Is Obama care Going down ?

[olevetonahill]

http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-justices-insurance-mandate-152049742.html

[rock on sooner]

Here's some food for thought...

For those of us that have health insurance...some studies indicate that we pay a little over $1000 a year
in "hidden health tax"...the uninsured pay approximately 37% out of pocket expenses for their health
care, the government and charities pay approximately 26% and we, the insured pay the rest. If the
Affordable Care Act is fully implemented, those costs that we pay go away in theory. In reality,
probably not completely but would surely go down. The medical community finds a way to get paid,
with higher billings to insurance companies, who in turn, raise their rates to protect their profits/
shareholders.

The ACA, while not perfect, has many good, helpful points for all citizens! Love to hear the thoughts
of this learned body on the ACA....

[KantoSooner]

If the comments I've read are correct, the mandate is toast. What that means for the rest of the act is beyond me at this moment.

Whatever conclusion the court comes to, we simply can not, as a nation, continue on with healthcare increasing in cost by somewhere around 10% per annum. If for no other reason than it is an unbearable burden on manufacturers and our economy if we spot foreign competitors a clean 10% benefit in cost of goods before we even start.

But, maybe collapse of this law would be a good thing if we get to debate cost control. One can hope.

[SCOUT]

If the comments I've read are correct, the mandate is toast. What that means for the rest of the act is beyond me at this moment.

Whatever conclusion the court comes to, we simply can not, as a nation, continue on with healthcare increasing in cost by somewhere around 10% per annum. If for no other reason than it is an unbearable burden on manufacturers and our economy if we spot foreign competitors a clean 10% benefit in cost of goods before we even start.

But, maybe collapse of this law would be a good thing if we get to debate cost control. One can hope.
This has been my main complaint with the debate, even though there was very little constructive debate, the whole time. I don't feel that ACA tackles the real issue of cost very well.

[jkjsooner]

If the comments I've read are correct, the mandate is toast. What that means for the rest of the act is beyond me at this moment.

I simply do not understand the argument about the mandate being unconstitutional. They are no more forcing you to buy health insurance than they are forcing you to have kids.

Both are tax policy. One is a credit the other is a penalty.

Had they raised taxes $x and gave you a credit of $x if you had insurance the net result would be exactly the same as what they have. I have trouble believing that the mandate is unconstitutional yet a minor wording difference having the exact same effect would have made it completely constitutional.


I see nothing in the constitution that would indicate that a tax credit used to encourage certain behavior is legitimate but a tax penalty to also encourage certain behavior is unconstitutional. You would have to twist yourself into a knot to make any argument that they are not essentially the same thing.

[KantoSooner]

T.R. Reid's book is a good overview and probably the best starting point for the debate. He does make the ironic point that when you look at private insurance, self pay, the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health, etc., you don't really need to leave the US to study the options. We've got them all here in one form or another.

Zakaria also made an excellent point when he noted that the majority of the money in our healthcare system comes from government today. (because the majority of healthcare consumption happens when people are old and on Medicare). But, since the system is administered by insurance companies, you have a payer who is poliitically motivated to pay 'whatever' and an administrator who is also the payee in terms of admin fees and many consumables. There's no motive whatsoever to enhance health or control costs.

In this case, the government might actually BE more efficient in running the system. Hell, I could run it better with the help of the staff and patrons of my local bar. After we'd closed the bar.

[jkjsooner]

And before someone says it, you can argue against the child tax credit or mortgage interest deduction if you want but that isn't the question I'm asking. The question I'm asking is how one can be considered constitutional while the other is not.

The court isn't going to rule a child tax credit or mortgage interest deduction unconstitutional.

[jkjsooner]

Zakaria also made an excellent point when he noted that the majority of the money in our healthcare system comes from government today. (because the majority of healthcare consumption happens when people are old and on Medicare).

That is a great point. I've never thought of that.

[pphilfran]

CNN says it looks bad for Obamacare...according to CNN it appears 5 justices will vote parts of it down....

[TUSooner]

****
Love to hear the thoughts of this learned body on the ACA....

Good luck! Actual thoughts are in short supply, but we are having our perpetual blow-out sale on overstocked slogans, dogma, and cant!!

[TUSooner]

Assuming the 'pubs get what they want, what will they do after this? Continue to convince us that we live in the best of all possible worlds and that nothing needs to be changed?


PS - If Breyer ends up writing the opinion, prepare to be confused for another 3 to 5 years. :D
(I jest, Sir!)

[pphilfran]

Assuming the 'pubs get what they want, what will they do after this? Continue to convince us that we live in the best of all possible worlds and that nothing needs to be changed?


PS - If Breyer ends up writing the opinion, prepare to be confused for another 3 to 5 years. :D
(I jest, Sir!)
The pubs probably won't do nutting...though if Obamacare is voted down it will be a big hit to Obama's reelection...

[TUSooner]

The pubs probably won't do nutting...though if Obamacare is voted down it will be a big hit to Obama's reelection...

and that's all that matters to them now.

[pphilfran]

Now? Their goal has always been to take the White House...exactly the same as the dems when a pub is in office...

[TUSooner]

Now? Their goal has always been to take the White House...exactly the same as the dems when a pub is in office...

I was trying to give them credit for potentially coming up with some ideas for actually governing at a later date. :wink:

But you call this to mind: "Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right." H.L. Mencken

[sappstuf]

Assuming the 'pubs get what they want, what will they do after this? Continue to convince us that we live in the best of all possible worlds and that nothing needs to be changed?


PS - If Breyer ends up writing the opinion, prepare to be confused for another 3 to 5 years. :D
(I jest, Sir!)

Pubs? Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans do not like Obamacare.

[SicEmBaylor]

I do not believe the Supreme Court will strike down ObamaCare.

I've listened to enough SCOTUS proceedings to know that they ask the toughest questions when they're inclined to find in favor of the government. The harder they are on the Solicitor General, the more worried you should be that they'll uphold the law.

[sappstuf]

I simply do not understand the argument about the mandate being unconstitutional. They are no more forcing you to buy health insurance than they are forcing you to have kids.

Both are tax policy. One is a credit the other is a penalty.

Had they raised taxes $x and gave you a credit of $x if you had insurance the net result would be exactly the same as what they have. I have trouble believing that the mandate is unconstitutional yet a minor wording difference having the exact same effect would have made it completely constitutional.


I see nothing in the constitution that would indicate that a tax credit used to encourage certain behavior is legitimate but a tax penalty to also encourage certain behavior is unconstitutional. You would have to twist yourself into a knot to make any argument that they are not essentially the same thing.

Of course they are. They are forcing you to enter into a contract with another private entity simply because you are alive under the penalty of law. None of your examples comes close to that.

Here is a pretty good article about it all:

The 4 Best Legal Arguments Against ObamaCare (http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/24/4-best-legal-arguments-against-obamacare)

[ictsooner7]

Obamacare is not going down, but it looks like Mitt Romney's mandate is.

[ictsooner7]

Pubs? Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans do not like Obamacare.


But they love the components of it.

[olevetonahill]

Obamacare is not going down, but it looks like Mitt Romney's mandate is.

We shall see wont we.

[pphilfran]

You can listen to yesterdays argument here...

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?167247-Is-Obama-care-Going-down/page2

[sappstuf]

But they love the components of it.

It is amazing that when you break questions down to 'do you want free x', a majority will always say yes to such a proposition. Shocking, I know...

Unfortunately the federal government is fresh out of pixie dust and unicorn horns and there are no free rides.

[Fraggle145]

It is amazing that when you break questions down to 'do you want free x', a majority will always say yes to such a proposition. Shocking, I know...

Unfortunately the federal government is fresh out of pixie dust and unicorn horns and there are no free rides.

What about unicorn horn rides?
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzzp4aVBmx1qzqua1o1_500.jpg

Maybe we could start charging for those?

[ictsooner7]

It is amazing that when you break questions down to 'do you want free x', a majority will always say yes to such a proposition. Shocking, I know...

Unfortunately the federal government is fresh out of pixie dust and unicorn horns and there are no free rides.

Free x, really? Is keeping your kids on your insurance till they are 26 free? NO, we pay for family insurance. Is not having pre existing conditions free? NO. So please tell me what is "free" in the health care bill.

[Chuck Bao]

Assuming the 'pubs get what they want, what will they do after this? Continue to convince us that we live in the best of all possible worlds and that nothing needs to be changed?


PS - If Breyer ends up writing the opinion, prepare to be confused for another 3 to 5 years. :D
(I jest, Sir!)

Exactly this ^^^. After reading this thread, I hope Obamacare is struck down and Americans finally have to face the problems in the system instead of just bitching about a half-assed solution.

When I moved to Thailand some 20 years ago, I was told that Thais are world-class experts at crisis management. They let things go to a crisis point before they did anything about it. I guess Americans are like this now.

[sappstuf]

What about unicorn horn rides?
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzzp4aVBmx1qzqua1o1_500.jpg

Maybe we could start charging for those?

Nice. Then there is no need to worry about free birth control anymore...

[olevetonahill]

Exactly this ^^^. After reading this thread, I hope Obamacare is struck down and Americans finally have to face the problems in the system instead of just bitching about a half-assed solution.

When I moved to Thailand some 20 years ago, I was told that Thais are world-class experts at crisis management. They let things go to a crisis point before they did anything about it. I guess Americans are like this now.

Bro,
If the SC strikes this down then it will be because its Unconstitutional. Are you saying We need a program that goes against our Constitution?

Another question.

Since (I believe) No part has taken affect yet How will we be "Suddenly" thrust back into some Horrific mess?

[Chuck Bao]

Bro,
If the SC strikes this down then it will be because its Unconstitutional. Are you saying We need a program that goes against our Constitution?

Another question.

Since (I believe) No part has taken affect yet How will we be "Suddenly" thrust back into some Horrific mess?

Bro, tax credits are not unconstitutional as some others posting here have mentioned. Just raise the tax rate to 50% and give an automatic 25% discount to those who participate in the single-buyer scheme. That's reality and it works.

For the second question, I ain't part of your bait-and-hook fishing expedition. If you don't know that costs have gone way out of control for the average American, I'm very, very happy for you.

[jkjsooner]

Of course they are. They are forcing you to enter into a contract with another private entity simply because you are alive under the penalty of law. None of your examples comes close to that.

Nobody is forcing you into a contract. You have every right to pass on getting insurance and pay the higher taxes.

Please tell me how it is any different than a child tax credit. Are they forcing you to have kids?

[Curly Bill]

Nobody is forcing you into a contract. You have every right to pass on getting insurance and pay the higher taxes.

Please tell me how it is any different than a child tax credit. Are they forcing you to have kids?

...but congress didn't call it a tax, they called it a penalty!

[jkjsooner]

...but congress didn't call it a tax, they called it a penalty!

So you feel that the constitutionality depends simply on the word that was used to describe it? Had they worded it differently with the exact same net result it would have been completely constitutional?

That seems pretty arbitrary to me.

[Curly Bill]

So you feel that the constitutionality depends simply on the word that was used to describe it? Had they worded it differently with the exact same net result it would have been completely constitutional?

That seems pretty arbitrary to me.

I'm not so sure it seems arbitrary to the supreme court. Then again they're as partisan as everyone else these days, so it may not matter to them either.

[olevetonahill]

Bro, tax credits are not unconstitutional as some others posting here have mentioned. Just raise the tax rate to 50% and give an automatic 25% discount to those who participate in the single-buyer scheme. That's reality and it works.

For the second question, I ain't part of your bait-and-hook fishing expedition. If you don't know that costs have gone way out of control for the average American, I'm very, very happy for you.
Yer my Bud. I aint fishin you.

My questions were on the level.

You seem to be saying that the Health deal is just taxes ?
Plus like i asked , since its Not gone into effect yet how will anyone be Thrust back?
Im just confused

[sappstuf]

Nobody is forcing you into a contract. You have every right to pass on getting insurance and pay the higher taxes.

Please tell me how it is any different than a child tax credit. Are they forcing you to have kids?

Not qualifying isn't the same as being penalized.. You obviously do not go to jail for refusing to have a baby. The same isn't true if you refused to by health insurance and then failed to pay the penalty.. You could be thrown in jail or fined again for not paying the fine.

Surely you see the difference.

[olevetonahill]

Hell they passed it and I still dont know whats in it.

[rock on sooner]

Bro,
If the SC strikes this down then it will be because its Unconstitutional. Are you saying We need a program that goes against our Constitution?

Another question.

Since (I believe) No part has taken affect yet How will we be "Suddenly" thrust back into some Horrific mess?

Vet, some parts are already in effect....a number of preventive care services... e. g. mammograms
& colonoscopies...shrinking doughnut hole on Part D..( in Iowa..approx $580 per person)...adult
children on parent's insurance( in Iowa over 25000 young adults are eligible) so if ACA is struck
down the insurance companies won't walk they'll run to "right" their ship!

[Curly Bill]

Hell they passed it and I still dont know whats in it.

Hell, don't feel bad, no one else does either.

[Chuck Bao]

Yer my Bud. I aint fishin you.

My questions were on the level.

You seem to be saying that the Health deal is just taxes ?
Plus like i asked , since its Not gone into effect yet how will anyone be Thrust back?
Im just confused

Do you have any doubt that health coverage will be ALL about the taxes to pay for it in the future? No, I don't like it either. In a poor economy and a free market, we should be getting some discounts, right? That's obviously not happening. Those who pay are paying a larger and larger share for those who increasingly can't.

I think a single pay system able to negotiate is the only option left because corporate America is choking us to death.

I don't think I ever said thrust back into the old system. As you mentioned, Obamacare hasn't started yet. The old system is working and raising prices as much as they can and may actually be raising rates ahead of Obamacare in anticipation. That is what they do before going into forced negotiation.

[jkjsooner]

Not qualifying isn't the same as being penalized.. You obviously do not go to jail for refusing to have a baby. The same isn't true if you refused to by health insurance and then failed to pay the penalty.. You could be thrown in jail or fined again for not paying the fine.

Surely you see the difference.

But it really isn't different. If you took the child tax credit and didn't have a child (analogous to not getting insurance and not paying the extra tax/fee) you would go to jail as well.

Or to put it better, I'm assuming the new tax forms would have a check mark to state whether or not you had insurance just as you have a place to claim your dependents. If you lied and said you had insurance then it would be similar to lying and saying you had a child when you didn't.

My point is that had they worded it as a flat $x tax increase with a $x credit for having insurance it would have:


The exact same net effect as you have right now.
Been completely analogous to other tax policies.


If some want to argue that the wording is so important constitutionally then we'll agree to disagree. However, when people argue that the "government is forcing you into making a private contract" as if the net result of this differs so drastically than other tax policies then I'll claim you are flat out wrong.

[pphilfran]

So you feel that the constitutionality depends simply on the word that was used to describe it? Had they worded it differently with the exact same net result it would have been completely constitutional?

That seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Listen the link I posted and you will find that some of the justices don't think it is arbitrary...

[jkjsooner]

Listen the link I posted and you will find that some of the justices don't think it is arbitrary...

I don't care what the justices think. They will rule however they rule no matter our individual opinions.

I'm not a judge of an inferior court so I'm not bound to hold their views. As far as I'm concerned I don't see the individual mandate as being any more unconstitutional than a child tax credit.

[pphilfran]

I don't care what the justices think. They will rule however they rule no matter our individual opinions.

I'm not a judge of an inferior court so I'm not bound to hold their views. As far as I'm concerned I don't see the individual mandate as being any more unconstitutional than a child tax credit.

You can believe what you want...I only stated that some of the justices took exception to the wording...the discussion started of slow and dry and then got a little easier to listen to in the last hour...

I am much more knowledgeable about their thoughts after listening to the discussion...

[jkjsooner]

The pubs probably won't do nutting...though if Obamacare is voted down it will be a big hit to Obama's reelection...

I don't see this being a hit on Obama. I don't think Obama supporters are going to bail on him just because a divided court ruled against his health plan. In fact, I could see that as a point to rally behind.

[FtwTxSooner]

My taxes this year were $7500 higher because I chose not to buy one of those damn Obama Motors Chevy Volt.

[pphilfran]

I don't see this being a hit on Obama. I don't think Obama supporters are going to bail on him just because a divided court ruled against his health plan. In fact, I could see that as a point to rally behind.

So no affect if it gets overturned? Obama pushed and prodded for two years to get the thing passed...Obama brags about it being one of his shining moments...I think you are mistaken...

[sappstuf]

But it really isn't different. If you took the child tax credit and didn't have a child (analogous to not getting insurance and not paying the extra tax/fee) you would go to jail as well.

My point is that had they worded it as a flat $x tax increase with a $x credit for having insurance it would have:


The exact same net effect as you have right now.
Been completely analogous to other tax policies.


If some want to argue that the wording is so important constitutionally then we'll agree to disagree. However, when people argue that the "government is forcing you into making a private contract" as if the net result of this differs so drastically than other tax policies then I'll claim you are flat out wrong.

Just read the transcript.. The SCOTUS beat down the government's position that it was a tax. Taxes are to raise revenue and Congress has that power.. But if everyone followed the law, then it would never raise a penny. Ol Ruthy was all over that.


“Congress has nowhere used the word tax. What it says is penalty,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. “It’s collected in the same manner as a tax. But that doesn’t automatically make it a tax.”

“This is not a revenue-raising measure,” Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg said. “If it’s successful, they—nobody will pay the penalty, and there will be no revenue to raise.”

So if it isn't a tax credit, then it is a penalty as the bill states according to Justice Breyer. Congress has no authority to penalize citizens for failing to enter into contracts with private companies.

Your analogies with tax credits misses the mark completely.

[pphilfran]

My taxes this year were $7500 higher because I chose not to buy one of those damn Obama Motors Chevy Volt.

Vehicles were brought into the discussion...one side talked about how emissions were mandated to all citizens...the other side said that they consumer was not forced to buy a new car...

[pphilfran]

Today's discussion is over...CNN says the last hour went to Obama...but CNN feels that the three days were a bad hammering to the plan....

[jkjsooner]

So no affect if it gets overturned? Obama pushed and prodded for two years to get the thing passed...Obama brags about it being one of his shining moments...I think you are mistaken...

There will be some who will use this against Obama but I think most of them will be ones from the other side who would have never voted for Obama anyway. There will be others who give Obama credit for at least doing whatever he could to attempt to get a health care law passed. There will be others who feel that this is an attack on Obama from the conservative justices. Those in this last group will be even more motivated to vote.

[pphilfran]

Like it or not he will lose some votes..how many I don't know....

[FtwTxSooner]

Just curious, what was the reasoning why the mandate wasn't passed as a incremental income tax increase on everyone and a credit to those who comply (or exempt) versus a penalty? Was is just political cover for some Dems?

[sappstuf]

Like it or not he will lose some votes..how many I don't know....

I think it would be a big hit on Obama's credibility. He was lauded by the press for being a "constitutional scholar". If his signature achievement, that he fought to pass for two years, is thrown out for being unconstitutional...

Well.. It would make him look incompetent and like he was never really ready for the job in the first place... Oh, right.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Goin' down like a ten dollar hooker!

OH YEAH TEAM REPUBLICAN FACEHUMP VICTORY!

[jkjsooner]

Just read the transcript.. The SCOTUS beat down the government's position that it was a tax. Taxes are to raise revenue and Congress has that power.. But if everyone followed the law, then it would never raise a penny. Ol Ruthy was all over that.

This seems to be an odd stance. I could see the child tax credit as being about taxes as the goal is to give relief to those who need it.

But then I would go back to the mortgage deduction. It is neither about raising taxes nor is it about giving relief to those who may need it. It is merely about pursuing a public policy goal that has nothing directly to do with taxes.

Wouldn't the argument cited above strike down the mortgage interest deduction?


One more thing, we all know how divided the court is and we know that some justices will find novel ways to keep a ruling in their favor. I really wonder if Ginsburg would be more sympathetic to the tax view if she needed it to rule the mandate constitutional?

[jkjsooner]

Just curious, what was the reasoning why the mandate wasn't passed as a incremental income tax increase on everyone and a credit to those who comply (or exempt) versus a penalty? Was is just political cover for some Dems?

I've wondered the same thing. Clearly they included it in the tax code for a reason and that had to be about constitutional challenges. It seems like a major f' up if they lose it due to some simple wording differences.

It might be purely political. Maybe a few of those who voted for it didn't want to have the tax increase label next to their name.

[jkjsooner]

I think it would be a big hit on Obama's credibility. He was lauded by the press for being a "constitutional scholar". If his signature achievement, that he fought to pass for two years, is thrown out for being unconstitutional...

C'mon, man. This is going to be a 5-4 decision either way with constitutional scholars split on it. His reputation as a constitutional scholar isn't going to be harmed by it one bit.

Plenty of conservative constitutional scholars have been on the losing side of Supreme Court decisions over the years. It's not something new.

[pphilfran]

This seems to be an odd stance. I could see the child tax credit as being about taxes as the goal is to give relief to those who need it.

But then I would go back to the mortgage deduction. It is neither about raising taxes nor is it about giving relief to those who may need it. It is merely about pursuing a public policy goal that has nothing directly to do with taxes.

Wouldn't the argument cited above strike down the mortgage interest deduction?

No one is forcing you to take a mortgage...

Some of the justices stated that DC can mandate certain taxes to help move a product in a certain direction but they do not believe they have the authority to mandate purchase of a product...

Some also had concerns about Medicare and how it's enrollment would grow significantly...and since the states absorb parts of Medicare some of the justices felt that the fed was overstepping their bounds and forcing the additional costs on the states....

Listen to the link...

[jkjsooner]

No one is forcing you to take a mortgage...


And we're back to that.... Nobody is forcing you to get insurance.

So we've determined that the mandate is either unconstitutional because it's forcing you to buy something or its intent is not about taxes.


But we've determined that you are no more forced to buy insurance than you are to have kids.
We've also determined that the intent is no less about taxes than the mortgage interest deduction.


As far as the other stuff, I'm not discussing it. I don't know enough about it. I'm limiting my discussion to the individual mandate.

[pphilfran]

Today's audio...I think the discussion about Medicare was from today and not yesterday...my bad...there is also a transcript of today's arguments at the link...

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/28/149541033/transcript-audio-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-severability?ft=1&f=1070

[sappstuf]

Just curious, what was the reasoning why the mandate wasn't passed as a incremental income tax increase on everyone and a credit to those who comply (or exempt) versus a penalty? Was is just political cover for some Dems?

If they wanted to go the full monty and went for single payer, they could have and it would have probably been constitutional because the health care would have been run by the federal government, like Medicare.

Instead, they are trying to force people to buy insurance from private companies.

They cannot do that.

[pphilfran]

And we're back to that....

Nobody is forcing you to get insurance.

You just don't get it...

I am only stating what was said by at least one justice...

I want everyone to be covered....I have stated I thought the thing would pass...

I also understand that what has gone on for three days means little since they will be going into chambers to discuss the plan and write their arguments...

You can get some insight into their thought process by listening to the arguments...

[pphilfran]

What do you want out of me? You want me to make up a bunch of chit that was not actually discussed?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

This seems to be an odd stance. I could see the child tax credit as being about taxes as the goal is to give relief to those who need it.

But then I would go back to the mortgage deduction. It is neither about raising taxes nor is it about giving relief to those who may need it. It is merely about pursuing a public policy goal that has nothing directly to do with taxes.

Wouldn't the argument cited above strike down the mortgage interest deduction?

No. They're not remotely comparable. The mortgage interest deduction is simply an exclusion of taxable income based on an expenditure, not an exemption.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a boner over shackling this to the Child Tax Credit and mortgage interest deduction. All partisanship aside, it's the complete INVERSE of what you're suggesting it's similar to. As it stands with these tax "credits" if one does not purchase a home or squirt out a pup one will not receive the credit thus leaving them within the existing tax bracket. Buy one and enjoy a DEDUCTION from one's taxes below the standard. The inverse nature of what's proposed establishes that the standard is still X, yet if you don't purchase this coverage you will be penalized by increasing the rate to Y, a rate ABOVE the standard for your income range. Again. completely opposite from how the Child Tax CREDIT and mortgage interest DEDUCTION apply.

It's no different than stores marking up all their crap before Thanksgiving. Folks aren't blowing through the doors on Wednesday, but come Friday they're trampling like herds of cattle to get the new Tickle Me Boner doll. So that 20% off coupon you got? You missed the 20% mark-up in October, champ. You're back to flush PLUS the money you spent in gas to go to the store in the first place (AKA, your insurance premiums). But thank God you got that coupon, because without buying the Tickle Me Boner with the coupon, you're forced to eat the 20% mark-up.

So no, Virginia, it won't strike down mortgage interest deductions.

[sappstuf]

C'mon, man. This is going to be a 5-4 decision either way with constitutional scholars split on it. His reputation as a constitutional scholar isn't going to be harmed by it one bit.

Plenty of conservative constitutional scholars have been on the losing side of Supreme Court decisions over the years. It's not something new.

"Obamacare ruled unconstitutional". Do you think that potential headline would help or hurt his reputation as a constitutional scholar?

[jkjsooner]

You just don't get it...

I am only stating what was said by at least one justice...

I thought we were arguing/debating here. Obviously I'm not going to be given the opportunity to debate withe the justices.

[jkjsooner]

"Obamacare ruled unconstitutional". Do you think that potential headline would help or hurt his reputation as a constitutional scholar?

Among the ignorant it might hurt. Among constitutional scholars it wouldn't. Every one of them knows that the court has ruled against their position many times.


If Scalia died tomorrow, Obama was able to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, they had to redo the trial, and Obama won would that validate him as a constitutional scholar? Of course not. Neither would a 6-5 defeat ruin his reputation as a constitutional scholar.

Note: I could be wrong about the procedure in case of the death of a justice but that doesn't change the point I'm making.

[pphilfran]

I thought we were arguing/debating here. Obviously I'm not going to be given the opportunity to debate withe the justices.

I have no problem with debate...I have only been posting what some of the justices think...

I don't know why you refuse to listen or read the arguments...it would help you understand some of the thought process and would help you in your debate...

[sappstuf]

Among the ignorant it might hurt. Among constitutional scholars it wouldn't. Every one of them knows that the court has ruled against their stance at one point or another.

Among the public it would hurt and that is the point with the election coming in the fall. 75% of Americans think the individual mandate is unconstitutional according to USA Today.

If the 75% are correct and Obama is wrong then who was ignorant?

Bashing Obama on wasting 2 years passing an unconstitutional law when he could have been focused on the economy will become the message and it will be an easy one to sell.

[LiveLaughLove]

Well we know for sure Kagan is in his pocket don't we. She sounded more like Solicitor General than the Solicitor General did.

[jkjsooner]

Among the public it would hurt and that is the point with the election coming in the fall.

I don't think the public cares all to much about whether or not Obama is a constitutional scholar. Those that do care would not fall into the "ignorant" category I was referring to anyway.

And those who think everything about Obama is an attack on the constitution weren't voting for him anyway.

[pphilfran]

You actually think that if his biggest success is ruled unconstitutional it will not cost him votes?

[pphilfran]

If this gets put down and fuel prices continue to climb he will be sitting on the curb come January...

[sappstuf]

I don't think the public cares all to much about whether or not Obama is a constitutional scholar. Those that do care would not fall into the "ignorant" category I was referring to anyway.

And those who think everything about Obama is an attack on the constitution weren't voting for him anyway.

http://www.listosaurusrex.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/obtuse.PNG

Why yes Andy, I do believe it is deliberate..

I'm sorry but Obama didn't get 75% of the vote when he was elected.. You have about a 25 point difference to explain according to your theory.

[sappstuf]

If this gets put down and fuel prices continue to climb he will be sitting on the curb come January...

I don't know if either will happen, but if they both do, he will be joining Jimmy on the world tour a few years earlier than he expected.

[LiveLaughLove]

I think gas prices alone will cause him to be kicked to the curb.

I know the media now has discovered that Presidents can't control gas prices (something they didn't seem to know during Bush' years), but there are still plenty of things that a President CAN do, and he seems to do the opposite.

He is also on camera in '08 in front of a gas station lambasting the Bush administration for high prices. So he was for Presidential control of high gas prices before he was against Presidential control of them.

[XingTheRubicon]

Among the ignorant it might hurt. Among constitutional scholars it wouldn't. Every one of them knows that the court has ruled against their position many times.


If Scalia died tomorrow, Obama was able to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, they had to redo the trial, and Obama won would that validate him as a constitutional scholar? Of course not. Neither would a 6-5 defeat ruin his reputation as a constitutional scholar.

Note: I could be wrong about the procedure in case of the death of a justice but that doesn't change the point I'm making.

that might explain some of the confusion

[jkjsooner]

No. They're not remotely comparable. The mortgage interest deduction is simply an exclusion of taxable income based on an expenditure, not an exemption.

But the child credit is not an exclusion of income. It's a credit.


I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a boner over shackling this to the Child Tax Credit and mortgage interest deduction. All partisanship aside, it's the complete INVERSE of what you're suggesting it's similar to. As it stands with these tax "credits" if one does not purchase a home or squirt out a pup one will not receive the credit thus leaving them within the existing tax bracket. Buy one and enjoy a DEDUCTION from one's taxes below the standard. The inverse nature of what's proposed establishes that the standard is still X, yet if you don't purchase this coverage you will be penalized by increasing the rate to Y, a rate ABOVE the standard for your income range. Again. completely opposite from how the Child Tax CREDIT and mortgage interest DEDUCTION apply.

Listen, okay, I understand the difference between addition and subtraction. What I don't understand is how the constitution views these as being different.

Excluding a credit is the same as adding a penalty as long as you adjust for the offset (effective increase in tax rate) in the latter. How one is an intrusion on your rights whereas the other is not baffles me.

Others gave me two reasons. One reason fails when you apply the same logic to a mortgage interest deduction. The other fails when you apply the logic to the child tax credit.

[jkjsooner]

What do you want out of me? You want me to make up a bunch of chit that was not actually discussed?

I guess my response should have been that I disagree with them. Like I said, I can't really have a debate with them.

[jkjsooner]

that might explain some of the confusion

What the hell does that mean?

Not knowing the procedure if a justice dies has nothing to do with the point I was making.

I'll have to give you a slightly different example since you apparently can't see through some meaningless details.

Let's say Scalia died a year ago and Obama was able to get his own justice in to replace him. Most likely that would have yielded a ruling that favors the health plan. Now, do you feel that that that would certify Obama's status as a constitutional scholar?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Excluding a credit is the same as adding a penalty as long as you adjust for the offset (effective increase in tax rate) in the latter. How one is an intrusion on your rights whereas the other is not baffles me.

There's the mistake.

The constitutional argument (for your specific examples) as I understand it is based on the argument of the power of Congress to lay taxes, which is then countered by the Uniformity Clause. The way it reads to me (as some schmuck, not as a constitutional scholar, *wank*) is that Congress has the power to lay taxes at what rate they determine to be appropriate for the masses. However, the Uniformity Clause prevents Congress from applying taxes without uniformity across the populace to prevent taxation being used by larger states as a tool of coercion. Hence why taxes are established at X rate with "Exemptions", "deductions", and "credits", not INCREASES in rates because this would bust the principle of the Uniformity Clause.

Hence the boner about the semantics of the bill. If it's a penalty, from the way I think I understand it, it's unconstitutional unless the language establishes the taxes as uniform throughout with credits, exemptions, and/or deductions being the carrot.

[soonercoop1]

If the comments I've read are correct, the mandate is toast. What that means for the rest of the act is beyond me at this moment.

Whatever conclusion the court comes to, we simply can not, as a nation, continue on with healthcare increasing in cost by somewhere around 10% per annum. If for no other reason than it is an unbearable burden on manufacturers and our economy if we spot foreign competitors a clean 10% benefit in cost of goods before we even start.

But, maybe collapse of this law would be a good thing if we get to debate cost control. One can hope.

If the mandate is dead the rest is also toast as the justices aren't going to read 2,700 pages to see what will stay...

[jkjsooner]

There's the mistake.

The constitutional argument (for your specific examples) as I understand it is based on the argument of the power of Congress to lay taxes, which is then countered by the Uniformity Clause. The way it reads to me (as some schmuck, not as a constitutional scholar, *wank*) is that Congress has the power to lay taxes at what rate they determine to be appropriate for the masses. However, the Uniformity Clause prevents Congress from applying taxes without uniformity across the populace to prevent taxation being used by larger states as a tool of coercion. Hence why taxes are established at X rate with "Exemptions", "deductions", and "credits", not INCREASES in rates because this would bust the principle of the Uniformity Clause.

I don't understand how this would not be considered uniform. The same penalty would exist uniformly throughout society and, more importantly, it would geographically neutral.

[Sooner5030]

If the law stands who are the groups that would be exempt? Amish, Tribes, my own pot religion group? I do think we all have the right to die by ourselves in the middle of nowhere. Why should I have to insure myself against commerce I may not choose to be a part of because the mob views end of life hospital care as inevitable?

I want universal basic coverage (with a tax we ALL pay) but if the dems touch it we will go bankrupt. Their mob will keep voting for them to get more "free" goodies. Just look at SNAP.....it's at like 47 million participants......that's a lot of votes.

[EnragedOUfan]

Obamacare is constitutional............

If not, then how is it constitutional to force me to pay into Social Security? What if I wanted to die after retirement and not go onto Social Security? Could I then have the option to opt out of Social Security, since Social Security is forcing me to pay into it? If Obamacare drafters were smart, they would have put something like "For the welfare of the people" or something like that to make it for sure constitutional, similar to Social Security, falling under the General Welfare clause, I think.....

I view the individual mandate as the same as above. Because Social Security is forcing you to pay something and is considered constitutional, Obamacare is constitutional. Not only is it constitutional, but its smart and its overall goal is to help the people in the long run.

I have yet to see the Republican party actually help the people, and not do something based on principal or related to money, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 that was signed by President Nixon....

[EnragedOUfan]

If the law stands who are the groups that would be exempt? Amish, Tribes, my own pot religion group? I do think we all have the right to die by ourselves in the middle of nowhere. Why should I have to insure myself against commerce I may not choose to be a part of because the mob views end of life hospital care as inevitable?

I want universal basic coverage (with a tax we ALL pay) but if the dems touch it we will go bankrupt. Their mob will keep voting for them to get more "free" goodies. Just look at SNAP.....it's at like 47 million participants......that's a lot of votes.

You should revolt over paying into Social Security then.....

[Sooner5030]

You should revolt over paying into Social Security then.....

why? I choose to make taxable income and pay into FICA. That's a tax not a penalty. WTF is your point?

[EnragedOUfan]

Are you forced to pay into it? And how is Obamacare not a tax, when the so called penalties would be collected by the IRS? I thought the IRS collects taxes, and nothing more?

[Sooner5030]

penalty/fees/fines are much different than a uniform applied tax like FICA. At least IMO. Case law from this decision will suck donkey balls.

[sappstuf]

penalty/fees/fines are much different than a uniform applied tax like FICA. At least IMO. Case law from this decision will suck donkey balls.

Not just yours.. From the questioning, the SCOTUS feels the same exact way.

[LiveLaughLove]

Obamacare is constitutional............

If not, then how is it constitutional to force me to pay into Social Security? What if I wanted to die after retirement and not go onto Social Security? Could I then have the option to opt out of Social Security, since Social Security is forcing me to pay into it? If Obamacare drafters were smart, they would have put something like "For the welfare of the people" or something like that to make it for sure constitutional, similar to Social Security, falling under the General Welfare clause, I think.....

I view the individual mandate as the same as above. Because Social Security is forcing you to pay something and is considered constitutional, Obamacare is constitutional. Not only is it constitutional, but its smart and its overall goal is to help the people in the long run.

I have yet to see the Republican party actually help the people, and not do something based on principal or related to money, since the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 that was signed by President Nixon....

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

By your standard 100% confiscation of everything can be called a legal taxation and not a penalty or out and out theft. It's the old Clinton definition of what "is" is. Hey, it's a mandated purchase (obviously), but we'll call it a tax.

[jkjsooner]

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

By your standard 100% confiscation of everything can be called a legal taxation and not a penalty or out and out theft. It's the old Clinton definition of what "is" is. Hey, it's a mandated purchase (obviously), but we'll call it a tax.

Not to bring up an old topic but I really don't get this comment. If taking it to an absurd extreme makes something unconstitutional then an income tax is also unconstitutional. After all, the tax rate could be set to 100%.

[pphilfran]

Are you forced to pay into it? And how is Obamacare not a tax, when the so called penalties would be collected by the IRS? I thought the IRS collects taxes, and nothing more?

Congress is allowed to regulate commerce....there is concern that they are not legally allowed to require commerce.......