SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

reefedjib · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
Yeah... Of course it doesn't. Not sure what you mean. An energy company has the potential to create an oil spill or a nuclear disaster, for example. Nothing like that with software companies. So, they need to regulate energy companies more intensively.

Do you think software could be a contributing factor to causing an oil spill or a nuclear disaster? Isn't this why DOD is making Cyber Command a top level warfare command?

Maybe you were making sales software for a designer label.... ;-)

teamosil said:
Who else could do the regulation?

Good question. I have in mind co-ops between industry, government, university R&D and environmental groups. And all data is public.

reefedjib · Jul 1, 2012

AdamT said:
Be serious. The Dems essentially submitted a Republican plan, for Gods sake. The big Democratic addition was the public option, which they dropped because they needed a few republican votes.

Exchanges were a Republican idea? Individual mandate? Even if they had been floated as a GOP idea, there is a big difference between floating the idea and making it policy. When it came time to make policy, GOP were not even invited into the room. Yes, the GOP was being jerks and not agreeing to anything. Both sides are responsible for the resulting pile of **** on the floor.

That's just fantastic. There is another reason to get the Tea Party and OWS together. Maybe they would actually work together on solutions to this mess.

Kandahar · Jul 1, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
What is NEVER discussed is that very few more people will get ANY better medical care yet the costs, and wait times, FOR ALL will increase,

The data from every other developed country in the world suggests that you are wrong.

I have yet to hear ANY rational argument for dropping obesity as a premium rate defining factor yet keeping smoking,

I support allowing both as factors, within restrictions. Smoking is limited to 1.5-to-1, which seems fair. Obesity should probably be a bit less than that since it isn't entirely behavioral like smoking is. But yes, I agree it should be a factor.

or removing gender yet keeping age.

Neither should be allowed as factors, since people have no control over them. Age discrimination was heavily curtailed, but not eliminated by PPACA. There wasn't enough political support to eliminate it entirely. We can fight that battle another day.

The law has many ODD and contrdictory things that are

Well of course. It's a huge piece of legislation; those inevitably involve some horse-trading among legislators to get it passed. It doesn't need to be perfect.

Not the least of which, is levying a fine or tax for simply paying cash for one's own medical care.

Because if you don't have insurance, chances are you won't actually have enough cash to pay your medical bills. This tax pays for the likelihood that you'll stick the public with the bill.

If I am not fortunate enough to recieve a tax free medical insurance benefit from my employer, is that now MY fault?

Nope, but you should pay taxes on it like you do with the rest of your income. There's no reason to give preference to employers who compensate their employees with generous health benefits instead of generous salaries.

Perhaps the PPACA should have made that employee benefit TAXABLE, as it surely benefits ONLY those that have it,

I agree. PPACA opens the door to that possibility by taxing "Cadillac plans"; hopefully that can be expanded to ALL employer insurance plans in the future.

since I am now to be taxed for simply lacking it. Not only do I not get that benefit, I must then pay a tax for not getting it. That is insane.

You aren't taxed for not getting insurance from your employer, as long as you get it from somewhere else.

ttwtt78640 · Jul 1, 2012

reefedjib said:
I don't disagree with that either. I think both issues were in play. What a ****ing mess. We've got the best of the best on both sides of the aisle, right? Oh, brother...

Absolutely, the DC morons know that they NOW spend 40% more than they dare ask for in direct taxation, so now all other "goodies" are being forced upon us by using unfunded gov't mandates and they have invented a tax (or fine or fee) that requires no criminal charges or hearings but for simple INACTION, or refusing to comply with an unfunded mandate, on our part. That is truely insane, yet according to 5/4 of our nine robed umpires, somehow completely constitutional.

Billy the Kid · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
"learning about the tax lie"? lol. Seriously, you think Republicans are that stupid? You think they like heard that this penalty was authorized under the taxation power and thought "gosh, that there 'bama dun said it waadn't no tax! he dun lied!'"? LOL. No, dude, even Republicans aren't that stupid. Obviously the penalty is the same thing as it always was. Nothing changed. What constitutional power authorizes it doesn't somehow change it from a good policy to a bad policy or something. Most constitutional scholars believe it is under the commerce power. Roberts thinks it's only under the taxation power. Obviously a new constitutional limit on the commerce power that the courts just made up the other day doesn't mean everybody who adhered to the previous interepretation of the commerce clause is a "liar"... Seriously man, that angle is just too stupid to even really explain... You need to think harder.

He lied. Or if you don't like that . . . . . then he was to stupid to know what was in the bill he signed with much fanfare. Either way he needs to go; we don't have the time to train the OJT president anymore.

Fletch · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
Seriously man, try harder. I'll go through it one more time for you, but you need to concentrate. You should not be struggling with this as much as you are.

The right exerted a huge amount of pressure on the Democrats over health care reform. The teabagging, the whole paranoid conspiracy theory angle, all kinds of stuff. Democrats in swing states have to deal with that. They can't just ignore it or they won't be re-elected. So, to quell the opposition they had to make concessions. For example, we gave up the public option, gave up coverage for abortions and added a citizenship check. Those were the three biggest requests of the right and they got all three. You follow?

That isn't a change in my argument, that is me having to spell things out more simplistically because you seem to be having a hard time understanding.

By that definition, every bill ever passed is done through concessions to he other party. If that is what you are saying then you are stating the obvious and adding nothing to the conversatio. But your original claim was the democrats made concessions to the GOP. You are saying something different now. What you are now claiming is that democrats made concessions to the political reality that there was not enough public support for any other course of action. But that is obvious and true of every piece of legislation since nothing has unanimous support. The truth is, there is no majority support for single payer in the US, and in fact, no one was advocating it.

Billy the Kid · Jul 1, 2012

Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

j-mac said:
In watching the Sunday shows this morning I see a lot of fancy dancing by demo's on these shows...One thing strikes me as not only expected, but just as slimy, and underhanded as we've come to expect out of these demo's today....And that is that even though the opinion of the SCOTUS is clear, that the law is a tax, and a huge one, they are all over trying to paint this as not what CJ Roberts, and the majority opinion said it was in order to make it stand.

So, tell us demo's, now that it is classified as a tax in order to be constitutional, isn't Obama caught in the same lie that did in Geo. H.W. Bush....The "read my lips.." gambit? And how does he prevail now that he is being uncovered as the biggest taxer, and spender we've ever had in office?

IMO, he'd better learn to dance real good. Maybe a TAXie dance. :mrgreen:

Kandahar · Jul 1, 2012

reefedjib said:
Exchanges were a Republican idea? Individual mandate?

Yes on both counts.

Even if they had been floated as a GOP idea,

They were more than "floated as a GOP idea." These were the bread and butter of Republican health care reform plans for at least 20 years.

there is a big difference between floating the idea and making it policy.

There certainly is. Republicans were content to talk about these ideas in order to pretend like they actually wanted to do something, but the minute a guy with a (D) next to his name tried to make it policy they abandoned the idea. Not just as an idea they'd changed their mind about. Not just as an idea that they respectfully disagreed about. Not even as a bad policy. But as a horrible, tyrannical, socialist, unconstitutional, illegitimate policy that would bring about the destruction of America. :roll:

When it came time to make policy, GOP were not even invited into the room.

A charming version of history...if only it were true. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, spent MONTHS negotiating with Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Olympia Snowe. Many/most of their ideas found their way into the Affordable Care Act. This negotiation didn't stop until the fall of 2009 when it became clear that the Republicans were simply stringing Baucus along and had no intention of supporting anything.

reefedjib · Jul 1, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
Absolutely, the DC morons know that they NOW spend 40% more than they dare ask for in direct taxation, so now all other "goddies" are being forced upon us by using unfunded gov't mandates and they have invented a tax (or fine or fee) that requires no criminal charges or hearings but simply INACTION, or refusing to comply with an unfunded mandate, on our part. That is truely insane, yet according to 5/4 of our nine robed umpires, somehow completely constitutional.

I guess it IS constitutional, given interpretations of commerce clause and tax clause and general welfare clause. I won't fault SCOTUS for this pile of ****. And as you point out, it goes way beyond Obamacare. It is the system. Started with some good ideas, but politics got things re-interpreted. I blame Roosevelt and 1936 coercion of the SCOTUS with the threat of expanding the number of Justices to dilute opinion, unless they re-interpreted the General Welfare Clause. In 1945, entitlements were like 4% of the federal budget. Now it is over 60%. Ooops!

Albert Di Salvo · Jul 1, 2012

AdamT said:
I think that republicans may be more cooperative if Obama wins reelection....QUOTE]

I think you are engaging in what is called forlorn hope. The American left can't reach conservative opinion and liberals don't understand how conservatives think. There will be despair, resentment and radicalization on the right if, as and when President Obama is reelected.

Billy the Kid · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

washunut said:
THIS IS NOT A FLIP FLOP OR A LIE. He just evolved on the issue!

Evolved? Is that what a lie is being called now? I'll have to add that growing list of words we use when a politician has flat out lied : I/he/she misspoke - I/he/she misundertood.

Albert Di Salvo · Jul 1, 2012

I think American liberals desperately want to pocket their victory and enjoy peace from the American right. I don't think American liberals want permanent political struggle.

I also think that's why liberals are making such an effort to persuade conservatives. This is interesting to observe.

reefedjib · Jul 1, 2012

Kandahar said:
Yes on both counts.

They were more than "floated as a GOP idea." These were the bread and butter of Republican health care reform plans for at least 20 years.

There certainly is. Republicans were content to talk about these ideas in order to pretend like they actually wanted to do something, but the minute a guy with a (D) next to his name tried to make it policy they abandoned the idea. Not just as an idea they'd changed their mind about. Not just as an idea that they respectfully disagreed about. Not even as a bad policy. But as a horrible, tyrannical, socialist, unconstitutional, illegitimate policy that would bring about the destruction of America. :roll:

A charming version of history...if only it were true. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, spent MONTHS negotiating with Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and Olympia Snowe. Many/most of their ideas found their way into the Affordable Care Act. This negotiation didn't stop until the fall of 2009 when it became clear that the Republicans were simply stringing Baucus along and had no intention of supporting anything.

Ok, I am outside my knowledge here. I know that Republicans did everything they could to derail a D win. Assholes. But the result is nothing to be happy about either. More assholes.

I think we agreed earlier that a single payer, private service, UHC solution was best, but we disagreed on the timing of implementation. That is just because I do not know how many more 1200 page healthcare bills we can afford to process and implement, with all the loopholes and exceptions and whatnot.

Just a straight up tax for single payer and UHC with private sector service is all that is needed. Let's just do it.

Billy the Kid · Jul 1, 2012

Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

j-mac said:
The law is some 2,700 pages, with 21 new taxes in it so far uncovered. If you don't think your taxes are going up to pay for this monstrosity, then you are fooling yourself.

Well unless you're part of the 48% that pay nothing now.

ttwtt78640 · Jul 1, 2012

Kandahar said:
The data from every other developed country in the world suggests that you are wrong.

I support allowing both as factors, within restrictions. Smoking is limited to 1.5-to-1, which seems fair. Obesity should probably be a bit less than that since it isn't entirely behavioral like smoking is. But yes, I agree it should be a factor.

Neither should be allowed as factors, since people have no control over them. Age discrimination was heavily curtailed, but not eliminated by PPACA. There wasn't enough political support to eliminate it entirely. We can fight that battle another day.

Well of course. It's a huge piece of legislation; those inevitably involve some horse-trading among legislators to get it passed. It doesn't need to be perfect.

Because if you don't have insurance, chances are you won't actually have enough cash to pay your medical bills. This tax pays for the likelihood that you'll stick the public with the bill.

Nope, but you should pay taxes on it like you do with the rest of your income. There's no reason to give preference to employers who compensate their employees with generous health benefits instead of generous salaries.

I agree. PPACA opens the door to that possibility by taxing "Cadillac plans"; hopefully that can be expanded to ALL employer insurance plans in the future.

You aren't taxed for not getting insurance from your employer, as long as you get it from somewhere else.

Are you aware what a single, 60 year old, smoking, male must pay annually for a "PPACA approved" medical care insurance plan? It will surely exceed my rent ($300/month) so I will simply no longer file a FIT return in 2014 and let them wonder if I was insured or not, since the tiny refund I am normally due is not worth the bother to "self incriminate" and file as "self insured", which is then, basically a crime. I am quite willing to let the medical care facility, should any volunteer to treat me in an emergncy, and should it arrise, have ALL of my assets and declare bankruptcy, go on the dole and accept medcaid until I am 65 and get SS/medicare. USA, USA, USA...

Billy the Kid · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
LOL. Ok then, the dealer says "no, this SUV is a car, not a truck", but then the DMV says to check the "truck" box. Is the dealer a liar?

Seriously, this is just too stupid. Sit down and think for a second before you reply.

What did the Supremes call this "fee". I do believe it was called a TAX. The JD lawyers argued it was a TAX, the Supremes agreed. It's a TAX.

teamosil · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

reefedjib said:
Do you think software could be a contributing factor to causing an oil spill or a nuclear disaster? Isn't this why DOD is making Cyber Command a top level warfare command?

Hey, that's an interesting point. It is true that software is steadily becoming a larger part of all those kinds of higher risk endeavors.

But, that said, those riskier endeavors are when they work with industries that are heavily regulated. For example, if you try to sell software to a company for use in a nuclear reactor, the regulations of the nuclear industry will apply to you and they certainly have some requirements related to stability and security and whatnot. But still, the software industry as a whole isn't very heavily regulated, since most of the time they're not working on things with huge risks of externalities.

It isn't so much like how regulated an industry is can be specified on a scale of 0 to 10 and politicians occasionally say "lets move mining up from 6 to 7". Regulations deal with specific actions that are regulated. For example, maybe they have a regulation about releasing CFCs, a regulation about porcupine habitats and a regulation about pesticides. Some industries tend to run into more regulations that others because of the nature of their work. So, software companies run into them some, but mining companies run into them more because they work with more things that have the potential to cause major externalies more often.

reefedjib said:
Good question. I have in mind co-ops between industry, government, university R&D and environmental groups. And all data is public.

Well only government has the authority to regulate anything. We aren't answerable to universities or environmental groups. They aren't elected. So, should government take input from those kinds of entities, absolutely yes, and of course it does. But they don't have the authority to regulate anything. We don't give up our freedom to unelected organizations, we only agree to give it up to our own elected representatives.

And why would unelected entities be LESS prone to corruption? They would be more prone to it since they don't have to worry about voters voting them out.

teamosil · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
He lied. Or if you don't like that . . . . . then he was to stupid to know what was in the bill he signed with much fanfare. Either way he needs to go; we don't have the time to train the OJT president anymore.

Billy the Kid said:
What did the Supremes call this "fee". I do believe it was called a TAX. The JD lawyers argued it was a TAX, the Supremes agreed. It's a TAX.

Honestly man, if you still don't understand, you just aren't even trying. Just really concentrate:

Imagine that you buy a small SUV. Maybe it is built on a car chasis, but it has four wheel drive and in some ways looks more truck like. The dealership refers to it as a "car", but then when you go to register it at the DMV they say that because it is over a certain weight, they classify it as a "truck". You go back to the dealership and he says, "nah, it's more like a car". Is he "lying"?

teamosil · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Fletch said:
By that definition, every bill ever passed is done through concessions to he other party. If that is what you are saying then you are stating the obvious and adding nothing to the conversatio.

That's right. It is totally obvious. That's why I was a bit baffled when you got so confused. Not every bill. Some bills are non-controversial enough that the majority party doesn't need to make any concessions at all. But, yes, pretty much all major bills, and certainly all major controversial bills contain many concessions to the other side. Health care is, of course, no exception.

Fletch said:
But your original claim was the democrats made concessions to the GOP. You are saying something different now. What you are now claiming is that democrats made concessions to the political reality that there was not enough public support for any other course of action.

That's right. They made concessions to the GOP on those issues. The GOP/insurance industry/Tea Party managed to bring enough public pressure that the Democrats in swing states could only sign the bill after those concessions had been made. That is no different than what I've been saying over and over.

Kandahar · Jul 1, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
Are you aware what a single, 60 year old, smoking male must pay annually for a "PPACA approved" medical care insurance plan?

It's unclear what the general premiums will be, as they will be governed by supply and demand...but it will not be more than 4.5 times what a 20-year-old nonsmoker would pay.

It will surely exceed my rent ($300/month)

Wow, maybe I should move to Texas.

In any case, paying more than $300 per month for health insurance, for a 60-year-old smoking male hardly seems like a bad deal. And if you can't afford it, you'll be eligible for subsidies and your premium will be capped at a certain percentage of your income. I don't want to ask your income, but if it's below 400% of the federal poverty line, you can estimate the maximum you might have to pay here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPACA_Premium_CRS.jpg

so I will simply no longer file a FIT return in 2014 and let them wonder if I was insured or not, since the tiny refund I am normally due is not worth the bother to "self incriminate" and file as "self insured", which is then, basically a crime.

Just FYI, if you earned more than $9,500 last year you'll need to file a FIT return, whether you're expecting a refund or not.

I am quite willing to let the medical care facility, should any volunteer to treat me in an emergncy, and should it arrise, have ALL of my assets and declare bankruptcy, go on the dole and accept medcaid until I am 65 and get SS/medicare. USA, USA, USA...

Thank you for illustrating exactly why we need the individual mandate.

Billy the Kid · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
Honestly man, if you still don't understand, you just aren't even trying. Just really concentrate:

Imagine that you buy a small SUV. Maybe it is built on a car chasis, but it has four wheel drive and in some ways looks more truck like. The dealership refers to it as a "car", but then when you go to register it at the DMV they say that because it is over a certain weight, they classify it as a "truck". You go back to the dealership and he says, "nah, it's more like a car". Is he "lying"?

:lamo Right. The Supremes called it a TAX. The Justice Dept eagles argued it was a TAX. And I'm supposed to listen to how you want to word it by comparing it to a purchsed car. Sorry, I have to go along with the Supremes - it's a TAX. :mrgreen:

teamosil · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
:lamo Right. The Supremes called it a TAX. The Justice Dept eagles argued it was a TAX. And I'm supposed to listen to how you want to word it by comparing it to a purchsed car. Sorry, I have to go along with the Supremes - it's a TAX. :mrgreen:

I dunno man. I guess it's just too complicated for you. I really can't think of a simpler way to explain it than with that analogy. I think I've done a pretty decent job trying to simplify it down as far as it can go. If you can't even get that, then I guess we just need to let it drop.

Billy the Kid · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
I dunno man. I guess it's just too complicated for you. I really can't think of a simpler way to explain it than with that analogy. I think I've done a pretty decent job trying to simplify it down as far as it can go. If you can't even get that, then I guess we just need to let it drop.

Not complicated at all. You're just trying some "smoke and mirrors".

The Justice Dept argued before the Supreme Court it was a TAX, yes. The Supremes bought the arguement and ruled it was a TAX. Now you want me to believe that this "duck" is not a duck.

teamosil · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
Not complicated at all. You're just trying some "smoke and mirrors".

The Justice Dept argued before the Supreme Court it was a TAX, yes. The Supremes bought the arguement and ruled it was a TAX. Now you want me to believe that this "duck" is not a duck.

Kiddo, seriously. You know why your claim is wrong. You must. I've explained it like 10 times in 10 different ways. Just pretending you don't get it is no way to win a debate.

buck · Jul 1, 2012

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
Kiddo, seriously. You know why your claim is wrong. You must. I've explained it like 10 times in 10 different ways. Just pretending you don't get it is no way to win a debate.

I didn't read the entire discussion - read enough to get an idea - but are you really claiming that this isn't a tax even though the government argued that it was a tax and the court agreed with that position and only allowed Obamacare to stand since the mandate was defined as a tax?

I don't know how you could possibly explain that away well enough to make that true except to people that want to play games. Even Stephanopolis knew it was a tax. Obama looked like a fool during that interview.

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

reefedjib

reefedjib

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Billy the Kid

Fletch

Billy the Kid

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

reefedjib

Albert Di Salvo

Billy the Kid

Albert Di Salvo

reefedjib

Billy the Kid

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Billy the Kid

teamosil

teamosil

teamosil

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Billy the Kid

teamosil

Billy the Kid

teamosil

buck