Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: SCOTUS Ruling On The ACA

Zen Peach





Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 10:24 AM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

193 pages. Attorney input welcomed.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 
Replies:

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4066
(4063 all sites)
Registered: 12/11/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 10:32 AM
I am much, much, much more comfortable with this being upheld as part of Congress's right to tax than I would have if it had been upheld citing interstate commerce. I think they already go way beyond what the word interstate was intended (which meant between states not national when it was written).

If they had taken that next step to say that Congress could compel me to buy something as part of their right to regulate interstate commerce, there would have been no end to the central powers our government would have had. It's already scary how comfortable people are in giving the Federal Government control over activity in this land.

I think there are significantly better free market ways to solve the health care issues in America than Obamacare (which we really haven't had since Johnson and Nixon got the Federal Govt significantly more inolved in health care) so I was hoping it would be overturned. Based on how the individual mandate was upheld, I'm much more comfortable with the constitutional concerns I had on limiting the federal government. ---- or at least that is my initial reaction from the small pieces I have read thus far.

 

____________________
Tim L.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 11:29 AM
quote:
193 pages. Attorney input welcomed.


Can i sue for cruel and unusual punishment?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 11:31 AM
quote:
I am much, much, much more comfortable with this being upheld as part of Congress's right to tax than I would have if it had been upheld citing interstate commerce. I think they already go way beyond what the word interstate was intended (which meant between states not national when it was written).

If they had taken that next step to say that Congress could compel me to buy something as part of their right to regulate interstate commerce, there would have been no end to the central powers our government would have had. It's already scary how comfortable people are in giving the Federal Government control over activity in this land.

I think there are significantly better free market ways to solve the health care issues in America than Obamacare (which we really haven't had since Johnson and Nixon got the Federal Govt significantly more inolved in health care) so I was hoping it would be overturned. Based on how the individual mandate was upheld, I'm much more comfortable with the constitutional concerns I had on limiting the federal government. ---- or at least that is my initial reaction from the small pieces I have read thus far.


Excellent point. One of the major thing thoughtful conservatives worried about was that the decision would be precedent to utterly abrogate federalism. This will not be the case. The federal government is still one of specifically enumerated powers.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8388
(8389 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 11:52 AM
Have to agree w/Tim regarding the Commerce Clause. That would have set a dangerous precedent.

So it was sold to the people as not being a tax because they knew it would never pass if they did it that way. It was argued in court as a tax by the same folks who said it wasn't. Now the Supremes say it can be a tax, which was always the obvious Constitutional way to do it. Wonder what that means regarding how it's instituted, and how people will feel about and/or support it?

Gonna be interesting in watching it play out from here. Since I don't believe the law was ever designed to work, and only to create mass confusion as a means to get to single-payer, it appears that this whole issue will consume Congress for years to come - with all that implies. As the old saying goes: be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 12:03 PM
Rich, I posted the following in another thread, because I am one of the confused:

I did not read the ruling yet, but if the penalty is rightly regarded as a tax within the power of Congress, do these ruling take into account intentionalism, i.e. the section where it mentions it can be reasonably read as a tax? I am still confused between tax and a penalty i think. The way the penalty "looks" makes it a tax? So if I look in the sky and see a cloud that looks like Ms. Piggy, is it actually Ms. Piggy or did nature intend to make watger vapor into Ms. Piggy? The clouds are not Ms. Piggy, except for my intent to see it as Ms. Piggy.

I do not mean the preceding to be a wise arse comment either. I am legitimately confused by law, which is why I try to stay clear of the law!!

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8388
(8389 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 12:14 PM
Not being a lawyer Jim, I can't give you the most educated answer to your question.

Until I understand it better, I have some similar questions. They did not authorize this under the Commerce Clause, which is good. They say that the penalty can be called a tax. But the penalty is for not engaging in commerce as the Federal govt decrees. Huh? How does that not expand what the Federal govt can force upon people?

Seems rather circular nonsense to me at this point, but perhaps it will all clear up as I learn more.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5471
(5470 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 12:36 PM
my favorite comment so far.......

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky…

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 12:45 PM
I know there are a lot of people who will benefit from some kind of affordable health care with no pre-existing condition. I don't know what the ruling means and I haven't read the healh care bill but in my heart I believe it's going to be a good thing in the long run.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 12:53 PM
quote:
my favorite comment so far.......

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky…

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right."




I'll be looking forward to Sen. Moonbeam - excuse me, Sen. Rand - taking on the CONSERVATIVE US Supreme Court and overturning all decisions he does not agree with - by himself.

Can you say "Delusions Of Grandeur?"

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:02 PM
It's a losing strategy for the republicans to keep harping about repealing health care, that ship has sailed. While the vast majority of the jobs he created have been in low cost countries, I'm sure Romney rather talk about the economy and try to huckster his phantom job creation expertise from here on out if he has any chance to win.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4066
(4063 all sites)
Registered: 12/11/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:11 PM
Rand fan here. I don't agree with everything as he does, but he's in Washington trying to limit the police power of the Federal Government over our lives. Thankfully, there are a few there trying to do that.

He's trying to limit the ability of the Executive branch to grab authority expressly given to Congress (wars etc)...he fights the unnecessary federal war on drugs, expansion of police powers of the IRS, he fights against raising Federal taxes, and is serious about a balanced budget and more....including being a BIG 4th Amendment champion. He doesn't vote party lines, in fact he fights his own party on major issues.

You might not agree with his view that unnemerated powers are as narrow or literal as they are listed in Article 1, Section 8, but at least he's a balance of opinion against the majority of Dems and Repubs who want more power centralized in DC.

 

____________________
Tim L.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4066
(4063 all sites)
Registered: 12/11/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:12 PM
Rand fan here. I don't agree with everything as he does, but he's in Washington trying to limit the police power of the Federal Government over our lives. Thankfully, there are a few there trying to do that.

He's trying to limit the ability of the Executive branch to grab authority expressly given to Congress (wars etc)...he fights the unnecessary federal war on drugs, expansion of police powers of the IRS, he fights against raising Federal taxes, and is serious about a balanced budget and more....including being a BIG 4th Amendment champion. He doesn't vote party lines, in fact he fights his own party on major issues.

You might not agree with his view that unnumerated powers are as narrow or literal as they are listed in Article 1, Section 8, but at least he's a balance of opinion against the majority of Dems and Repubs who want more power centralized in DC.

 

____________________
Tim L.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:29 PM
quote:
I'm sure Romney rather talk about the economy


I am not sure how healthcare will create more jobs. He would be stupid not to talk about the economy. Did you see the GDP number from the government today? Its horrible, and that was a government number. The government makes assumptions in their models that are not definable. Hence the assumption. The economy is still not good, and to make believe like its not a problem would be foolish.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:36 PM
quote:
quote:
I'm sure Romney rather talk about the economy


I am not sure how healthcare will create more jobs. He would be stupid not to talk about the economy. Did you see the GDP number from the government today? Its horrible, and that was a government number. The government makes assumptions in their models that are not definable. Hence the assumption. The economy is still not good, and to make believe like its not a problem would be foolish.


All the more reason the obstructionists should have passed the second stimulus instead of doing nothing then blaming the bad economy on Obama. The first one worked just wasn't big enough. The second one would have also.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:38 PM
quote:
Rand fan here. I don't agree with everything as he does, but he's in Washington trying to limit the police power of the Federal Government over our lives. Thankfully, there are a few there trying to do that.

He's trying to limit the ability of the Executive branch to grab authority expressly given to Congress (wars etc)...he fights the unnecessary federal war on drugs, expansion of police powers of the IRS, he fights against raising Federal taxes, and is serious about a balanced budget and more....including being a BIG 4th Amendment champion. He doesn't vote party lines, in fact he fights his own party on major issues.

You might not agree with his view that unnemerated powers are as narrow or literal as they are listed in Article 1, Section 8, but at least he's a balance of opinion against the majority of Dems and Repubs who want more power centralized in DC.


INHO he is beholden to the Tea Party without whose support he never would have had any chance of being elected. This guy is so extreme that his views are out of step with most level - headed Americans - and I'm including you in that group, Tim...

Excerpt:

Here is a look at some of Paul's most controversial beliefs, in his own words:

1. Government shouldn't require private businesses to serve customers of all races

"I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."
—Interview with Louisville Courier-Journal, April 25, 2010

2. The U.S. is secretly planning a European Union-style merger with Mexico and Canada

"I saw the YouTube of [former Mexican president] Vincente Fox talking about [the single North American currency] the Amero. So, it's not a secret. Now it may not be [here] tomorrow, but it took 'em 20 or 30 years to get the Euro, and they had to push people kicking and screaming.... But I guarantee you it's one of their long term goals to have one sort of borderless, mass continent."
—Ron Paul campaign event, Bozeman, MT, 2008

3. A nuclear Iran isn't necessarily a threat

"Our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon."
—Ron Paul rally, Burlington, VT, October 2007

4. Rein in Medicare — but not Medicare's payments to doctors (presumably including Rand Paul, a practicing optometrist who says half his patients are on Medicare)

"Medicare is socialized medicine," and one way to control medical costs would be to impose a $2,000 deductible in the program. "But try selling that one in an election."
—Comments in Lexington, KY, June 2009

5. Mountaintop coal mining is good for real estate values

"I think whoever owns the property can do with the property as they wish, and if the coal company buys it from a private property owner and they want to do it, fine. The other thing is that I think coal gets a bad name, because apparently a lot of the land is desirable once it gets flattened out... I don’t think anyone’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there. Some people like the flat land, and some of it apparently has become rather valuable when it’s become flattened."
—TV interview, October 2009

http://theweek.com/article/index/203270/rand-pauls-5-most-controversial-bel iefs

So - Medicare is socialized medicine, "but make sure you make out the check to DR. RAND PAUL, please...." Credibility at its finest - or maybe not.

This in addition to his wondrous statements about how he WOULDN'T have voted for the Civil Rights Act. And then when the sh!t hit the fan, rightfully so, after he made his bone-headed comment, he backtracked - as he has done time after time, after stuffing his foot in his mouth over and over and over....I mean, how many times has Mitch McConnell, of all people, had to apologize for yet another intemperate and politically radioactive faux pas by Sen. Paul?

Obviously he is an unabashed attention whore who thinks any publicity is good publicity and who just can't stand to be out of the spotlight for over 5 minutes. But there are an awful lot of his GOP colleagues in the Senate and the Republican Party in general that wish he would learn to THINK before he opens his big mouth and would, once in a while, just choose to keep it shut instead of once reaffirming what a nutcase he really is.

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 69132
(69493 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:40 PM
As I stated before, my daughter got a job with a healthcare software company that increased their employees by 1000 from 4000 to 5000 last summer.

Will the fact that more records need to be computerized eventually cost some clerical jobs for managing all the paperwork? Hard to say.....

 

____________________

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3172
(3171 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:49 PM
quote:
As I stated before, my daughter got a job with a healthcare software company that increased their employees by 1000 from 4000 to 5000 last summer.

Will the fact that more records need to be computerized eventually cost some clerical jobs for managing all the paperwork? Hard to say.....


Yep, we are heading down the road to socialist Europe, where there are bureaucrats and pencil pushers employeed by the thousands to make sure foreign companies all comply with their new regulations that they issue to "protect" their citizens.

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4066
(4063 all sites)
Registered: 12/11/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 01:53 PM
Rand essentially thinks the Constituion should have been changed to allow for a single (yet major) provision of the Civil Rights Act. I don't agree with his point (though I could be convinced if I read more on it), but I see his point. We used to respect the Consitution more and would amend it (prohibition for example) rather than twist it to give new meaning to the interstate commerce words. It's a reasonable argument even if I don't agree with it that particular case.

 

____________________
Tim L.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 02:04 PM
quote:
quote:
I'm sure Romney rather talk about the economy


I am not sure how healthcare will create more jobs. He would be stupid not to talk about the economy. Did you see the GDP number from the government today? Its horrible, and that was a government number. The government makes assumptions in their models that are not definable. Hence the assumption. The economy is still not good, and to make believe like its not a problem would be foolish.


Taking the responsibility and cost burden of providing health insurance coverage out of the hands of company's should lead to having more capital on hand to hire more employees.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 02:08 PM
quote:
Rand essentially thinks the Constituion should have been changed to allow for a single (yet major) provision of the Civil Rights Act. I don't agree with his point (though I could be convinced if I read more on it), but I see his point. We used to respect the Consitution more and would amend it (prohibition for example) rather than twist it to give new meaning to the interstate commerce words. It's a reasonable argument even if I don't agree with it that particular case.


So, Tim, is that a Tea Party tenet? To "change the Constitution" whenever you don't agree with it?

How does that gibe with the Tea Party ethos - you know, those guys marching around in those ridiculous outfits and tricorn hats railing about the "sanctity of the Constitution" and how the "Founding Fathers" would be rolling over in their graves because of the battering the Constitution was constantly taking from the left?

The main reason the TP was created in the first place was to protect the sanctity of the Constitution, not change it.

You (meaning Rand) can't have it both ways. You can't say "The Constitution is an inviolate document and must be strictly adhered to under ANY and ALL circumstances - that is, except for this little piece....and oh yeah, that one...and what about this one over here...."

You CAN do that - but then you've now become exactly that which you were elected for demonizing in the first place.....

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 02:11 PM
I still watch in amazement as Romney now vows if he is elected to repeal the law that was based on and modeled after the law he passed when governor. This man is a sociopath.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46751
(46752 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 02:11 PM
quote:
quote:
I'm sure Romney rather talk about the economy


I am not sure how healthcare will create more jobs


Demographics.

Healthcare for the Baby Boomers just might be the largest cottage industry in the history of industry and cottages.

I work for a hospital. We are hiring an amazing amount of people right now to keep up with our expansion.

Look around. There's assisted living facilities and pharmacies and hospital expansions everywhere. Guaranteed growth industry. Lots of opportunities on the care side and on the administrative side.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 02:19 PM
quote:
Rich, I posted the following in another thread, because I am one of the confused:

I did not read the ruling yet, but if the penalty is rightly regarded as a tax within the power of Congress, do these ruling take into account intentionalism, i.e. the section where it mentions it can be reasonably read as a tax? I am still confused between tax and a penalty i think. The way the penalty "looks" makes it a tax? So if I look in the sky and see a cloud that looks like Ms. Piggy, is it actually Ms. Piggy or did nature intend to make watger vapor into Ms. Piggy? The clouds are not Ms. Piggy, except for my intent to see it as Ms. Piggy.

I do not mean the preceding to be a wise arse comment either. I am legitimately confused by law, which is why I try to stay clear of the law!!



Haven't fully finished it yet but from what I understand, the opinion holds that it is reasonable to regard the penalty as a tax because it is likely to be significantly less in cost than actually purchasing insurance. This is what makes it constitutional. Of course this same thing is what is likely to make it not work. Healthy people and small businesses will pay the tax rather than purchase insurance. Since insurance depends on the healthy (who use it less) to pay the premiums that support the use of the insurance by the sick and since the law eliminates pre-existing conditions as a reason to exclude coverage, the insurance companies will be bankrupted. Shockingly the tax revenues collected in lieu of purchasing insurance do not even go to help the insurers stay solvent. They go into the federal coffers.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2012 at 02:22 PM
quote:
As I stated before, my daughter got a job with a healthcare software company that increased their employees by 1000 from 4000 to 5000 last summer.

Will the fact that more records need to be computerized eventually cost some clerical jobs for managing all the paperwork? Hard to say.....


There is no way this law helps the economy. You can argue it is necessary ANYWAY for other policy reasons but any additional burden on business cannot help but depress the economy.

 

____________________

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com