...including the individual mandate, not under the Commerce Clause but the
Taxing Clause.
Quote
Question: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, can the rest of the law stand, or is the whole thing unconstitutional?
The court's answer: The mandate is constitutional, rendering moot further questions on the rest of the law.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/
...and Obama and the Dems swore up and down that Obamacare was not a tax :o
I wonder how long this thread goes before being moved to R&P... ;)
You don't have to worry about me chiming in....my head exploded at the news >:(
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 28, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
You don't have to worry about me chiming in....my head exploded at the news >:(
Wrap it in bacon.
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 28, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
You don't have to worry about me chiming in....my head exploded at the news >:(
Mine too. Not in a million years did I think it was going to stand up.
Everything is better with bacon. And I'm digging your new avatar, Windy.
Quote from: Martok on June 28, 2012, 12:58:57 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 28, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
You don't have to worry about me chiming in....my head exploded at the news >:(
Mine too. Not in a million years did I think it was going to stand up.
I've heard that Justice Kennedy was furious at Roberts. That's not something you hear every day, the Supremes are normally so close-mouthed.
I'm still shocked it was Roberts who turned out to be the swing vote. By almost all accounts, everyone had expected Scalia to be the one who was going to decide this.
Quote from: Martok on June 28, 2012, 01:06:24 PM
I'm still shocked it was Roberts who turned out to be the swing vote. My almost all accounts, everyone had expected Scalia to be the one who was going to decide this.
Roberts is starting to concern me. He seems to be a big Federal power devotee, with this and some of his earlier rulings. When this started, he was originally considered to be a swing vote, then in the hearings he sounded more likely to vote against it. Guess not.
Gotta love the "news reporters" on NPR today who could barely contain their glee. And of course, while a 5-4 decision to revoke Obamacare would have shown how partisan the Court is according to the media, a 5-4 decision to uphold simply shows how they thought it through to come to the right decision. Yeah, my head's exploding.....I'm cutting the news off and putting Pandora on. Something calming.
Steel... you sound like me when I hear something disturbing or disheartening coming from one of the branches of government.
Since I come from a socialized medicine nation, I wouldn't see this decision as a bad thing, so'd I'd buy you a drink and say lets go golf at a course where the golf cart -liquor girls are hot.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fthe_golf_cart_girl_poster-rcad330c3808748e0b9fecfd0fb2dafd0_fwhu_400.jpg&hash=2411dc51235e15fdf613b0d15b42ed65f7268e7e)
I have no comment beyond...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FGrogHeads%2F2012.jpg&hash=32130f0bd301da3d50438a9365dc0851940a1764)
This is stupid. My head did not explode, but my heart broke.
My dreams of retiring at 90 are all but gone.
Wow, that's gotta suck, you cant have your premiums cranked out of the budget when you get sick any more. Insurance companies will actually have to pay the insurance. :'(
More seriously its a strange system to have it linked to commerce. Tax maybe. To me medical is a national defence budget item. When the towers were hit the biggest loss was the people, then the symbol of the attack, then the buildings value. The commerce was a very small portion. The main thing that needs defending when you defend a country is the people. The culture of the country. If a flu pandemic happens the defence of the people is a national security issue.
The news has widely reported that by far most Americans like the provisions of the law. Even the insurance companies have stated they want to keep them if it had failed. What people don't like is having to buy something. Well you have to buy the whole national defence system don't you. People are irrational.
Brains:
From a business perspective, does this primarily effect companies under fifty-one people???
The law provides for some hefty tax incentives for small businesses to get insurance for their employees. It does also fine some businesses when their employees are forced to get insurance from one of the gov't exchanges.
QuoteSmall business owners
The rules and benefits small business owners face as a result of the health care law remain in place.
As CNN has chronicled, the law brought a mix of both. The director of the National Federation of Independent Business is one of the plaintiffs who pushed the court to strike down the law. Meanwhile, a group called Small Business Majority fought to protect the law, saying its loss could be a nightmare.
As of 2014, under the law, small firms with more than 50 full-time employees would have to provide coverage or face expensive fines.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-effects/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 <--- Read down aways for small business.
Mr. Bigglesworth,
You're assuming our government actually gives a damn about it's people. It does not. What it does give a damn about is sucking the money out of the common man's pocket at the speed of light.
Quote from: W8taminute on June 28, 2012, 02:20:55 PM
Mr. Bigglesworth,
You're assuming our government actually gives a damn about it's people. It does not. What it does give a damn about is sucking the money out of the common man's pocket at the speed of light.
Respectfully disagree.
My Gov like me.
I contribute weekly!
^Right, that's what I mean! :)
I contribute every week myself and it's always at gunpoint too.
Quote from: LongBlade on June 28, 2012, 01:20:09 PM
I have no comment beyond...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2FGrogHeads%2F2012.jpg&hash=32130f0bd301da3d50438a9365dc0851940a1764)
^In this thought I take solace. Libs were predicting that the overthrow of Obamacare would galvanize the left at the polls. So now does it not go to reason that the conservatives will be fired up to vote? I'm telling you, the left might as well send their best union thugs my way to break my legs, because I'm at the polls as soon as they open.
Oh, and here it is.....the evil, partisan Supreme Court is now a beacon of light and hope! And Chief Justice Roberts? Why, he's changed his legacy and gone from the Dark Side to the Light! Hell, if he had been Chief Justice in 2000, Al Gore might have been President!!!!!
And no, I'm not even making that last part up......
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/obamacare-supreme-court-ruling-john-roberts-changes-his-legacy.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/obamacare-supreme-court-ruling-john-roberts-changes-his-legacy.html)
I like how that Tea Party sign is redundant.. And uses Communist colors. :P
Quote from: W8taminuteMr. Bigglesworth,
You're assuming our government actually gives a damn about it's people. It does not. What it does give a damn about is sucking the money out of the common man's pocket at the speed of light.
Respectfully, that seems a strange thing to argue here, particularly given that the other side (Tea Party) is mostly interested in protecting the tax shelters of the wealthy in some tickle-down-economics scheme. This insurance does provide a service, it isn't all a government money grab for enriching the coffers. And our government is made up of people (not Robots), so why would it not care about the constituents (even if the wealthy constituents get more consideration than the others)?
Back to the Tea Party and the OP, I don't think they will return in force by November. They can't (given the candidates are already set and they aren't all Tea Party). Mitt Romney could hardly be called Tea Party (especially given since his healthcare plan for Mass was an inspiration for Obamacare). If anything, the Tea Party may resurge after 2012 in time for the next rounds of elections over the next four years. But I think they will be dead letter by 2016 - recent polls have stated that the majority of Americans don't like the Tea Party, find them too radical, and blame them for slowing down economic recovery.
As to Obamacare and the SCOTUS. I'm not sure I was surprised, but it could have gone any way. I don't think the world is ending over it. We shall see how it plays out.
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 28, 2012, 02:45:54 PM
Oh, and here it is.....the evil, partisan Supreme Court is now a beacon of light and hope! And Chief Justice Roberts? Why, he's changed his legacy and gone from the Dark Side to the Light! Hell, if he had been Chief Justice in 2000, Al Gore might have been President!!!!!
And no, I'm not even making that last part up......
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/obamacare-supreme-court-ruling-john-roberts-changes-his-legacy.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/obamacare-supreme-court-ruling-john-roberts-changes-his-legacy.html)
Steelie, simmer down, did you see the pedigree of the author of that editorial?
QuoteShrum, a Senior Fellow at NYU, was a longtime political consultant who worked on numerous Democratic campaigns, including Kerry-Edwards in 2004 and Al Gore's 2000 race for the White House.
I don't think you could have expected anything different from that source! ;)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 28, 2012, 02:46:18 PM
I like how that Tea Party sign is redundant.. And uses Communist colors. :P
Dude....seriously? That's uncalled for ???
2012... coming November, 2012. Silly talk. Would you have rather I said it was colored the red of bloody revolution? It's a joke, just to get a rise.
But I'm so glad my State Reps can be so rational about this:
Mike Pence Compares Obamacare ruling to 9/11
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/28/508450/mike-pence-obamacare/?mobile=nc
That's just plan poor taste.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 28, 2012, 02:49:13 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on June 28, 2012, 02:45:54 PM
Oh, and here it is.....the evil, partisan Supreme Court is now a beacon of light and hope! And Chief Justice Roberts? Why, he's changed his legacy and gone from the Dark Side to the Light! Hell, if he had been Chief Justice in 2000, Al Gore might have been President!!!!!
And no, I'm not even making that last part up......
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/obamacare-supreme-court-ruling-john-roberts-changes-his-legacy.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/obamacare-supreme-court-ruling-john-roberts-changes-his-legacy.html)
Steelie, simmer down, did you see the pedigree of the author of that editorial?
QuoteShrum, a Senior Fellow at NYU, was a longtime political consultant who worked on numerous Democratic campaigns, including Kerry-Edwards in 2004 and Al Gore's 2000 race for the White House.
I don't think you could have expected anything different from that source! ;)
I'm calm. It's getting to be the time of year when I start tuning out the media anyway. I'm just going to vote, as I have in every Federal election in my lifetime.
You are a wise man. I'm going to follow suit!
If they were going to uphold it, I'm glad they did it on the premise that it is a tax. Raising taxes on lower and middle class people is not a good way to get re-elected.
Quote from: Marty Ward on June 28, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
If they were going to uphold it, I'm glad they did it on the premise that it is a tax. Raising taxes on lower and middle class people is not a good way to get re-elected.
Good point, Marty!
LOL! I have to post this. It's a collection of twitter posts of people unhappy with the SCOTUS upholding Obamacare and saying... wait for it... they are moving to Canada!
Think about that one a moment:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare
^SIGH....please, please tell me this is a joke thread.....
If not, I hope they vote before they leave, at least. They're good to go after that. Maybe if Canada is too cold for them, they could try good ol' France afterwards. SIGH.....
Hey, and don't worry, if you didn't like the SCOTUS decision, CNN actually reported it was struck down first!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/cnn-gets-obamacare-decision-wrong
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz397%2FSoccerDJ04%2F532227_10100120241372195_81747036_n.jpg&hash=e485212247dc62783d25b2609821aac1da826a71)
;D
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! We don't want'em. :o
And besides, it's a tax up here as well... :P
Quote from: Barthheart on June 29, 2012, 07:35:39 AM
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! We don't want'em. :o
And besides, it's a tax up here as well... :P
+1 ;D
Yeah, they should go to China. I hear you are basically on your own over there. Chew some dried creature.
I have to say I admire Roberts for keeping the judiciary politically neutral. He refused to vote as a conservative, he voted as representing a higher purpose.
There is a good article on him at the economist. It has his picture giving a very penetrating hawk like stare into the camera. Impressive.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 28, 2012, 02:46:18 PM
I like how that Tea Party sign is redundant.. And uses Communist colors. :P
Too funny. The only thing that made me laugh more than that in this entire thread was ...
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 28, 2012, 09:11:24 PM
LOL! I have to post this. It's a collection of twitter posts of people unhappy with the SCOTUS upholding Obamacare and saying... wait for it... they are moving to Canada!
Think about that one a moment:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare
I know this is already yesterday's news but two things. I heard on the news (I'm sure there's a printed article somewhere) that when people are polled on the individual clauses within the Health Care Act, the majority of them approve of every clause. When people are then polled on 'Obamacare' in it's totality, the majority of people disapprove. So much for rationalism.
Second:
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on July 01, 2012, 03:01:26 AM
I have to say I admire Roberts for keeping the judiciary politically neutral. He refused to vote as a conservative, he voted as representing a higher purpose.
There is a good article on him at the economist. It has his picture giving a very penetrating hawk like stare into the camera. Impressive.
Maybe I'm cynical but I believe this was an entirely political move. And consistent with many other politically driven decisions. What better way of setting up the administration to fail than upholding it as a tax. If they just outright struck it down, then the whole issue would be dead and over. Obama still kept his word on what he would deliver and would simply retool it to address the judges concerns. Now, they can use this as proof of a tax on people to claim Obama is lying to the people and use it as ammunition for the upcoming election. I think it was particularly cunning and devious of Roberts!
Quote from: joram on July 06, 2012, 08:47:00 AM
Maybe I'm cynical but I believe this was an entirely political move. And consistent with many other politically driven decisions. What better way of setting up the administration to fail than upholding it as a tax.
You might have a point. Lincoln once said that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it strictly.