Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Supreme Court: Playing the States Rights Game Or Translating Law?
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 8:55AM #11
Girlchristian
Posts: 13,685

Apr 5, 2012 -- 3:53AM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


Can the government force you to purchase a gun, a blue ford SUV, or green socks?  If not then they can not force you to buy health insurance.



The government is not going to send anyone to jail if they don't buy health insurance. But, if you don't pay your taxes you might end up in the pen. The government is not going to send you to jail if you don't have a Social Security card...but, you can't get a decent job without one. There are consequences.


But they will enforce a tax penalty and force you to pay it if you don't buy insurance.


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


Once the government can require you to purchase one good or service they then can force you to buy any they want.



There was a time when the government forced some people to join the service; while others visited France.


Not the same thing...


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


The only part of the law i can somewhat see as being covered under interstate commerce would be requiring ins companies to cover pre existing conditions in order to operate in the US



We need to get rid of insurance companies because they are mere money-grubbers-changers.


Well, that won't happen with Obama's grand plan to force us to buy insurance from those money-grubbers-changers...


Apr 5, 2012 -- 1:36AM, nnsecu wrote:


FYI there are legal ways around Med B, mortgage ins, or auto ins that do not require a government enforced penalty so they can not in any way be compared to the healthcare law that does not offer the same option.




The only "legal" way around Medicare B...is to never need it; other wise you are penalized if you didn't get it at age 65.


In this country the goal is to care about all the people all the time (not just the rich and the poor).


If any changes should be made to: the Obamacares Health Plan...imo, it would be to add: no hassle interstate doctor and hospital visits (just in case a person falls ill while visiting another State). 


 


 




 





"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:31AM #12
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:08PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 9:58PM, Bodean wrote:


It's all wishful thinking Voice .... all wishful thinking.


The Justices have the responsibility to uphold the constitutionality of any law passed by congress.


They are doing their job. .. even if Obama doesn't like it.




I want them to do their job.


I figure...if I can read the constitution and not see
a violation...I wonder what they are looking at!!!





If you can read the constittuion and not see a violation .. then you are "reading" the constitution but, not really reading it.


You are looking for loopholes through which this might pass muster, but omitting the parts that oppose it.


Like I said in another thread, there was a legal way to pass Obamacare and it fall within the constitution .... that is, as a tax funded national initiative like S.S. or Medicare, where your "premiums" are taken out of your check as a TAX, and the program was funded like Medicare and S.S.


But .. the Democrats weren't going to go there .. because then it would "appear" as what it really is. ... Universal Health.  America opposes Universal Health .. aka Canada Style.  The democrats would have been slaughtered in the upcomming elections for opposing the wll of the people.  They also would have broke their promise of no new taxes on people making under $250K.


As a fiscal conservative ... I'm glad they didn't go the S.S/Medicare route.  Those programs are slated to bankrupt the nation.  Their funding mechansim is failing.  Other post industrial nations are seeing their own systems fail, and have been for a long time ... and interestingly, are moving more towards what we have.  Canada's "private system" is expanding rapidly, because the public system is insufficient.  GB's system is a dismal failure .. and they are looking for solutions as well.  Greece ... well .. they've already died a financial death, primarily because of their EU style entitlement system.


Obamacare, as passed was designed to be thrown out based on the Courts.  The "Uniter" put in place a perfect ploy to "divide", stoking the fires of class warfare.  This whole thing was meant to test the waters for full blown, leftists style, single payer, government run, univeral heatlh.


They got their answer.  America is not ready for it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 10:03AM #13
voice-crying
Posts: 7,548

We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 10:51AM #14
drawout
Posts: 5,943

Sorry Bo but the polls disagre with this oft stated Lie. Americans have wanted a universal healthcare system for decades. The corporate propaganda has tried to convince them otherwise. But most understand that European universal healthcare costs half as much  as our system.


abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/health...
"In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000."


themoderatevoice.com/36314/poll-shows-mo...

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll...



www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01...



october2011.org/standwiththemajority

www.medicareforall.org/pages/Chart_of_Am...

news.yahoo.com/americans-want-universal-...


I could do this all day and not run out of polls

'When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.' - Mark Twain
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 12:19PM #15
nnsecu
Posts: 2,334

Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.






One of the major challenges Obama and his idiot followers had, was saying that it was a tax and under the Anti-Injunction Act could not be challenged until 2014 when it went into effect.



So its only a tax if it can delay the court ruling to knock it down and its not a tax if the court could rule that tax unconstitutional? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 4:09PM #16
voice-crying
Posts: 7,548

Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:19PM, nnsecu wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.






One of the major challenges Obama and his idiot followers had, was saying that it was a tax and under the Anti-Injunction Act could not be challenged until 2014 when it went into effect.



So its only a tax if it can delay the court ruling to knock it down and its not a tax if the court could rule that tax unconstitutional? 




Ok...I've got to read all of these [poll] sites, drawout listed. But, in the mean time, do you think that someone is trying to pretend that the President said that the individual mandate is a tax? Why would anyone do that? They are perpetrating a great big whammy!!!

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 4:57PM #17
Girlchristian
Posts: 13,685

Apr 5, 2012 -- 4:09PM, voice-crying wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 12:19PM, nnsecu wrote:


Apr 5, 2012 -- 10:03AM, voice-crying wrote:


We know that if the Mandate were a TAX it would be unconstitutional...and that is why it is not a TAX it is a PENALTY.






One of the major challenges Obama and his idiot followers had, was saying that it was a tax and under the Anti-Injunction Act could not be challenged until 2014 when it went into effect.



So its only a tax if it can delay the court ruling to knock it down and its not a tax if the court could rule that tax unconstitutional? 




Ok...I've got to read all of these [poll] sites, drawout listed. But, in the mean time, do you think that someone is trying to pretend that the President said that the individual mandate is a tax? Why would anyone do that? They are perpetrating a great big whammy!!!





From the NYTimes, www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy....


When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insuranceor pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”


And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.


Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.


In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.


Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.


While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.


“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”


The problem Obama is now having is that he's denied that the mandate is a tax, because he knew he wouldn't have the same support for it AND it would break his campaign promise, but the only way this mandate is constitutional is if it's a tax (like Medicare, SS, payroll tax) so it wasn't a tax when he needed support for it, but is now a tax when he needs it to pass constitutional muster.


Now, to add to this drama, news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/201....


In response to questions from lawmakers, acting White House budget director Jeff Zients testified to Congress in March the individual mandate fine in President Obama’s health care law is not a tax, an admission which contradicted the claims the administration made before the U.S. Supreme Court.


According to Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner, this is a sign the argument the Department of Justice is making before the Supreme Court is purely a delaying tactic designed to prevent the Court from hearing the case until the mandate is enforced in 2014.


What the administration is trying to do is now claim it's a tax, because if it is, then it can't be challenged until it goes into effect in 2014 and the Supreme Court won't be able to rule until it's challenged in 2014.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 5:36PM #18
catboxer
Posts: 14,069

Yes, the court has the power to stike down unconstitutional laws. But their behavior in this case shows that five of the current justices are attempting to usurp the powers rightfully held by Congress.


Over the decades, Supreme Court justices themselves have said the courts should overrule the work of Congress only on rare occasions. “Conclusory second-guessing of difficult legislative decisions,” said Republican and conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, “is not an attractive way for federal courts to engage in judicial review.”


Now the court majority is making a big brouhaha about how "unprecedented" all this government participation in health policy is, because they care. The question is, who or what do they care about? Not us. As usual, the well-being of giant and wealthy corporations is their main concern.


Roberts asked, “If you’re an insurance company and you don’t believe that you can give the coverage in the way Congress mandated it without the individual mandate, what type of action do you bring in a court?” Scalia: “That’s going to bankrupt the insurance companies if not the states.” Alito: “What is the difference between guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions on the one hand and other provisions that increase costs substantially for insurance companies?” Kennedy: “We would be exercising the judicial power if one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended.” Majority silent partner Clarence Thomas said "......................................," meaning, "I'm with you guys."


We can all sleep better now, knowing that our Supreme Court is watching out for somebody's interests, if not ours. I'm touched by the deep solicitude they feel for our long-suffering, oft-victimized corporations. Thank God they're making sure no big bad Obama-man is going to injure or scare them in any way.


You know, What Ever. We'll get single payer yet.

www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/0...

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 8:57PM #19
voice-crying
Posts: 7,548

Apr 5, 2012 -- 5:36PM, catboxer wrote:


Yes, the court has the power to stike down unconstitutional laws. But their behavior in this case shows that five of the current justices are attempting to usurp the powers rightfully held by Congress.


Over the decades, Supreme Court justices themselves have said the courts should overrule the work of Congress only on rare occasions. “Conclusory second-guessing of difficult legislative decisions,” said Republican and conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, “is not an attractive way for federal courts to engage in judicial review.”


Now the court majority is making a big brouhaha about how "unprecedented" all this government participation in health policy is, because they care. The question is, who or what do they care about? Not us. As usual, the well-being of giant and wealthy corporations is their main concern.


Roberts asked, “If you’re an insurance company and you don’t believe that you can give the coverage in the way Congress mandated it without the individual mandate, what type of action do you bring in a court?” Scalia: “That’s going to bankrupt the insurance companies if not the states.” Alito: “What is the difference between guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions on the one hand and other provisions that increase costs substantially for insurance companies?” Kennedy: “We would be exercising the judicial power if one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended.” Majority silent partner Clarence Thomas said "......................................," meaning, "I'm with you guys."


We can all sleep better now, knowing that our Supreme Court is watching out for somebody's interests, if not ours. I'm touched by the deep solicitude they feel for our long-suffering, oft-victimized corporations. Thank God they're making sure no big bad Obama-man is going to injure or scare them in any way.


You know, What Ever. We'll get single payer yet.

www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/0...




WOW!!!


And this is very good also: www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/04/0...


Thank You!!!

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 05, 2012 - 9:06PM #20
catboxer
Posts: 14,069

Yes that's my source article. That's why I posted the link.


I pulled a lot of quoted material from it -- the Rehnquist, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy quotes.


I mixed them with my own words and paraphrased some of what Jeffrey Toobin said.


I should have mentioned his name, but provided the link like I usually do.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook