Clevelandmo wrote:Does anyone have a good link to an article that explains Roberts' opinion? The few articles I saw are just a bunch of poorly written mumbo jumbo discussing the reaction to the decision
Dont you mean that Interstate Commerce is not an acceptable use of power to enforce the mandate? May look like a quibble but there's a difference.HatterDon wrote:Clevelandmo wrote:Does anyone have a good link to an article that explains Roberts' opinion? The few articles I saw are just a bunch of poorly written mumbo jumbo discussing the reaction to the decision
essentially, he decided that the mandate was a tax and, as a tax it cannot be challenged until after it's gone into effect -- 2014, I believe. He also said that the mandate was not an acceptable use of government power to regulate interstate commerce.
Essentially, Obama didn't believe it was a tax and Roberts did.
I dont think you have even read about it, Don. And way to invoke the distraction of teachers pay. MANY already make more than they should for what they do. There, I said it.Interestingly, the right-wing media and all the Attorneys General who sued to get the law to the supreme court didn't think it was a tax either. If they had, they would have realized that it was a fruitless exercize and a huge waste of scarce taxpayer money to lodge the case in the first place. And, as strong supporters of reduced government spending and strong opponents of wasting taxpayer money they would have spent that money on ... oh, I don't know ... roads or teachers salaries.
The ruling means that the only the way the law goes away is if Congress writes a law repealing it, passes it and has it signed by the president. It's going to be difficult doing it, since it'll mean the repeal of health care to a large segment of the population -- people with cancer who were diagnosed with it while they were under their parents' health care program, etc.
Interestingly, while standing in front of a banner that read, "Repeal and Replace Obamacare," Mitt Romney laid out what he believed should replace Obamacare -- namely everything that the law currently has going for it. Evidently the only real problem that he has with the program is the president's name being attached to it -- something he and every other presidential candidate and right-wing news organization has been attaching to it for 3 years.
Of course, all of this is election year politics, and it's fair game. Bottom line: the system worked and some people are upset that it did. If they, like Rush Limbaugh, leave the country in disgust to live in Costa Rica, when they get there they'll be covered by universal health care.
Wrong. Obama and cie knew all along it was a tax.
AggieMatt wrote:Deleted after I re-read Fog's ramble.
AggieMatt wrote:Ah, but you did bite....and it turned into a ramble. No need to defend your writing, that pretty much always happens when you two get together in political discussions. But then I reckon that's the sport in it for you both.
The "once you've reached your limit in health insurance disbursements, a panel will be convened to determine the efficacy of continuing treatment" provision was from President Bush's Medicare Drug program. The difference that is made in the Affordable Care Act, is that the PATIENT gets an input into the decision made by A DOCTOR. Under Bush's program, the insurance companies make that decision.
pettyfog wrote:AggieMatt wrote:Deleted after I re-read Fog's ramble.
Maybe I should have hi-lited it. It wasnt a ramble, it was straight-away an opinion. the reason many dont like how I write is that they dont like my idea of common sense. It bothers their sense of fairness.
Note how many words Don just typed in rebuttal of what I said was a problem with the current system.. IOW he rebutted my agreement with his earlier point.
- Speaking of.. I said before and will say it again.. I quit listening to Rush for about 5 years in the late nineties after he compared NYC for profit hospital bottom lines with county hosptitals, so if you dont think I get it, I do.
Apparently it does not matter HOW you fix a problem, just that it's fixed. To hell with the economics of it.. or the powers conferred on central authority by the fix.
And once more.. I attempt to stay ON-Track, Don responds "Hey, Look.. Over there". And brings up the Fast and Furious Scandal even if he didnt want to.. almost like a straight-man.
I aint biting. Just NEVER use our Atty General as a reference for anything but laughter and example of abuse of powers.
Now stay on track and stop opening up herring cans!
"Those who give up liberty in exchange for security end up with neither."
Rebut THAT Don.
pettyfog wrote:AggieMatt wrote:Ah, but you did bite....and it turned into a ramble. No need to defend your writing, that pretty much always happens when you two get together in political discussions. But then I reckon that's the sport in it for you both.
Okay.. suppose I address Don's near on topic comment on 'Death Panel':The "once you've reached your limit in health insurance disbursements, a panel will be convened to determine the efficacy of continuing treatment" provision was from President Bush's Medicare Drug program. The difference that is made in the Affordable Care Act, is that the PATIENT gets an input into the decision made by A DOCTOR. Under Bush's program, the insurance companies make that decision.
Which is sorta disingenuous:
That is precisely the source of the NHS 'consigned to the death bed' scandals. Operating under the central NHS guidelines, the referred physician determines, after listening to patient and family caregivers, whether or not to extend palliative treatment or engage treatment for the complaint.
Being overworked and underpaid, it's way easy to just sign off him off to hospice and move on to the next case. One thing to hear the family/patient. Another SUBJECTIVE to act on their arguments.
And 'what Bush did' is besides the point. We're talking about the 'magic fix' here.
Not really. They just move here.
This is where the silly 'broccoli' argument came in - Broccoli is good for you, it is healthy thus you must eat Broccoli.Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.
The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.
Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560
S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27–30.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests