All right, Supreme Court is scheduled to make known to everyone what everyone except Yi already knew. Will they go for the mandate and the associated parts, or will they just put chainsaw to the whole thing?
If they determine that the "individual mandate"--such as it is--isn't overly prohibitive to Johnny Six Pack, the whole thing could still pass judicial muster.
It's kinda tough to fuck with the Commerce Clause, though.
What does "judicial" have to do with it?
I still think they'll uphold the mandate and, broadly, most of the law. I'm not sure that is constitutional. But if it happens it seems the right result from a common sense perspective and would be better for the Republicans.
great, an other zzzzzz US politics thread which will, in 2 pages, deteriorate into Berkut and Dguller going at each other as loyal party soldiers do.
Here's a good place to follow the action
http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2012, 08:57:16 AM
What does "judicial" have to do with it?
Well, as far as judicial goes, I fully expect two things:
1) Scalia to make stuff up as he goes along. As usual.
2) Thomas to write nothing. As usual.
Stolen Valor act thrown out. Free speech y'all.
Lol, CSPAN live just has a long shot of the court over video of the SCOTUS blog.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Supreme-Court-Announces-Health-Care-Ruling/10737431946-9/
Quote from: Tamas on June 28, 2012, 09:00:18 AM
great, an other zzzzzz US politics thread which will, in 2 pages, deteriorate into Berkut and Dguller going at each other as loyal party soldiers do.
Berkut's going to explode when he finds out you called him a loyal partisan :o
It's upheld!
The individual mandate survives as a tax.
WTF?
Individual mandate falls under taxation, BTW. It's good to go.
CNN says it's overturned, SCOTUSBlog says it's upheld. Huh?
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2012, 09:09:32 AM
WTF?
Roberts voted for it.
The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.
Upheld as a tax, not under the commerce clause.
Guller: acting like a whiny bitch for months for no reason.
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2012, 09:11:21 AM
CNN says it's overturned, SCOTUSBlog says it's upheld. Huh?
Probably a Dewey beat Truman kind of thing.
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2012, 09:11:21 AM
CNN says it's overturned, SCOTUSBlog says it's upheld. Huh?
It's the old "two-version" trick. They fired off the wrong headline; it's happened a couple times this year already. They seriously need to fire whoever's in charge of web content deployment.
5-4 decision with Roberts with the liberals!
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2012, 09:11:21 AM
CNN says it's overturned, SCOTUSBlog says it's upheld. Huh?
Yeah what is that about?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 28, 2012, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2012, 09:11:21 AM
CNN says it's overturned, SCOTUSBlog says it's upheld. Huh?
It's the old "two-version" trick. They fired off the wrong headline; it's happened a couple times this year already. They seriously need to fire whoever's in charge of web content deployment.
Ah gotcha. Lame!
Seedys pants are a dairy factory?
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
Seedys pants are a dairy factory?
Doesn't this go against his narrative of the terribly partisan and corrupt Supreme court? Can't wait to see his reconciliation of his two positions. :)
And what does Yi have to cough up?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 28, 2012, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2012, 09:11:21 AM
CNN says it's overturned, SCOTUSBlog says it's upheld. Huh?
It's the old "two-version" trick. They fired off the wrong headline; it's happened a couple times this year already. They seriously need to fire whoever's in charge of web content deployment.
Actually, they misread the opinion in a quick read through, at least the TV version of CNN did.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2012, 09:07:31 AM
Berkut's going to explode when he finds out you called him a loyal partisan :o
It's Tamas. :secret:
Berkut is going to ignore his lame troll, as well he should.
What I heard yesterday was that Roberts was going to wait & see how the other voting went. If it was 4-4, he'd vote to strike it down, but if it was 5-3 in favor of the law, he'd side with those in favor so that he could write the majority opinion and 'limit the damage', so to speak. I didn't think it likely, but it looks like the latter may have actually happened.
This is probably better for Romney then Obama with regards to the election I'd think, the Tea Party will be super pumped to come out and vote, while if they'd won I think a lot would have passed on Romney.
What does that mean?
Quote
10:20 The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.
Nothing:
QuoteTom: Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:21:07 AM
This is probably better for Romney then Obama with regards to the election I'd think, the Tea Party will be super pumped to come out and vote, while if they'd won I think a lot would have passed on Romney.
Ah what a world we live in where the only significant piece of legislation Obama managed to get through Congress being struck down by the Supreme Court, so that he would have none at all, would have been considered a positive for his election prospects.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2012, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 09:15:45 AM
Seedys pants are a dairy factory?
Doesn't this go against his narrative of the terribly partisan and corrupt Supreme court? Can't wait to see his reconciliation of his two positions. :)
Obviously Roberts doesn't have the balls just yet to entrench himself in history as
El Partisan.
Thomas and Scalia are so going to beat him up in the locker room.
Hmm... I wonder how this will effect future cases.
QuoteThe Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2012, 09:25:56 AM
Ah what a world we live in where the only significant piece of legislation Obama managed to get through Congress
Dodds-Frank and Stimulus are pretty significant too. This is the most significant.
Is it just me or does this seem the silliest option of rulings? The Federal government can't make you buy health insurance but they can tax you if you don't :mellow: :huh:
:x :x
Nailed it. SC went 5-4 that the mandate wasn't allowed by the Commerce Clause. :yeah: :unsure:
:yeah:
The tears on Fox News are so delicious.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:27:52 AM
Hmm... I wonder how this will effect future cases.
QuoteThe Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
Probably little impact. In the past 15-20 years, there have been less than a half dozen cases which turned on the Commerce Clause. I haven't read the opinion yet because it's not available, but I imagine the reasoning is based on the fact that the mandate requires individuals to participate in interstate commerce. I can't imagine too many other laws where that wouldnbe that case. That distinction aside, the Commerce Clause has been so broadly interpreted that it is fairly easy for legislation to withstand Commerce Clause challenges.
Edit:
The opinion is at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Do you become retarded by being on the supreme court or are you put there because you are retarded?
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2012, 09:25:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:21:07 AM
This is probably better for Romney then Obama with regards to the election I'd think, the Tea Party will be super pumped to come out and vote, while if they'd won I think a lot would have passed on Romney.
Ah what a world we live in where the only significant piece of legislation Obama managed to get through Congress being struck down by the Supreme Court, so that he would have none at all, would have been considered a positive for his election prospects.
Mittens and the Teabaggers would have more ammo if any of it had been shot down.
Quote from: stjaba on June 28, 2012, 09:41:38 AM
Probably little impact. In the past 15-20 years, there have been less than a half dozen cases which turned on the Commerce Clause. I haven't read the opinion yet because it's not available, but I imagine the reasoning is based on the fact that the mandate requires individuals to participate in interstate commerce. I can't imagine too many other laws where that wouldnbe that case. That distinction aside, the Commerce Clause has been so broadly interpreted that it is fairly easy for legislation to withstand Commerce Clause challenges.
Individual retirement accounts of some kind?
Can someone explain Derspicy post to me?
Hey we decided,
Healthcare's crazy,
But you can tax it.
So it stays maybe?
Ders, that doesn't seem to be what happened at all. He could've voted to strike it down in its entirey and that would've been it.
Yes! Victory for America!
:unsure:
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 09:43:34 AM
Can someone explain Derspicy post to me?
Never mind. I originally saw that the decision was 6-3, and it turned out to be 5-4 after all, with Roberts essentially casting the tiebreaking vote to uphold the law. The scenario I was talking about did not happen.
Yeah, that was unexpected. I expected Roberts to make 6-3 if Kennedy decided to be a liberal that day, but I didn't expect Roberts to be the deciding vote. That was shocking. Maybe Roberts got annoyed with Kennedy deciding all the cases, and is now trying to go left of Kennedy to become the new tie breaker.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2012, 09:29:44 AM
Is it just me or does this seem the silliest option of rulings? The Federal government can't make you buy health insurance but they can tax you if you don't :mellow: :huh:
You can not pay, but the Gubmint won't go after you criminally, like they would with income tax evasion. In short, if you don't pay, you owe the government. Worse thing that happens, your credit rating gets gigged. Maybe.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2012, 09:44:04 AM
Yes! Victory for America!
:unsure:
Yes, victory for America. We're one step closer to leaving barbarism behind and joining the enlightened European model when it comes to healthcare.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
You can not pay, but the Gubmint won't go after you criminally, like they would with income tax evasion. In short, if you don't pay, you owe the government. Worse thing that happens, your credit rating gets gigged. Maybe.
I thought there was discussion of holding tax returns, as well. :unsure:
Quote from: stjaba on June 28, 2012, 09:41:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:27:52 AM
Hmm... I wonder how this will effect future cases.
QuoteThe Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
Probably little impact. In the past 15-20 years, there have been less than a half dozen cases which turned on the Commerce Clause. I haven't read the opinion yet because it's not available, but I imagine the reasoning is based on the fact that the mandate requires individuals to participate in interstate commerce. I can't imagine too many other laws where that wouldnbe that case. That distinction aside, the Commerce Clause has been so broadly interpreted that it is fairly easy for legislation to withstand Commerce Clause challenges.
Edit:
The opinion is at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
SCOTUS blog disagrees
QuoteLyle:
The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2012, 09:44:04 AM
Yes! Victory for America!
:unsure:
Eh it may not survive long enough to become too popular to get rid of. If the Republicans sweep to victory this year they will repeal it.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 09:48:57 AM
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 09:43:34 AM
Can someone explain Derspicy post to me?
Never mind. I originally saw that the decision was 6-3, and it turned out to be 5-4 after all, with Roberts essentially casting the tiebreaking vote to uphold the law. The scenario I was talking about did not happen.
Ah gotcha.
Quote from: merithyn on June 28, 2012, 09:56:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
You can not pay, but the Gubmint won't go after you criminally, like they would with income tax evasion. In short, if you don't pay, you owe the government. Worse thing that happens, your credit rating gets gigged. Maybe.
I thought there was discussion of holding tax returns, as well. :unsure:
Yeah, but not everybody gets tax returns.
Tim we all can agree you are a fucking idiot, that isn't the opinion of the blog but one of the bloggers, which by the way others disagree with.
Freepers greatest hits:
"On the contrary, this has awakened a sleeping giant. Now, anyone who does not get out and vote against Obama is officially an enemy of the United States."
"I won't. I WILL NOT SUCCUMB TO THEIR SLAVERY ANYMORE! If they darken my door they won't leave. My line has been drawn in the sand."
"When some is called a Benedict Arnold he is deemed a traitor. Will being called a John Roberts go to mean the same?"
"It is time for revolution/violent opposition, then gallows."
"Traitor John Roberts needs to have a Garand old time."
I hear Cuba is nice this time of year :)
Quote from: Faeelin on June 28, 2012, 09:44:04 AM
Hey we decided,
Healthcare's crazy,
But you can tax it.
So it stays maybe?
Odd.
.... Are not welfare, medicaid, medicare all financed through the taxing and spending clauses?
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 10:00:27 AM
Tim we all can agree you are a fucking idiot, that isn't the opinion of the blog but one of the bloggers, which by the way others disagree with.
The dissent of the other blogger was not yet written when I posted that.
Upheld and Hans frothing at the mouth...... :lmfao: :lmfao:
On Twitter I'm seeing lots of conservatives calling Roberts the new Souter. And there's this from a Breitbart editor:
benshapiro @benshapiro
This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.
benshapiro @benshapiro
Chief Justice Roberts was the worst part of the Bush legacy.
That 'no exaggeration' is wonderful :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on June 28, 2012, 09:55:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2012, 09:44:04 AM
Yes! Victory for America!
:unsure:
Yes, victory for America. We're one step closer to leaving barbarism behind and joining the enlightened European model when it comes to healthcare.
Oh yes. I particularly liked when we ran interview in Britain when we came across individuals suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis but they couldn't go on biologics as their GP has "used up" his budget. They were told that as soon as someone went off it, then they'd be able to.
And the general lack of knowledge patients seemed to have about medications meaning that they'd be kept on less effective treatments because 1) they didn't know about them and b) their physicians didn't think they were cost effective.
Man, you americans are weird, sometime.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2012, 09:58:07 AM
Yeah, but not everybody gets tax returns.
My understanding on how this will work is that having insurance will be considered a tax break. So, on your tax returns, you'll include whether you have health insurance, and if so, an amount will be taken off your taxable income. If not, it stays on. So, it becomes an aspect of your tax return whether you get a return or not.
If that's not how it's set up, it sure oughta be that way. <_<
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:56:50 AM
SCOTUS blog disagrees
QuoteLyle:
The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.
Can you think of any other social welfare laws, enacted or proposed, that requires all US citizens to purchase privately provided goods or services? Me neither.
Just because a case is politically important does not necessarily it will be legally important. Bush v. Gore is the most famous example of this. Like Bush v. Gore, this case(at least the commerce clause aspect of it) is fairly unique.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:56:50 AM
SCOTUS blog disagrees
QuoteLyle:
The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.
I'm not convinced. Social welfare can in general be done through the Spending Clause, rather than Commerce.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 10:02:43 AM
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 10:00:27 AM
Tim we all can agree you are a fucking idiot, that isn't the opinion of the blog but one of the bloggers, which by the way others disagree with.
The dissent of the other blogger was not yet written when I posted that.
Don't make me send garbon after you, he'll cut your face.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2012, 10:05:26 AM
Oh yes. I particularly liked when we ran interview in Britain when we came across individuals suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis but they couldn't go on biologics as their GP has "used up" his budget. They were told that as soon as someone went off it, then they'd be able to.
And the general lack of knowledge patients seemed to have about medications meaning that they'd be kept on less effective treatments because 1) they didn't know about them and b) their physicians didn't think they were cost effective.
Better lesser treatments than none. Better access to a GP at all rather than visits to ERs.
You're viewing this from the perspective of an insured individual who has private insurance. Nothing will change for you in regards to your medical care for some time, if it does at all. However, for the millions of people with no medical coverage whatsoever and no possibility of getting it due to pre-existing conditions, this is an amazing win.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2012, 10:05:26 AM
Oh yes. I particularly liked when we ran interview in Britain when we came across individuals suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis but they couldn't go on biologics as their GP has "used up" his budget. They were told that as soon as someone went off it, then they'd be able to.
And the general lack of knowledge patients seemed to have about medications meaning that they'd be kept on less effective treatments because 1) they didn't know about them and b) their physicians didn't think they were cost effective.
Heh. You do not have to look hard to find shitloads of horror stories coming out of our system as well.
But even if this thing goes forward it is not like we are going to get their system and even if we did Britain still has a private sector that will take your insurance. It is not like you HAVE to use the NHS right?
Quote from: merithyn on June 28, 2012, 10:13:15 AM
You're viewing this from the perspective of an insured individual who has private insurance. Nothing will change for you in regards to your medical care for some time, if it does at all.
Oh, so you mean it's not going to get more expensive-- like it already has?
Quote from: merithyn on June 28, 2012, 10:13:15 AM
Better lesser treatments than none. Better access to a GP at all rather than visits to ERs.
You're viewing this from the perspective of an insured individual who has private insurance. Nothing will change for you in regards to your medical care for some time, if it does at all. However, for the millions of people with no medical coverage whatsoever and no possibility of getting it due to pre-existing conditions, this is an amazing win.
Except that you said one step closer which implies that you'd like us to continue morphing into a Euro-style healthcare system.
I completely agree that this is a win for America and a win for all of those without insurance (especially because the mandate was kept intact - would have been terrible if that was the only part thrown out!). That doesn't mean though that I'd like to see the sort of further change you hinted at.
Oh and no, their lesser medications in the cases I was discussing were almost the equivalent of doing nothing. They were in constant pain (though no big surprise there with RA) and their disease was rapidly progressing.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 10:20:12 AM
Oh, so you mean it's not going to get more expensive-- like it already has?
Heh well to be fair it was monstrously expensive, with constantly skyrocketing costs, anyway. This whole thing strikes me as debating furiously over the arrangement of deck chairs on the titanic.
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 10:12:57 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 10:02:43 AM
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 10:00:27 AM
Tim we all can agree you are a fucking idiot, that isn't the opinion of the blog but one of the bloggers, which by the way others disagree with.
The dissent of the other blogger was not yet written when I posted that.
Don't make me send garbon after you, he'll cut your face.
What incentive do I have to fight your battes? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 10:20:12 AM
Oh, so you mean it's not going to get more expensive-- like it already has?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consumerwatchdog.org%2Fimages%2FHealthPremiumsRiseChart.jpg&hash=4020c349ef2e96b25de3986010261c38001a74b1)
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/images/HealthPremiumsRiseChart.jpg
Is this like a Marbury moment for Roberts? Did he concede this one case to his opponents to win the legal precedent he needed? I am just a layman so forgive the perhaps clumsy legal analogy.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 10:20:12 AM
Oh, so you mean it's not going to get more expensive-- like it already has?
I saw on the news this morning that insurance costs have risen 9% since 2011. Only 1-2% could be blamed on the Healthcare Reform Bill. I work directly with insuring the uninsurable through the Federal Program set up to help them. Their premium costs are significantly more than average; no one is getting a free ride with this program, I assure you. And most importantly, one of the biggest changes will be that it will be federally mandated that at least 70% of all premiums go directly toward healthcare costs. Those are significant changes that will help defray any additional costs to insurance. Yes, costs will go up, but my best guess is that insurance companies will use this as an excuse to raise premiums, but it won't be NECESSARY for them to do so.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2012, 10:21:39 AM
Except that you said one step closer which implies that you'd like us to continue morphing into a Euro-style healthcare system.
I completely agree that this is a win for America and a win for all of those without insurance (especially because the mandate was kept intact - would have been terrible if that was the only part thrown out!). That doesn't mean though that I'd like to see the sort of further change you hinted at.
Oh and no, their lesser medications in the cases I was discussing were almost the equivalent of doing nothing. They were in constant pain (though no big surprise there with RA) and their disease was rapidly progressing.
Oh, no, I meant that there is still a chance at Congress could find a way to get rid of it. I don't expect much to really change beyond where things are now for quite a long while.
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2012, 10:22:32 AM
What incentive do I have to fight your battes? :huh:
:ph34r:
The Supreme Court have backstabbed America.
Quote from: Siege on June 28, 2012, 10:47:11 AM
The Supreme Court have backstabbed America.
2D6 extra damage!
:punk: :yeah: :contract: ^_^
Guller, do you still have my personal info or do you need it again? :)
American peeps, under your current health care arrangements, is an ambulance service one of the emergency services you can choose when you call 911, like it is when we dial 999 here? Do you then have to prove you're insured before they pick you up? Do different companies come depending on who you're insured with?
Quote from: Brazen on June 28, 2012, 10:58:52 AM
American peeps, under your current health care arrangements, is an ambulance service one of the emergency services you can choose when you call 911, like it is when we dial 999 here? Do you then have to prove you're insured before they pick you up? Do different companies come depending on who you're insured with?
If you call 911, depending on what's wrong, an ambulance can and will be sent. It is usually insured, though there may be a deductible if you don't end up staying in the hospital. (Usually $50-$100.) You do NOT have to prove that you have insurance to be picked up, but you WILL be billed if you don't have it. Ambulance services around here are contracted with the city, so it doesn't matter who your insurance is with, you will get picked up by the one with the contract. Your insurance generally doesn't require that you go with a particular service, due to that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2012, 10:22:16 AM
Heh well to be fair it was monstrously expensive, with constantly skyrocketing costs, anyway. This whole thing strikes me as debating furiously over the arrangement of deck chairs on the titanic.
Healthcare inflation in the US is a huge problem. I think I read that you'll soon be spending 20% of GDP on healthcare, 10% of that public money and still won't have universal provision :blink:
QuoteExcept that you said one step closer which implies that you'd like us to continue morphing into a Euro-style healthcare system.
There is no Euro-style system, there are many different systems. Of all of them the UK one is probably the most idiosyncratic and least exportable.
I've always thought both our countries healthcare debates are hurt by the familiarity for each other. You say insurance to a Brit and he thinks of America, you say universal healthcare to an American and he thinks of the NHS. So we're sort of trapped.
Quote from: merithyn on June 28, 2012, 11:03:09 AM
If you call 911, depending on what's wrong, an ambulance can and will be sent. It is usually insured, though there may be a deductible if you don't end up staying in the hospital. (Usually $50-$100.) You do NOT have to prove that you have insurance to be picked up, but you WILL be billed if you don't have it. Ambulance services around here are contracted with the city, so it doesn't matter who your insurance is with, you will get picked up by the one with the contract. Your insurance generally doesn't require that you go with a particular service, due to that.
Ground-based EMS services in the two metro areas I have lived in (South Florida and DFW) have always been provided by the appropriate fire department. Air-based EMS for the entire Metroplex is provided a separate non-profit (CareFlite).
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 10:34:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 28, 2012, 10:22:32 AM
What incentive do I have to fight your battes? :huh:
:ph34r:
No you actually have to use your words.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2012, 10:24:41 AM
Is this like a Marbury moment for Roberts? Did he concede this one case to his opponents to win the legal precedent he needed? I am just a layman so forgive the perhaps clumsy legal analogy.
Stop being such a pessimist. Maybe this lays some theoretical groundwork to restrict the federal government's ability to deliver welfare checks within 100 feet of a public school or something, but we now are going to have universal healthcare. Republicans won't be able to repeal it--the same process that made it almost impossible to pass makes it almost impossible to repeal.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2012, 11:16:46 AM
Stop being such a pessimist. Maybe this lays some theoretical groundwork to restrict the federal government's ability to deliver welfare checks within 100 feet of a public school or something, but we now are going to have universal healthcare. Republicans won't be able to repeal it--the same process that made it almost impossible to pass makes it almost impossible to repeal.
Senate can repeal it via reconciliation, or Romney can refuse to enforce the mandate's penalties. Boom, done.
To be even more optimistic it's now clear that the Republicans should have used the White House's desperation for Republican votes to wring some policy concessions for them. They chose the 'kill the bill' this is 'Obama's Waterloo' approach instead and that's failed.
Quote from: Brazen on June 28, 2012, 10:58:52 AM
American peeps, under your current health care arrangements, is an ambulance service one of the emergency services you can choose when you call 911, like it is when we dial 999 here? Do you then have to prove you're insured before they pick you up? Do different companies come depending on who you're insured with?
Volunteer and municipal EMS and Fire Departments are supported by local taxes and public funds. No proof of insurance necessary.
Emergency care does not require proof of insurance. Never has. If you don't have insurance, you get billed. You don't pay, the rest of us wind up paying it for you in higher premiums. YOU SEE OBAMA IS ACTUALLY ON TO SOMETHING
Now, if you're being transported by a private provider for other reasons, that falls under your insurance plan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2012, 10:58:12 AM
:punk: :yeah: :contract: ^_^
Guller, do you still have my personal info or do you need it again? :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20070610114050%2Funcyclopedia%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fac%2FFrenchman_crying.png&hash=b40f6877d6cce48c088ac55cf8ad58b8f17040f3)
I need it again. The balance is now $50, right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2012, 11:09:05 AM
Healthcare inflation in the US is a huge problem. I think I read that you'll soon be spending 20% of GDP on healthcare, 10% of that public money and still won't have universal provision :blink:
I don't understand why there is such an assumption that we spend too much on healthcare. I'd much rather have luxurious healthcare spending than BMWs for everyone. I'd think my doctor should generally be better paid than my lawyer or financial advisor.
That isn't to say the spending shouldn't be effective and the system should be more efficient.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 28, 2012, 11:13:43 AM
Air-based EMS for the entire Metroplex is provided a separate non-profit (CareFlite).
Interesting. The Maryland State Police take care of ours here. You see those Dauphins buzzing everywhere during rush hour.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
I don't understand why there is such an assumption that we spend too much on healthcare. I'd much rather have luxurious healthcare spending than BMWs for everyone. I'd think my doctor should generally be better paid than my lawyer or financial advisor.
You spend way more than almost anyone else. You cover far less than anyone else. On almost every measure you have worse outputs than most developed nations. That's why.
Edit: Also from an economic perspective the cost to businesses and individuals is huge and it shouldn't continually be growing as a chunk of your GDP. That's not healthy. As it were.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2012, 11:27:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
I don't understand why there is such an assumption that we spend too much on healthcare. I'd much rather have luxurious healthcare spending than BMWs for everyone. I'd think my doctor should generally be better paid than my lawyer or financial advisor.
You spend way more than almost anyone else. You cover far less than anyone else. On almost every measure you have worse outputs than most developed nations. That's why.
Well, the average American has much more of himself to cover.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2012, 11:23:14 AM
Quote from: Brazen on June 28, 2012, 10:58:52 AM
American peeps, under your current health care arrangements, is an ambulance service one of the emergency services you can choose when you call 911, like it is when we dial 999 here? Do you then have to prove you're insured before they pick you up? Do different companies come depending on who you're insured with?
Volunteer and municipal EMS and Fire Departments are supported by local taxes and public funds. No proof of insurance necessary.
Emergency care does not require proof of insurance. Never has. If you don't have insurance, you get billed. You don't pay, the rest of us wind up paying it for you in higher premiums. YOU SEE OBAMA IS ACTUALLY ON TO SOMETHING
Now, if you're being transported by a private provider for other reasons, that falls under your insurance plan.
Hmm? The one time I was in an ambulance it was a private provider. They came via a 911 call (that I assume a bystander made).
Quote from: Faeelin on June 28, 2012, 11:20:43 AM
Senate can repeal it via reconciliation, or Romney can refuse to enforce the mandate's penalties. Boom, done.
I don't know the Senate rules, but it can't act unilaterally.
Romney isn't going to refuse to enforce the mandate. He could almost accurately be called the father of the mandate. The Republicans will need to figure out a way to replace him as a candidate, which seems unlikely at this juncture.
I predict the debate will now switch to the trivial size of the penalty for no coverage, and possibly the robbing Medicare providers to pay existing conditions aspect.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 28, 2012, 11:13:43 AM
Ground-based EMS services in the two metro areas I have lived in (South Florida and DFW) have always been provided by the appropriate fire department. Air-based EMS for the entire Metroplex is provided a separate non-profit (CareFlite).
It is very dependent on where you live. In Des Moines, it was owned and operated by the city, just like the FD. Here, it's a private company. In the Chicago area, it depends on which town you live in, as each one handles their contracts differently.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2012, 11:27:20 AM
You spend way more than almost anyone else. You cover far less than anyone else. On almost every measure you have worse outputs than most developed nations. That's why.
Edit: Also from an economic perspective the cost to businesses and individuals is huge and it shouldn't continually be growing as a chunk of your GDP. That's not healthy. As it were.
I'm convinced we have worse outcomes because of our lifestyles, not a screwed up health care system. So long as our national dish is McDonalds and our national pastime is parking in front of a TV/computer, I think we are going to have poor healthcare outcomes.
I don't know that the issue is we spend to much, rather than the rest of the developed world should spend more. Every country spends 100% of its GDP on something, some parts are growing while others shrink: no part can obviously grow forever. Healthcare is one of the categories I'd least like to skimp on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2012, 11:21:31 AM
To be even more optimistic it's now clear that the Republicans should have used the White House's desperation for Republican votes to wring some policy concessions for them. They chose the 'kill the bill' this is 'Obama's Waterloo' approach instead and that's failed.
They've done a good job on evilizing Obamacare as an overall plan; just as much as the Dems did a bad job marketing it.
What's interesting is that, when polled about specific provisions in the Act, most Americans support the majority of the elements.
They like the fact that employers with more than 50 employees should provide health care to their employees.
They like the fact that their kids can still be covered while they're in college and fresh out looking for a real job, instead of cut off at 18.
They like the fact that, if they get a new job with a new healthcare provider, they can't be declined by the new provider for pre-existing conditions bullshit that was covered by their previous provider.
They like the fact that $1.1B in rebates are about to be issued by providers for overcharging for coverage.
And yes, they like the fact that deadbeats and moron young people will have to get healthcare or pay for their carelessnes, so the rest of us don't have to cover their asses when they smash into someone else when they're texting while driving.
However, when asked about "Obamacare", it gets negative ratings overall. The GOP's done a good job in that respect.
The rage over the ruling will taper off. Mittens would be wise now to concentrate on how he's going to generate jobs, because he hasn't really said much about that at all.
Well ladies and gentlemen, it's morning in America.
Like a bad penny, I decided to show up. My spirits are up.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2012, 11:27:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
I don't understand why there is such an assumption that we spend too much on healthcare. I'd much rather have luxurious healthcare spending than BMWs for everyone. I'd think my doctor should generally be better paid than my lawyer or financial advisor.
You spend way more than almost anyone else. You cover far less than anyone else. On almost every measure you have worse outputs than most developed nations. That's why.
I posted this before. Interesting numbers.
Report: 5 Percent of People Account for Half of U.S. Health Care Spending (http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/report-5-percent-of-people-account-for-half-of-u-s-health-care-spending-20110627)
QuoteThe report stated about half of the U.S. population accounted for only 3.1 percent of all expenditures. But 10 percent of the population hogged 63.6 percent of all health spending, the survey found. The top 5 percent of the population accounted for 47.5 percent of all spending, and the top 1 percent accounted for 20.2 percent.
While the average person incurred about $233 in costs in 2008 for health care services, those in the top half of spending cost insurers, the government, or themselves $7,317. The top 1 percent cost $76,476.
Adults 55 and over made up a larger proportion of the high-spending group, while those in the lower spending group tended to be younger. The report also found that people with at least one chronic health condition were two to four times more likely to have spending in the top 5 percent group.
The likelihood increased as the number of chronic conditions rose. Nearly half of people in the top 5 percent of health care spending had high blood pressure; a third had high cholesterol; and a quarter had diabetes.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2012, 11:30:43 AM
I don't know the Senate rules, but it can't act unilaterally.
Romney isn't going to refuse to enforce the mandate. He could almost accurately be called the father of the mandate. The Republicans will need to figure out a way to replace him as a candidate, which seems unlikely at this juncture.
You think the Dems will retake the House? Romney may be the father, but he wants it repealed, right?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2012, 11:40:07 AM
I'm convinced we have worse outcomes because of our lifestyles, not a screwed up health care system. So long as our national dish is McDonalds and our national pastime is parking in front of a TV/computer, I think we are going to have poor healthcare outcomes.
Mayor Bloomberg believes in
you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2012, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2012, 11:21:31 AM
To be even more optimistic it's now clear that the Republicans should have used the White House's desperation for Republican votes to wring some policy concessions for them. They chose the 'kill the bill' this is 'Obama's Waterloo' approach instead and that's failed.
They've done a good job on evilizing Obamacare as an overall plan; just as much as the Dems did a bad job marketing it.
What's interesting is that, when polled about specific provisions in the Act, most Americans support the majority of the elements.
They like the fact that employers with more than 50 employees should provide health care to their employees.
They like the fact that their kids can still be covered while they're in college and fresh out looking for a real job, instead of cut off at 18.
They like the fact that, if they get a new job with a new healthcare provider, they can't be declined by the new provider for pre-existing conditions bullshit that was covered by their previous provider.
They like the fact that $1.1B in rebates are about to be issued by providers for overcharging for coverage.
And yes, they like the fact that deadbeats and moron young people will have to get healthcare or pay for their carelessnes, so the rest of us don't have to cover their asses when they smash into someone else when they're texting while driving.
However, when asked about "Obamacare", it gets negative ratings overall. The GOP's done a good job in that respect.
The rage over the ruling will taper off. Mittens would be wise now to concentrate on how he's going to generate jobs, because he hasn't really said much about that at all.
Obamacare is a stupid term anyway. I cringe every time someone who I think of as intelligent uses it. He didn't invent health care coverage.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 28, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
You think the Dems will retake the House? Romney may be the father, but he wants it repealed, right?
It is unpopular, he can't run as endorsing it.
He understands how it holds the bill together, and not enforcing it is a rather radical step.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 28, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2012, 11:30:43 AM
I don't know the Senate rules, but it can't act unilaterally.
Romney isn't going to refuse to enforce the mandate. He could almost accurately be called the father of the mandate. The Republicans will need to figure out a way to replace him as a candidate, which seems unlikely at this juncture.
You think the Dems will retake the House? Romney may be the father, but he wants it repealed, right?
He's a in a weak position. In 2008 it was a feather in his cap. Today an albatross around his neck. I suspect Obama is going to hit him hard on this during the debates.
25 funniest tweets this AM.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/the-25-funniest-obamacare-tweets?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=buzzfeed
DEWEY DEFEATS OBAMACARE
Quote from: Fireblade on June 28, 2012, 10:01:17 AM
Freepers greatest hits:
"On the contrary, this has awakened a sleeping giant. Now, anyone who does not get out and vote against Obama is officially an enemy of the United States."
"I won't. I WILL NOT SUCCUMB TO THEIR SLAVERY ANYMORE! If they darken my door they won't leave. My line has been drawn in the sand."
"When some is called a Benedict Arnold he is deemed a traitor. Will being called a John Roberts go to mean the same?"
"It is time for revolution/violent opposition, then gallows."
"Traitor John Roberts needs to have a Garand old time."
I hear Cuba is nice this time of year :)
Got anymore Free Republic quotes? Maybe they'll shoot up a Holocaust Museum in retaliation.
Quote from: Maximus on June 28, 2012, 11:48:47 AM
Obamacare is a stupid term anyway. I cringe every time someone who I think of as intelligent uses it. He didn't invent health care coverage.
Well I guess it would be stupid if you think people mean Obama created health care coverage when they use it.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
Like a bad penny, I decided to show up. My spirits are up.
Yay! :w00t: :hug:
Missed you. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
Like a bad penny, I decided to show up. My spirits are up.
Unions are still being murdered, dude.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
Like a bad penny, I decided to show up. My spirits are up.
Hey, Raz woke up! :hug:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:21:07 AM
This is probably better for Romney then Obama with regards to the election I'd think, the Tea Party will be super pumped to come out and vote, while if they'd won I think a lot would have passed on Romney.
Except that Romney is not a credible voice in opposition to this. His criticisms fall flat because he did the same thing.
Also, why do euros always get the impression you can't get picked up by an ambulance without a credit card in the US? I've seen that nonsense a bunch of times on pdox too. Who spreads this crap?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 28, 2012, 11:33:30 AM
I predict the debate will now switch to the trivial size of the penalty for no coverage, and possibly the robbing Medicare providers to pay existing conditions aspect.
That and states deciding to opt out. From what I heard, the ruling sez states can't be penalized (i.e., their current Medicare funding or whatever can't be cut) for not participating.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
Also, why do euros always get the impression you can't get picked up by an ambulance without a credit card in the US? I've seen that nonsense a bunch of times on pdox too. Who spreads this crap?
The same type of moron who says that in the Netherlands, old people have to wear a bracelet that says "Don't Euthanize Me", or they get put down at the hospital.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:21:07 AM
This is probably better for Romney then Obama with regards to the election I'd think, the Tea Party will be super pumped to come out and vote, while if they'd won I think a lot would have passed on Romney.
Except that Romney is not a credible voice in opposition to this. His criticisms fall flat because he did the same thing.
I think the Tea Party has pretty much made its peace with Romney at this point. He's stated that he will work to repeal Obamacare as soon as he would take office, so he's all they got at the presidential level, unless they want to throw their vote away on Gary Johnson.
According to some people's read of the tea leaves, Roberts seemed to have flip-flopped late in the process. Something about the way the opinions are being written seems to indicate that the law would be struck down.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
Also, why do euros always get the impression you can't get picked up by an ambulance without a credit card in the US? I've seen that nonsense a bunch of times on pdox too. Who spreads this crap?
I think that's in the same guide book that says buying a car and selling it back is much better than renting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2012, 12:01:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
Like a bad penny, I decided to show up. My spirits are up.
Unions are still being murdered, dude.
True. There's nothing I can do about it though. Perhaps the trend will reverse one day.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 12:14:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 28, 2012, 09:21:07 AM
This is probably better for Romney then Obama with regards to the election I'd think, the Tea Party will be super pumped to come out and vote, while if they'd won I think a lot would have passed on Romney.
Except that Romney is not a credible voice in opposition to this. His criticisms fall flat because he did the same thing.
I think the Tea Party has pretty much made its peace with Romney at this point. He's stated that he will work to repeal Obamacare as soon as he would take office, so he's all they got at the presidential level, unless they want to throw their vote away on Gary Johnson.
I think the Tea Party has run out of steam.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2012, 12:07:32 PM
Also, why do euros always get the impression you can't get picked up by an ambulance without a credit card in the US? I've seen that nonsense a bunch of times on pdox too. Who spreads this crap?
I think it is because, for a first-world nation, the US health care system is so different from that used by everyone else, and seemingly inequitable, that it is easy to believe any sort of urban legend type story that casts it in a bad light.
The notion that middle class type people can be financially ruined by the cost of a hospital stay also seems absurd, but apparently that can be true.
Quote from: Malthus on June 28, 2012, 12:53:28 PM
The notion that middle class type people can be financially ruined by the cost of a hospital stay also seems absurd, but apparently that can be true.
Yup. Absurd
and true.
Quote from: Valmy on June 28, 2012, 10:24:41 AM
Is this like a Marbury moment for Roberts? Did he concede this one case to his opponents to win the legal precedent he needed?
Looks like dicta to me.
Unlike Marbury where the power to invalidate legislation was essential to the result.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 12:50:52 PM
I think the Tea Party has run out of steam.
I think you're drunk with your win today. But that's fine with me-- go ahead & count them out ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on June 28, 2012, 11:40:07 AM
I'm convinced we have worse outcomes because of our lifestyles, not a screwed up health care system. So long as our national dish is McDonalds and our national pastime is parking in front of a TV/computer, I think we are going to have poor healthcare outcomes.
That's part of it, but even accounting for that and looking at non-lifestyle influenced bits of healthcare the US has a very inefficient and ineffective system. The biggest increase in cost is age which all of the developed world is dealing with and does mean all countries should be looking for ways to improve our healthcare systems. Ever-expanding costs (and the US only decoupled from the rest of the developed world in the late 80s/early 90s in relation to healthcare inflation) isn't, I don't think, the way to do it.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 12:50:52 PM
I think the Tea Party has run out of steam.
I think you're drunk with your win today. But that's fine with me-- go ahead & count them out ;)
Count them out?
Who is silly enough to count them in?
They may have fucked up the Republican party but i seriously doubt their ability to win on National election level.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
I think you're drunk with your win today. But that's fine with me-- go ahead & count them out ;)
Besides the Paulites how are they even distinguishable from regular Republicans?
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 12:50:52 PM
I think the Tea Party has run out of steam.
I think you're drunk with your win today. But that's fine with me-- go ahead & count them out ;)
Count them out?
Who is silly enough to count them in?
They may have fucked up the Republican party but i seriously doubt their ability to win on National election level.
Really? They made an impact in 2010 and I think it's possible they could do something similar in 2012, particularly after today's Obamacare ruling.
Mostly they've been engaged in cannibalism of late. The Impression I got was many of the Tea party voters felt that the candidates they elected have already been subverted by the process.
Quote
Rand Paul: 'Obamacare' is still unconstitutional
Sen. Rand Paul doesn't think the Supreme Court gets the last word on what's constitutional.
The Kentucky Republican belittled the high court's health care decision as the flawed opinion of just a "couple people."
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional," the freshman lawmaker said in a statement. "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."
"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system," added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor. "This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare."
I wonder if he'll move for a Fetal Personhood vote today.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 01:37:44 PM
Mostly they've been engaged in cannibalism of late. The Impression I got was many of the Tea party voters felt that the candidates they elected have already been subverted by the process.
Where'd you get that notion?
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 01:31:28 PM
Really? They made an impact in 2010 and I think it's possible they could do something similar in 2012, particularly after today's Obamacare ruling.
I can only speak from state experience but yeah in 2010 they got Joe Miller nominated for Senate over Murkowski, and then lost to her as a write in.
They just took over leadership of the state GOP and moderate republicans are now worried that Dems will have chance to take both state houses in fall if Tea Party candidates get the GOP nom.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 01:44:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 01:37:44 PM
Mostly they've been engaged in cannibalism of late. The Impression I got was many of the Tea party voters felt that the candidates they elected have already been subverted by the process.
Where'd you get that notion?
Word on the street. Checked some conservative forums. There was a lot of disappointment last year when they were forced to up the debt ceiling. Saw a lot of comments that the Freshmen Republicans have "Betrayed the ideals of the tea party". There seems to be a great deal of talk concerning impeachments again. If they are considering failed stunts from the 1990's then it would seem they are out of ideas.
The Government has been running the Health Care thing for decades now. So I am not really sure what Rand is talking about unless he is talking about things that happened a long time ago. It is hard to tell sometimes the Paulites like to talk about everything that has happened since 1900 as recent distortions.
Quote
"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system," added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor.
Your system needs to be destroyed.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2012, 01:52:33 PM
Quote
"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system," added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor.
Your system needs to be destroyed.
Ok, calm down there, oddball.
Quote from: katmai on June 28, 2012, 01:46:53 PM
I can only speak from state experience but yeah in 2010 they got Joe Miller nominated for Senate over Murkowski, and then lost to her as a write in.
They just took over leadership of the state GOP and moderate republicans are now worried that Dems will have chance to take both state houses in fall if Tea Party candidates get the GOP nom.
You know Alaska better than I do, and yeah the Murkowski thing backfired (though the "damage" was just that the same moderate Republican got back in-- not the end of the world). But elsewhere the Tea Party was generally quite successful in 2010.
Now whether it will have quite as much impact in 2012 (or will even survive after 2012) is up for debate-- I'm just saying you guys would be wise not to discount them just yet.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2012, 01:52:33 PM
Quote
"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system," added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor.
Your system needs to be destroyed.
Oh yeah? WELL WHY DON'T YOU COME DOWN HERE & DO IT? :contract:
Why didn't Fortress America have a Canadian invasion force? :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2012, 01:42:08 PM
Quote
Rand Paul: 'Obamacare' is still unconstitutional
Sen. Rand Paul doesn't think the Supreme Court gets the last word on what's constitutional.
The Kentucky Republican belittled the high court's health care decision as the flawed opinion of just a "couple people."
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional," the freshman lawmaker said in a statement. "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."
"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system," added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor. "This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare."
I wonder if he'll move for a Fetal Personhood vote today.
He and his supporters have been denying the authority of the Supreme Court for a good long while now, why should this change anything?
Detaxers, anti-abortionists, gun nuts and assorted natural persons and fraudsters have been criticizing the court for decades.
I'd watch who buys truck loads of fertilizer and diesel fuel for a while.
Quote from: Maximus on June 28, 2012, 11:48:47 AM
Obamacare is a stupid term anyway. I cringe every time someone who I think of as intelligent uses it. He didn't invent health care coverage.
To the contrary the essence of ACA was thought up by conservative leaning think tanks and then first implemented in Mass by Romney.
One great success of conservatives in this whole legal challenge was to get the left to rally around a pretty lousy and deficient reform and thus to move the entire debate on health care to the right. This opinion not only doesn't undo that propaganda victory, it cements it.
Lol
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fs2iwM.png&hash=fc0d52c40c6624c610791caf6a07ab3c33b92142)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 02:24:36 PM
I'd watch who buys truck loads of fertilizer and diesel fuel for a while.
You do that, J. Edgar.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
Like a bad penny, I decided to show up. My spirits are up.
I missed you! :hug:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fudhv2.jpg&hash=78071a77c7c4f03d9c02904c3c85e084ee3493a9)
Equating Barack Obama with Harry Truman is like equating Rutherford Hayes with Teddy Roosevelt.
Quote from: dps on June 28, 2012, 08:21:26 PM
Equating Barack Obama with Harry Truman is like equating Rutherford Hayes with Teddy Roosevelt.
It's equating CNN with the Chicago Tribune, not Truman with Obama.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 07:24:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 02:24:36 PM
I'd watch who buys truck loads of fertilizer and diesel fuel for a while.
You do that, J. Edgar.
I will never forget Oklahoma City. I don't trust you bastards.
Quote from: dps on June 28, 2012, 08:21:26 PM
Equating Barack Obama with Harry Truman is like equating Rutherford Hayes with Teddy Roosevelt.
Yeah, Obama got his health care bill passed.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 08:44:39 PM
I will never forget Oklahoma City. I don't trust you bastards.
You weren't there, are were just a kid.
So? I was there when they made the Phantom Menace but I wouldn't trust George Lucas in a director's chair.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 08:44:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 07:24:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2012, 02:24:36 PM
I'd watch who buys truck loads of fertilizer and diesel fuel for a while.
You do that, J. Edgar.
I will never forget Oklahoma City. I don't trust you bastards.
Us?
I didn't say "us".
Stop being so pugnacious, Raz. It's unseemly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2012, 05:41:47 AM
Stop being so pugnacious, Raz. It's unseemly.
He's just trying to make up for lost time. You knew the last coupla weeks were too good to last.
Quote from: dps on June 28, 2012, 08:21:26 PM
Equating Barack Obama with Harry Truman is like equating Rutherford Hayes with Teddy Roosevelt.
Indeed, I don't know of a single Japanese that Obama's had killed.
Quote from: derspiess on June 28, 2012, 02:01:36 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 28, 2012, 01:52:33 PM
Quote
"Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system," added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor.
Your system needs to be destroyed.
Oh yeah? WELL WHY DON'T YOU COME DOWN HERE & DO IT? :contract:
Because I'm not eligible to become President. Sorry, you'll have to contend with the black chief.
Quote from: grumbler on June 29, 2012, 06:42:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 29, 2012, 05:41:47 AM
Stop being so pugnacious, Raz. It's unseemly.
He's just trying to make up for lost time. You knew the last coupla weeks were too good to last.
Aww hurt your feelings? I'll just forward my messages to your voicemail from now on.
:huh:
:uffda:
:homestar:
:pope:
Congress is the only one that can decide to make a tax. Right?
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
Congress is the only one that can decide to make a tax. Right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.urbanpug.com%2Fextensions%2FVanillacons%2Fsmilies%2Fcool%2Frasta.gif&hash=6f1e7f1f434affc95bfd2fc9563a61dafe5b005d)
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
Congress is the only one that can decide to make a tax. Right?
Anybody can decide to make a tax. In fact I have decided to make a tax on obnoxious Alabama accents.
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2012, 03:04:55 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
Congress is the only one that can decide to make a tax. Right?
Anybody can decide to make a tax. In fact I have decided to make a tax on obnoxious Alabama accents.
I would have liked that the first few years here, used to it now. :glare:
But what goverment entity has the constitutional power to enact a tax?
Yes Lusti.
And if I'm not mistaken it's narrower than Congress; all spending and revenue bills have to originate in the House.
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
Congress is the only one that can decide to make a tax. Right?
To give a straight answer--as with any other legislation, a tax bill has to pass both houses of Congress, and is then sent to the President for his signature. Bills regarding finances (including tax bills) must be originally introduced in the House of Representatives (bills not involving finance can be originally introduced in either the House or the Senate).
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 03:14:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2012, 03:04:55 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
Congress is the only one that can decide to make a tax. Right?
Anybody can decide to make a tax. In fact I have decided to make a tax on obnoxious Alabama accents.
I would have liked that the first few years here, used to it now. :glare:
But what goverment entity has the constitutional power to enact a tax?
Dude, you're asking something that they cover in 3rd grade Social Studies class. And this is Languish. What do you expect?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2012, 03:15:37 PM
Yes Lusti.
And if I'm not mistaken it's narrower than Congress; all spending and revenue bills have to originate in the House.
Quote from: dps on June 29, 2012, 03:18:05 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
Congress is the only one that can decide to make a tax. Right?
To give a straight answer--as with any other legislation, a tax bill has to pass both houses of Congress, and is then sent to the President for his signature. Bills regarding finances (including tax bills) must be originally introduced in the House of Representatives (bills not involving finance can be originally introduced in either the House or the Senate).
So my 8th grade civics did somehow stick in my small brain. Thank you.
Interesting times we live in.
Quote from: dps on June 29, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
Dude, you're asking something that they cover in 3rd grade Social Studies class. And this is Languish. What do you expect?
Actually, in Puerto Rico I think it was middle school that we covered this stuff, but I can't really remember. :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 03:23:13 PM
Quote from: dps on June 29, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
Dude, you're asking something that they cover in 3rd grade Social Studies class. And this is Languish. What do you expect?
Actually, in Puerto Rico I think it was middle school that we covered this stuff, but I can't really remember. :(
That's pretty bad if your school system's lagging behind West Virginia. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 29, 2012, 03:45:18 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 03:23:13 PM
Quote from: dps on June 29, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
Dude, you're asking something that they cover in 3rd grade Social Studies class. And this is Languish. What do you expect?
Actually, in Puerto Rico I think it was middle school that we covered this stuff, but I can't really remember. :(
That's pretty bad if your school system's lagging behind West Virginia. :P
West Virginia has a crap school system (though from what I've seen it's not the worst in the nation), but you know what? In America, even our crap schools are good enough that the students who want to learn, learn. For all the failings of the education system in this country, if Johnny can't read, the main culprit is Johnny.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 29, 2012, 03:45:18 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 29, 2012, 03:23:13 PM
Quote from: dps on June 29, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
Dude, you're asking something that they cover in 3rd grade Social Studies class. And this is Languish. What do you expect?
Actually, in Puerto Rico I think it was middle school that we covered this stuff, but I can't really remember. :(
That's pretty bad if your school system's lagging behind West Virginia. :P
:yeah:
Interesting decision overall - basically 3 justices managed to put together an overall holding on the key issues. And when you look at who the 3 justices are and their personalities and backgrounds, it isn't entirely surprising how Roberts came out the way he did. Looks like Breyer and Kagan lured him over in return for their support on the Medicaid expansion.
Today is the day of the news bombshells, it seems. First Anderson Cooper is gay, now it turns out Roberts flip-flopped.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=pop;stories
Impeach Earl Warren John Rogers.
Well, I'll be damned.
This, from David Frum, is striking:
QuoteTantrum on the Court
by David Frum Jul 2, 2012 10:35 AM EDT
We no longer joke about "epistemic closure," but that does not mean the phenomenon has ceased to govern the conservative mind.
From Jan Crawford's July 1 behind-the-scenes report from the Supreme Court:
QuoteThe conservatives refused to join any aspect of [the Roberts majority] opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
Shoving fingers into the ears and chanting "nah, nah, I can't hear you" is a bizarre way to go about the judicial enterprise. Yet there is a comic as well as a depressing aspect to this latest expression of the conservative refusal to acknowledge unwelcome realities. The particular unwelcome reality that the Court minority refused to engage is a majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court—the highest law of the land. It doesn't go away just because you hold your breath until you turn blue.
As an old story goes:
QuoteThe New England transcendentalist Margaret Fuller was given to exclaiming, "I accept the universe!" The British writer Thomas Carlyle, upon hearing this, commented: "Gad! She'd better."
Sometimes I get the impression that David Frum is trying to grab David Gergen's market niche.
There's potential counter-leaks to the Jan Crawford story:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/03/so-now-we-have-supreme-court-leaks-disagreeing-with-supreme-court-leaks/
Regardless of the truth, the leaks are almost for sure coming from the conservative justices or their clerks. If the leaks were coming from the liberal justices, Jeff Toobin, and not conservative friendly outlets, would be reporting it.
Quote
Over at Salon.com, Lawprof Paul Campos writes:
QuoteI am told by a source within the Court with direct knowledge of the drafting process. . . that "most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts' chambers in April and May." Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the Chief Justice.
This source insists that the claim that the joint dissent was drafted from scratch in June is flatly untrue. Furthermore, the source characterizes claims by Crawford's sources that "the fact that the joint dissent doesn't mention [sic] Roberts' majority . . . was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him" as "pure propagandistic spin," meant to explain away the awkward fact that while the first 46 pages of the joint dissent never even mention Roberts' opinion for the Court (this is surely the first time in the Court's history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting), the last 19 pages do so repeatedly.
I guess it's only a matter of time before Jan Crawford runs a story saying that her source insists that Campos's source is a "liar liar [with his] pants on fire." Pretty soon those of us who haven't received leaks are going to feel left out.
UPDATE: Here's another. John Fund at the National Review has a leaker, too – perhaps the same as person that leaked to the National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, but who knows:
QuoteI've learned from my own sources that after voting to invalidate the mandate, the chief did express some skepticism about joining the four conservatives in throwing out the whole law. At the justices' conference, there was discussion about accepting the Obama administration's argument, which was that, if the individual mandate was removed, the provisions governing community rating and guaranteed issue of insurance would have to go too but that the rest of the law might stand. The chief justice was equivocal, though, in his views on that point.
Any other leaks so far today, or is that it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2012, 03:56:37 PM
Sometimes I get the impression that David Frum is trying to grab David Gergen's market niche.
Sometimes I get the impression that (Yi or something that Yi values), is trying to (some kind of pointed insult or veiled attack).
I'm tired so I've decided a new avenue of posting. Instead of me coming up with something, I'm going to do Mad Libs. So Yi, why don't you fill it out, then tell me how I'm wrong.
For me to tell you how you're wrong I would first have to understand what the hell you're talking about. That's assuming you are wrong.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2012, 05:17:09 PM
For me to tell you how you're wrong I would first have to understand what the hell you're talking about. That's assuming you are wrong.
:huh:
Seems pretty simple and correct.
Do you not know what mad libs are? Because that doesn't have anything to do with his point.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2012, 05:32:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2012, 05:17:09 PM
For me to tell you how you're wrong I would first have to understand what the hell you're talking about. That's assuming you are wrong.
:huh:
Seems pretty simple and correct.
Do you not know what mad libs are? Because that doesn't have anything to do with his point.
To be fair I didn't understand what Raz was on about at all.
Edit: Also I've seen conservatives making arch comments about Roberts spending his summer teaching in Europe, while Clarence Thomas is RVing across America.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 03, 2012, 05:36:53 PM
Edit: Also I've seen conservatives making arch comments about Roberts spending his summer teaching in Europe, while Clarence Thomas is RVing across America.
There may be something to that.
Line up Thomas and Kennedy on the one hand.
Kagan and Breyer on the other.
Which of those is Roberts more like, other than with respect to political right/left leanings>?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 03, 2012, 05:36:53 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2012, 05:32:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2012, 05:17:09 PM
For me to tell you how you're wrong I would first have to understand what the hell you're talking about. That's assuming you are wrong.
:huh:
Seems pretty simple and correct.
Do you not know what mad libs are? Because that doesn't have anything to do with his point.
To be fair I didn't understand what Raz was on about at all.
Edit: Also I've seen conservatives making arch comments about Roberts spending his summer teaching in Europe, while Clarence Thomas is RVing across America.
It's an American thing.