple lobbies obama and the congress to force people to buy an ipad as part of an “education law” or face a tax penalty - legal
 
Ruger lobbies Romney to force Americans to buy firearms and take self defense classes under ‘anti-Crime” law or face a tax - legal
 
Chevy wants to recoup its losses from the bailout by lobbying congress to force us to buy a volt or face a tax - legal
 
Solyndra lobbies obama to force americans to buy its solar panels under new “Environmental Law” or face a tax - legal
 
NYSC lobbies Romney to force people to buy gym memberships under new “Anti-Obesity” law or face a tax - legal
 
Monsanto lobbies Obama to force american to buy tomatos, salads, etc under new “Safe Food” law or face a tax - legal
 
Trek lobbies the congress and president to force people to by a mountain bike as part of “anti-obesity” law or face a tax - legal
 
Valvoline lobbies president and congress to mandate proof of oil changes in your car every 4,000 miles as part of “transportation law” or face a tax - legal
 
American Standard lobbies president and congress to by new toilet bowl w new tech as part of “safe water” act or face a tax - legal
 
Johnson and Johnson lobbies congress to force women to use “green tampons” as part of a “environmental law” or face a tax, legal
 
National Assoc. of Realtors lobbies Romney and the Congress as part of a “Economic Growth Law” to force Homeowners to purchase mandatory home warranty for 5 years - Legal
 
See where this is going folks? Roberts is a traitor as he almost single handidly made us slaves this week to literally anything these thugs in the congress want to compel us into.






You liberals, communists, socialists, statists and thugs supporting this should consider the above when more thuggery is forced on you. 

QFT and what makes this decision even more outrageous is that the precedent set by this case will be intact regardless of who wins the 2012 election or which party gains majority control of the legislative branch. That's what all the idiots celebrating this case fail to realize. In order to take this hideously unjust decision off the books the taxing power issue will have to be re-litigated, successfully challenged, brought to the Supreme Court and overruled.

Follow me here= The only possible way to save this country and reestablish the rule of law is for Romney to win, Ginsberg to die, a new Conservative Supreme Court Justice to be appointed AND THEN the issue of the taxing power would have to somehow reappear before the Supreme Court. That's a lot of if's and's and maybes.

Until then, the Federal Government has unlimited power to tax. UNLIMITED. Never mind that the constitution only provides Congress with 3 permissible ways to tax-- none of which are addressed by the Obamacare decision. Basically, Roberts re-wrote the ACA in violation of the constitution by using an incoherent and legally inconsistent functionality test that was pulled out of thin air.  Article 1 section 8 clause 1 sets forth the only enumerated and permissible means by which Congress can tax. Roberts addresses none of these, nor does he explain how he gets around the requirements of Article 1. He simply invented new legal precedent without explanation to ensure the ACA was upheld as constitutional.




Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2012, 02:32:04 PM »
QFT and what makes this decision even more outrageous is that the precedent set by this case will be intact regardless of who wins the 2012 election or which party gains majority control of the legislative branch. That's what all the idiots celebrating this case fail to realize. In order to take this hideously unjust decision off the books the taxing power issue will have to be re-litigated, successfully challenged, brought to the Supreme Court and overruled.

Follow me here= The only possible way to save this country and reestablish the rule of law is for Romney to win, Ginsberg to die, a new Conservative Supreme Court Justice to be appointed AND THEN the issue of the taxing power would have to somehow reappear before the Supreme Court. That's a lot of if's and's and maybes.

Until then, the Federal Government has unlimited power to tax. UNLIMITED. Never mind that the constitution only provides Congress with 3 permissible ways to tax-- none of which are addressed by the Obamacare decision. Basically, Roberts re-wrote the ACA in violation of the constitution by using an incoherent and legally inconsistent functionality test that was pulled out of thin air.  Article 1 section 8 clause 1 sets forth the only enumerated and permissible means by which Congress can tax. Roberts addresses none of these, nor does he explain how he gets around the requirements of Article 1. He simply invented new legal precedent without explanation to ensure the ACA was upheld as constitutional.





Yup - even if Romney repeals Obamacare we are stuck with ruling that gives these traitors in the Congress unlimited taxing power.  Even worse - Roberts' decision basically voided the Commerce Clause as some possible check on the congress since now all they have to do is add a tax or penalty for non-compliance for whatever activity they are trying to compel and its totally legal now. 

 

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2012, 10:33:33 PM »
Yup - even if Romney repeals Obamacare we are stuck with ruling that gives these traitors in the Congress unlimited taxing power.  Even worse - Roberts' decision basically voided the Commerce Clause as some possible check on the congress since now all they have to do is add a tax or penalty for non-compliance for whatever activity they are trying to compel and its totally legal now. 

 
They're coming for your guns.

Better buy some more.

G

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2012, 12:55:30 AM »
They're coming for your guns.

Better buy some more.



Fuck off troll.  Obama and his AG tried that w fast n furious and it failed.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5647
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2012, 02:22:09 AM »
Until then, the Federal Government has unlimited power to tax. UNLIMITED. Never mind that the constitution only provides Congress with 3 permissible ways to tax-- none of which are addressed by the Obamacare decision. Basically, Roberts re-wrote the ACA in violation of the constitution by using an incoherent and legally inconsistent functionality test that was pulled out of thin air.  Article 1 section 8 clause 1 sets forth the only enumerated and permissible means by which Congress can tax. Roberts addresses none of these, nor does he explain how he gets around the requirements of Article 1. He simply invented new legal precedent without explanation to ensure the ACA was upheld as constitutional.

I don't disagree that Roberts' decision cracks opens a door that should have stayed close but you may want to read up on the 16th Amendment, which slightly alters the calculus of taxes since Article 1 isn't the only thing that applies and which makes your "legal analysis" not quite right: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2012, 04:42:22 AM »
I don't disagree that Roberts' decision cracks opens a door that should have stayed close but you may want to read up on the 16th Amendment, which slightly alters the calculus of taxes since Article 1 isn't the only thing that applies and which makes your "legal analysis" not quite right: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

How is a mandate or penalty "income".

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2012, 05:54:13 AM »
How is a mandate or penalty "income".
You don't need to worry about "income" since you don't have any.

HTH.

G