Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
rob

SCOTUS UPHOLDS OBAMACARE

Recommended Posts

IF I ONLY DRIVE ON THE ROAD ON MONDAYS, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TAXES LIKE THE REST OF YOU SCHMUCKS THE REST OF THE WEEK?

VADER PAYS NO TAXES!

 

(His mom does all the taxes.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[video:youtube]1&v=cd4-UnU8lWY

 

As much as I remember not being impressed with other posts of yours in other threads, these Tim and Eric clips you've been sticking up are the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a really stupid question about all this. how is it that the individual mandate is unconstitutional one one front but is OK under another? isn't either unconsitutional or not???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's the bottom line. If health insruance is a public "good" why not just offer it as a service like fire, schools, and police. Why this BS about making you buy it from private vendors?

 

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Or would that be socialism? Like the Veterans Administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a matter of dueling 'constitutionalities', but rather simply a matter of it being constitutional as a federal tax as opposed to an allowable federal mandate under the commerce clause.

 

FWIW, I think Obamacare blows chunks - that's because it maintains a for-profit healthcare system run by corporate parasites who add no value whatsoever to our healthcare system. And the bottom line is everyone needs to be in the same pool in order to make any system work.

 

What we should have to be competitive as an industrialized nation is a base level of universal healthcare for all citizens; go to any doctor or hospital you want, all premiums and claims are routed through a single clearinghouse. Above that universal level of coverage private insurers would be free to offer premium coverage to anyone and employers could avail themselves of that to provide incentives to valued employees.

 

But a system which only covers a part of the pool, is dominated by parasitic insurers and 'healthcare' conglomerates, and is run for profit will always be a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i have a really stupid question about all this. how is it that the individual mandate is unconstitutional one one front but is OK under another? isn't either unconsitutional or not???

 

Per majority opinion, the commerce clause does not empower Congress to make such a law, but the taxation clause does. Therefore, the Constitution provides for such a law by way of the sweeping power of Congress to levy taxes.

 

Be cautioned: Lord Vader is... outraged.

 

[video:youtube]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for all the "BIG GOVERNMENT" haters, and people opposed to taxes and government services, how would you like to live in Somalia? Because this is what happens when you don't have working state structures. Yes, you don't pay taxes there, however 99.9% of you loonies would not survive a day there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t Article I, section 7 of the Constitution say that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House?

 

I'm not sure if I phrased this right. If it is not constitutional per the commerce clause. Isn't it uncsnstitutional by definition? Just b/c it fits under another section, it violates another so how can it be constitutional at all. I'm serious. I don't understand.

 

I would like to see broader health care but I am also staunchly in favor of not throwing out the consitution in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I called the strategy for the decision over two years ago: Health Care

 

A million monkees are not always wrong.

 

It's constituional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn’t Article I, section 7 of the Constitution say that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House?

 

I'm not sure if I phrased this right. If it is not constitutional per the commerce clause. Isn't it uncsnstitutional by definition? Just b/c it fits under another section, it violates another so how can it be constitutional at all. I'm serious. I don't understand.

 

I would like to see broader health care but I am also staunchly in favor of not throwing out the consitution in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision came down like a nightmare of spaghetti code, inelegant, and indecipherable from many angles. However, I think Roberts was clear in the opinion: To say the law is covered by the commerce clause is to overreach; imo that's because the court, this time, applied a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause -- but it's the reach of the commerce clause that is delimited here in the decision, not the constitutionality of the law. That notwithstanding, the power to tax does enumerate to the federal government, by way of Congress, to enact -- a tax. Roberts said that payment for insurance can be considered a tax, and in this case is to be considered a tax. And so it is. A tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes crux, payment for insurance, OR, payment of a TAX (as defined by Chief Justice Roberts) levied for NOT aquiring health insurance in 2014 and beyond.

 

Insurance companies have real incentive now to hold costs down for ALL who have health insurance, which by the way will be chosen from exchanges of providers, due to millions of Americans now who will purchase health insurance who didn't before. Also a boon to millions of Americans are the prohibitions on denying coverage for pre existing conditions and requirements for covering children up to age 26. Most of us know there is more good in this bill than bad, nearly 60% of Americans approve of this legislation in polls done not only recently but for quite a while now those numbers have held firm.

 

Not the best deal but it is an improvement over what we now have. I was stunned that Chief Justice Roberts was the one to affirm it's constitutionality through the Government's authority to tax. Give this man credit for restoring some faith in this institution's ability to do it's job which is to interpret the constitutionality of laws.

 

I am fortunate to have health insurance already, and I'm happy with this law. Is it prefect? No it is not. But, it is clear to me that it will improve the unsustainable health care system we now have, and this is the kicker, FOR THE GOOD OF ALL OF US.

 

The President's correct in his assertion that it is time to move on. Any votes the House of Representatives take to try to thwart this law is wasted time IMO.

 

d

Edited by dougd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality of the matter is under the US system and precedent, if the Supreme say it is constitutional it is constitutional. There is no objective reality in law only the courts reality. It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just say no to the mortgage mandate! Fascism!!!

 

Oneoneoneone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme court can be wrong. Remember the Dred Scott decision?

 

Citizen's United is another terribly misguided decision IMO and hopefully will be overturned soon, but hope for that went out the window with the recent Montana decision... Sigh.

 

Today, I'm happy. Nobody can kill this buzz.

 

d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again what does this have to do with this topic? Of course I will and do see doctors. I also have health care through my work which I pay for. If I choose not to work and not have health care the government would tax me for it. That is the part I dont agree with.

 

Right! You want to get stuff for free!

 

TANSTAAFL, boner

 

Check out the bold print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you get sick while you decide to not work or have health care the rest of us pay for it.

 

If I choose to not work it save for that life style......unlike alot of dirtbags that I know. Big difference.

 

And by the way...I am for single payer health care. The only part of this law I dont like is this tax/mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes crux, payment for insurance, OR, payment of a TAX (as defined by Chief Justice Roberts) levied for NOT aquiring health insurance in 2014 and beyond.

 

Bingo.....basically if you dont buy a product the government can tax you. What if they said you have to buy life insurance or take it a step further....buy a climbing rope or a bottle of water...and if you dont you get taxed and if you dont pay your tax you go to jail. Its a slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And by the way...I am for single payer health care. The only part of this law I dont like is this tax/mandate.

 

I.e. I want healthcare for free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The supreme has ruled that the Commerce Clause does not grant congress the power to compel commercial participation. The government cannot force you to purchase a commercial product. The Government lost on that one.

 

Rather, the government’s second argument prevailed: the taxation clause and precedent, in theory, empower to the government to levy a capitation tax, that is, a per capita tax, simply for existing. Given this, the court ruled that the much more limited power of taxing only those who choose not to comply with a government mandate is constitutional. The court agreed that Obamacare’s penalty, functionally, is, in fact, a tax.

 

Bad news for businesses and politicians who seek to feather each others' nests and tea baggers who deny the constitutionality of this tax or that. The government may levy any tax it wishes to maintain the government, defense, and general welfare, as long as it's apportioned fairly amonst the states.

 

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×