ObamaCare as a Political Weapon

[DiscoGary]

We are seeing the full implementation of ObamaCare as a political weapon to reward allies, and punish enemies. This program is so bad, that forcing a corporation to follow the law is tantamount to a death sentence.

1,372 companies have been granted waivers, over half of which cover unions (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-half-all-obamacare-waivers-given-union-members_561115.html). Unions, who lobbied VERY hard to get this bill passed... are being granted waivers so they don't have to suffer the consequences of the bill.

The granting of waivers is done at the discretion of an Obama bureaucrat, so one person is deciding who wins and loses. Think there's any opportunity for corruption there? Who's overseeing the granting of waivers? What's happening to the companies who aren't granted waivers? Doesn't this violate that old, dead document that guarantees equal protection under the law?

Where are all the people who said this bill would save money, and create a paradise on earth? I remember saying "ObamaCare won't save money, and it isn't about health care. It's about money, power, and social engineering".

It didn't take long to prove who was right on this one did it.

ObamaCare is a weapon, nothing else. Learn it, live it. You don't have to love it.

[tri.track]

Related question:

DiscoGary, who did you vote for in the 08' Presidential Election? Just wondering, haven't seen you post that anywhere.

[DiscoGary]

Related question:

DiscoGary, who did you vote for in the 08' Presidential Election? Just wondering, haven't seen you post that anywhere.

This belongs in the 2012 election thread.

I voted for McCain.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hdJelR8lAdc/TCulP6G-IPI/AAAAAAAAAWY/Yo37VUOJpGE/s200/holdNoseThumbsDown.gif

So were you one of those who thought ObamaCare would cut costs and usher in a new Utopian era?

[tri.track]

This belongs in the 2012 election thread.

I voted for McCain.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hdJelR8lAdc/TCulP6G-IPI/AAAAAAAAAWY/Yo37VUOJpGE/s200/holdNoseThumbsDown.gif

So were you one of those who thought ObamaCare would cut costs and usher in a new Utopian era?

Actually I voted for McCain also. I was just checking to see if you were one of those people who voted for Obama then just complained about him the whole presidency. People that complain about who they vote for bug me (i.e people who voted for Bush the 2nd time, when it was clear he was failing after the first time). I wasn't old enough to vote then (during Bush era), but you get the idea.

[TeamOrange]

I love how you call it obamacare when it is so broken down and compromised that it hardly resembles what Obama would truly want if he wasn't so weak and caved to the corporations and Republicans.

Which is a universal statement to most of Presidency (caving to corporations/Republicans)

[reee]

I love how you call it obamacare when it is so broken down and compromised that it hardly resembles what Obama would truly want if he wasn't so weak and caved to the corporations and Republicans.

Which is a universal statement to most of Presidency (caving to corporations/Republicans)

Even republicans?!

[phrisbee]

Team Orange - the bill was the strongest we could muster with extreme blue dogs such as Lincoln and Nelson holding deciding votes. President Obama is a pragmatist and a technocrat. He's done a whole lot at a pace that preserves political capital.

DG forgets to point out that these waivers are temporary and just allow companies some time to adjust and prepare for implementation. What a superb "reward" for President Obama's backers!

How exactly can we determine costs and savings when most of the plan is not yet in effect? All the neutral projections show it saving money over the next decade and beyond by the way...

[boltoncct&f]

I have two friends who have two totally different carriers. One of them works for a massive, huge profit, organization. Both had meetings last week going over the fact that they were about to pay out the nose for health care/they (the companies) were no longer covering a portion of their health care.

We just had a meeting called to go over our "benefits" for next year. I remember how this very same meeting went last year.:rolleyes:

So I'm feeling the savings already............

[DiscoGary]

1 in 5 waivers goes to Pelosi's district.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearly-20-percent-of-new-obamacare-waivers-are-gourmet-restaurants-nightclubs-fancy-hotels-in-nancy-pelosi%E2%80%99s-district/

In a way I can respect this kind of corruption. It's not being done in smoke-filled backrooms. Today's Democrats do it right out in the open where we can all see it for what it is.

[DiscoGary]

Actually I voted for McCain also. I was just checking to see if you were one of those people who voted for Obama then just complained about him the whole presidency. People that complain about who they vote for bug me (i.e people who voted for Bush the 2nd time, when it was clear he was failing after the first time). I wasn't old enough to vote then (during Bush era), but you get the idea.

So you must be in your early 20's, and you voted for McCain? Why?

You are quite a phenomenon. Can we bring you in to do some tests on your brain?

[DiscoGary]

I love how you call it obamacare when it is so broken down and compromised that it hardly resembles what Obama would truly want if he wasn't so weak and caved to the corporations and Republicans.

Which is a universal statement to most of Presidency (caving to corporations/Republicans)


Truth is it should be called Pelosi-Care, but politics isn't fair. I have personally learned that the hard way.

Are you really blaming Republicans for this mess? Democrats didn't work with Republicans at all. No Republican voted for this. This political weapon was made by Democrats for Democrat use only. Democrats own this, and they should be proud of it. ObamaCare is the Holy Grail of liberal policies.

Are you guys saying Democrat policies don't work as advertised?

[TNG]

Truth is it should be called Pelosi-Care, but politics isn't fair. I have personally learned that the hard way.

Are you really blaming Republicans for this mess? Democrats didn't work with Republicans at all. No Republican voted for this. This political weapon was made by Democrats for Democrat use only. Democrats own this, and they should be proud of it. ObamaCare is the Holy Grail of liberal policies.

Are you guys saying Democrat policies don't work as advertised?


Something tells me you couldn't explain what a waiver really means in a month of Sundays, yes siree the rightie blogs are all a buzz, but most of them don't understand the issue. Waivers are a stop gap provision that bridges the period in part or whole from now until 2014 where mini-med plans and some other plans less than fully comprehensive plans. So instead of using the other half of their squirrel brain, all that is seen are a bunch of nuts.

The righties are focusing on the type of group seeking and getting waivers vs. the realtionship between the type of insurance they offer and the type of orginizations seeking them, and ignoring all that don't conveniently link back left. As for waivers in Pelosi's district, try this on for size, the businesses getting waivers their are doing so because they already are providing some form of an insurance plan:eek: :eek:!!!!! So you take restaurant owners who in other parts of the country would be offering no insurance but because they do and applied for and got a waiver their is some sort of Federal case here, there just might be, but its with the restaurant owners elsewhere running similar business and offering no insurance.


Oh BTW, waivers only apply to a single provision in the law do you know what it is?

[TNG]

I have two friends who have two totally different carriers. One of them works for a massive, huge profit, organization. Both had meetings last week going over the fact that they were about to pay out the nose for health care/they (the companies) were no longer covering a portion of their health care.

We just had a meeting called to go over our "benefits" for next year. I remember how this very same meeting went last year.:rolleyes:

So I'm feeling the savings already............


This is one of the hugely dissappointing parts of where we are in the process, and one of the most poorly communicated parts of enacting the law. The largest part of the savings occur in areas where government is buying the healthcare. The lack of explanation here from the White House is mind boggling. So the monthly premiums you and I pay go up, we wonder about savings from the legislation and we wonder was the amount of the increase altered by the Healthcare bill. IMO this lack of explanation is much of the fuel behind the repeal support in the polls. Why the OMB information on the savings showing up on our taxes, via the Federal Budget allocation is beyond me.

[DiscoGary]

Something tells me you couldn't explain what a waiver really means in a month of Sundays, yes siree the rightie blogs are all a buzz, but most of them don't understand the issue. Waivers are a stop gap provision that bridges the period in part or whole from now until 2014 where mini-med plans and some other plans less than fully comprehensive plans. So instead of using the other half of their squirrel brain, all that is seen are a bunch of nuts.

The righties are focusing on the type of group seeking and getting waivers vs. the realtionship between the type of insurance they offer and the type of orginizations seeking them, and ignoring all that don't conveniently link back left. As for waivers in Pelosi's district, try this on for size, the businesses getting waivers their are doing so because they already are providing some form of an insurance plan:eek: :eek:!!!!! So you take restaurant owners who in other parts of the country would be offering no insurance but because they do and applied for and got a waiver their is some sort of Federal case here, there just might be, but its with the restaurant owners elsewhere running similar business and offering no insurance.


Oh BTW, waivers only apply to a single provision in the law do you know what it is?

LOL! You're defending this! Good. Most of the others have cracked already. Let's see how long you last.

I know exactly what the waivers are. They are primarily political tools to choose winners and losers, and allow the Democrats to force corporations to donate to their campaigns and support their policies. They are also being used to cover the hideous nature of this law and drag out the destructive effects over several years so the public doesn't feel all the pain at once.

YOU think the waivers are a way to "harmonize" imbalances between corporate benefit packages until Obama's socialist health care Utopia is fully formed.

You just can not grant a point when it is earned can you? Admit it. If the Republicans rammed through a giant controversial bill with no Democrat support, and then used the bill's discretionary clauses to dump 20% of the goodies into a Republican leader's district... you'd go apesh!t.

To have credibility, you must grant points when they are earned.

Read this explanation of the waiver below. How many people could make any sense of this at all. THIS is what our government has come to. It's disgusting.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/annual_limit_waivers.html

"Annual Limit Waivers The Affordable Care Act bans annual dollar limits beginning in 2014. Until then, annual limits are limited under HHS regulations published in June 2010. For plan years starting between September 23, 2010 and September 22, 2011, plans may not limit annual coverage of essential benefits such as hospital, physician and pharmacy benefits to less than $750,000. The restricted annual limit will be $1.25 million for plan years starting on or after September 23, 2011, and $2 million for plan years starting between September 23, 2012 and January 1, 2014. For plans issued or renewed beginning January 1, 2014, all annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits will be prohibited.
A class of group health plans and health insurance coverage, generally known as “limited benefit” plans or “mini med” plans, often has annual limits well below the restricted annual limits set out in the interim final regulations. Because this is often the only type of private insurance available to some workers, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued temporary waivers to allow workers to keep their insurance. These “annual dollar limit” waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that waiver is necessary to prevent either a significant increase in premiums or decrease in access to coverage. Additionally, health plans that receive waivers must tell consumers if their health care coverage is subject to an annual dollar limit lower than what is required under the law. "

[TNG]

LOL! You're defending this! Good. Most of the others have cracked already. Let's see how long you last.

I know exactly what the waivers are. They are primarily political tools to choose winners and losers, and allow the Democrats to force corporations to donate to their campaigns and support their policies. They are also being used to cover the hideous nature of this law and drag out the destructive effects over several years so the public doesn't feel all the pain at once.

YOU think the waivers are a way to "harmonize" imbalances between corporate benefit packages until Obama's socialist health care Utopia is fully formed.

You just can not grant a point when it is earned can you? Admit it. If the Republicans rammed through a giant controversial bill with no Democrat support, and then used the bill's discretionary clauses to dump 20% of the goodies into a Republican leader's district... you'd go apesh!t.

To have credibility, you must grant points when they are earned.

Read this explanation of the waiver below. How many people could make any sense of this at all. THIS is what our government has come to. It's disgusting.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/annual_limit_waivers.html

"Annual Limit Waivers The Affordable Care Act bans annual dollar limits beginning in 2014. Until then, annual limits are limited under HHS regulations published in June 2010. For plan years starting between September 23, 2010 and September 22, 2011, plans may not limit annual coverage of essential benefits such as hospital, physician and pharmacy benefits to less than $750,000. The restricted annual limit will be $1.25 million for plan years starting on or after September 23, 2011, and $2 million for plan years starting between September 23, 2012 and January 1, 2014. For plans issued or renewed beginning January 1, 2014, all annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits will be prohibited.
A class of group health plans and health insurance coverage, generally known as “limited benefit” plans or “mini med” plans, often has annual limits well below the restricted annual limits set out in the interim final regulations. Because this is often the only type of private insurance available to some workers, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued temporary waivers to allow workers to keep their insurance. These “annual dollar limit” waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that waiver is necessary to prevent either a significant increase in premiums or decrease in access to coverage. Additionally, health plans that receive waivers must tell consumers if their health care coverage is subject to an annual dollar limit lower than what is required under the law. "


Again you show no clue as to what it all means. Focus on what it does, why it does it, not where it does, and what link you can create to fan flames of misinformation and less than half truth. Certainly don't let the facts fvck up this effort to obfuscate the truth. See the link below

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

I'll help out those not motivated to see what a giant blow hole Gary is on this with the number of enrollees for each category, note the unions in blue.

Self-Insured Employers - 445,527
Health Reimbursement Arrangements - 116,379
Multi-Employer Plans - 969,789
Non-Taft Hartley Union Plans - 582,582
Health Insurance Issuers - 873,326
State-Mandated Policies - 96,314
Association Plans - 11,776

Total - 3,095,693
Total w/o Unions - 2,513,111
Percent granted to unions based on enrollees - 18.82%

Late Edit: CC to DG

If the healthcare plan feels like its jamming you in the ass, its a metaphorical finger to the Louisville slugger known as the Cheney Energy Plan.

[Equinox2100]

TNG's got this covered pretty well. Again DG, you're totally missing the boat on what you're trying to argue. Also, your cognitive dissonance with this and stuff you DO support is astounding.

But, I came here to ask politely if we could stop using war metaphors. Comon. A weapon?

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/17/national/main20063773.shtml

[KKreme15]

There's nothing violent about the title IMO.

[chrisdiaz16]

Are you really blaming Republicans for this mess? Democrats didn't work with Republicans at all. No Republican voted for this. This political weapon was made by Democrats for Democrat use only. Democrats own this, and they should be proud of it. ObamaCare is the Holy Grail of liberal policies

didn't the heritage foundation invent the idea of the individual mandate?
less than a decade ago, a subsidized individual mandate was hailed by conservatives as a market-based solution for the uninsured
the tea party was able to organize and wreak havoc in town halls all summer and fall of '09 because democrats wasted months trying to court a disingenuous olympia snowe.

Republican Senators Bob Bennett, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Mike Crapo, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg, Kit Bond, Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar have all co-sponsored bills establishing an individual mandate in the past, when it was being proposed by someone on their team.
i refuse to believe that all of these men had a change of heart in what they felt was acceptable policy. they just saw an opportunity to take advantage of fear of the kenyan socialist trying to ruin america.

[DiscoGary]

You guys are blaming the Republicans for this horrible law, while the Democrats are using it to pay off and protect their political friends.

Do you have any intellectual integrity at all?

http://ui08.gamespot.com/2119/doublefacepalm_2.jpg

Equinox: You can quit with the phony civility stuff. The left lost all credibility on that issue during the Wisco union debate.

[Equinox2100]

Disco you are literally impossible.

Maybe you if you ask nicely chrisdiaz and TNG will explain their meaning behind their posts, because you clearly don't understand. I don't know how to convey it much simpler.

Again, the waivers aren't doing what you think they are doing. No one is 'off the hook' with this bill.

TNG explained the short-term local-level waivers, and then there's a longer term, state-wide waiver as well. The State Wide waiver was put in place (and moved up to take affect in 2014 rather than 2017) IF a state could fulfill what is essentially the goal of the law without following the letter of the law.

How are you not IN FAVOR of these waivers? Basically, the Federal Government is saying, "here's a template we set forth. The template's goals are X, and you achieve it by following the rules Y. BUT, if you have a better way of fulfilling X in your OWN way (Z), then you're more than free to do so. In fact we encourage it."

Shouldn't you, as a libertarian, agree with the ideal of individualized consideration? Isn't that what your whole shtick IS?

And Kkreme, I DO take issue with the title and evoking arms rhetoric. I think that hyperbole should be taken out of politics forever.

[DiscoGary]

Disco you are literally impossible.

Maybe you if you ask nicely chrisdiaz and TNG will explain their meaning behind their posts, because you clearly don't understand. I don't know how to convey it much simpler.

Again, the waivers aren't doing what you think they are doing. No one is 'off the hook' with this bill.

TNG explained the short-term local-level waivers, and then there's a longer term, state-wide waiver as well. The State Wide waiver was put in place (and moved up to take affect in 2014 rather than 2017) IF a state could fulfill what is essentially the goal of the law without following the letter of the law.

How are you not IN FAVOR of these waivers? Basically, the Federal Government is saying, "here's a template we set forth. The template's goals are X, and you achieve it by following the rules Y. BUT, if you have a better way of fulfilling X in your OWN way (Z), then you're more than free to do so. In fact we encourage it."

Shouldn't you, as a libertarian, agree with the ideal of individualized consideration? Isn't that what your whole shtick IS?

And Kkreme, I DO take issue with the title and evoking arms rhetoric. I think that hyperbole should be taken out of politics forever.

I'm not in favor of these waivers because I don't recognize the federal government's right to pass this law in the first place. It's un-Constitutional and has been ruled to be so already.

I guess I need to remind you what my core philosophy is:

A just government defends the individual's rights to protect his
Life
Liberty
Property.
Anything less is a dereliction of duty.
Anything more is an abuse of power.

ObamaCare is an abuse of power.

[TeamOrange]

I'm not in favor of these waivers because I don't recognize the federal government's right to pass this law in the first place. It's un-Constitutional and has been ruled to be so already.

I guess I need to remind you what my core philosophy is:

A just government defends the individual's rights to protect his
Life
Liberty
Property.
Anything less is a dereliction of duty.
Anything more is an abuse of power.

ObamaCare is an abuse of power.

One could argue life, physical well-being of a person, could include healthcare

[boltoncct&f]

I pose this to everyone:

How did Americans deal with health care, say about 100 years ago? 150 years ago? 200 years ago?

As harsh as it sounds, most of this country's history has been without wide spread "great" health care. And here we are...... So when was all of this deemed necessary for America to succeed?

I understand the utopian thought of everyone being able to afford health care (and I already went in to how expensive it's getting because of all of this), but to make that possible, we have to stray even further and further away from the America that got us here, say 100 years ago.....150 years ago........200 years ago.....

I could be even more harsh, but I'll try to refrain.....for the moment.

[KKreme15]

I pose this to everyone:

How did Americans deal with health care, say about 100 years ago? 150 years ago? 200 years ago?

As harsh as it sounds, most of this country's history has been without wide spread "great" health care. And here we are...... So when was all of this deemed necessary for America to succeed?

I understand the utopian thought of everyone being able to afford health care (and I already went in to how expensive it's getting because of all of this), but to make that possible, we have to stray even further and further away from the America that got us here, say 100 years ago.....150 years ago........200 years ago.....

I could be even more harsh, but I'll try to refrain.....for the moment.

*facepalm* look at the technology available back then, not to mention the increase in life expectancy...

[DiscoGary]

*facepalm* look at the technology available back then, not to mention the increase in life expectancy...

I think he's talking about government funded health care, regardless of the contemporary technology.

How did we get so strong without government funded health care.

[TeamOrange]

I think he's talking about government funded health care, regardless of the contemporary technology.

How did we get so strong without government funded health care.

Two World Wars fortunately not on American soil?

Edit: You still haven't responded to healthcare and life possibly being synonymous. Plus what falls under "life" in your statement? A lot of interpretation can happen under your phrase

[phrisbee]

I pose this to everyone:

How did Americans deal with health care, say about 100 years ago? 150 years ago? 200 years ago?

As harsh as it sounds, most of this country's history has been without wide spread "great" health care. And here we are...... So when was all of this deemed necessary for America to succeed?

I understand the utopian thought of everyone being able to afford health care (and I already went in to how expensive it's getting because of all of this), but to make that possible, we have to stray even further and further away from the America that got us here, say 100 years ago.....150 years ago........200 years ago.....

I could be even more harsh, but I'll try to refrain.....for the moment.
How did Americans deal with transportation 200 years ago? Clearly the answer is we don't need the government to pay for roads. Horse and buggy should suffice. It got us here.

How did Americans defend themselves 200 years ago. Clearly the government ddoesnt need tanks and warplanes. Bayonets should suffice. It got us here.

[DiscoGary]

Two World Wars fortunately not on American soil?

Edit: You still haven't responded to healthcare and life possibly being synonymous. Plus what falls under "life" in your statement? A lot of interpretation can happen under your phrase

Protecting one's life means keeping someone else from hurting you.

That does not include stealing from your neighbor to pay a health care bill, or voting for a government to put a gun to your neighbor's head to accomplish the same thing, even if you will die without that health care.

There's not a lot of room for interpretation. It's my philosophy and I'll tell you exactly what it means.

[DiscoGary]

How did Americans deal with transportation 200 years ago? Clearly the answer is we don't need the government to pay for roads. Horse and buggy should suffice. It got us here.

How did Americans defend themselves 200 years ago. Clearly the government ddoesnt need tanks and warplanes. Bayonets should suffice. It got us here.

The train was not invented by government. Neither was the car or the plane. Most of the railroads were built with private money.

The interstate highway system is one of the few un-Constitutional programs that actually paid off. It still doesn't justify it. The states would have built roads without the help, and many did.

Defending the people is one of the few legitimate roles granted to the federal government by the Constitution, but it doesn't surprise me that you forgot that.

[Equinox2100]

And, Disco, we believe public health falls under that domain as well. UNIVERSAL public health. Different interpretations.

But in avoiding my last question, I'm glad to see you concur with the freer choice sentiment. Lesser of two evils for you, no?

[DiscoGary]

Everyone's spinning out of control now.

The fact is ObamaCare isn't delivering what it promised, and it is being used to pay off Democrat supporters. It's a big disaster, and will turn into a giant disaster as all the elements of the plan go into effect all the way to 2014.

Bad, bad stuff.

The problem is that Democrats need to survive until the plan is completely in place. Then private health care will be gone, the poor (51% of the population) will be getting free health care, and the rich (top 10%) will be paying for everything. The class warfare juices will be flowing, and the poor will never vote to give up their goodies. If the Democrats can just make it to where they control everyone's health care... then they're golden. They'll own everyone.

Meanwhile the present structure will be dismantled, painfully. It's gonna be a very rough next few years.

[Lester Bangs]

Everyone's spinning out of control now.

The fact is ObamaCare isn't delivering what it promised, and it is being used to pay off Democrat supporters. It's a big disaster, and will turn into a giant disaster as all the elements of the plan go into effect all the way to 2014.

Bad, bad stuff.

The problem is that Democrats need to survive until the plan is completely in place. Then private health care will be gone, the poor (51% of the population) will be getting free health care, and the rich (top 10%) will be paying for everything. The class warfare juices will be flowing, and the poor will never vote to give up their goodies. If the Democrats can just make it to where they control everyone's health care... then they're golden. They'll own everyone.

Meanwhile the present structure will be dismantled, painfully. It's gonna be a very rough next few years.

I've never understood the, "Obamacare is going to destroy private insurance" argument. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the law mandate that an extra 34 million people (or so) buy insurance from private insurers? How, exactly, is that going to destroy the insurance business?

[boltoncct&f]

Don't you all love it when I post something, and then wait 18 or so hours to get back on the internet?:o

So much for the defense of my argument, but Tony Manero did cover much of it for me.

My point was simply that this program is just not necessary. I believe it will do more harm than good, and I think we are already seeing that. Being totally dependent on the government is not what this country was intended to be. Thus the comments about how we did things many years ago. Sure, it was not perfect, but it was still the "American Ideal".

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the law mandate that an extra 34 million people (or so) buy insurance from private insurers?
And that is constitutional?



I'm about to double post, and you all will see why.

[boltoncct&f]

Double Post!


See, I come through;)


Let's do an experiment. Work with me here:

I would like for everybody to + rep me, because I have every right (as Track Talk Poster) to have full green dots, just like some of the more wealthy (lots of green dots) posters on this site. Sure I have not provided enough quality posts to obtain full green dot status, but I'm still part of this community, and should enjoy the same benefits of others hard work.

And I'm serious. I want to see how many of you give me a + rep.

I'll let you know the results of this experiment soon enough.

[Demon Runner]

Everyone's spinning out of control now.

The fact is ObamaCare isn't delivering what it promised, and it is being used to pay off Democrat supporters. It's a big disaster, and will turn into a giant disaster as all the elements of the plan go into effect all the way to 2014.

Bad, bad stuff.

The problem is that Democrats need to survive until the plan is completely in place. Then private health care will be gone, the poor (51% of the population) will be getting free health care, and the rich (top 10%) will be paying for everything. The class warfare juices will be flowing, and the poor will never vote to give up their goodies. If the Democrats can just make it to where they control everyone's health care... then they're golden. They'll own everyone.

Meanwhile the present structure will be dismantled, painfully. It's gonna be a very rough next few years.


http://debikm.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/waah.jpg

obama's black

http://debikm.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/waah.jpg

[DiscoGary]

I've never understood the, "Obamacare is going to destroy private insurance" argument. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the law mandate that an extra 34 million people (or so) buy insurance from private insurers? How, exactly, is that going to destroy the insurance business?

The insurance business just ends up becoming a tool of government redistribution, kind of like GM in the auto industry. They become the respectable facade of fascism and hide socialism.

Do I need to explain that?

[reee]

The insurance business just ends up becoming a tool of government redistribution, kind of like GM in the auto industry. They become the respectable facade of fascism.

Do I need to explain that?

I didn't even know you hated democrats

[DiscoGary]

Double Post!


See, I come through;)


Let's do an experiment. Work with me here:

I would like for everybody to + rep me, because I have every right (as Track Talk Poster) to have full green dots, just like some of the more wealthy (lots of green dots) posters on this site. Sure I have not provided enough quality posts to obtain full green dot status, but I'm still part of this community, and should enjoy the same benefits of others hard work.

And I'm serious. I want to see how many of you give me a + rep.

I'll let you know the results of this experiment soon enough.

I see what you did there.

But you can't fool me! I'm not +repping you. You'll get all the green bubbles, and then they'll be less green bubbles for me. Since I have fewer bubbles than you, YOU should be +repping ME. Spread the wealth baby.

Sure everyone hates me, and I do a lot of things that get negged, but the decisions I've made and the actions I've taken shouldn't effect my bubbles. It was my upbringing, I was born this way, I'm the wrong color, I'm old and cranky...
IT WASN'T MY FAULT!!!!
JFvujknrBuE

I should have access to all the green bubbles that others have regardless of whether or not I've earned them. I "interpreted" the Constitution and it says I have a right to full green bubble status. Prove me wrong.

Actually, I'm serious... Bolton and I are filing a class action lawsuit that says the Constitution guarantees our right to force you to +rep us until we have the same number of green bubbles as you do. Do we have that right? If Congress passed that law tomorrow, and dumber laws have been passed, how would you defend yourselves?

[boltoncct&f]

I see what you did there.

But you can't fool me! I'm not +repping you. You'll get all the green bubbles, and then they'll be less green bubbles for me. Since I have fewer bubbles than you, YOU should be +repping ME. Spread the wealth baby.

Sure everyone hates me, and I do a lot of things that get negged, but the decisions I've made and the actions I've taken shouldn't effect my bubbles. It was my upbringing, I was born this way, I'm the wrong color, I'm old and cranky...
IT WASN'T MY FAULT!!!!
JFvujknrBuE

I should have access to all the green bubbles that others have regardless of whether or not I've earned them. I "interpreted" the Constitution and it says I have a right to full green bubble status. Prove me wrong.

Actually, I'm serious... Bolton and I are filing a class action lawsuit that says the Constitution guarantees our right to force you to +rep us until we have the same number of green bubbles as you do. Do we have that right? If Congress passed that law tomorrow, and dumber laws have been passed, how would you defend yourselves?
I figured you would catch on to that quickly.

However......

You supporters of these policies are proving my point, so far. I'll give it a bit more time to publish the results. Maybe everyone is asleep? Maybe everyone is desperately trying to craft a reply that somehow can show that "it's not the same thing".;)


EDIT: REALLY PEOPLE!?! This is all the participation I'm going to get?:rolleyes: I'll give it one more hour, then I'm posting results, and you all are not going to like it. Should I give you all a day? Would that help?

[Lester Bangs]

Most people are probably in school (/thinly veiled comment about you guys being old).

Now if you could stop falling over backwards to pat yourselves on the back for being so clever for just a second here, I'd like a chance to present an argument.

bolton: I take it from your example that you consider any and all redistribution policies to be equivocally evil? For example, last year I paid no federal income tax because I am a dependent who makes basically no money. I am assuming that you paid at least some. Now while I did not receive any sort of direct government subisidies, I did receive protection from government services like the police and national defense, etc- same as you. So since this is clearly a redistribution of your wealth, you must consider it evil, no? After all, those cops that patrolled my street and protected my rights, could have been giving you the extra protection that you have rightly earned by paying more in income taxes. Why do you stand for this thievery?

In fact taking you example to its logical conclusion, should there not be one flat tax for everyone in the United States, man, woman or child (after all, as Disco pointed out, using age as a reason for not being wealthy and self sufficient is pretty lame- Mozart was writing world class composition at the age of 5, you'd think a 10 year old could at least make a couple bucks in a coal mine or something). Given that we have to tax everyone at the same rate and it would impractical to tax too much (we simply don't have enough prison space for all the tax evaders we would have) I propose a 1,000 dollar yearly federal tax per person. This should give us 300 billion dollars- no small sum! Granted this is only half of the defense budget for the fiscal year 2010, but who needs practical measures when there are ideologies to satiate!

Also, although you've already completely preempted my point by putting "its not the same thing" in quotations allow me to suggest a difference- you might find those little green dots more forthcoming if you needed them to say... feed your kids... or maybe even pay your hospital bill.

Disco: I would greatly appreciate a further explanation.

[DiscoGary]

Most people are probably in school (/thinly veiled comment about you guys being old).

Now if you could stop falling over backwards to pat yourselves on the back for being so clever for just a second here, I'd like a chance to present an argument.

bolton: I take it from your example that you consider any and all redistribution policies to be equivocally evil? For example, last year I paid no federal income tax because I am a dependent who makes basically no money. I am assuming that you paid at least some. Now while I did not receive any sort of direct government subisidies, I did receive protection from government services like the police and national defense, etc- same as you. So since this is clearly a redistribution of your wealth, you must consider it evil, no? After all, those cops that patrolled my street and protected my rights, could have been giving you the extra protection that you have rightly earned by paying more in income taxes. Why do you stand for this thievery?

In fact taking you example to its logical conclusion, should there not be one flat tax for everyone in the United States, man, woman or child (after all, as Disco pointed out, using age as a reason for not being wealthy and self sufficient is pretty lame- Mozart was writing world class composition at the age of 5, you'd think a 10 year old could at least make a couple bucks in a coal mine or something). Given that we have to tax everyone at the same rate and it would impractical to tax too much (we simply don't have enough prison space for all the tax evaders we would have) I propose a 1,000 dollar yearly federal tax per person. This should give us 300 billion dollars- no small sum! Granted this is only half of the defense budget for the fiscal year 2010, but who needs practical measures when there are ideologies to satiate!

Also, although you've already completely preempted my point by putting "its not the same thing" in quotations allow me to suggest a difference- you might find those little green dots more forthcoming if you needed them to say... feed your kids... or maybe even pay your hospital bill.

Disco: I would greatly appreciate a further explanation.

Case: Bolton vs. Tracktalk

DG: Objection! The counsel's comments have no bearing on the case before the court.

Judge: Objection sustained. [to Lester] The counsel will restrict his remarks to issues relevant to the case. If you fail to show how bubble redistribution is un-Constitutional, this court will rule in favor of Bolton. What defense do you have?

[boltoncct&f]

Most people are probably in school (/thinly veiled comment about you guys being old).

Now if you could stop falling over backwards to pat yourselves on the back for being so clever for just a second here, I'd like a chance to present an argument.

bolton: I take it from your example that you consider any and all redistribution policies to be equivocally evil? For example, last year I paid no federal income tax because I am a dependent who makes basically no money. I am assuming that you paid at least some. Now while I did not receive any sort of direct government subisidies, I did receive protection from government services like the police and national defense, etc- same as you. So since this is clearly a redistribution of your wealth, you must consider it evil, no? After all, those cops that patrolled my street and protected my rights, could have been giving you the extra protection that you have rightly earned by paying more in income taxes. Why do you stand for this thievery?

In fact taking you example to its logical conclusion, should there not be one flat tax for everyone in the United States, man, woman or child (after all, as Disco pointed out, using age as a reason for not being wealthy and self sufficient is pretty lame- Mozart was writing world class composition at the age of 5, you'd think a 10 year old could at least make a couple bucks in a coal mine or something). Given that we have to tax everyone at the same rate and it would impractical to tax too much (we simply don't have enough prison space for all the tax evaders we would have) I propose a 1,000 dollar yearly federal tax per person. This should give us 300 billion dollars- no small sum! Granted this is only half of the defense budget for the fiscal year 2010, but who needs practical measures when there are ideologies to satiate!

Also, although you've already completely preempted my point by putting "its not the same thing" in quotations allow me to suggest a difference- you might find those little green dots more forthcoming if you needed them to say... feed your kids... or maybe even pay your hospital bill.

Disco: I would greatly appreciate a further explanation.
Ok, here goes.....

I'll start off with the fact that 1) you are a very new poster and really need to read more of this thread (or just the last page were half of what you just said has already been explained without any rebuttal on anyone's part) or 2) you are a multi and have followed my posts and where I stand, and therefore should know better as to have typed most of what you just did.

I am older, not old, and I have lost most of my "idealistic" ways as time has gone on. I have had hard core liberal friends who are no longer hard core liberals. This is mostly because I live in an area that sees the widespread abuse of these social programs and the damage they do to society. Trust me, they may look good on paper, but they just don't work. Obama could not get back on the plane fast enough, after his visit here the other day. His message was great. I applaud him for what he was telling the kids. Interviews done afterward proved that his message went in one ear and out the other for most part.

So now to answer your questions quickly and to the point:

Your first paragraph: Redistibution of wealth is not American. That was easy.

Your sedcond paragraph: Flat tax. $1000? Sure, just as long as everyone pays their share.....oh that's right...... can't have that.

Your third paragraph: Get a job and pay for your food and medical bills. Your job is not good enough to do so? What did you do with your 12 years of free education? And that's my fault? People in other countries would give their right arm to be in your position. Your in debt, and can't feed your kids or pay medical bills? Why did you get yourself in that situation in the first place? That's my fault how? (Yes that is a harsh stance, but if people actually cared, it would be an easy problem to fix. My question to you is, why do you think people don't care? If you lived where I lived, you would be able to come up with that answer quickly.









Oh yeah, where is my plus rep;)

[Lester Bangs]

Case: Bolton vs. Tracktalk

DG: Objection! The counsel's comments have no bearing on the case before the court.

Judge: Objection sustained. [to Lester] The counsel will restrict his remarks to issues relevant to the case. If you fail to show how bubble redistribution is un-Constitutional, this court will rule in favor of Bolton. What defense do you have?

I thought this was America Disco, since when do you get to both make objections and be the judge- where is the rule of law!

But I would counter by saying that you two were not actually making a constitutional argument- you were making a moral/logical argument (not to say that you are either moral or logical ;)). The crux of the example that boltoncc came up with, as I understand it, is that redistribution is always wrong because people don't want to give him free +reps. You then followed up by implying that people who seek or accept government redistribution are morally pathetic for not accepting full and complete responsibility for their well being. My argument was against those those stances. I believe those to be normative arguments separate from the positive argument of whether or not the health care law is constitutional. Put another way, it is possible for a constitutionally sound idea to be wrong and for an unconstitutionally sound idea to be right (in my opinion). I am not saying that I believe the health care law to be unconstitutional, merely that whether it is or not is not related to the debate that I thought we were having (namely a theoretical debate about the virtues and vices of redistribution).

To summarize, I'm taking up a particular part of your argument, not the whole.

[Lester Bangs]

Ok, here goes.....

I'll start off with the fact that 1) you are a very new poster and really need to read more of this thread (or just the last page were half of what you just said has already been explained without any rebuttal on anyone's part) or 2) you are a multi and have followed my posts and where I stand, and therefore should know better as to have typed most of what you just did.

I am older, not old, and I have lost most of my "idealistic" ways as time has gone on. I have had hard core liberal friends who are no longer hard core liberals. This is mostly because I live in an area that sees the widespread abuse of these social programs and the damage they do to society. Trust me, they may look good on paper, but they just don't work. Obama could not get back on the plane fast enough, after his visit here the other day. His message was great. I applaud him for what he was telling the kids. Interviews done afterward proved that his message went in one ear and out the other for most part.

So now to answer your questions quickly and to the point:

Your first paragraph: Redistibution of wealth is not American. That was easy.

Your sedcond paragraph: Flat tax. $1000? Sure, just as long as everyone pays their share.....oh that's right...... can't have that.

Your third paragraph: Get a job and pay for your food and medical bills. Your job is not good enough to do so? What did you do with your 12 years of free education? And that's my fault? People in other countries would give their right arm to be in your position. Your in debt, and can't feed your kids or pay medical bills? Why did you get yourself in that situation in the first place? That's my fault how? (Yes that is a harsh stance, but if people actually cared, it would be an easy problem to fix. My question to you is, why do you think people don't care? If you lived where I lived, you would be able to come up with that answer quickly.









Oh yeah, where is my plus rep;)

Just to be clear: you are against any and all redistribution policies? Does that include the 12 free years of education that you mentioned? Does that include any sort of progressive tax system- even if those taxes only pay for a narrow range of public goods (roads, national defense, etc)?

[DiscoGary]

I thought this was America Disco, since when do you get to both make objections and be the judge- where is the rule of law!

But I would counter by saying that you two were not actually making a constitutional argument- you were making a moral/logical argument (not to say that you are either moral or logical ;)). The crux of the example that boltoncc came up with, as I understand it, is that redistribution is always wrong because people don't want to give him free +reps. You then followed up by implying that people who seek or accept government redistribution are morally pathetic for not accepting full and complete responsibility for their well being. My argument was against those those stances. I believe those to be normative arguments separate from the positive argument of whether or not the health care law is constitutional. Put another way, it is possible for a constitutionally sound idea to be wrong and for an unconstitutionally sound idea to be right (in my opinion). I am not saying that I believe the health care law to be unconstitutional, merely that whether it is or not is not related to the debate that I thought we were having (namely a theoretical debate about the virtues and vices of redistribution).

To summarize, I'm taking up a particular part of your argument, not the whole.

DG: Objection your honor. The counsel refuses to -

Judge: Objection sustained. [to Lester] The counsel will approach the bench. Listen here you little East Coast Ive League smartass, we here in the Midwest don't waste time with all that hoity toity legal double talk. If you don't shape up I'll show what "whole" you can stick your green bubble in.

Judge: This court rules in favor of Bolton. Redistribution of green bubbles has been determined to be Constitutional. This court chooses to legislate from the bench... because who's going to stop us. TrackTalk will abide by the following rules:
All members with light green bubbles must give one bubble to a member with no light green bubbles.
All members with light green bubbles must +rep dark green bubblers every day, even if they don't post at all. In fact especially if they don't post.
All members with light green bubbles will be sent to sensitivity training to learn how to show the proper respect for dark green bubblers.
Every thread page must have at least 4 posts from dark green bubblers.
The children of dark green bubblers will be granted favorable treatment when applying to college.
The Federal Government shall set aside 10% of contracts for companies owned by dark green bubblers.
Any neg rep of a dark green bubbler is considered "hate posting", and will carry harsher punishment than any other banning offense.
Light green bubblers will pay for health care for dark green bubblers.
This court will consider the magnitude of reparations to be paid by light green bubblers and set aside for the future use of dark green bubblers.
I hearby lower the gallons per flush from 1.6 to 1.0 gallons per flush for every toilet in the world! What the hell. I'm on a roll and who can stop me? Certainly not the Constitution.

[boltoncct&f]

Just got back from a meet. Man did it get hot all the sudden....

I decided to check in on my experiment. Lester, I will give you props (+ rep) not because I'm distributing my wealth, but that you were the ONLY person who even attempted poke a hole in my experiment. Notice the activity on this thread (how many people have read this today) and not a single response or come back. Further more, absolutely nobody gave me a + rep. I'll safely assume that nobody wanted to fall into that trap OR nobody can still formulate a rebuttal that can explain why I don't deserve the rep, yet we all deservre distribution of wealth IRL. Evidently these green dots are far more important!:D
Just to be clear: you are against any and all redistribution policies? Does that include the 12 free years of education that you mentioned? Does that include any sort of progressive tax system- even if those taxes only pay for a narrow range of public goods (roads, national defense, etc)?

Follow me here:

Education: Yes and no. There are public schools that do well and there are "failing" public school. Let's just say I come from an area that is towards the top of the list in number of failing schools. I'm also from an area that has some excelent, award winning, public schools. The difference, parents who......wait for it......it's coming....... parents who CARE. Not the administration. Not the teachers. Not the technology. Not the facilities. Trust me, the studies have been done. Parent conference night at some schools, is a ghost town. Parent conference night at other schools is a parking nightmare. Guess which school does well? So again I ask you, why do some people not care?

Roads, national defense, etc.: I agree, there are some programs that are necessary for success of a country. A good infrustructure is one of them. If all roads were toll roads, only the people who used them would pay. Sounds fair, but yet I understand how frustrating they are. As far as defense...... something about the preamble saying "provide for the common defense..." so that is American. I have no problem with that;)

DG: Objection your honor. The counsel refuses to -

Judge: Objection sustained. [to Lester] The counsel will approach the bench. Listen here you little East Coast Ive League smartass, we here in the Midwest don't waste time with all that hoity toity legal double talk. If you don't shape up I'll show what "whole" you can stick your green bubble in.

Judge: This court rules in favor of Bolton. Redistribution of green bubbles has been determined to be Constitutional. This court chooses to legislate from the bench... because who's going to stop us. TrackTalk will abide by the following rules:

All members with light green bubbles must give one bubble to a member with no light green bubbles.
All members with light green bubbles must +rep dark green bubblers every day, even if they don't post at all. In fact especially if they don't post.
All members with light green bubbles will be sent to sensitivity training to learn how to show the proper respect for dark green bubblers.
Every thread page must have at least 4 posts from dark green bubblers.
The children of dark green bubblers will be granted favorable treatment when applying to college.
The Federal Government shall set aside 10% of contracts for companies owned by dark green bubblers.
Any neg rep of a dark green bubbler is considered "hate posting", and will carry harsher punishment than any other banning offense.
Light green bubblers will pay for health care for dark green bubblers.
This court will consider the magnitude of reparations to be paid by light green bubblers and set aside for the future use of dark green bubblers.
I hearby lower the gallons per flush from 1.6 to 1.0 gallons per flush for every toilet in the world! What the hell. I'm on a roll and who can stop me? Certainly not the Constitution.
The defense rests....... or was I the prosecutor?

Thanks for playing (or the fact that you all didn't) Track Talk:)

[Lester Bangs]

Just got back from a meet. Man did it get hot all the sudden....

I decided to check in on my experiment. Lester, I will give you props (+ rep) not because I'm distributing my wealth, but that you were the ONLY person who even attempted poke a hole in my experiment. Notice the activity on this thread (how many people have read this today) and not a single response or come back. Further more, absolutely nobody gave me a + rep. I'll safely assume that nobody wanted to fall into that trap OR nobody can still formulate a rebuttal that can explain why I don't deserve the rep, yet we all deservre distribution of wealth IRL. Evidently these green dots are far more important!:D


Follow me here:

Education: Yes and no. There are public schools that do well and there are "failing" public school. Let's just say I come from an area that is towards the top of the list in number of failing schools. I'm also from an area that has some excelent, award winning, public schools. The difference, parents who......wait for it......it's coming....... parents who CARE. Not the administration. Not the teachers. Not the technology. Not the facilities. Trust me, the studies have been done. Parent conference night at some schools, is a ghost town. Parent conference night at other schools is a parking nightmare. Guess which school does well? So again I ask you, why do some people not care?

Roads, national defense, etc.: I agree, there are some programs that are necessary for success of a country. A good infrustructure is one of them. If all roads were toll roads, only the people who used them would pay. Sounds fair, but yet I understand how frustrating they are. As far as defense...... something about the preamble saying "provide for the common defense..." so that is American. I have no problem with that;)


The defense rests....... or was I the prosecutor?

Thanks for playing (or the fact that you all didn't) Track Talk:)

I think that you and I are closer politically than you might imagine. I think our thoughts on schools are pretty close. I'm inclined to see basic health services as something that an affluent society should guarantee its citizens- you are not- but that is a question of degrees rather than true ideological difference. Your experiment seemed to suggest that you thought that all redistribution was wrong/un-American. My point really is that even the government of DiscoGary's wet dreams will still have to employ some redistribution: practically speaking the rich will have to pay more than the poor or there simply will not be enough resources to have an army, much less a coast guard or an interstate highway system. Now I'm not so liberal as some other posters here as to get into philosophical arguments about whether or not you really have earned all you have because your a product of your environment and genetics so we shouldn't have any qualms about taxing wealthy people, etc, etc and obviously neither are you, but I think we can both agree as rational people that there are things the government can do to promote general prosperity that fall outside of just have having an army and a police force and judicial system. You may disagree with me on the details but lets not pretend like everyone who is in favor of some form of universal health coverage is getting ready to storm the Royal Palace and wave the Bolshevik flag. You can flog that straw man all you want but its not helping anything.

PS: Go easy on the tracktalk folks, I think we were all just a bit stunned and confused by DiscoGary's one man show. What exactly is his point?

[boltoncct&f]

I think that you and I are closer politically than you might imagine. I think our thoughts on schools are pretty close. I'm inclined to see basic health services as something that an affluent society should guarantee its citizens- you are not- but that is a question of degrees rather than true ideological difference. Your experiment seemed to suggest that you thought that all redistribution was wrong/un-American. My point really is that even the government of DiscoGary's wet dreams will still have to employ some redistribution: practically speaking the rich will have to pay more than the poor or there simply will not be enough resources to have an army, much less a coast guard or an interstate highway system. Now I'm not so liberal as some other posters here as to get into philosophical arguments about whether or not you really have earned all you have because your a product of your environment and genetics so we shouldn't have any qualms about taxing wealthy people, etc, etc and obviously neither are you, but I think we can both agree as rational people that there are things the government can do to promote general prosperity that fall outside of just have having an army and a police force and judicial system. You may disagree with me on the details but lets not pretend like everyone who is in favor of some form of universal health coverage is getting ready to storm the Royal Palace and wave the Bolshevik flag. You can flog that straw man all you want but its not helping anything.

PS: Go easy on the tracktalk folks, I think we were all just a bit stunned and confused by DiscoGary's one man show. What exactly is his point?
Assuming there are no tax evaders (and there are far more poor people who cheat on taxes than there are rich people who do, you just always hear about the rich that get caught) the rich do pay more than the poor. If there were a flat tax, say 20% of gross income, person who makes 1 million a year ($200,000 in tax) is paying more than a person making $20,000 a year ($4000) in tax. The argument is that it does not hurt the rich as much as the poor. I disagree, but that's another argument.

As far as your storming the Royal Palace point. My problem with the proponents of any socialist program (universal health care is one) is that we move further and further away from the intention of America. Socialist countries have failed again and again, yet we have people that think (somehow) that the same rules of failure don't apply to us. The defenders will toss out some smaller country that is kind of succeeding at the moment, but fail to look at the writing on the wall of the other countries, who did fail, who were once in a better position.

Bottom line, this famous quote comes to mind; "if it ain't broke...." well, you know the rest:) Too many Americans think that our past 150 - 200 years were broken, somehow. I disagree.

[TNG]

Bottom line, this famous quote comes to mind; "if it ain't broke...." well, you know the rest:) Too many Americans think that our past 150 - 200 years were broken, somehow. I disagree.

Agree, the past 150-200 years were not broken, but why does the GOP want to go back and relive them again, mistakes and all?

[boltoncct&f]

Agree, the past 150-200 years were not broken, but why does the GOP want to go back and relive them again, mistakes and all?

Learning from mistakes, and straying from the constitution are two different things.






Side note: I still have not gotten any plus rep for my experiment:confused:

[Lester Bangs]

Assuming there are no tax evaders (and there are far more poor people who cheat on taxes than there are rich people who do, you just always hear about the rich that get caught) the rich do pay more than the poor. If there were a flat tax, say 20% of gross income, person who makes 1 million a year ($200,000 in tax) is paying more than a person making $20,000 a year ($4000) in tax. The argument is that it does not hurt the rich as much as the poor. I disagree, but that's another argument.

As far as your storming the Royal Palace point. My problem with the proponents of any socialist program (universal health care is one) is that we move further and further away from the intention of America. Socialist countries have failed again and again, yet we have people that think (somehow) that the same rules of failure don't apply to us. The defenders will toss out some smaller country that is kind of succeeding at the moment, but fail to look at the writing on the wall of the other countries, who did fail, who were once in a better position.

Bottom line, this famous quote comes to mind; "if it ain't broke...." well, you know the rest:) Too many Americans think that our past 150 - 200 years were broken, somehow. I disagree.

Bob Dylan (http://www.youtube.com/artist/Bob_Dylan?feature=watch_video_title) - Times They are a-Changin

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCWdCKPtnYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCWdCKPtnYE)

What passed for good governance in 1950 might be woefully inadequate in 2050. Let's stick to that most American of mottos: never settle! Just a thought :).

[Equinox2100]

Bolton -

The founders had the criterion of Freedom as their main argument.

True freedom requires equality.

Was their society totally free? No. Why? Because the citizens weren't equal in their opportunities.

Freedom with equal opportunity is what social programs strive for. If you have totally equal opportunity for success, then the chips may fall where they may. It isn't supposed to nor is it meant to eradicate wealth gaps.

But it's mighty hard to live the 'American Dream' when everyday is a struggle to eat.

[DiscoGary]

Ah, this just keeps getting better and better.

Obama's solicitor general makes the case that if you don't want the health care mandate to kick in, you can always choose to make less money.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-solicitor-general-if-you-dont-mandate-earn-less-money

So this is the country Obama and the Democrats want. Work less, and the jack-boot of government will be lifted from your neck.

What kind of hellish abuses of power must be in that bank bill?

[DiscoGary]

...and now there's a report that 30% of companies will drop health care coverage... just as predicted.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06

I finally figured out where each family will save that $2,500 per year that Obama promised. It will happen when companies cancel their health care plans and all the employee contributions come to an end! They won't have any health care, but they'll have $2,500 more per family.

This is exactly what ObamaCare is intended to do. Complete destruction of the private health care market.

Excuse me while I spike the football.

[matthewxcountry]

Read this explanation of the waiver below. How many people could make any sense of this at all. THIS is what our government has come to. It's disgusting.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/annual_limit_waivers.html

"Annual Limit Waivers The Affordable Care Act bans annual dollar limits beginning in 2014. Until then, annual limits are limited under HHS regulations published in June 2010. For plan years starting between September 23, 2010 and September 22, 2011, plans may not limit annual coverage of essential benefits such as hospital, physician and pharmacy benefits to less than $750,000. The restricted annual limit will be $1.25 million for plan years starting on or after September 23, 2011, and $2 million for plan years starting between September 23, 2012 and January 1, 2014. For plans issued or renewed beginning January 1, 2014, all annual dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits will be prohibited.
A class of group health plans and health insurance coverage, generally known as “limited benefit” plans or “mini med” plans, often has annual limits well below the restricted annual limits set out in the interim final regulations. Because this is often the only type of private insurance available to some workers, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued temporary waivers to allow workers to keep their insurance. These “annual dollar limit” waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that waiver is necessary to prevent either a significant increase in premiums or decrease in access to coverage. Additionally, health plans that receive waivers must tell consumers if their health care coverage is subject to an annual dollar limit lower than what is required under the law. "


You just admitted that you don't understand what the waivers mean, but then you go on and on about ranting about what they really mean. Its a bit irritating. Figure out what they actually mean first, explain it, then go on to rant about how they are actually being used. How do you expect someone to take you seriously without lining up the first two parts of the argument. If you skip to the rant you just sound a bit like a nut case.

[DiscoGary]

You just admitted that you don't understand what the waivers mean, but then you go on and on about ranting about what they really mean. Its a bit irritating. Figure out what they actually mean first, explain it, then go on to rant about how they are actually being used. How do you expect someone to take you seriously without lining up the first two parts of the argument. If you skip to the rant you just sound a bit like a nut case.

I know companies have to go begging to the Obama administration to get a waiver, and that's all I need to know. If they didn't want to use this as a political weapon, then why didn't they just write the law so that everyone with a certain health care plan in place was exempt from the start?

Corruption.

[boltoncct&f]

I don't know what irritates me more; This health care bill witch is about to abuse me again (and it's not even in full effect yet) or the fact that I have STILL not gotten any green dots from the liberals on here.

Come on people! Practice what you preach!!!

[DiscoGary]

Bolton -

The founders had the criterion of Freedom as their main argument.

True freedom requires equality.

Was their society totally free? No. Why? Because the citizens weren't equal in their opportunities.

Freedom with equal opportunity is what social programs strive for. If you have totally equal opportunity for success, then the chips may fall where they may. It isn't supposed to nor is it meant to eradicate wealth gaps.

But it's mighty hard to live the 'American Dream' when everyday is a struggle to eat.

Our country is not based on the idea that all men/women should have equal opportunities. It is based on the idea that all men/women should be treated equally under the law.

They certainly weren't when the country was founded, and other than reverse discrimination now, they certainly are now.

Any attempt to make sure that every child has the same opportunities that Bill Gates' children have is bound to end in disaster.

[Equinox2100]

Our country is not based on the idea that all men/women should have equal opportunities. It is based on the idea that all men/women should be treated equally under the law.

They certainly weren't when the country was founded, and other than reverse discrimination now, they certainly are now.

Any attempt to make sure that every child has the same opportunities that Bill Gates' children have is bound to end in disaster.

Fair point, but I believe equality under the law it is still just a subsection to equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity doesn't mean that everyone get billions of dollars at birth. Think about it on a Rawlsian guide line (not exactly, he's a little more radical).

Equal opportunity means a lot of things, but basically the question to figure out if something falls under it or not is: "Is this NECESSARY AT BIRTH to give me an EQUAL chance at fulfilling my rational life plan/goals?"*

Food? Yes. Water? Yes. Education? Yes. Money? Not necessarily. Equal treatment under the law? Yes. Athleticism? No. 200 or even 80 level IQ? No.

and so on and so forth. What the underlying philosophy IS of our founding fathers is more important (IMO) than the gilded top, and the source of conflict as far back and as far forward as our country goes.

*Rational used strictly. Harm against others = irrational.

[DiscoGary]

Fair point, but I believe equality under the law it is still just a subsection to equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity doesn't mean that everyone get billions of dollars at birth. Think about it on a Rawlsian guide line (not exactly, he's a little more radical).

Equal opportunity means a lot of things, but basically the question to figure out if something falls under it or not is: "Is this NECESSARY AT BIRTH to give me an EQUAL chance at fulfilling my rational life plan/goals?"*

Food? Yes. Water? Yes. Education? Yes. Money? Not necessarily. Equal treatment under the law? Yes. Athleticism? No. 200 or even 80 level IQ? No.

and so on and so forth. What the underlying philosophy IS of our founding fathers is more important (IMO) than the gilded top, and the source of conflict as far back and as far forward as our country goes.

*Rational used strictly. Harm against others = irrational.

That explains why we can never agree. You think our country guarantees equal opportunities for everyone, but it doesn't.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, and basic protection of the individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. Each person has to go out and find their own way without the help of the government.

... and don't even bother telling me that someone defending their life means national health care. We've been through all that, and we'll never agree on that either.

[Equinox2100]

That explains why we can never agree. You think our country guarantees equal opportunities for everyone, but it doesn't.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, and basic protection of the individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. Each person has to go out and find their own way without the help of the government.

... and don't even bother telling me that someone defending their life means national health care. We've been through all that, and we'll never agree on that either.

I know it doesn't, it's just what I'm contending it should do.

I bolded the part that your logical flaw shines through. The problem now is that each person can't find their way because they don't have the means to.

How can someone "find their own way" if they can barely afford food? If they are living paycheck to paycheck, where is the room to explore their passions? Their potential greatness? Their potential genius?

Everyone should have the opportunity to go and find their own way. Once they have that opportunity, I agree 100% that they should find their way without the help or intrusion of the government.

[boltoncct&f]

How can someone "find their own way" if they can barely afford food? If they are living paycheck to paycheck, where is the room to explore their passions? Their potential greatness? Their potential genius?



MY GOD PLEASE MOVE TO MEMPHIS AND SEE IF YOU REALLY BELIVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THEN!!

Where do you live? Perfectville??

[Equinox2100]

MY GOD PLEASE MOVE TO MEMPHIS AND SEE IF YOU REALLY BELIVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THEN!!

Where do you live? Perfectville??

Home? Seattle

College? LA

Currently? D.C.

[boltoncct&f]

Home? Seattle

College? LA

Currently? D.C.

My father was from Seattle (and a few other places, military) and trust me, you can't even compare what goes on with Seattle, with the total abuse of the American government programs that goes on in Memphis.

Now, being in L.A. there has got to be some abuse going on there, but still, not as bad as this area. Atlanta is pretty bad too.

My point is I guess it's easy to believe what you are saying if you have not seen how bad the abuse of the programs are. It makes me sick. I do understand that people need a boost and some help, unfortunately, rarely have I ever seen that actually work. It's more like, what else can I get for free, while doing nothing. Oh, I think I'll go buy a new iPhone and a new car too, now that I don't have to pay for food, house, electricity, medical care....

[DiscoGary]

My father was from Seattle (and a few other places, military) and trust me, you can't even compare what goes on with Seattle, with the total abuse of the American government programs that goes on in Memphis.

Now, being in L.A. there has got to be some abuse going on there, but still, not as bad as this area. Atlanta is pretty bad too.

My point is I guess it's easy to believe what you are saying if you have not seen how bad the abuse of the programs are. It makes me sick. I do understand that people need a boost and some help, unfortunately, rarely have I ever seen that actually work. It's more like, what else can I get for free, while doing nothing. Oh, I think I'll go buy a new iPhone and a new car too, now that I don't have to pay for food, house, electricity, medical care....

Hey Bolton. You should check out the $61 trillion thread. There's a new guy on the boards there that says he's going to wipe the floor with you. You better watch out. He knows how we operate.

[TNG]

I pose this to everyone:

How did Americans deal with health care, say about 100 years ago? 150 years ago? 200 years ago?

As harsh as it sounds, most of this country's history has been without wide spread "great" health care. And here we are...... So when was all of this deemed necessary for America to succeed?

I understand the utopian thought of everyone being able to afford health care (and I already went in to how expensive it's getting because of all of this), but to make that possible, we have to stray even further and further away from the America that got us here, say 100 years ago.....150 years ago........200 years ago.....

I could be even more harsh, but I'll try to refrain.....for the moment.

Again stop looking backwards for answers, history shouldn't be ignored but as KKreme noted the times are a changin'. The GOP is fixiated on the past; guns, God, gynecology, gays, & government. Bring us back, 30, 75, 100, 150 years isn't the answer. You can't selectively return to the past. 50 yeras ago large companies had typing pools where dozens of women waiting to generate the insight and wisdom from the corner offices. We solve problems completely today in less time than it takes to summon the "girl" for a bit of dictation.

IMO, we have an education problem on the real issue of healthcare and its cost. Our cost for healthcare is double what the rest of the world is on a per capita basis, Why? Our results are not correlating with the expense. We have over capitalized on diagnostic equipment that we use all too frequently, we perform procedures that are unecesssary because we can and the equipment is in place, we prescriobe drugs that have high risk factors to slightly improve the day to day discomfort of the aging process.

As far as entitlements go, I think you are on to something, which of the following apply, feel free to add or comment on these.

Level of per capita education.
Median family income.
Partisanship comparison of local, state, and federal elected government office holders from the area.

I think when when the first two are below average, and the contrast between the members in last one is notable, you see higher dependance on entitlements.

[boltoncct&f]

Again stop looking backwards for answers, history shouldn't be ignored but as KKreme noted the times are a changin'. The GOP is fixiated on the past; guns, God, gynecology, gays, & government. Bring us back, 30, 75, 100, 150 years isn't the answer. You can't selectively return to the past. 50 yeras ago large companies had typing pools where dozens of women waiting to generate the insight and wisdom from the corner offices. We solve problems completely today in less time than it takes to summon the "girl" for a bit of dictation.

IMO, we have an education problem on the real issue of healthcare and its cost. Our cost for healthcare is double what the rest of the world is on a per capita basis, Why? Our results are not correlating with the expense. We have over capitalized on diagnostic equipment that we use all too frequently, we perform procedures that are unecesssary because we can and the equipment is in place, we prescriobe drugs that have high risk factors to slightly improve the day to day discomfort of the aging process.

As far as entitlements go, I think you are on to something, which of the following apply, feel free to add or comment on these.

Level of per capita education.
Median family income.
Partisanship comparison of local, state, and federal elected government office holders from the area.

I think when when the first two are below average, and the contrast between the members in last one is notable, you see higher dependance on entitlements.

You are by far the most (maybe only) informative liberal on these boards.

As an educator, let me ensure you that it is all kinds of "equal opportunity" for all students. They have to make the most of it.

Income has nothing to do with what one is equally receiving in the classroom. Trust me.

As far as elected officials goes, I guess that really depends on where you are from. The epitome of corruption is where I live. It only compounds the issue. They prey on entitlement. They are totally dependent on it. It's sad, and the public usually buys right into it.

Now, as far as your issue with our education on health care. I agree that we overcharge for many things. It is proper medical practice to let the patient know what you plan on doing. The patient has to give consent. I have, many times, refused treatment due to the fact of me thinking it was not needed. I guess that is not usually the case for most people, and thus the abuse of the medical practice. I guess that goes back to straight capitalism.

[TNG]

You are by far the most (maybe only) informative liberal on these boards.

As an educator, let me ensure you that it is all kinds of "equal opportunity" for all students. They have to make the most of it.

Income has nothing to do with what one is equally receiving in the classroom. Trust me.

As far as elected officials goes, I guess that really depends on where you are from. The epitome of corruption is where I live. It only compounds the issue. They prey on entitlement. They are totally dependent on it. It's sad, and the public usually buys right into it.

Now, as far as your issue with our education on health care. I agree that we overcharge for many things. It is proper medical practice to let the patient know what you plan on doing. The patient has to give consent. I have, many times, refused treatment due to the fact of me thinking it was not needed. I guess that is not usually the case for most people, and thus the abuse of the medical practice. I guess that goes back to straight capitalism.

I don't consider myself a liberal; I tend to think of myself as a pragmatic progressive. A believer in change and that failed policies that failed in the past will undoubtedly fail again in their latest reincarnation. A believer that the worse thing about trying something truly new is having to admit failure and return to what is now the lesser of two evils unless a different idea can be deployed.

I absolutely agree that in the classroom, especially elementary school instructional equality may be such that it actually the peak of a person's life. Sad to think a child hits there peak in this area at 6-8 years of age and if there is little or no parental support or expectation is too often on a downward slide for the rest of their life.

[THE HERD]

Disco, I was reading this (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1&hp), and I was thinking to myself after reading it that DG must find Krugman to be one of the most vile, odious humans out there. I'm curious, who is your least favorite liberal? And a follow up question, what newspaper would a staunch conservative like yourself read, because I'm guessing its not the NY Times (that was not meant as a "gotcha" question, though you may see it that way...)

[DiscoGary]

Disco, I was reading this (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1&hp), and I was thinking to myself after reading it that DG must find Krugman to be one of the most vile, odious humans out there. I'm curious, who is your least favorite liberal? And a follow up question, what newspaper would a staunch conservative like yourself read, because I'm guessing its not the NY Times (that was not meant as a "gotcha" question, though you may see it that way...)

Liberals destroy people to implement their policies.

I don't think like that. It's certain ideas I that I dislike. I have to defeat the ideas and that means that those who promote those ideas have to be defeated. It's not personal for me the way it is for liberals. I would let liberals live their life any way they see fit, as long as I am not forced to live by their rules. Liberals, on the other hand, MUST force me to live by their rules for their system of socialism to work (ObamaCare).

And that is the difference between us.

Krugman spouted a bunch of nonsense. He uses a static model of economics to make his case which is simplistic and in no way reflects reality.

[THE HERD]

Liberals destroy people to implement their policies.

I don't think like that. It's certain ideas I that I dislike. I have to defeat the ideas and that means that those who promote those ideas have to be defeated. It's not personal for me the way it is for liberals. I would let liberals live their life any way they see fit, as long as I am not forced to live by their rules. Liberals, on the other hand, MUST force me to live by their rules for their system of socialism to work (ObamaCare).

And that is the difference between us.

Krugman spouted a bunch of nonsense. He uses a static model of economics to make his case which is simplistic and in no way reflects reality.

OK, so then I'm curious how you feel about Bruce Bartlett, a former advisor for Reagan and George H. W. Bush, validating Krugman's supposed nonsense, stating that we get no benefits out of our already very low income tax when we have such high health insurance costs. Article (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/health-care-costs-and-the-tax-burden/)

[matthewxcountry]

Well going back in time might be good for some things. Americans paid less taxes under Obama than they have in nearly 60 years. In most of Ronald Regan's years the upper tax bracket was at 50% or more. Under Obama its a low 35%. Just throwing that out there.

[boltoncct&f]

Big next 48 hours for Obamacare.

What do you think the Supreme Court decides?

[DiscoGary]

Big next 48 hours for Obamacare.

What do you think the Supreme Court decides?

It doesn't look good. Apparently the four liberals are considered to be a lock on finding it Constitutional, which should bother them tremendously. Think about it. They are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law, not political hacks who hold foregone conclusions based on party affiliation regardless of the merits of the case. This is just like our current Justice Dept under Eric Holder. Democrats are not expected to even consider putting the law above party politics, at any level of government. And everyone is admitting it.

The only doubt lies with more conservative judges. That's telling, and what it tells me is that everyone recognizes that the people on my side are the ones who can be counted on to think, and to consider the merits of an issue, rather than just take a knee jerk stance to impress their political friends.

That's the biggest story right now, and you heard it here first.

[phrisbee]

Big next 48 hours for Obamacare.

What do you think the Supreme Court decides?
Disclaimer: I should know wayyyyy more about the Court.

Upheld. I just don't know what the vote will be. I could even see it being upheld with a 4 justice plurality and one or more concurrences in judgement, but I don't think the Court (or anyone else) wants to go there.

I could see:
8 (upholding)-1 - The precedent was set with cases like Gonzales v. Raich and U.S. v. Comstock. Chief Justice Roberts takes the reigns and writes a strong opinion upholding the law, but carefully narrowing the scope of the decision. Thomas is the obvious holdout.

7 (upholding)-2 - Alito joins Thomas. Roberts writes the opinion as above.

6 (upholding)-3 - I think this is unlikely. I see Roberts going whichever way Scalia goes on this, and Kennedy is unlikely to vote against the law before Scalia. I suppose it's possible that Alito joins the majority with Roberts and Scalia in dissent, but I just don't see it.

5 (upholding)-4 - Kennedy provides the swing vote.

4 (upholding)-at least 1 concurrence in judgement by at least 1 justice-whatever is left - This one could happen with Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg joining in an opinion. I could see Kennedy writing his own concurrence, maybe joined by Roberts and/or Scalia and/or Alito. I could also see Scalia writing this concurrence instead of or in addition to Kennedy.

4 (repealing)-1 concurrence in judgement-4 - This would be a terrible, terrible decision. It would be an absolute mess. We could see Kennedy or Thomas in that concurrence for whatever narrow reason. I think the Court understands what a mess this will be and will try to avoid it, but it's possible.

5 (repealing)-4 against - Not sure if Roberts would want to write this one or not.

[phrisbee]

It doesn't look good. Apparently the four liberals are considered to be a lock on finding it Constitutional, which should bother them tremendously. Think about it. They are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law, not political hacks who hold foregone conclusions based on party affiliation regardless of the merits of the case. This is just like our current Justice Dept under Eric Holder. Democrats are not expected to even consider putting the law above party politics, at any level of government. And everyone is admitting it.

The only doubt lies with more conservative judges. That's telling, and what it tells me is that everyone recognizes that the people on my side are the ones who can be counted on to think, and to consider the merits of an issue, rather than just take a knee jerk stance to impress their political friends.

That's the biggest story right now, and you heard it here first.
You're a complete ****ing hack.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote one of the leading opinions upholding the law. He was appointed by President Bush (the second) and is a Scalia protege.

[boltoncct&f]

Well, it will be interesting for sure. On one hand, if it is upheld, this gives a large chunk of America fuel (and proof) that decisions are now politically motivated, rather than constitutionally motivated. People will be in an uproar. On the other hand, if it is repealed, this could be very damaging in the short term for Obama's re-election. Again, people will be in an uproar.

I'm guessing some sort of stalemate and it gets tossed back to congress to hash it out amongst themselves.

[DiscoGary]

You're a complete ****ing hack.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote one of the leading opinions upholding the law. He was appointed by President Bush (the second) and is a Scalia protege.

... and you repeatedly show that you are so blinded by hate that you can't even follow simple logic in a debate. Your example that a "conservative" judge ruled the law Constitutional supports my point that conservatives are willing to think outside party lines.

You need to show a judge appointed by a Democrat that is willing to rule against ObamaCare to counter my position, and you can't.

Think before you destroy Phris.

[phrisbee]

... and you repeatedly show that you are so blinded by hate that you can't even follow simple logic in a debate. Your example that a "conservative" judge ruled the law Constitutional supports my point that conservatives are willing to think outside party lines.

You need to show a judge appointed by a Democrat that is willing to rule against ObamaCare to counter my position, and you can't.

Think before you destroy Phris.
That is terrible logic.

Most constitutional law scholars think this law is well within constitutional bounds based on the Court's judgements over the last 75 years, beginning in 1937 with cases like National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation.

Where the law lands on the spectrum makes it a very easy question for "liberal" justices and a very hard question for "conservative" justices.

Say this was a new gun regulation. The "conservative" justices would have an easy time arguing against the law. The "liberal" justices would face a much tougher question.

[TeamOrange]

Well, it will be interesting for sure. On one hand, if it is upheld, this gives a large chunk of America fuel (and proof) that decisions are now politically motivated, rather than constitutionally motivated. People will be in an uproar. On the other hand, if it is repealed, this could be very damaging in the short term for Obama's re-election. Again, people will be in an uproar.

I'm guessing some sort of stalemate and it gets tossed back to congress to hash it out amongst themselves.

They should honestly punt the issue to the next session. That would be the right thing to do to avoid the election

[phrisbee]

Well, it will be interesting for sure. On one hand, if it is upheld, this gives a large chunk of America fuel (and proof) that decisions are now politically motivated, rather than constitutionally motivated. People will be in an uproar. On the other hand, if it is repealed, this could be very damaging in the short term for Obama's re-election. Again, people will be in an uproar.

I'm guessing some sort of stalemate and it gets tossed back to congress to hash it out amongst themselves.
They should honestly punt the issue to the next session. That would be the right thing to do to avoid the election
Really not how this works. They have no grounds to punt it that I can see. It doesn't fall under any prudential limits such as political question doctrine, it's ripe, it's not moot, the parties have standing... Not to mention the Court scheduled an unprecedented 6 hours of oral argument. That would seem very inconsistent with an intent to punt the issue.

The closest thing to punting it that can happen is no majority opinion, as I mentioned. I think that would be more disastrous than any majority opinion.

But again, the Court would have to do some fairly substantial backtracking in order to invalidate this law.

[Davy Jones]

It doesn't look good. Apparently the four liberals are considered to be a lock on finding it Constitutional, which should bother them tremendously. Think about it. They are supposed to be impartial arbiters of the law, not political hacks who hold foregone conclusions based on party affiliation regardless of the merits of the case. This is just like our current Justice Dept under Eric Holder. Democrats are not expected to even consider putting the law above party politics, at any level of government. And everyone is admitting it.

The only doubt lies with more conservative judges. That's telling, and what it tells me is that everyone recognizes that the people on my side are the ones who can be counted on to think, and to consider the merits of an issue, rather than just take a knee jerk stance to impress their political friends.

That's the biggest story right now, and you heard it here first.
So what you're saying is that if its 5-4 upheld, the 4 liberal justices are terrible judges because they came in with bias and let it affect their judgment, but the 4 conservatives who vote against it who come in with a bias get off scott free from your bitching?

Remember, it was your side (the Conservatives) who had a Federal Court interfere with a State's elections. So much for state's rights.


But I don't expect consistency from you. I've yet to see it, except that you consistently think all Liberals are brainwashed to <3 the government.

[Davy Jones]

... and you repeatedly show that you are so blinded by hate that you can't even follow simple logic in a debate. Your example that a "conservative" judge ruled the law Constitutional supports my point that conservatives are willing to think outside party lines.

You need to show a judge appointed by a Democrat that is willing to rule against ObamaCare to counter my position, and you can't.

Think before you destroy Phris.
Conservatives think outside party lines?

Man, they've sure showed that in the US Senate.

[boltoncct&f]

Hmmmmm......

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[phrisbee]

Hmmmmm......

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
I've been LOL'ing at Toobin all afternoon. CNN fishing for ratings.

This is reading tea leaves. It's just as easy to look at it this way: Justices (and other judges) are often skeptical of the sides they will eventually join. They want to make sure they are not falling into a bad opinion. They also are finding the holes they need to address in their own eventual opinions.

[phrisbee]

The GOP hits new levels of sleazy by the hour.

http://go.bloomberg.com/health-care-supreme-court/2012-03-29/gop-ad-uses-doctored-scotus-audio/

[DiscoGary]

So now we have a President, a Constitutional scholar, claiming that if the "unelected" Supreme Court strikes down his law, then they are engaging in judicial activism.

What do you think Phris? Is he right?

[TNG]

So now we have a President, a Constitutional scholar, claiming that if the "unelected" Supreme Court strikes down his law, then they are engaging in judicial activism.

What do you think Phris? Is he right?

Actually Obama is correct, especially in your world, and if you are 1/10th the intelectually astute follower of government and politics you portray yourself to be, you would acknowledge why? You can't have both ways here, you either believe things one way or the other, unless of course your idealogy is based on a false premise.

[DiscoGary]

Actually Obama is correct, especially in your world, and if you are 1/10th the intelectually astute follower of government and politics you portray yourself to be, you would acknowledge why? You can't have both ways here, you either believe things one way or the other, unless of course your idealogy is based on a false premise.

I didn't ask you.

[phrisbee]

So now we have a President, a Constitutional scholar, claiming that if the "unelected" Supreme Court strikes down his law, then they are engaging in judicial activism.

What do you think Phris? Is he right?
If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will be judicial activism. The Court has given strong deference to Congress on the regulation of interstate commerce over the last 75 years. President Obama is exactly right. Judicial activism is not always a bad thing in my opinion. However, all the so-called conservatives who decry all judicial activism are going to be in a moral pickle if the law is struck down.

Again, I think they will uphold the law on very narrow grounds, ensuring that they are not approving regulation beyond this very unique and important market.

Gary, how do you reconcile your (and the GOP's) opposition to the individual mandate with the fact that it originated from conservatives in the early '90s? Can't stand seeing President Obama and a Democratic Congress achieve what you couldn't?

Also, the 5 justices whom you are relying on to ensure your freedom from having to pre-purchase a product you will inevitably use just ruled that you can be strip searched for any arrest. How's that for freedom? Bend over!

[DiscoGary]

If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will be judicial activism. The Court has given strong deference to Congress on the regulation of interstate commerce over the last 75 years. President Obama is exactly right. Judicial activism is not always a bad thing in my opinion. However, all the so-called conservatives who decry all judicial activism are going to be in a moral pickle if the law is struck down.

Again, I think they will uphold the law on very narrow grounds, ensuring that they are not approving regulation beyond this very unique and important market.

The counsel for ObamaCare didn't argue that this was an interstate commerce issue, did they? They argued it was a simple tax.

Your argument seems to be that if this court breaks from the tradition of judicial activism demonstrated by the liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, then that break from judicial activism, is judicial activism. Do I have that right? How do you define judicial activism?

How do they rule that the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, but then limit it to only that? The exact same argument can be used for food, clothing, housing, and a bunch of other things we all "need" to survive and that we all have to provide for people if they don't provide for themselves. Other than an arbitrary limit for health care imposed by the USSC (judicial activism) I don't see how it can be done.

[phrisbee]

Gary, you clearly haven't read up on this one.

Were it a tax, the Court would not be deciding the issue right now. See the discussion from last Monday. Neither side really wants this characterized as a tax. There is, however, a very interesting idea that the mandate may be severable from the tax. I'll post the link when I'm at a computer. It's basically a textual trick, but it fits with the Court's longstanding desire to effectuate Congress's intent.

It's difficult to call a handful of cases from 75 years ago "liberal" or "judicial activism." They might have been at the time, but so are many landmark cases that we would not even think of overturning today. Breaking from precedent can be viewed as judicial activism. Breaking from precedent to overturn an act of Congress is certainly judicial activism.

I'm pretty positive I posted about that third point in this thread. You listed food, clothing, and housing. Those are all markets you have to participate in. That's correct. There's a huge difference. If you have the money to participate in them yourself, you cannot be a free rider. That's not the case with health care. By refusing to buy health insurance when you can afford it, you are burdening everyone else with your eventual health care costs. Why? Because you won't be able to afford it when you get cancer. The markets you listed you must immediately participate in. Not the case with health insurance, and thay allows you to free ride.

There are a number of other distinctions as well that allow the Court to narrowly corner health care as a unique market.

There's also a strong argument that the government CAN force you to buy food, clothing, housing, etc., but we don't need to go there.

[phrisbee]

I see you avoided any response to the fact that your wing of the Court just restricted our 4th Amendment rights. Typical.

[DiscoGary]

... There's also a strong argument that the government CAN force you to buy food, clothing, housing, etc., but we don't need to go there.

Ah. There we have it. That's what I thought. No limit at all on federal power. None.

We don't need to debate this anymore. That's the point I wanted to make.

[phrisbee]

Ahahahahahaha it's so funny how little you know once we get into the legal field.

There are limits on federal power, but the Court has ruled that Congress has broad authority under the Commerce Clause. In fact, one of the strongest limits available is placed on Congress: elections.

As for hard and fast limits, we began to see them appear in the Lopez and Morrison cases. The Court ruled that Congress must be regulating directly economic activity. That's in addition to the longstanding rule that the thing being regulated must have a substantial effect on the economy.

So Gary, how about Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito saying you can be strip searched for any arrest?

[DiscoGary]

But that's my point. If the USSC rules ObamaCare to be Constitutional then there are no limits on the federal government, and the Constitution is completely dead... thus eliminating the need for any further rulings by the USSC.

They engage in judicial activism to rule that anything having a substantial impact on the economy is fair game for Congress to regulate. That's it. the Constitution is dead.

I knew that already because of all the activism that's been going on for the last 70 years. We are no longer a Constitutional Republic. We are a Republic. 51% of the people can ram anything they want down the throats of the other 49%, and that's exactly what happened with ObamaCare.

Breaking from precedent is NOT judicial activism. You are making stuff up now. Judicial activism is writing law from the bench, or stretching existing clauses waaay beyond their original intent to accomplish a predetermined agenda. Neither of those things is happening here.

The spin machine is working over time on this one. Obama's belligerent stance toward the USSC is disgusting.

[phrisbee]

What the hell is the USSC? I assume you mean the SCOTUS. I point this out because it's a microcosm for your complete lack of understanding of Constitutional law.

I just provided you with limits the Court has placed on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, including the "substantial effect" test and the limits from Morrison and Lopez. You chose to ignore that part of my post because you do not understand what you are talking about.

And you continue to ignore my question about strip searches. I can only imagine the fit you would throw if the liberals on the Court had pushed this opinion through - or God forbid President Obama ordered something similar.

Your interpretation of judicial activism is completely off-base. Precedent IS law. So when they overturn longstanding precedents, it most certainly is activism. It's also telling that you clearly condemn all judicial activism. Miranda was judicial activism. Isn't it terrible that the Court protected our rights through judicial activism?

[DiscoGary]

For anyone other than Phris still reading: We are now witnessing an all-out assault on the US Supreme Court by the Democrat party. Apparently they found out they lost the vote, and they are now engaged in rewriting history, redefining terms (like judicial activism), and stepping over the bounds of separation of power (Obama intimidating the USSC), and the usual demonization process.

The word of the USSC used to be the law of the land as far as Dems went... as long as things went their way. Now they're "unelected activists".

The smear campaign is gearing up bigtime, and Phris is getting all the talking points and posting them here real time.

It'll be fun to watch the spin. This is history guys. Pay attention.

[DiscoGary]

... I just provided you with limits the Court has placed on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, including the "substantial effect" test and the limits from Morrison and Lopez. You chose to ignore that part of my post because you do not understand what you are talking about. ...

I ignore it because I concede that once we allow an interpretation to include "substantial effect" for anything, then everything goes.... and it has. There's no point arguing because the Constitution is dead. Get it Phris?

The feds can tell us how much water we use to flush our turds! It's completely dead! There is no law anymore. The 51% wield unlimited power.

[phrisbee]

I'm literally LOL'ing.

You never stop digging yourself into a deeper hole, do you?

[phrisbee]

I don't think Gary has responded directly to a single point I've made on this thread. I bet he's a star at dodgeball.

[Davy Jones]

The word of the USSC used to be the law of the land as far as Dems went... as long as things went their way. Now they're "unelected activists".

I feel like you're forgetting the fact that if the SCOTUS rules in favor of Obama 5-4, you'll call them terrorists trying to destroy the country, and if they rule 5-4 against Obama, you'll call them saviors.

Yeah, seems about right for the Right Wing.

[TNG]

I didn't ask you.

Doesn't change the fact that you don't have any real insight to the crap you spew. The activism issue you know are trolling there toolman, relies heavily on Marbury v Madison, which a strict constitutionalist like yourself should abhor.

[DiscoGary]

The real story right now is whether or not Obama will get away with intimidating the USSC (I always hated SCOTUS and POTUS. They sound like Japanese anime characters to me). Obama's credentials as a Constitutional scholar are under serious assault since he made the claim that the unelected courts don't have the right to overturn laws passed by elected officials.

While TNG and Phris have conniption fits about my credentials, just remember that this is our President saying that the USSC doesn't have the right to overturn a law based on its un-Constitutional nature.

This is the act of a dictator wanne-be. They use every power they have to make the other elements of government fear them and serve them.

Again, this is an important moment in our country's history. Obama will probably not get away with this, and the media will bury it quickly, but you should always remember that he tried it. This defines who he is, and confirms what I thought all along.

We can not risk letting this man have four more years where he'll "have more leeway" to do whatever he wants because he won't have to answer to the voters. More leeway to do what?

[phrisbee]

Hmm. By Gary's standards, FDR was far more of a dictator than President Obama. Interesting.

He's also misinterpreting President Obama's words, but that's par for the course. No one actually thinks he said the courts could not invalidate unconstitutional laws. Rather, he's saying an unelected body would be making a political move here in overturning a clearly constitutional law. I'm sorry that your uninformed interpretation of the Constitution is not in line with that of the SCOTUS over the last three quarters of a century, Gary.

[DiscoGary]

Hmm. By Gary's standards, FDR was far more of a dictator than President Obama. Interesting.

You bet he was. FDR attacked the USSC in 1937 and threatened to increase the number of Justices to 15 in order to weaken the sitting Justices if they didn't go along with his agenda. It worked. They caved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937

Did they teach you that? In fact the Presidential term limit law is a testament to how bad things got under FDR. No one wanted that again.

Obama is absolutely following FDR's model of ramming big-government socialism down every one's throat. Be on the lookout for a court packing threat. It would come from the NYT editorial page.

[phrisbee]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/17839903.jpg

[HappyJack]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/17839903.jpg

“The switch in time that saved nine” is the name given to what was perceived as the sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[1] Conventional historical accounts portrayed the Court's majority opinion as a strategic political move to protect the Court's integrity and independence from President Franklin Roosevelt's court-reform bill (also known as the "court-packing plan"), which would have expanded the size of the bench up to 15 justices, though it has been argued[2] that these accounts have misconstrued the historical record.
The term itself is a reference to the aphorism "A stitch in time saves nine," meaning that preventive maintenance is preferable.[3]

Through the 1935-36 terms, Roberts had been the deciding vote in several 5-4 decisions invalidating New Deal legislation, casting his vote with the "conservative" bloc of the bench, the so-called "Four Horsemen".[4] This "conservative" wing of the bench is viewed to have been in opposition to the "liberal Three Musketeers".[5] Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the remaining two justices, were the center swing votes.[6]
The "switch" came in the case West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[1] Roberts joined Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Louis Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo, and Harlan Fiske Stone in upholding a Washington State minimum wage law. The decision was handed down less than two months after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his court-reform bill. Conventional history has painted Roberts's vote as a strategic, politically motivated shift to defeat Roosevelt's proposed legislation, but the historical record lends weight to assertions that Roberts's decision happened much earlier.[7]

[DiscoGary]

Eric Holder (did HE misinterpret Obama's words? apparently not) has stepped forward and put his President in his place, by stating that the final decision on Constitutionality lies with the Supreme Court.

It's good to see President Obama learning Constitutional law while on the job. By the time he leaves office he might actually know something about how this country works.

[phrisbee]

It's sad and disturbing how much Gary needs to take the President's words out of context in order to feel good about his own misguided world view.

[DiscoGary]

From a neg rep

I love it when you completely ignore points against your own view which are right, especially in areas where you know jack squat (i.e. law). I try to imagine talking to someone like this in real life and it cracks me up.

OK. Now that we have finished confirming that President Obama has been slapped down on his Supreme Court power grab I can get back to dealing with the noise.

To which points do you refer:
1. Redefining "judicial activism" to mean ruling according to the letter of the Constitution.
2. Placing "precedence" over the need to judge the law based on first principles.
3. The demonization of right leaning justices.
4. The abuse of the commerce, welfare, or necessary and proper clauses in the Constitution.
5. The introduction of extra-Constitution concepts such as "compelling reason" or "widespread economic impact", and other such crap that suddenly becomes the basis for re-engineering entire chunks of our economy.
6. Justifying more expansion of the federal government by saying that we have to do it because the federal government has already taken responsibility for things it shouldn't have, and we can't leave any holes in programs that are already un-Constitutional.

Pick one. This is tedious. They're all just misdirection from the left to justify their abuse of the Constitution today. They will take the other side of every one of these issues to get their way tomorrow.

Health care isn't mentioned in the Constitution so it falls through the 10th amendment to the States or to the people. End of story.

[phrisbee]

Health care isn't mentioned in the Constitution so it falls through the 10th amendment to the States or to the people. End of story.
http://forum.gamerage.com/grandchase/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files.19/6661.meme_2D00_yao_2D00_ming.jpg_2D00_550x0.jpg
You know what else isn't mentioned in the Constitution?

Judicial review.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qBjvS5YX2JQ/T1aV73oki4I/AAAAAAAADQM/Q9gwrOiT38s/s400/obama-rage-face-not-bad1.jpg

[phrisbee]

1. Redefining "judicial activism" to mean ruling according to the letter of the Constitution.
2. Placing "precedence" over the need to judge the law based on first principles.
3. The demonization of right leaning justices.
4. The abuse of the commerce, welfare, or necessary and proper clauses in the Constitution.
5. The introduction of extra-Constitution concepts such as "compelling reason" or "widespread economic impact", and other such crap that suddenly becomes the basis for re-engineering entire chunks of our economy.
6. Justifying more expansion of the federal government by saying that we have to do it because the federal government has already taken responsibility for things it shouldn't have, and we can't leave any holes in programs that are already un-Constitutional.
1. By definition, judicial activism includes overturning judicial precedent. You're a plain-meaning guy. You should know that at least.
2. What first principles? The founders? Your view of the founders? What the founders would have wanted today? Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding[...] intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). A constitution is not, and never has been, a legal code.
3. The demonization of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. See? It cuts both ways.
4. What abuse? Please, tell me how they have been abused in your expert legal opinion.
5. What in the world are "extra-Constitution concepts", and where have they been used in this thread? If you're referring to my discussion of the "substantial effects" test, then you completely ignored the context. Again, par for the course. The substantial effects test is a LIMITATION on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. It's a concept that shows that Congress's power is not unlimited.
6. What programs are unconstitutional and how so? Please provide some evidence other than your usual "because I say so."

[phrisbee]

I love when Gary disappears because he's been thoroughly owned. It's been happening more and more lately.

[DiscoGary]

1. By definition, judicial activism includes overturning judicial precedent. You're a plain-meaning guy. You should know that at least.
2. What first principles? The founders? Your view of the founders? What the founders would have wanted today? Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding[...] intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). A constitution is not, and never has been, a legal code.
3. The demonization of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. See? It cuts both ways.
4. What abuse? Please, tell me how they have been abused in your expert legal opinion.
5. What in the world are "extra-Constitution concepts", and where have they been used in this thread? If you're referring to my discussion of the "substantial effects" test, then you completely ignored the context. Again, par for the course. The substantial effects test is a LIMITATION on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. It's a concept that shows that Congress's power is not unlimited.
6. What programs are unconstitutional and how so? Please provide some evidence other than your usual "because I say so."

Hey Phris! You weren't supposed to respond to that. Someone was supposed to pick one, and then I would respond. Go ahead, pick one.

Here's a straight question for you. What does the 10th amendment mean?

I love when Gary disappears because he's been thoroughly owned. It's been happening more and more lately.

Owned? Your president just got slapped down trying to intimidate the USSC. He's the one who got owned... and so did you by the fact that you keep saying his credentials as a teacher of Constitutional law carry weight. They don't. Clearly Obama doesn't know or care about the Constitution, so it's up to the rest of us to make sure he doesn't abuse his power... again.

Former student of Obama, Thom Lambert:

"Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.
Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” ..."

Yo Thom! Wake up! He doesn't care at all about the law. It's all money, power, and revenge.

[phrisbee]

Oh wow! Thom Lambert, a conservative law professor who happens to be President Obama's former student, managed to take the President's words out of context the same way you did! You both must be right!

[DiscoGary]

Oh wow! Thom Lambert, a conservative law professor who happens to be President Obama's former student, managed to take the President's words out of context the same way you did! You both must be right!

Well you got me there Phris! Any student of Obama certainly isn't qualified to address Constitutional issues. You win that round.

But did Eric Holder take the president's words out of context?

I am starting to wonder... is there anything President Obama could do that would make you turn against him? When would you say "Enough is enough! Stop!" ?.

I am a Tea Party guy. I had my line in the sand for Republicans, and when they crossed it, I left. Are there any lines in the sand for you?

(Of course I know the answer to this question because I know history and I know where the Phrisbees of the world fit in.)

[phrisbee]

You don't know real history. You know Tea Party history.

And you don't know law. You clearly either aren't qualified to interpret the President's words regarding judicial activism or are actively manipulating those words.

We have many conservative professors and students here. None of them are saying what you or Mr. Lambert pretend to have heard.

[boltoncct&f]

I'm not sure if I've posted something similar in this thread already, but it's open enrollment season for health care insurance again. Guess what? $98 increase per paycheck. This time they did not even sugar coat it. They told us, "due to an increase in people picking up insurance, this past year we paid out over 25% more than the previous year. We are hoping with the latest Supreme Court decision will help with this issue."

Though I don't believe it will ever go down, this is unfortunately a side effect of this plan.

[TNG]

I'm not sure if I've posted something similar in this thread already, but it's open enrollment season for health care insurance again. Guess what? $98 increase per paycheck. This time they did not even sugar coat it. They told us, "due to an increase in people picking up insurance, this past year we paid out over 25% more than the previous year. We are hoping with the latest Supreme Court decision will help with this issue."

Though I don't believe it will ever go down, this is unfortunately a side effect of this plan.

Ok so before we discuss the prime issue, lets get some facts. How much are you paying now and how much is your employer paying, and how much will you be paying and how much will your employer be paying.

[boltoncct&f]

Ok so before we discuss the prime issue, lets get some facts. How much are you paying now and how much is your employer paying, and how much will you be paying and how much will your employer be paying.

Employer pays 60% and still is paying 60%. Don't get me wrong, I don't totally buy into the "we are having to insure more people and it's costing us more money" idea. At least not $98 a paycheck worth. That's for sure.

[TNG]

Employer pays 60% and still is paying 60%. Don't get me wrong, I don't totally buy into the "we are having to insure more people and it's costing us more money" idea. At least not $98 a paycheck worth. That's for sure.

The line they gave is a bit of BS, the only way they are insuring more people is if the average size of the people in a family under family coverage has gone up, a lot. Is this first new coverage since children 26 and under are required?

However what they didn't tell you is that since this is a group plan the rates are bases on a the actuarial tables they use and the group expenditures. You noted the 25% payout over the year before, if my simple insurance math works out, I am guessing you are currently paying a $300 per check.

So for given rate structure they agree to pay out a certain amount in total claims, so if you are part of a group where there are low or no co-pays or deductables and your co-workers are knuckleheads who abuse their access to low cost care it is really easy to see your group go over the group plan cap. Obviously if the group is small enough a couple of rare but very expensive occurances can do the same thing. The insurance companies almost never fail to meet their financial obejectives on a given group two years in a row.

[phrisbee]

Don't forget that insurance rates rose at 3 times the rate wages rose over the decade before the ACA. So if you got a $33 raise per paycheck, you're already doing better.

[TNG]

Don't forget that insurance rates rose at 3 times the rate wages rose over the decade before the ACA. So if you got a $33 raise per paycheck, you're already doing better.

Obama's tax increase would take away all that though.;)

[Davy Jones]

I'm not sure if I've posted something similar in this thread already, but it's open enrollment season for health care insurance again. Guess what? $98 increase per paycheck. This time they did not even sugar coat it. They told us, "due to an increase in people picking up insurance, this past year we paid out over 25% more than the previous year. We are hoping with the latest Supreme Court decision will help with this issue."

Though I don't believe it will ever go down, this is unfortunately a side effect of this plan.

Last I checked, when more people are picked up by Insurance, they get more premiums in. Maybe they've paid out 25% more, but how much more in premiums are they taking in?

Sounds like they are cashing in on ObamaCare. Don't be surprised if your insurance company reports record profits for this quarter too.

[boltoncct&f]

Last I checked, when more people are picked up by Insurance, they get more premiums in. Maybe they've paid out 25% more, but how much more in premiums are they taking in?

Sounds like they are cashing in on ObamaCare. Don't be surprised if your insurance company reports record profits for this quarter too.

Bingo! This is more than likely the larger part of the reason rates are going up. Obama should have left well alone


That being said, it is true that more people have gotten insurance. And if more people are using it, of course it's going to drive rates up. They are not in it for charity. Why have more people picked up health insurance? They all the sudden (in this economy) gave a hoot?;)

[Davy Jones]

Bingo! This is more than likely the larger part of the reason rates are going up. Obama should have left well alone


That being said, it is true that more people have gotten insurance. And if more people are using it, of course it's going to drive rates up. They are not in it for charity. Why have more people picked up health insurance? They all the sudden (in this economy) gave a hoot?;)

I'm not against companies making profits, but I am against companies raising rates and having record profits all at the same time. When all the companies do it at the same time, there is a word for that........

[boltoncct&f]

I'm not against companies making profits, but I am against companies raising rates and having record profits all at the same time. When all the companies do it at the same time, there is a word for that........

Scapegoat (read Obamacare) is the word you are looking for.


Obama create the greatest excuse they could have ever have asked for. And who would the government be to stop them?

[TNG]

Bingo! This is more than likely the larger part of the reason rates are going up. Obama should have left well alone


That being said, it is true that more people have gotten insurance. And if more people are using it, of course it's going to drive rates up. They are not in it for charity. Why have more people picked up health insurance? They all the sudden (in this economy) gave a hoot?;)

Google the following: the name of the company you get your health insurance from down there in TN and the term medical loss ratio. You should be able to find out what it was before AHA and now it has be at least 80%.

[Davy Jones]

In 1993, the average medical loss ratio in the health insurance industry was 95 percent, which meant that insurers spent 95 cents out of every dollar they collected in premiums on medical care. In their quest for profits, all insurers, regardless of their tax status, have been spending less on care in recent years. The average medical loss ratio is now closer to 80 percent.

McDonald found that some of the Blues are spending far less than that these days. The medical loss ratio at the Texas Blues, for example, was just 64.4 percent last year.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/may/blue-cross-blue-shield-getting-richer-like-corporate-insurers

[TNG]

In 1993, the average medical loss ratio in the health insurance industry was 95 percent, which meant that insurers spent 95 cents out of every dollar they collected in premiums on medical care. In their quest for profits, all insurers, regardless of their tax status, have been spending less on care in recent years. The average medical loss ratio is now closer to 80 percent.

McDonald found that some of the Blues are spending far less than that these days. The medical loss ratio at the Texas Blues, for example, was just 64.4 percent last year.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/may/blue-cross-blue-shield-getting-richer-like-corporate-insurers

Explaining how the health insurance industry works, sets premiums, and sets reimbursement rates, has been a major failing of the Obama Administration. The Medical Loss ratio, the group plan cap, the cost containment ratings are terms most be people don't understand, don't know, or don't care and they are critical factors in obtaining value for our health care dollars.

[TNG]

Scapegoat (read Obamacare) is the word you are looking for.


Obama create the greatest excuse they could have ever have asked for. And who would the government be to stop them?

From the link Davy posted:


The nonprofit Blues don't have to reward shareholders, but they do lavish a big chunk of their premium revenue on themselves. Take BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee as an example.

Last year was a very good year for the Tennessee Blues. It raised premiums an average of 6.5 percent, which was enough to increase profits five-fold over 2009 and boost its reserves to almost 50 percent more than the $955 million required by the state. Its medical loss ratio for individual policyholders was only 76.7 percent.

The company has been building up the reserves for many years, but instead of giving money back to policyholders in the form of rate reductions, it has built itself a veritable palace overlooking downtown Chattanooga.

Under pressure by lawmakers and consumer advocates a few years back to reduce its surplus, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee decided instead to spend $300 million on a new 950,000 square-foot headquarters. The building has a scenic view of the Tennessee River and is on historic Cameron Hill, where during the Civil War the Union built a fort and fired cannons at the Confederate army.

[boltoncct&f]

From the link Davy posted:

And again, I point out that they were given the perfect excuse to really gouge the public, now. It's not that hard to understand.

[TNG]

And again, I point out that they were given the perfect excuse to really gouge the public, now. It's not that hard to understand.

I get that, but with AHA mandating a MLR of 80 or more, the most likely reason for your big increase has nothing to do with AHA, its your employer not wanting to pay the penalty for exceeding the group policy cap. In short the members of your group use their health care access with little or no concern to cost. Your employer needs to structure the coverage with the insurer to get more skin in the game from the members.

[phrisbee]

So Gary, if the ACA is a political weapon, what will you call it when Republicans force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and keep children on their parents' insurance until age 26 if the mandate is scrapped? Free market capitalism?

Enforcing these provisions without a mandate will cause health insurance costs to skyrocket beyond anything presently imaginable.

But you know what? The Republicans don't give a flying ****. They care only about staying in power in order to increase their own wealth at the expense of everyone else. Those two provisions from the ACA are too popular to scrap. The GOP isn't opposing the ACA out of ideology. They're opposing it because President Obama passed it. They're opposing it as part of their class warfare.

[boltoncct&f]

A representative held a "special meeting" to discuss why our health care just went through the roof.

And I quote: "With the recent pressure for people to get health care or else, we insured a lot more people this past year, and are now operating with a deficit. Our business can only operate properly with a surplus, thus the rate hikes."

We all know what that means.......


When asked, "what happens when we get back to your limit on surplus, will the rates go down?" The answer was, "we can't predict the future like that." Translation: "No."


Not a happy group leaving the auditorium.

[TNG]

A representative held a "special meeting" to discuss why our health care just went through the roof.

And I quote: "With the recent pressure for people to get health care or else, we insured a lot more people this past year, and are now operating with a deficit. Our business can only operate properly with a surplus, thus the rate hikes."

We all know what that means.......


When asked, "what happens when we get back to your limit on surplus, will the rates go down?" The answer was, "we can't predict the future like that." Translation: "No."


Not a happy group leaving the auditorium.

That rep gave you a BS answer, I would have hoped in a group of educators that someone would have had the insight to ask; "It has always been said that the larger the goup the lower the rate because the low chance high expense risk is spread out over more people, why then does more people increase the rate? The other question, should have been related to losses on your group versus business losses overall. Something along the lines of "Were these losses overall business losses or specific to our group?" They will never tell you an exact number on your group but the numbers for the business should be out there. I am guessing the business overall made money last year and that beges the question to quantify the losses as real losses or not meeting corporate profit projections.

With all insurance being a socialist program by nature, there is a large irony when they use profit objectives as a reason for rate increases. Hopefully the fact that they don't send out rebates when they don't reach the MLR isn't lost on anyone, but when the payout more than the MLR they want rate increases to cover their losses. Talk about groups with no skin in the game.

[boltoncct&f]

That rep gave you a BS answer, I would have hoped in a group of educators that someone would have had the insight to ask; "It has always been said that the larger the goup the lower the rate because the low chance high expense risk is spread out over more people, why then does more people increase the rate? The other question, should have been related to losses on your group versus business losses overall. Something along the lines of "Were these losses overall business losses or specific to our group?" They will never tell you an exact number on your group but the numbers for the business should be out there. I am guessing the business overall made money last year and that beges the question to quantify the losses as real losses or not meeting corporate profit projections.

With all insurance being a socialist program by nature, there is a large irony when they use profit objectives as a reason for rate increases. Hopefully the fact that they don't send out rebates when they don't reach the MLR isn't lost on anyone, but when the payout more than the MLR they want rate increases to cover their losses. Talk about groups with no skin in the game.
Oh, I (nor did most) buy the reasoning that was given. I will say this (in part of her speech), she said they filed 35% more claims in the past fiscal year, due to the increase in the number of people insured. So that answers your first question. Now i'm pretty sure that would be a significant increase, enough that they very well could be losing money. Regardless, I know for a fact how much money these companies have, and they are not hurting after just one year. So it goes back Obamacare providing the perfect excuse.

It was specific to our group, I do believe. I know a ton of single teachers that insured themselves for the first time, this past year. Livin' on the edge, baby!

[TNG]

Oh, I (nor did most) buy the reasoning that was given. I will say this (in part of her speech), she said they filed 35% more claims in the past fiscal year, due to the increase in the number of people insured. So that answers your first question. Now i'm pretty sure that would be a significant increase, enough that they very well could be losing money. Regardless, I know for a fact how much money these companies have, and they are not hurting after just one year. So it goes back Obamacare providing the perfect excuse to lie.

It was specific to our group, I do believe. I know a ton of single teachers that insured themselves for the first time, this past year. Livin' on the edge, baby!

No, it doesn't answer the first question!! If they filed 35% more claims than previously for your group the question then begs, "are you covering 35% more people, or the average number of claims per person up?" If its the later the question then is twofold, first "are the new members submitting more claims than the old members on average", and second, "is there overuse due to not enough skin in the game for the members?" Now if it is the first, I think you have a perfect example of what happens when people can step in and out of coverage based on need/convenience.

[Eva N]

With all insurance being a socialist program by nature

By theory, maybe... but not by nature. Not here, anyway. Owning almost all of the skyscrapers and constantly bombarding us with (inane) commercials doesn't strike me as very socialistic.

[boltoncct&f]

No, it doesn't answer the first question!! If they filed 35% more claims than previously for your group the question then begs, "are you covering 35% more people, or the average number of claims per person up?" If its the later the question then is twofold, first "are the new members submitting more claims than the old members on average", and second, "is there overuse due to not enough skin in the game for the members?" Now if it is the first, I think you have a perfect example of what happens when people can step in and out of coverage based on need/convenience.
Of course that information was not provided. If it was just 35% more people, then that's huge, if they all started filing claims. We also don't know what the claims were. Were there a ton of babies had this past year (that's pretty expensive)?

No matter which way you spin it, the rate went up. There is an obvious reason for that. You don't have to like it, but it's reality.

[TNG]

By theory, maybe... but not by nature. Not here, anyway. Owning almost all of the skyscrapers and constantly bombarding us with (inane) commercials doesn't strike me as very socialistic.

Now you are just being plain observant. Insurance Companies are a lot like the Catholic Church in that the money you give that leaves the parish never comes back to the parish, and the money the diocese sends onto the archdiocese never comes back to the diocese, and the money that goes to the Vatican never comes back anywhere or is even talked about.

In the case of Insurance companies whatever isn't set aside originally for claims, will never be used on claims, and if they spend too much on claims, they will issue a surcharge to the employer and raise the rates on the member and the employer. Simply put heads they win, tails you lose, and if lands on the edge they mega win.

[TNG]

Of course that information was not provided. If it was just 35% more people, then that's huge, if they all started filing claims. We also don't know what the claims were. Were there a ton of babies had this past year (that's pretty expensive)?

No matter which way you spin it, the rate went up. There is an obvious reason for that. You don't have to like it, but it's reality.

Actually having babies is not that expensive, having a sick baby or a premature baby, now that is expensive. In any case, the reps are lying SOBs, doing the bidding for industry that portrays itself as benevolent and compassionate, while in truth are some of the least moral businesses in the entire country. Besides casino's, what other business is operated on the premise of under delivering on the consumers expectation of what was bought?

[boltoncct&f]

Actually having babies is not that expensive, having a sick baby or a premature baby, now that is expensive. In any case, the reps are lying SOBs, doing the bidding for industry that portrays itself as benevolent and compassionate, while in truth are some of the least moral businesses in the entire country. Besides casino's, what other business is operated on the premise of under delivering on the consumers expectation of what was bought?

I'm not arguing that. I'm with you. I'm just saying that if it would have been left alone in the first place, it would have been MUUUUUUCH harder for them to pass this over on the general public. Obama created a mess, IMO. The insurance companies started licking their chops the moment he was done presenting his health care reform idea.

[TNG]

I'm not arguing that. I'm with you. I'm just saying that if it would have been left alone in the first place, it would have been MUUUUUUCH harder for them to pass this over on the general public. Obama created a mess, IMO. The insurance companies started licking their chops the moment he was done presenting his health care reform idea.

I am not sure it would have been much harder, my HMO insurer was routinely get 10% annual increases before Obama and that is about what they are getting now. The hard part is the ever changing "plan"; instead of making a few big changes they make hundreds of small changes that drives down their acctuarially calculated expected payment and then add a couple obvious changes and then they set a new rate. It is really hard to tell if they are using lube anymore, I know they stopped with the breath mint.

[orthostice]

Now you are just being plain observant. Insurance Companies are a lot like the Catholic Church in that the money you give that leaves the parish never comes back to the parish, and the money the diocese sends onto the archdiocese never comes back to the diocese, and the money that goes to the Vatican never comes back anywhere or is even talked about.


A great analogy. But there's got to be a joke in there somewhere about how the money eventually does come back to the parish, just 35 years later when they settle the class-action suit from all the molested altar boys.

[TNG]

A great analogy. But there's got to be a joke in there somewhere about how the money eventually does come back to the parish, just 35 years later when they settle the class-action suit from all the molested altar boys.

Unfortunately and sadly there is no joke beyond the analogy. The actions taken by the church on class action suit settlements has been beyond words. Eight dioceses and two affilliated groups have filed for bankruptcy protection to limit recovery in sex abuse cases, In less tha 20 years over a billion dollars has been paid out by parishoners in the US, to the best of my knowledge not one dime has come back from Rome.

[DiscoGary]

Well guys. You have just witnessed the official end of the United States of America as a Constitutional Republic. You might want to take a moment to soak it all up, remember the freedom you now have, enjoy what's left of the prosperity that was created by a system of governing that died this morning.

It was a long slow painful death that took 100 years, but it's finally over.

We are now simply a "Republic", with no limits on what the federal government can do. The consequences are that 51% of the people can do whatever they want to the other 49%. This is called "the tyranny of the majority".

It will also be fascinating to watch the weaponization of health care as time goes by. No one will be able to fight the federal government while they have control over your family's health care decisions.

It's all over but the crying.

[Davy Jones]

Well guys. You have just witnessed the official end of the United States of America as a Constitutional Republic. You might want to take a moment to soak it all up, remember the freedom you now have, enjoy what's left of the prosperity that was created by a system of governing that died this morning.

It was a long slow painful death that took 100 years, but it's finally over.

We are now simply a "Republic", with no limits on what the federal government can do. The consequences are that 51% of the people can do whatever they want to the other 49%. This is called "the tyranny of the majority".

It will also be fascinating to watch the weaponization of health care as time goes by. No one will be able to fight the federal government while they have control over your family's health care decisions.

It's all over but the crying.
What control do they have? They aren't deciding if they get a heart transplant or not. Stop spewing your bull**** and lies about this bill.

Guess someone is still drinking the death panels koolaid from Sarah Palin.

[Davy Jones]

Gary, the legal experts of this country looked at it, and said its legal. It's always been legal. Just admit that it is Constitutional and move on to spewing more birther junk.

[DiscoGary]

What control do they have? They aren't deciding if they get a heart transplant or not. Stop spewing your bull**** and lies about this bill.

Guess someone is still drinking the death panels koolaid from Sarah Palin.

The slide into tyranny be fast now. So fast that you will notice it.

Remember how things are today. Write it down. DO IT!

In ten years, you can pull it out and read what life was like today, and you will wish for those days.

[Davy Jones]

The slide into tyranny be fast now. So fast that you will notice it.

Remember how things are today. Write it down. DO IT!

In ten years, you can pull it out and read what life was like today, and you will wish for those days.

I'll take this as admitting that this bill gives no power to the Federal Government to make your health-care decisions.

Glad we cleared your lies up.

EDIT: And Europe goes farther in their health-care bills, are they under tyranny? I think not.

[phrisbee]

GARY IS MELTING SO HARD!!!

[ORXCCoach]

Well guys. You have just witnessed the official end of the United States of America as a Constitutional Republic. You might want to take a moment to soak it all up, remember the freedom you now have, enjoy what's left of the prosperity that was created by a system of governing that died this morning.

It was a long slow painful death that took 100 years, but it's finally over.

We are now simply a "Republic", with no limits on what the federal government can do. The consequences are that 51% of the people can do whatever they want to the other 49%. This is called "the tyranny of the majority".

It will also be fascinating to watch the weaponization of health care as time goes by. No one will be able to fight the federal government while they have control over your family's health care decisions.

It's all over but the crying.

Because there's no question but what a rank amateur who posts on Tracktalk has more Constitutional expertise than five Supreme Court justices including the Chief Justice?

Give me a break, and tone down the hyperbole.

[boltoncct&f]

It's the "requiring" part that is the sticking point for me. I have it, so it makes no difference to me, but there are a ton of people that just saw a chunk of their paycheck go. There could have been a better way, I'm sure.

[phrisbee]

It's the "requiring" part that is the sticking point for me. I have it, so it makes no difference to me, but there are a ton of people that just saw a chunk of their paycheck go. There could have been a better way, I'm sure.
A chuck of their paycheck is going instead of a chunk of yours when they go to the ER without health insurance.

[phrisbee]

The SC has read the mandate as a tax. It seems to me that you can still make the political argument that we are better off without such a tax.
Many people are misreading this. It is not a general tax. It is a tax penalty if you do not purchase health insurance.

The political argument probably will not be made in the presidential election. Romney passed this law in Massachusetts.

[Equinox2100]

I am looking forward to the floundering of DG & Limbaugh these coming days.

It will taste sweet, because their words can't do anything now.

The administration wanted to largely avoid the tax interpretation because of the pejorative connotation of the word, but it was their 3rd argument and the argument pushed when these 'unconstitutional' criticisms came about in 2010.

Turns out it was the right one. But not the right's win :D

[DiscoGary]

I am looking forward to the floundering of DG & Limbaugh these coming days.

It will taste sweet, because their words can't do anything now.

The administration wanted to largely avoid the tax interpretation because of the pejorative connotation of the word, but it was their 3rd argument and the argument pushed when these 'unconstitutional' criticisms came about in 2010.

Turns out it was the right one. But not the right's win :D

Wow. You think this is over?

That's a big mistake. We just have to fight without any Constitutional protections, or any protection from the Supreme Court.

In the end it's always a battle of ideas, and right now the people who agree with your ideas have the power. The problem is that even a Supreme Court decision will not make your ideas work. They fail everywhere they are tried, and always have.

Enjoy your victory today, because now your guy is going to have defend ObamaCare as a tax increase, which he said it wasn't. We will work to get ObamaCare repealed. The game is still on, but it just got a LOT harder for my side to win.

[Davy Jones]

They fail everywhere they are tried, and always have.

Yeah, that's why Canada, Brazil, Europe, and everywhere else that has Socialized Medicine, something MUCH farther to the Left of this bill, are rioting in the streets to get rid of their Socialized Medicine and have a "Free Market" approach.

[Crystazul]

Yeah, that's why Canada, Brazil, Europe, and everywhere else that has Socialized Medicine, something MUCH farther to the Left of this bill, are rioting in the streets to get rid of their Socialized Medicine and have a "Free Market" approach.

But they are all socialist! We must protect our freeeedommm!

[Equinox2100]

Wow. You think this is over?

That's a big mistake. We just have to fight without any Constitutional protections, or any protection from the Supreme Court.

In the end it's always a battle of ideas, and right now the people who agree with your ideas have the power. The problem is that even a Supreme Court decision will not make your ideas work. They fail everywhere they are tried, and always have.

Enjoy your victory today, because now your guy is going to have defend ObamaCare as a tax increase, which he said it wasn't. We will work to get ObamaCare repealed. The game is still on, but it just got a LOT harder for my side to win.

http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

[phrisbee]

Wow. You think this is over?

That's a big mistake. We just have to fight without any Constitutional protections, or any protection from the Supreme Court.

In the end it's always a battle of ideas, and right now the people who agree with your ideas have the power. The problem is that even a Supreme Court decision will not make your ideas work. They fail everywhere they are tried, and always have.

Enjoy your victory today, because now your guy is going to have defend ObamaCare as a tax increase, which he said it wasn't. We will work to get ObamaCare repealed. The game is still on, but it just got a LOT harder for my side to win.
So I'm confused. How is Romney supposed to fight against RomneyCare?

[Equinox2100]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-leukemia-team-up-to-repeal-health-care,17215/

nails it.

[TNG]

It's the "requiring" part that is the sticking point for me. I have it, so it makes no difference to me, but there are a ton of people that just saw a chunk of their paycheck go. There could have been a better way, I'm sure.

Read the bill and see what happens if you don't have insurance, it akin to double secret probation Blutarsky.

[phrisbee]

Ahem.
JIPynMZuQtI

[DiscoGary]

OK Phris. You're trying to tell me that this ruling somehow upheld individual rights with some crap about the commerce clause.

I'll take the bait. What the hell are you talking about?

Make it fast before I have to pay a tax for speaking out against the policies of our dear leader.

[phrisbee]

OK Phris. You're trying to tell me that this ruling somehow upheld individual rights with some crap about the commerce clause.

I'll take the bait. What the hell are you talking about?

Make it fast before I have to pay a tax for speaking out against the policies of our dear leader.
DSAFDSA I JUST HAD LIKE 6 PARAGRAPHS AND HIT CTRL R BY MISTAKE!

Give me a little while and I'll post. I think you like this decision more than you think.

[phrisbee]

To preface: I have not yet read the full opinion. I probably will not get a chance to until next week.

But here goes...

Prior to today's ruling, the Court had invalidated only two laws as exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause since 1939. One was a general ban of guns in school zones. The other was federal penalties for domestic abuse. Both laws were overturned because Congress had not shown a relation to interstate commerce. In fact, the gun ban returned but was narrowed to guns that had traveled in interstate commerce (which is basically every gun); that law is still on the books.

Based on this precedent, most scholars thought that regulating the purchase of health insurance was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. Many thought the fact that everyone inevitably uses the health care system would further this argument. Some people bought into the hype surrounding oral arguments way too much. Oral arguments rarely change the minds of the Court (or other courts of appeals). Decisions are mostly based on the briefs submitted by the parties, the Justices' understand and theory of the law, and the Justices' (clerks') research.

Today, Chief Justice Roberts joined the minority in ruling that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could not stand on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. It is the broccoli argument - Congress can set quotas for broccoli farmers, set a minimum wage for broccoli farm workers, and set standards for broccoli, but Congress cannot force you to buy broccoli using the Commerce Clause. The Court essentially found that NON-PARTICIPATION is NOT commerce. A whole lot of scholars felt the past 7 decades of precedent suggested otherwise.

Today's ruling was the most substantial restriction on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause in 73 years.

The ACA was upheld on the argument that the penalty for not buying health insurance is functionally equivalent to a tax. Look at it this way - you get a tax break for buying insurance. Sound familiar? Congress has used that one for a long, long time without any problem. This basis for today's decision had been discussed, but everyone thought it was unlikely.

I'm pretty sure most scholars (myself include) did not think the Chief Justice believes in functional equivalency. I'm still pretty sure he does not wholeheartedly believe in it, and there will be speculation about his reasoning for years to come. Congress did not call the penalty a tax, and a conservative like Roberts would not often make the jump.

I think today's decision by Chief Justice Roberts was ingenious. He certainly does not like the law, and I don't think he wanted to call it a tax. But here's what he got:
-The Roberts Court set a restriction on the Commerce Clause that is likely to endure for generations. Roberts' and Rehnquist's courts had been looking for that opportunity for some time.
-Congress is unlikely to use today's ruling as a crutch to pass similar regulations. Now that both sides are aware of the tactic, it's as easy as calling out the other side for creating a new tax. I don't think the Republicans wanted to make that argument exactly because they foresaw today's judgment stemming from that tactic.
-Roberts pulled the Court back from the brink of seeming (and probably being) completely political. Bush v. Gore and Citizens United had at least half the country seriously doubting the Court's ability to insulate itself from politics. Today's decision at least appears to be anything but political. If Roberts joined the majority in order to build political capital, it will never be known.

In the end, Chief Justice Roberts had to hold his nose and uphold a single (though very important) law that he did not like. By joining the majority and writing the opinion, he saved the image of his Court and restricted Congress's Commerce Clause power.

That's one hell of a move by the Chief Justice.

[TNG]

To preface: I have not yet read the full opinion. I probably will not get a chance to until next week.

But here goes...

Prior to today's ruling, the Court had invalidated only two laws as exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause since 1939. One was a general ban of guns in school zones. The other was federal penalties for domestic abuse. Both laws were overturned because Congress had not shown a relation to interstate commerce. In fact, the gun ban returned but was narrowed to guns that had traveled in interstate commerce (which is basically every gun); that law is still on the books.

Based on this precedent, most scholars thought that regulating the purchase of health insurance was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. Many thought the fact that everyone inevitably uses the health care system would further this argument. Some people bought into the hype surrounding oral arguments way too much. Oral arguments rarely change the minds of the Court (or other courts of appeals). Decisions are mostly based on the briefs submitted by the parties, the Justices' understand and theory of the law, and the Justices' (clerks') research.

Today, Chief Justice Roberts joined the minority in ruling that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could not stand on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. It is the broccoli argument - Congress can set quotas for broccoli farmers, set a minimum wage for broccoli farm workers, and set standards for broccoli, but Congress cannot force you to buy broccoli using the Commerce Clause. The Court essentially found that NON-PARTICIPATION is NOT commerce. A whole lot of scholars felt the past 7 decades of precedent suggested otherwise.

Today's ruling was the most substantial restriction on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause in 73 years.

The ACA was upheld on the argument that the penalty for not buying health insurance is functionally equivalent to a tax. Look at it this way - you get a tax break for buying insurance. Sound familiar? Congress has used that one for a long, long time without any problem. This basis for today's decision had been discussed, but everyone thought it was unlikely.

I'm pretty sure most scholars (myself include) did not think the Chief Justice believes in functional equivalency. I'm still pretty sure he does not wholeheartedly believe in it, and there will be speculation about his reasoning for years to come. Congress did not call the penalty a tax, and a conservative like Roberts would not often make the jump.

I think today's decision by Chief Justice Roberts was ingenious. He certainly does not like the law, and I don't think he wanted to call it a tax. But here's what he got:
-The Roberts Court set a restriction on the Commerce Clause that is likely to endure for generations. Roberts' and Rehnquist's courts had been looking for that opportunity for some time.
-Congress is unlikely to use today's ruling as a crutch to pass similar regulations. Now that both sides are aware of the tactic, it's as easy as calling out the other side for creating a new tax. I don't think the Republicans wanted to make that argument exactly because they foresaw today's judgment stemming from that tactic.
-Roberts pulled the Court back from the brink of seeming (and probably being) completely political. Bush v. Gore and Citizens United had at least half the country seriously doubting the Court's ability to insulate itself from politics. Today's decision at least appears to be anything but political. If Roberts joined the majority in order to build political capital, it will never be known.

In the end, Chief Justice Roberts had to hold his nose and uphold a single (though very important) law that he did not like. By joining the majority and writing the opinion, he saved the image of his Court and restricted Congress's Commerce Clause power.

That's one hell of a move by the Chief Justice.

QFE and well said. I think Roberts felt it fell on him to maintain the integrity of the court and in the process got something in return that may end up being more tangible than the ACA.

[DiscoGary]

Phris,
The argument that somehow this will limit further abuse of the commerce clause is completely without merit. There is no way this will be used as a precedence in any future cases. In two weeks everyone will have forgotten about the commerce clause and it will never come up again. You are assigning integrity to the Supreme Court, and they have proven too many times they have none.

The bigger problem is that even if we now have a recognized limit on the expansion of the commerce clause, it is trumped by the new precedence that Congress can mandate behavior as long as they call the "penalty" for not following the mandate a "tax". This precedence goes way beyond the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, and even the welfare clause that are usually used to circumvent the constitution (it gets lower case treatment from now on). It's hard to imagine what individual rights can survive this assault.

Your assurances that this new power will not be abused carry no weight. Congress vigorously exercises every dimension of power granted to it so we can expect to see them return to this well again and again, though enough damage has been done already.

Then there's the fact that this abuse has enabled ObamaCare to stand. I agree the chances of it being repealed are low. It's hard to overestimate the loss of freedom we will suffer because of this, not to mention the fact that it will end up costing many times more than any initial estimate and turn into just another federal government Ponzi scheme like Soc Sec and Medicare.

Last, and certainly not least, is that fact that I can no longer appeal to the constitution for protection from abuse. I can't say "that's un-constitutional" anymore, because that statement would be meaningless. Any reference to the constitution is now laughable. There is no law, and I will have to fight on with only ideas and the tragic lessons from history as persuasion.

I guess I shouldn't complain. After all, the original Tea Partiers didn't have a constitution to protect them either.

[Equinox2100]

DG if legal scholars are taught that this case is the 'line in the sand' for commerce powers, and those legal scholars are the ones who end up becoming SCOTUS justices, will it not have an effect?

Phris' argument is a good one, and one that I agree with. It's a conservative descision. It's not a Republican decision, but if you take a step back from party lines this is a clear restriction on commerce clause powers.

[Crystazul]

phrisbee, what is your take on the possibility that Congress exercising the penalty as a tax could set a dangerous precedent for the future. If there is one thing Gary might be legitimately brining up that seems to be it.

[DiscoGary]

phrisbee, what is your take on the possibility that Congress exercising the penalty as a tax could set a dangerous precedent for the future. If there is one thing Gary might be legitimately brining up that seems to be it.

Congress can now tax you for something you are NOT doing. They can tax you for refusing to participate in any activity they choose.

Just as a quick thought experiment you can all do on your own, try to imagine all the ways this power can be abused.

And then consider the fact that this is now the law of the land for at least another generation.

[DiscoGary]

DG if legal scholars are taught that this case is the 'line in the sand' for commerce powers, and those legal scholars are the ones who end up becoming SCOTUS justices, will it not have an effect?

Phris' argument is a good one, and one that I agree with. It's a conservative descision. It's not a Republican decision, but if you take a step back from party lines this is a clear restriction on commerce clause powers.

You are assuming that legal scholars are taught to follow precedent as opposed to promoting social justice or some concept of the common good. I don't know, you guys tell me.

The concept of using precedence as a limit on judicial activism has just been thrown out the window with this ruling because everyone can see that when the old rulings don't provide enough cover to get the desired goal, the Justices simply find another way to circumvent the constitution, thus creating a new precedent, and the cycle starts over. The constitution is not a limit on the power of the federal government as it was intended, it is now simply a parlor game for the Supreme Court Justices as they compete with each other to invent the cleverest wording to find some justification for whatever law shows up on their desk.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, they shouldn't be following precedent anyway. That's for lower courts. They should be ruling from first principles on every case, and justify their ruling based on text of the constitution.

We're just wasting time here guys. There have been no limits on Congressional power for a long time now, and this ruling just makes it official. Game over man.

[Let.Live]

An interesting overview of Obamacare, which better explains what it really is, and why the general public is stupid about the subject:

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx

Ironically, it imposes a simple Republican belief

[TNG]

Congress can now tax you for something you are NOT doing. They can tax you for refusing to participate in any activity they choose.

Just as a quick thought experiment you can all do on your own, try to imagine all the ways this power can be abused.

And then consider the fact that this is now the law of the land for at least another generation.


Dude they have been doing that for a long time, examples:

The marriage deduction
the renting vs owning choice
all the credits related to kids and their care beyond the dependent credit
the educational expense credits

If you don't get married, don't have kids, choose to rent, and stay uneducated you pay more; and now you can add go without health insurance to that list.

[Lester Bangs]

Congress can now tax you for something you are NOT doing. They can tax you for refusing to participate in any activity they choose.

Just as a quick thought experiment you can all do on your own, try to imagine all the ways this power can be abused.

And then consider the fact that this is now the law of the land for at least another generation.

How is this different than the mortgage interest rate deduction or the deduction for charitable giving? The tax code has been used for social engineering purposes for at least 30 years. This might be the first time that there was a penalty instead of deduction and perhaps that is psychologically different, but it is not substantively different.

[DiscoGary]

Dude they have been doing that for a long time, examples:

The marriage deduction
the renting vs owning choice
all the credits related to kids and their care beyond the dependent credit
the educational expense credits

If you don't get married, don't have kids, choose to rent, and stay uneducated you pay more; and now you can add go without health insurance to that list.

The difference is that those were tax breaks. They were modifications made to the income tax. They weren't penalties that applied regardless of your income.

We now have a situation where, by your mere existence, you can be in violation of the law, incur penalties and go to jail.

It's an important distinction.

I'm getting tired of debating this. The game is over. John Roberts destroyed any credibility I will ever have regarding constitutional issues, so I have no idea why any of you bother responding to me. That POS made asses of everyone who stood on principle in this debate.

We're going to have this law, and it is going to be the greatest generator of negative unintended consequences that the world has ever seen. This thing is a political cluster bomb that will destroy segments of our society that we don't even know exist. Nothing will go untouched.

I'm sick of the whole thing.

[CraigMac4h]

I'm sick of the whole thing.

Thank God! With any luck, you'll take off to libertarian haven like Somalia and everybody will win. We evil communists will stay here, self-destructing under the '93 Republican plan Obama passed, and you'll get to live out the rest of your days free from the statist umbrella.

[grandmasterloogie]

The difference is that those were tax breaks. They were modifications made to the income tax. They weren't penalties that applied regardless of your income.

We now have a situation where, by your mere existence, you can be in violation of the law, incur penalties and go to jail.

It's an important distinction.

I'm getting tired of debating this. The game is over. John Roberts destroyed any credibility I will ever have regarding constitutional issues, so I have no idea why any of you bother responding to me. That POS made asses of everyone who stood on principle in this debate.

We're going to have this law, and it is going to be the greatest generator of negative unintended consequences that the world has ever seen. This thing is a political cluster bomb that will destroy segments of our society that we don't even know exist. Nothing will go untouched.

I'm sick of the whole thing.

Nope. They were still doing it before.

If you've ever driven a car in your life your supporting socialism. Buying drivers insurance is manditory.

[Let.Live]

The difference is that those were tax breaks. They were modifications made to the income tax. They weren't penalties that applied regardless of your income.

We now have a situation where, by your mere existence, you can be in violation of the law, incur penalties and go to jail.

It's an important distinction.

I'm getting tired of debating this. The game is over. John Roberts destroyed any credibility I will ever have regarding constitutional issues, so I have no idea why any of you bother responding to me. That POS made asses of everyone who stood on principle in this debate.

We're going to have this law, and it is going to be the greatest generator of negative unintended consequences that the world has ever seen. This thing is a political cluster bomb that will destroy segments of our society that we don't even know exist. Nothing will go untouched.

I'm sick of the whole thing.


So let me get this straight:

The government can tell you that you don't have to pay a certain amount of taxes on things that have nothing to do with taxation to begin with (see: children write offs), and you're completely happy with that. But, the second the government tells you that if you don't invest in your health (under which you can comfortably afford, as deemed within each specific case) you'll pay a tax penalty because there are people out there who would love to have it but can't and you can afford if but choose not to, it's not okay?

Everyone wants to reap the benefits, and when they do, they say nothing. When they get penalized, they complain.

[Equinox2100]

You are assuming that legal scholars are taught to follow precedent as opposed to promoting social justice or some concept of the common good. I don't know, you guys tell me.

The concept of using precedence as a limit on judicial activism has just been thrown out the window with this ruling because everyone can see that when the old rulings don't provide enough cover to get the desired goal, the Justices simply find another way to circumvent the constitution, thus creating a new precedent, and the cycle starts over. The constitution is not a limit on the power of the federal government as it was intended, it is now simply a parlor game for the Supreme Court Justices as they compete with each other to invent the cleverest wording to find some justification for whatever law shows up on their desk.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, they shouldn't be following precedent anyway. That's for lower courts. They should be ruling from first principles on every case, and justify their ruling based on text of the constitution.

We're just wasting time here guys. There have been no limits on Congressional power for a long time now, and this ruling just makes it official. Game over man.

Rob Barnette, the legal scholar/Georgetown Professor against the legislation:

“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.”

Seriously. I tend to agree with the limits of the commerce power in this way. It makes sense.

[TNG]

The difference is that those were tax breaks. They were modifications made to the income tax. They weren't penalties that applied regardless of your income.

We now have a situation where, by your mere existence, you can be in violation of the law, incur penalties and go to jail.

It's an important distinction.

I'm getting tired of debating this. The game is over. John Roberts destroyed any credibility I will ever have regarding constitutional issues, so I have no idea why any of you bother responding to me. That POS made asses of everyone who stood on principle in this debate.

We're going to have this law, and it is going to be the greatest generator of negative unintended consequences that the world has ever seen. This thing is a political cluster bomb that will destroy segments of our society that we don't even know exist. Nothing will go untouched.

I'm sick of the whole thing.

Once again you have demonstrated you don't know the key elements of what you are talking about. Failure to obtain coverage under the ACA has no criminal or civil consequences, no liens can be applied for failure to obtain insurance. You need a less biases source of news or a more thorough understanding of things you claim to be informed on. One persons tax break is another persons penalty if they don't get the same break; why do you think it is called the marriage penalty? Keep the focus on taxes, or this is too easy.

[DiscoGary]

Once again you have demonstrated you don't know the key elements of what you are talking about. Failure to obtain coverage under the ACA has no criminal or civil consequences, no liens can be applied for failure to obtain insurance. You need a less biases source of news or a more thorough understanding of things you claim to be informed on. One persons tax break is another persons penalty if they don't get the same break; why do you think it is called the marriage penalty? Keep the focus on taxes, or this is too easy.

Yeah. I checked that after the post and found out the same thing.

What a scam. They don't want the ugly political scene of dragging off some poor person to jail because they can't pay their health tax, so they made it so there would be no criminal consequences. It's going to be interesting to see how they enforce a law that supposedly has no consequences.

The best I can figure out is that they know the working, law abiding people will obey the law even if there are no apparent consequences, because we do that all the time anyway, and that the poor people and other shady characters that usually vote Democrat will just ignore the law and get a pass.

This will have the effect of taxing Republicans while leaving large numbers of Democrats untouched, but that's just a first guess. Let me know if you have a better interpretation.

Right now that part of it makes no sense. What about all the 28 year olds with good jobs that don't have insurance but are needed to fund ObamaCare? Those people are the real target of this bill. Obama HAS to get in their pockets. Will there be consequences for them? If not, then I don't see how this bill gets funded at all.

You young guys DO realize the primary funding source for ObamaCare is young people with good jobs who don't actually need health insurance. You didn't realize that? Aw, too bad. Too late! You lose.

Wish you had some kind of principled protection from this kind of abuse. Too bad. Too late! You lose.

The other goal of this bill is to get companies to drop health care coverage and force everyone into health care exchanges, which will eventually end up being a government run single payer system. That's why the business penalty is so small. The business will voluntarily drop coverage because the penalty will be way lower than paying for coverage. Government gets a win-win. Businesses voluntarily pay a fine to the government, which ends up being a never ending revenue stream coming from every business in the country (shakedown) AND huge numbers of people get dumped into government run health care against their will. THAT part is easy to understand and is certain to work as planned.

Don't like that either? Too bad. Too late! You lose.

Am I boring you guys with all this? I mean, I've got nothing left to fight for, so this is just an academic exercise for me now. I'm just hanging around because I can't resist the urge to watch a train wreck... and you're all in the train.

[TNG]

Yeah. I checked that after the post and found out the same thing.

What a scam. They don't want the ugly political scene of dragging off some poor person to jail because they can't pay their health tax, so they made it so there would be no criminal consequences. It's going to be interesting to see how they enforce a law that supposedly has no consequences.

The best I can figure out is that they know the working, law abiding people will obey the law even if there are no apparent consequences, because we do that all the time anyway, and that the poor people and other shady characters that usually vote Democrat will just ignore the law and get a pass.

This will have the effect of taxing Republicans while leaving large numbers of Democrats untouched, but that's just a first guess. Let me know if you have a better interpretation.

Right now that part of it makes no sense. What about all the 28 year olds with good jobs that don't have insurance but are needed to fund ObamaCare? Those people are the real target of this bill. Obama HAS to get in their pockets. Will there be consequences for them? If not, then I don't see how this bill gets funded at all.

You young guys DO realize the primary funding source for ObamaCare is young people with good jobs who don't actually need health insurance. You didn't realize that? Aw, too bad. Too late! You lose.

Wish you had some kind of principled protection from this kind of abuse. Too bad. Too late! You lose.

The other goal of this bill is to get companies to drop health care coverage and force everyone into health care exchanges, which will eventually end up being a government run single payer system. That's why the business penalty is so small. The business will voluntarily drop coverage because the penalty will be way lower than paying for coverage. Government gets a win-win. Businesses voluntarily pay a fine to the government, which ends up being a never ending revenue stream coming from every business in the country (shakedown) AND huge numbers of people get dumped into government run health care against their will. THAT part is easy to understand and is certain to work as planned.

Don't like that either? Too bad. Too late! You lose.

Am I boring you guys with all this? I mean, I've got nothing left to fight for, so this is just an academic exercise for me now. I'm just hanging around because I can't resist the urge to watch a train wreck... and you're all in the train.


Whoosh, more bad info. You seem to be under the impression that a 28 year old who had a good job would somehow be paying the government for his insurance, or at least his premium would be paying for the ACA. That is not the case, private insurance compansies will still be the primary source of insurance for working people under 65 and not in poverty or the military. If your point is to try to create apathy for the ACA by pointing out how the ACA is exploiting our fellow posters, start with understanding the real facts.

[phrisbee]

phrisbee, what is your take on the possibility that Congress exercising the penalty as a tax could set a dangerous precedent for the future. If there is one thing Gary might be legitimately brining up that seems to be it.
Despite Gary's failure to accept it, this isn't anything new. What was surprising was that Chief Justice Roberts found the penalty functionally equivalent to a tax. We didn't think Roberts would be willing to go that route.

Congress has always been able to offer a tax break if you do/buy something. The only difference here is the framing - the effect is exactly the same.

I don't think it sets a dangerous precedent because Congress is now very aware of the tactic. The GOP didn't call it out as a tax this go round because they knew a tax would not be struck down by the court.

[DiscoGary]

Whoosh, more bad info. You seem to be under the impression that a 28 year old who had a good job would somehow be paying the government for his insurance, or at least his premium would be paying for the ACA. That is not the case, private insurance compansies will still be the primary source of insurance for working people under 65 and not in poverty or the military. If your point is to try to create apathy for the ACA by pointing out how the ACA is exploiting our fellow posters, start with understanding the real facts.

You mean to say that 28 year olds who until today didn't pay anyone for insurance because they didn't think they needed it, will now be forced to pay a private insurance company a LOT of money, or pay a much smaller penalty to the government.

They WILL have to pay more than they are paying now, and will have NO CHOICE in the matter.

[Let.Live]

Despite Gary's failure to accept it, this isn't anything new. What was surprising was that Chief Justice Roberts found the penalty functionally equivalent to a tax. We didn't think Roberts would be willing to go that route.

Congress has always been able to offer a tax break if you do/buy something. The only difference here is the framing - the effect is exactly the same.

I don't think it sets a dangerous precedent because Congress is now very aware of the tactic. The GOP didn't call it out as a tax this go round because they knew a tax would not be struck down by the court.

Though I agree with you whole-heartedly, I think the wording on the bold part should be clearer in stating that there is no 'tax break' to be had here - there is simply now a mandate to keep you from getting a 'tax penalty'. Same result, different intention. It's similar to an opt-in and opt-out scenario.

[CraigMac4h]

You mean to say that 28 year olds who until today didn't pay anyone for insurance because they didn't think they needed it, will now be forced to pay a private insurance company a LOT of money, or pay a much smaller penalty to the government.

They WILL have to pay more than they are paying now, and will have NO CHOICE in the matter.

Look, I don't want to get anecdotal here, but I can't think of a ton of scenarios where 28 year olds who can afford health insurance don't get it because they don't think they need it. You're only a bad step off a curb from a broken ankle, and treatment can easily crack a few grand. Now, if you're saying you feel for the 28 year olds who CANNOT afford health insurance, fear not! They don't get penalized.

[reee]

lolsocialengineering

[TNG]

You mean to say that 28 year olds who until today didn't pay anyone for insurance because they didn't think they needed it, will now be forced to pay a private insurance company a LOT of money, or pay a much smaller penalty to the government.

They WILL have to pay more than they are paying now, and will have NO CHOICE in the matter.

Their problem and your problem is the "they don't think they need it" belief. I would be happy to propose an out for those folks who want to go that route;

required repayment of all medical expenses incurred,
post a $2500 medical bond, to simplify provider recovery of small expenses,
no bankruptcy discharge,
expenses to be accrued at full fee, no HMO, PPO, or carrier discounts;
interest on unpaid balance accrues at 1% monthly.

[terrywuzhere]

Their problem and your problem is the "they don't think they need it" belief. I would be happy to propose an out for those folks who want to go that route;
required repayment of all medical expenses incurred,
post a $2500 medical bond, to simplify provider recovery of small expenses,
no bankruptcy discharge,
expenses to be accrued at full fee, no HMO, PPO, or carrier discounts;
interest on unpaid balance accrues at 1% monthly.

I'm legitimately curious how you would plan to enforce the payments because there are plenty of people who will be dumb and get themselves into a situation where they won't be able to make those payment.

[TNG]

I'm legitimately curious how you would plan to enforce the payments because there are plenty of people who will be dumb and get themselves into a situation where they won't be able to make those payment.

Pretty much my point, if people were aware of the monthly minimium nut, and knew they could get out from under it, they might be more inclined to participate. At a minimum payment amount of 1.1 % of the bill they would at it for 20 years.

[DiscoGary]

Despite Gary's failure to accept it, this isn't anything new. What was surprising was that Chief Justice Roberts found the penalty functionally equivalent to a tax. We didn't think Roberts would be willing to go that route.

Congress has always been able to offer a tax break if you do/buy something. The only difference here is the framing - the effect is exactly the same.

I don't think it sets a dangerous precedent because Congress is now very aware of the tactic. The GOP didn't call it out as a tax this go round because they knew a tax would not be struck down by the court.

Un-constitutional laws getting upheld by the supreme court are certainly nothing new, so Phris got that right.

But Phris is saying that the precedent isn't dangerous because Republicans are now aware of the tactic? WOW!

1. The GOP DID call it a tax. We all said it would cost a huge amount, and that taxes would have to go up.
2. The GOP had NOTHING to do with this law. They had no input, they didn't vote for it at any point. The only GOP guy to have any say in this law was Justice Roberts.
3. Phris is asking you to ignore your loss of freedom by assuring you that the REPUBLICANS WON'T LET THIS KIND OF THING HAPPEN AGAIN!!! They'll be smarter, and won't get tricked by Democrats next time.
4. Phris is admitting the Democrats will continue to make the government more and more powerful until it starts to scare even the people who hate Republicans, and that they will use this new precedent to do it.
5. What Phris is saying is that if you want to stop the government from ordering you around like dogs... you have to vote Republican.

Phris got it right again.

[CraigMac4h]

Thanks, DiscoGary, for that update from Cuckooland. And nowwww, back to the the real world, where the adults are still discussing what this means.


As for Republicans having nothing to do with the law, perhaps they tried to prevent passing it, but in the face of Clinton's more leftist plan in the early 90s, they did come up with this: 1993 Republican Health Care Plan (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx) that calls for, among other things:

Universal coverage by 2005 (remember, the proposal is from 93)

A tax that falls on employers and insurers who don't offer health insurance for everyone (uh oh)

Standardization through a NATIONAL health care data system (more federal govt, DG)


There's plenty more in there, all in that link, you can peruse for yourselves. The hilarious notion that the PPACA, aka Obamacare, is a radical left-wing solution to our health care crisis is patently ridiculous. It's mostly remixed Republican proposals, whether you're talking about the '93 plan or Romneycare in Massachusetts. It is, in fact, a very moderate approach to the problem, but of course, because Obama said it, it's a left-wing conspiracy.

[phrisbee]

Un-constitutional laws getting upheld by the supreme court are certainly nothing new, so Phris got that right.
I stopped reading right here. You refuse to understand or accept how our system of government works when you disagree with something, so it's not worth reading the rest of your blather. The Supreme Court upheld the law. That means it IS constitutional whether you like it or not.

[TNG]

Un-constitutional laws getting upheld by the supreme court are certainly nothing new, so Phris got that right.

But Phris is saying that the precedent isn't dangerous because Republicans are now aware of the tactic? WOW!

1. The GOP DID call it a tax. We all said it would cost a huge amount, and that taxes would have to go up.
2. The GOP had NOTHING to do with this law. They had no input, they didn't vote for it at any point. The only GOP guy to have any say in this law was Justice Roberts.
3. Phris is asking you to ignore your loss of freedom by assuring you that the REPUBLICANS WON'T LET THIS KIND OF THING HAPPEN AGAIN!!! They'll be smarter, and won't get tricked by Democrats next time.
4. Phris is admitting the Democrats will continue to make the government more and more powerful until it starts to scare even the people who hate Republicans, and that they will use this new precedent to do it.
5. What Phris is saying is that if you want to stop the government from ordering you around like dogs... you have to vote Republican.

Phris got it right again.

Once again your wrong, or at least missing some of the facts. Roberts didn't reach the its a tax conclusion on is his own out of thin air. He rejected the Administration's main arguement that individual mandate was under the auspice of Interstate Commerce. However, the Administration also presented a case that this was justified as a taxing power of Congress. Yes, during Congressional debate it was exclusively presented as Interstate Commerce issue, and not portrayed as a tax issue.

I find your dog logic ironic if not a bit obtuse. The democrats will order the middles class like dogs, while the real GOP will occasionally let a scrap fall from the table so the dogs can fight over it. For a guy who views himself as politically astute I am amazed that you don't recognize that you are a lot closer to those that you fear may undeservedly receive some of your treasure, than those who lobby the positions you embrace.

[Let.Live]

I stopped reading right here. You refuse to understand or accept how our system of government works when you disagree with something, so it's not worth reading the rest of your blather. The Supreme Court upheld the law. That means it IS constitutional whether you like it or not.

I'm sure DiscoGary realizes that this is the main purpose of the Supreme Court, after all :rolleyes:

[HappyJack]

Un-constitutional laws getting upheld by the supreme court are certainly nothing new, so Phris got that right.

But Phris is saying that the precedent isn't dangerous because Republicans are now aware of the tactic? WOW!


2. The GOP had NOTHING to do with this law. They had no input, they didn't vote for it at any point. The only GOP guy to have any say in this law was Justice Roberts.


Riddle me this DG, or anyone else. Just because you are appointed S.C.Justice under either a Dem. or Rep. President, are you suppose to rule/vote/ pull a straight ticket for your Pres. or what you feel is constitutional, because you've spent a lifetime studying law? Isn't it a crap shoot for Presidents when considering/appointing Federal Judges for the Supreme Court? $hit Man Fvck, I'd hope these Justices were being nominated/appointed because they were they best qualified judge/candidate at the time. Not because they were being played in a weird Dem. vs Rep. game of Roe vs. Wade. This is one of those extreme examples of how a President can try to stack the deck only to have the cards cut and dealt in a way that he wasn't anticipating.

[vuvuzelas]

Riddle me this DG, or anyone else. Just because you are appointed S.C.Justice under either a Dem. or Rep. President, are you suppose to rule/vote/ pull a straight ticket for your Pres. or what you feel is constitutional, because you've spent a lifetime studying law? Isn't it a crap shoot for Presidents when considering/appointing Federal Judges for the Supreme Court? $hit Man Fvck, I'd hope these Justices were being nominated/appointed because they were they best qualified judge/candidate at the time. Not because they were being played in a weird Dem. vs Rep. game of Roe vs. Wade. This is one of those extreme examples of how a President can try to stack the deck only to have the cards cut and dealt in a way that he wasn't anticipating.

With rare exceptions, Supreme Court justices have long track records of decisions/writings over their careers that give insight into how they view things and would vote once appointed to the Supreme Court.
Presidents and Senators can have a pretty good idea what the majority of a nominee's votes are going to look like. And what Roberts just did demonstrates why there is incentive for a Republican President to nominate true anti-government crusaders a la Clarence Thomas and reduce such risk.
"Best person for the job" is subjective. If a president believes that the Constitution is best interpreted through the consultation of 18th century dictionaries, who he finds to be the best nominee is going to be very different from a president who believes that the Constitution should be interpreted as broad guiding principles and that the judiciary should be empathetic to individuals' struggles while making decisions.
So it's not that justices vote along party lines so much as it is that presidents nominate justices that they believe will act in a way they/their party will like.
Picking someone like Kagan who had never been a judge before could potentially be risky, but the President probably was fairly confident that she wasn't going to pull a 180 once she got on the Court.

I also wouldn't say that the Roberts situation demonstrates Bush attempting to stack the deck in his favor and failing, as Bush probably believes the law is Constitutional. More likely is that his father disagrees with his appointee Clarence Thomas, given that an individual mandate was a part of his healthcare plan.

[DiscoGary]

Ugh... all you guys pretending there's any intellectual integrity at the Supreme Court level. The partisanship was plain to see in that NONE of the Democrat appointed Justices were ever considered as possible swing votes, ever. The Supreme Court is as political as any other branch of government. Roberts cast his vote for political reasons, not legal ones. He wanted a legacy. Well he's got it, and my side won't let him forget it.

After this ruling, please tell me what limits are left on Congressional power? In particular, if Congress decides they want to force you to do something, can they do it? ...and what legal defense do you have to stop them?

Vuvuzela, you sound like a smart guy. You got on the field after the game was already over, but you can join us for some post-constitutional analysis. Welcome.

[CraigMac4h]

And you're operating on the premise that everyone views the world purely in political terms, like you do. It's all about "your side" and "everybody else."

The fact that you think Roberts deliberately ruled in favor of something he truly thought was wrong purely to "leave a legacy" is indicative of a twisted and truly immature worldview that doesn't allow for a human being to make a decision on principle, even if that decision allows for a result that runs counter to that person's political views.

I can't answer your Congressional limits question without more information. What are they trying to force me to do? Are they trying to force me to buy auto insurance? Because then, one can choose not to drive. Are they forcing me to pay taxes in excess of what I think is optimum? I can choose to cast my vote for a candidate that supports lower taxes, or run myself on such a platform. Are they forcing me to quarter soldiers in my home in a time of peace? Well, I can sue for their removal based upon the Third Amendment. Are they forcing me to participate in an official state religion? Well, I can invoke the 1st Amendment. Are they trying to force me into slavery? Also prohibited.

A "limited government" doesn't mean you don't have to do things you don't want to do. If the US declared war on Iran tomorrow and drafted me, they could "force" me to invade a foreign country against my will. It's entirely legal (assuming I was denied CO status). Just because you personally dislike something doesn't necessarily make it illegal or unconstitutional.

[DiscoGary]

And you're operating on the premise that everyone views the world purely in political terms, like you do. It's all about "your side" and "everybody else."

The fact that you think Roberts deliberately ruled in favor of something he truly thought was wrong purely to "leave a legacy" is indicative of a twisted and truly immature worldview that doesn't allow for a human being to make a decision on principle, even if that decision allows for a result that runs counter to that person's political views.

I can't answer your Congressional limits question without more information. What are they trying to force me to do? Are they trying to force me to buy auto insurance? Because then, one can choose not to drive. Are they forcing me to pay taxes in excess of what I think is optimum? I can choose to cast my vote for a candidate that supports lower taxes, or run myself on such a platform. Are they forcing me to quarter soldiers in my home in a time of peace? Well, I can sue for their removal based upon the Third Amendment. Are they forcing me to participate in an official state religion? Well, I can invoke the 1st Amendment. Are they trying to force me into slavery? Also prohibited.

A "limited government" doesn't mean you don't have to do things you don't want to do. If the US declared war on Iran tomorrow and drafted me, they could "force" me to invade a foreign country against my will. It's entirely legal (assuming I was denied CO status). Just because you personally dislike something doesn't necessarily make it illegal or unconstitutional.

Well you come back when you can answer the question.

Anyone else?

[grandmasterloogie]

Ugh... all you guys pretending there's any intellectual integrity at the Supreme Court level. The partisanship was plain to see in that NONE of the Democrat appointed Justices were ever considered as possible swing votes, ever. The Supreme Court is as political as any other branch of government. Roberts cast his vote for political reasons, not legal ones. He wanted a legacy. Well he's got it, and my side won't let him forget it.

After this ruling, please tell me what limits are left on Congressional power? In particular, if Congress decides they want to force you to do something, can they do it? ...and what legal defense do you have to stop them?

Vuvuzela, you sound like a smart guy. You got on the field after the game was already over, but you can join us for some post-constitutional analysis. Welcome.


Nothing changed. Stop crying because you didn't get your way.

[DiscoGary]

Nothing changed. Stop crying because you didn't get your way.

I admit. You won. We lost. Now let's figure out what we lost.

After this ruling, please tell me what limits are left on Congressional power? In particular, if Congress decides they want to force you to do something, can they do it? ...and what legal defense do you have to stop them?

Anyone else want to try?

[grandmasterloogie]

I admit. You won. We lost. Now let's figure out what we lost.

After this ruling, please tell me what limits are left on Congressional power? In particular, if Congress decides they want to force you to do something, can they do it? ...and what legal defense do you have to stop them?

Anyone else want to try?


Alright Glenn Beck, i'll give it a shot.

We have just lost a crutial battle in the epic struggle between evil, evil socialism and freedom loving democracy. All we have to do is wait for the stromtruppen to march down the streets.

What really happened is that a law mimicing some socialistic aspects was passed, and if you don't want to pay it you will recive a fine. No government death squads or soviet leaders are going to rush in and take your oh so precious guns and freedom.

[TNG]

Alright Glenn Beck, i'll give it a shot.

We have just lost a crutial battle in the epic struggle between evil, evil socialism and freedom loving democracy. All we have to do is wait for the stromtruppen to march down the streets.

What really happened is that a law mimicing some socialistic aspects was passed, and if you don't want to pay it you will recive a fine. No government death squads or soviet leaders are going to rush in and take your oh so precious guns and freedom.


Were your undies this tight when the Patriot Act was passed the first time or when it was reauthorized?

[vuvuzelas]

The decision Thursday placed a fairly significant limit on the Commerce Clause. Until 2 years ago the idea that the Heritage Foundation, George HW Bush, and Newt Gingrich's healthcare plan was not under the scope of the Commerce Clause would have been laughable in even Republican legal circles.
By going into detail re:what qualifies as a tax, Roberts reaffirmed a century worth of precedent in distinguishing what is a tax on (in)action versus what is essentially forcing someone to do something, regardless of what Congress chooses to label it.
And the Court for the very first time ever ruled that the conditions attached to money the federal government was giving to the state were too coercive and exceeded Congress's spending power.

[DiscoGary]

Alright Glenn Beck, i'll give it a shot.

We have just lost a crutial battle in the epic struggle between evil, evil socialism and freedom loving democracy. All we have to do is wait for the stromtruppen to march down the streets.

What really happened is that a law mimicing some socialistic aspects was passed, and if you don't want to pay it you will recive a fine. No government death squads or soviet leaders are going to rush in and take your oh so precious guns and freedom.


Gee, you're awfully shaken up about this. You guys won. This should be something to celebrate. What's so hard about this question?

Please tell me what limits are left on Congressional power? In particular, if Congress decides they want to force you to do something, can they do it? ...and what legal defense do you have to stop them?

C'mon winners. You own this. Explain it.

[phrisbee]

The decision Thursday placed a fairly significant limit on the Commerce Clause. Until 2 years ago the idea that the Heritage Foundation, George HW Bush, and Newt Gingrich's healthcare plan was not under the scope of the Commerce Clause would have been laughable in even Republican legal circles.
By going into detail re:what qualifies as a tax, Roberts reaffirmed a century worth of precedent in distinguishing what is a tax on (in)action versus what is essentially forcing someone to do something, regardless of what Congress chooses to label it.
And the Court for the very first time ever ruled that the conditions attached to money the federal government was giving to the state were too coercive and exceeded Congress's spending power.
I like this guy. He's smart. If only Gary would choose to listen...

[HappyJack]

I like this guy. He's smart. If only Gary would choose to listen...

Pat yourself on the back much?;)

[phrisbee]

Pat yourself on the back much?;)
You are really obsessed with skurey, huh? I mean ME! I mean me.

Seriously though, they can check IPs or whatever. No clue who vuvuzelas is and I hate those things.

[HappyJack]

You are really obsessed with skurey, huh? I mean ME! I mean me.

Seriously though, they can check IPs or whatever. No clue who vuvuzelas is and I hate those things.


http://pushpull.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/arte.jpg

[runasone]

I don't see how Roberts did anything that would have been unexpected at the time that he was nominated. When he was nominated, the individual mandate was not only considered constitutional by most Republicans, it was being championed as a conservative solution to health care. Roberts didn't change his mind, the Republican party did.

[CraigMac4h]

I DID answer your question, DG. If you wanted something more specific answered, go ahead and ask.

[DiscoGary]

The decision Thursday placed a fairly significant limit on the Commerce Clause. Until 2 years ago the idea that the Heritage Foundation, George HW Bush, and Newt Gingrich's healthcare plan was not under the scope of the Commerce Clause would have been laughable in even Republican legal circles.
By going into detail re:what qualifies as a tax, Roberts reaffirmed a century worth of precedent in distinguishing what is a tax on (in)action versus what is essentially forcing someone to do something, regardless of what Congress chooses to label it.
And the Court for the very first time ever ruled that the conditions attached to money the federal government was giving to the state were too coercive and exceeded Congress's spending power.

The court also ruled for the very first time that congress can force you to buy a product from a private company. You can be taxed for something you haven't done.

That power is much more expansive than the commerce clause interpretation. Do you want to answer the question?

[vuvuzelas]

The court also ruled for the very first time that congress can force you to buy a product from a private company. You can be taxed for something you haven't done.

That power is much more expansive than the commerce clause interpretation. Do you want to answer the question?

It's not "forcing." That's the whole point. There is a ceiling on how high the penalty could be at which people would cease to truly have a choice between purchasing insurance and paying the penalty.
Congress cannot make the tax structure such that no would would ever make a certain choice that would otherwise be available.

[phrisbee]

The court also ruled for the very first time that congress can force you to buy a product from a private company. You can be taxed for something you haven't done.

That power is much more expansive than the commerce clause interpretation. Do you want to answer the question?
Oh, so Gary just doesn't understand the idea of functional equivalency. That's not surprising. Let me break it down for you.

Let me see if this helps. You can't try to claim this is a $500 billion tax hike and also claim Congress is forcing you to buy anything.

[TNG]

The court also ruled for the very first time that congress can force you to buy a product from a private company. You can be taxed for something you haven't done.

That power is much more expansive than the commerce clause interpretation. Do you want to answer the question?

Get off your high horse, that poor bastard is tired of carrying your talking out of both side of your mouth butt. Lets review, Social Security is a government ponzi scheme that should be replaced by a system where you have to invest with private companies to manage and create a retirement income. I didn't think Hypocrates knew how to Disco, but I guess they are well acquainted.

[reee]

The only thing I find amusing is how adamant Obama said it wasn't a tax, yet that's the only reason the court allowed it.

[DiscoGary]

The only thing I find amusing is how adamant Obama said it wasn't a tax, yet that's the only reason the court allowed it.

Pretty much the entire social welfare state is built on programs that aren't what they say they are.

[DiscoGary]

Here's a shot of Atlas Shrugged, from the "Bum on the Train" monologue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
... And when you saw it, you saw the real motive of any person who’s ever preached the slogan: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’

“This was the whole secret of it. At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination – when five minutes of thought should have told them what would happen if somebody tried to practice what they preached.

Now I know that they didn’t do it by any kind of mistake. Mistakes of this size are never made innocently. If men fall for some vicious piece of insanity, when they have no way to make it work and no possible reason to explain their choice – it’s because they have a reason that they do not wish to tell. And we weren’t so innocent either, when we voted for that plan at the first meeting. We didn’t do it just because we believed that the drippy old guff they spewed was good. We had another reason, but the guff helped us to hide it from our neighbors and from ourselves. The guff gave us a chance to pass off as virtue some thing that we’d be ashamed to admit otherwise.

There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors.

The worker who liked the idea that his need entitled him to a limousine like his boss’s, forgot that every bum and beggar on earth would come howling that their need entitled them to an icebox like his own. That was our real motive when we voted – that was the truth of it – but we didn’t like to think it, so the less we liked it, the louder we yelled about our love for the common good.

“Well, we got what we asked for. By the time we saw what it was that we’d asked for, it was too late. We were trapped, with no place to go. ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a tiny portion of the whole monologue. The whole thing is worth reading. It covers the psychology of socialism in about 10 pages.

Yeeees. Everyone trying to live out of each others' pockets creates a hell on earth that no one wants.

[Equinox2100]

I....I think DG's finally lost it.

[Davy Jones]

Phris,
The argument that somehow this will limit further abuse of the commerce clause is completely without merit. There is no way this will be used as a precedence in any future cases. In two weeks everyone will have forgotten about the commerce clause and it will never come up again. You are assigning integrity to the Supreme Court, and they have proven too many times they have none.

Two words for you.

Stare Decisis


And obviously you didn't read the decision, because several old Supreme Court cases that no one has ever heard of were mentioned. But I forgot that mentioning that doesn't fit into the reality you've created by not reading the decision, so feel free to not read what I just typed.

[Davy Jones]

The difference is that those were tax breaks. They were modifications made to the income tax. They weren't penalties that applied regardless of your income.


Fine, think of it this way.

Everyone has to pay the tax, unless they Health insurance, in which they don't.

It's a tax break for those who have Health Insurance.

Happy? Probably not

[DiscoGary]

Fine, think of it this way.

Everyone has to pay the tax, unless they Health insurance, in which they don't.

It's a tax break for those who have Health Insurance.

Happy? Probably not

LOL!

So ObamaCare is a tax break! Why didn't Roberts just say so?!

I can't wait to spend my tax break.

I might not be happy, but that did put a smile on my face. Thanks.

[Crystazul]

I....I think DG's finally lost it.

Not quite yet, but if Obama wins in November this will be Gary:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100108063233/uncyclopedia/images/archive/b/b5/20100108063328!Exploding-head.gif

[Davy Jones]

LOL!

So ObamaCare is a tax break! Why didn't Roberts just say so?!

I can't wait to spend my tax break.

I might not be happy, but that did put a smile on my face. Thanks.

Just spinning it the same way you did. You said the marriage tax break was ok because it was a tax break for those who are married, but its also a tax HIKE on those who aren't.

You really can't be against both or for both based on that argument. It's illogical and splitting hairs.

[DiscoGary]

Not quite yet, but if Obama wins in November this will be Gary:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100108063233/uncyclopedia/images/archive/b/b5/20100108063328%21Exploding-head.gif

That's something I've noticed. A lot of Democrats don't vote for Democrats because they agree with their policies. They vote for Democrats to get revenge on the hated Republicans.

No principles, just undiluted hate. Look around. It's all over.

[Equinox2100]

That's something I've noticed. A lot of Democrats don't vote for Democrats because they agree with their policies. They vote for Democrats to get revenge on the hated Republicans.

No principles, just undiluted hate. Look around. It's all over.

Personally, I hate people so much that I think they should all get healthcare. They'll drown in paperwork!

It's the perfect crime.

[DiscoGary]

Personally, I hate people so much that I think they should all get healthcare. They'll drown in paperwork!

It's the perfect crime.

More unintended wisdom from the mouths of Democrats.

The drive to create a socialist Utopia ended up killing more people in the last century than all the wars put together. They ended up creating the most efficient killing machine ever devised by man. It really was the perfect crime.

Who else thinks they got something clever to say?

[Crystazul]

That's something I've noticed. A lot of Democrats don't vote for Democrats because they agree with their policies. They vote for Democrats to get revenge on the hated Republicans.

No principles, just undiluted hate. Look around. It's all over.

Oh the irony.

Who else thinks they got something clever to say?

It's so amusing when you get all flustered and upset because things are not going your way.

[DiscoGary]

Oh the irony.



It's so amusing when you get all flustered and upset because things are not going your way.

... and it's not at all amusing you when don't realize that things are not going your way.

You really don't get it. I assume you are in your 20s. You will be forced to pay for something you don't need. Regulations will begin to strangle society to the point that even you will start to notice.

You're so busy hating me that you don't realize what this is going to do to you. You have no clue.

I'll get back on the weaponization of ObamaCare soon, so we'll see if I can help with that.

[TNG]

... and it's not at all amusing you when don't realize that things are not going your way.

You really don't get it. I assume you are in your 20s. You will be forced to pay for something you don't need. Regulations will begin to strangle society to the point that even you will start to notice.

You're so busy hating me that you don't realize what this is going to do to you. You have no clue.

I'll get back on the weaponization of ObamaCare soon, so we'll see if I can help with that.

Its going to be ok Gary, the sun will set in the west tonight and rise in the east tomorrow. There are a lot of things you are forced to buy but don't use, needing and using are two different things you know. If we all had a crystal bowl like you, we wouldn't even need to work let alone buy insurance. We would just win the lottery when we needed a few bucks, and we would see pending misforntune with the clarity you understand economics and politics.

[vuvuzelas]

... and it's not at all amusing you when don't realize that things are not going your way.

You really don't get it. I assume you are in your 20s. You will be forced to pay for something you don't need. Regulations will begin to strangle society to the point that even you will start to notice.

You're so busy hating me that you don't realize what this is going to do to you. You have no clue.

I'll get back on the weaponization of ObamaCare soon, so we'll see if I can help with that.

No one is being forced to do anything other than pay a given amount, should we choose to go without insurance, to help finance the system we'll be taking advantage of should we get in an accident or fall ill while uninsured.

To quote Mitt Romney, forcing individuals to take responsibility like this is "the ultimate conservatism."

[Crystazul]

... and it's not at all amusing you when don't realize that things are not going your way.

You really don't get it. I assume you are in your 20s. You will be forced to pay for something you don't need. Regulations will begin to strangle society to the point that even you will start to notice.

You're so busy hating me that you don't realize what this is going to do to you. You have no clue.

I'll get back on the weaponization of ObamaCare soon, so we'll see if I can help with that.

And how does that make you feel?

http://torreyshannon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/00drp1.bmp

[TNG]

No one is being forced to do anything other than pay a given amount, should we choose to go without insurance, to help finance the system we'll be taking advantage of should we get in an accident or fall ill while uninsured.

To quote Mitt Romney, forcing individuals to take responsibility like this is "the ultimate conservatism."

Alas that is why the idea of the indiviual mandate originated with the Heritage Foundation, liberal bunch of pussies.

[Davy Jones]

That's something I've noticed. A lot of Democrats don't vote for Democrats because they agree with their policies. They vote for Democrats to get revenge on the hated Republicans.

No principles, just undiluted hate. Look around. It's all over.

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/07/10/mitt-romney-voters-motivated-opposition-president-obama-poll-shows/EbHNyoNZnDdfndogpmQjDK/story.html

Fifty-nine percent of likely Romney voters characterized their decision as a vote against Obama; only 37 percent called it a vote for Romney.

[DiscoGary]

It isn't about health care.

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/obamacare-class-action/quagmire-of-new-obamacare-agencies/

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ocachart.png (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ocachart.png)
The 159 new boards and commissions created in the Obamacare bill.
1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233)
14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752)
36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055)
45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)
81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community- based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
108. Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p. 2285)
135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337)
144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)*
153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)*
158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)*
159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*

[vuvuzelas]

ObamaCare explained

TTByvLtYIYA

[Davy Jones]

It isn't about health care.

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/obamacare-class-action/quagmire-of-new-obamacare-agencies/

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ocachart.png (http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ocachart.png)
The 159 new boards and commissions created in the Obamacare bill.
1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233)
14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752)
36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055)
45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)
81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community- based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
108. Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p. 2285)
135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337)
144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)*
153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)*
158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)*
159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*

Good to see the Right Click on your mouse is still working.