US Supreme Court Say NO NO NO to Obamacare!!

[PapaG]

 

[MickZagger]

Gawd, I wanna fuck Palin silly! I bet she's great in the sack. Ultra Christian conservative chicks usually are. Its the one time they can let their hair down.

 

[PapaG]

Obama's landmark achievement is little more than a regressive tax that impacts the poor far more than it does the rich.

Have fun defending that one on the campaign trail, Democrats.

 

[MickZagger]

Obama's landmark achievement is little more than a regressive tax that impacts the poor far more than it does the rich.

Have fun defending that one on the campaign trail, Democrats.

Bin Laden's like WTF? What about me!

ROFLMAO!!

 

[PapaG]

Good point that I saw on a legal forum.

Okay then... if it IS a tax -- then POTUS CANNOT give a waiver to anyone to not pay a tax... so the unions and everyone else who received said waivers -- the waivers ALL need to be cancelled immediately!

Expect hundreds of lawsuits to be filed under the 14th amendment. It's a cut and dry equal protection violation. People not having to pay a tax based solely on their membership to a union is a clear violation of the 14th.

 

[maxiep]

Roberts rewrote a law, changing it from a "penalty" to a "tax". He is constitutionally unentitled to write or rewrite laws.

Impeach him now.

I think Obama would love to impeach him now and make Larry Tribe the new Chief Justice.

 

[PapaG]

I think Obama would love to impeach him now and make Larry Tribe the new Chief Justice.

Yeah, the more you analyze the reasoning behind this decision, you see that the Dem waivers to their supporters simply won't stand now that the mandate/penalty has been literally reworded into a "tax". So not only does Obama, thanks to Obama's own lawyers (who argued it was a tax and not a penalty in USSC chambers), Roberts, and the 4 libs, have to defend a massive regressive tax that he said wasn't a tax when he was pushing it, but he'll also have to deal with the organizations who financially back him, and were granted waivers from this bill. The SEIU comes to mind.

 

[barfo]

Yeah, the more you analyze the reasoning behind this decision, you see that the Dem waivers to their supporters simply won't stand now that the mandate/penalty has been literally reworded into a "tax". So not only does Obama, thanks to Obama's own lawyers (who argued it was a tax and not a penalty in USSC chambers), Roberts, and the 4 libs, have to defend a massive regressive tax that he said wasn't a tax when he was pushing it, but he'll also have to deal with the organizations who financially back him, and were granted waivers from this bill. The SEIU comes to mind.

That's a nice theory, but the waivers actually allow some unions (and also a bunch of corporations) to continue to offer their current health care plans that have benefit limits until 2014. It does not exempt them (or their members/employees) from the mandate or penalty/tax, which doesn't kick in until 2014.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

That's a nice theory, but the waivers actually allow some unions (and also a bunch of corporations) to continue to offer their current health care plans that have benefit limits until 2014. It does not exempt them (or their members/employees) from the mandate or penalty/tax, which doesn't kick in until 2014.

barfo

Since it's a tax bill, the current waivers need to cease IMMEDIATELY. It's not that hard to understand. Any waiver under this new tax bill is unconstitutional unless it's written into the bill.

 

[barfo]

Since it's a tax bill, the current waivers need to cease IMMEDIATELY. It's not that hard to understand. Any waiver under this new tax bill is unconstitutional unless it's written into the bill.

It's not a 'tax bill'. It is a bill that contains tax provisions, among other things. It is one of the other things that the waivers are for.

barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Gawd, I wanna fuck Palin silly! I bet she's great in the sack. Ultra Christian conservative chicks usually are. Its the one time they can let their hair down.

Can't say I disagree with you.

 

[PapaG]

It's not a 'tax bill'. It is a bill that contains tax provisions, among other things. It is one of the other things that the waivers are for.

barfo

Actually, it's a tax bill, which is why it can be repealed with only 51 votes in the Senate. Lawsuits will be filed ASAP to not only end waivers now, but to also go back and try to recover payments.

 

[PapaG]

This guy lies with such ease that it's scary. The TV ads for this obvious lie are going to be devastating not only for Obama, but also those who voted for his tax increase.

[video=youtube;bg-ofjXrXio]

 

[STOMP]

and insurers cannot kick off children until they are 25.

I have a cousin benefiting from this

STOMP

 

[Minstrel]

This guy lies with such ease that it's scary. The TV ads for this obvious lie are going to be devastating not only for Obama, but also those who voted for his tax increase.

It's semantics whether you call it a fee or a tax increase. On this point, the comparison to auto insurance is perfectly appropriate (I'm not saying the entire proposal is the same as mandating auto insurance)...we don't call requiring auto insurance a "tax increase" even though there are usually penalties for not having it. I don't think a semantics war is going to be particularly devastating politically. Even if you do view it as a "tax increase" it's not going to affect all that many people in the middle class...most middle class people have health insurance and therefore won't incur the penalty/tax. Those too poor to be able to afford health insurance will get subsidies to hep them afford it.

I guess we'll see.

 

[maxiep]

It's semantics whether you call it a fee or a tax increase. On this point, the comparison to auto insurance is perfectly appropriate (I'm not saying the entire proposal is the same as mandating auto insurance)...we don't call requiring auto insurance a "tax increase" even though there are usually penalties for not having it. I don't think a semantics war is going to be particularly devastating politically. Even if you do view it as a "tax increase" it's not going to affect all that many people in the middle class...most middle class people have health insurance and therefore won't incur the penalty/tax. Those too poor to be able to afford health insurance will get subsidies to hep them afford it.

I guess we'll see.

I can choose not to drive a car. Breathing is involuntary. There is a huge difference between incurring a tax for an action and incurring a tax because of inaction. What a shitty, legally flimsy decision.

 

[Minstrel]

I can choose not to drive a car. Breathing is involuntary. There is a huge difference between incurring a tax for an action and incurring a tax because of inaction. What a shitty, legally flimsy decision.

You didn't read my post carefully. I said "on this point" (which was whether it was a tax or a fee), and not on the entire concept of the bill, it was an appropriate comparison.

As for whether the entirety of the bill is appropriate to compare to an auto insurance mandate, that's a different discussion. You can choose to not to drive a car, and you can choose not to live in the US. It's not contingent on you "being alive" as cool a talking point as that is. It's contingent on you being part of the US society who's elected officials have decided one social responsibility is health insurance. You can always choose not to be a part of the society, if you find it too objectionable. You could also choose to remain in the society and fight the mandate, though you'll then have to abide by it until your fight is won.

 

[STOMP]

Before this decision I say Obama wins easily as he will effectively use Mitt's Mormonism against him. Now, I wonder if the desire to overturn Obamacare and it's leading to a national single payer heath care system will turn the tide against Obama.

Congress hammered out and passed a law. SCOTUS found it constitutional...what part about "case closed" don't you understand?

It's not perfect by any means, but US citizens flat hated the mess that was in place before.

STOMP

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Congress hammered out and passed a law. SCOTUS found it constitutional...what part about "case closed" don't you understand?

It's not perfect by any means, but US citizens flat hated the mess that was in place before.

STOMP

Whoa cowboy, you stuck an oversized dildo up your ass this morning and twisted it? Relax a little. Get your coffee... STOMP, baby, you're one of my favorite posters. Although that avitar...

I think my point is a good one. Many people do not like, nor can afford, another massive entitlement program on the backs of the low & middle class. And if history is an indicator, entitlement programs grow out of control and the tax payers just have to keep paying more and more. Also, many people are not liking Obamacare and want it repealed. Independents in any of the mentioned categories may either switch from Obama to Mitt, or vote when they otherwise may not have. Other traditional non voters may up and vote for Mitt. I mean, this isn't going to generate Obama votes. A 1-2% swing in a few key states and Obama is not reelected. Same with Senators in close elections. I mean, if you really believe that the final passage of Obamacre won't have so much as a scintilla of difference in the election, fine, I respect your opinion. I just disagree.

 

[Minstrel]

I think my point is a good one. Many people do not like, nor can afford, another massive entitlement program on the backs of the low & middle class. And if history is an indicator, entitlement programs grow out of control and the tax payers just have to keep paying more and more. Also, many people are not liking Obamacare and want it repealed. Independents in any of the mentioned categories may either switch from Obama to Mitt, or vote when they otherwise may not have. Other traditional non voters may up and vote for Mitt. I mean, this isn't going to generate Obama votes. A 1-2% swing in a few key states and Obama is not reelected. Same with Senators in close elections. I mean, if you really believe that the final passage of Obamacre won't have so much as a scintilla of difference in the election, fine, I respect your opinion. I just disagree.

Sounds like conservative wish-casting to me. Casual political observers put far too much emphasis in their own narratives and pop psychological analysis of the electorate. One could just as easily (and probably as incorrectly) argue that Romney's insistence that his presidency will mean a repeal of the ACA will galvanize liberals to the voting booths to vote for Obama. One could just as easily argue that conservatives will lose hope choosing between "Obamacare" and "Romneycare" (for a long time on hard-right websites like Free Republic, they've been mocking Romney as a RINO).

Bear in mind, I'm not saying those narratives are the "right ones." I'm saying that based on what you'd like to happen, you can imagine all sorts of emotional responses in the electorate.

As Nate Silver of 538.com points out, the unpopularity of the ACA thus far has already been "priced into" Obama's current approval rating. If this Supreme Court decision has any effect, it's probably be the very minor, temporary "positive headline" bump for Obama (Supreme Court vindicates Obama) and then most people (i.e. not the hyper-partisans on both sides) will stop paying attention again.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Sounds like conservative wish-casting to me.

Maybe, but it's the way people on both sides think these days. Get them riled up over something this polarizing and they start doing things about it. I the the Tea Party is a fair example. People who often don't vote rose up and made their voices heard. I dunno, maybe I'm all wet on this, but I think this will have some sort of a boomerang effect in the election. I'm not saying it will cost Obama the election, but I think this whole Obamacare thing will have a positive vote effect for the right.

 

[Minstrel]

Maybe, but it's the way people on both sides think these days. Get them riled up over something this polarizing and they start doing things about it. I the the Tea Party is a fair example. People who often don't vote rose up and made their voices heard. I dunno, maybe I'm all wet on this, but I think this will have some sort of a boomerang effect in the election. I'm not saying it will cost Obama the election, but I think this whole Obamacare thing will have a positive vote effect for the right.

I think it will, too, but not over and above what it's already done to Obama's approval ratings. I don't think this Supreme Court decision hurts Obama...I think passing the bill in the first place hurt him. There's a reason analysts talked incessantly about him spending political capital back then...there was going to be a clear cost for trying to institute something that's never been successfully passed in this country before (on a national level).

I think the ACA will be plenty popular once it's actually up and running for a few years, but I definitely expected it to hurt Obama til then.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I don't think this Supreme Court decision hurts Obama...I think passing the bill in the first place hurt him.

A very good point.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

"Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying," Michael Savage said on his radio program this evening.

:MARIS61:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...pilepsy_medication_effects_his_cognition.html

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

:MARIS61:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...pilepsy_medication_effects_his_cognition.html

This is why I don't like radio & TV media personalities. They're all just plain stupid. It's an act. Their entertainers.

 

[BrianFromWA]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html

This is a substantial rollback of Congress' regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts' nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as "whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce." Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.
Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

Chess, not checkers. Not that I personally understand it, but die-hard liberal friends in WA gov't went from "YESSSS! In your FACE, Republicans!" to "Oh, shit." in about 2 hours yesterday.

 

[Minstrel]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html


Chess, not checkers. Not that I personally understand it, but die-hard liberal friends in WA gov't went from "YESSSS! In your FACE, Republicans!" to "Oh, shit." in about 2 hours yesterday.

I've read some conservatives espouse this line of thinking (not that Slate is conservative, that isn't my point), that it was a master stroke in "changing" Congress' ability to use the commerce clause and others decrying Roberts for setting precedent increasing how Congress can use taxes (taxing people for not doing something).

I can't claim to know enough about law to comment on whether Roberts materially changed the system (and how, if so), but it is interesting to me how wide the split is on what Roberts did.

 

[Ed O]

Roberts had to balance his role as a justice and his role as chief justice. He wants to maintain the perceived credibility of the court and he needed to compromise, perhaps, how he otherwise would have ruled.

Krauthammer makes this point pretty well, I think, bringing up both Roe v Wade and Bush v Gore in his analysis. http://news.investors.com/article/6...ducks-another-bush-gore-with-court-ruling.htm

In terms of whether it hurts Obama as a candidate: I think it does. There was a reason that he and other Democrats were swearing up and down that the mandate was not a tax: people don't like taxes. Assuming they were making that assertion with some political reasoning, it's possible that the people who they were able to reach before with that message will feel betrayed and not support him or be more energetic in their opposition.

I think it's more clear that whichever side lost was going to be energized: Democrats should feel good that the law was upheld but it will almost certainly result in fewer liberal voters coming to the polls in November than if the SCOTUS had outrageously thwarted the will of the people. The GOP, on the other hand, would have had some of the wind taken out of their outraged sails by having the SCOTUS agree with their assertions, and I would anticipate there will be more angry conservatives voting in the upcoming elections than there otherwise would have been.

For Obama the POTUS and for his legacy, it was a good ruling. If he can retain the White House then Obamacare will have more time to be rolled out and will be more difficult to repeal. If Obamacare doesn't end up working, he might have ended up looking better to have it nipped in the bud by the judicial brance, but he will appear less impotent in any event.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

Roberts had to balance his role as a justice and his role as chief justice. He wants to maintain the perceived credibility of the court and he needed to compromise, perhaps, how he otherwise would have ruled.

Krauthammer makes this point pretty well, I think, bringing up both Roe v Wade and Bush v Gore in his analysis. http://news.investors.com/article/6...ducks-another-bush-gore-with-court-ruling.htm

Maybe that's it. Maybe as someone else wrote, his epilepsy drugs are affecting his mental powers. Or maybe he personally thought the law was good. Or maybe he honestly thought it was constitutional on its merits. Or maybe his children were kidnapped by liberals and held hostage until he voted to uphold. Maybe he's a communist. Maybe he was born in Kenya.

In terms of whether it hurts Obama as a candidate: I think it does. There was a reason that he and other Democrats were swearing up and down that the mandate was not a tax: people don't like taxes. Assuming they were making that assertion with some political reasoning, it's possible that the people who they were able to reach before with that message will feel betrayed and not support him or be more energetic in their opposition.

I doubt anyone cares that Obama said it wasn't a tax and the supreme court ruled that it technically was (I mean, other than people who oppose it anyway). Who was in favor of Obamacare only because the penalty wasn't called a tax?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Personally, I think the simplest explanation is probably the right one: Roberts was making no comment on whether it was good policy, he simply ruled on whether it was constitutional, as per his job. This idea that he betrayed conservative ideals in upholding this law, as though Supreme Court justices are philosopher-kings who are supposed to rule on the wisdom of laws and he went against conservative wisdom, is beyond bizarre (not aiming this at any specific poster in this thread, but it's a sentiment I've seen expressed plenty over the past day and a half). It was never considered obviously unconstitutional...that's often a term used by people who don't like a law, regardless of the actual legal merits.

Let's remember this is a proposal that came out of a conservative think tank and was championed by congressional Republicans in the 1990s. Which makes Newt Gingrich going on FOX News yesterday to say that the "activist judges" on the Supreme Court should be arrested for upholding the constitutionality of a proposal his Republican House put forth amazingly funny.