Justice Roberts: Genius!

[pettyfog]

Wonder how long it will take for the Left to catch on to the big picture...
http://pettyfog.blogspot.com/2012/06/ge ... berts.html
heh...

[Clevelandmo]

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

[HatterDon]

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. 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.

[pettyfog]

Mo, like you I cant easily find a comprehensive short digest on it. Not that I've looked too hard.. too much bs (on both sides) I dont agree with.
But here's what the Georgetown Law Prof who wrote the baseline case says:
Randy Barnett says Roberts’ tax power argument is “lame” but “easily fixed”
Then please come back to read my blather

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.

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.

Essentially, Obama didn't believe it was a tax and Roberts did.

Wrong. Obama and cie knew all along it was a tax. Otherwise they wouldnt have brought it up in court arguments in the first place. When do you ever see a judgement panel entering argument FOR the defense? Certainly not in an appeals court.
We can go into the dependency creating effect of the tax to force single payer at another time.

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.

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.

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.

Notice that Leftists always point to what it SAYS it will provide and distract you from HOW it will do that. It's easy to invoke 'Pre-existing' and lots of the other problems with the current system but they never point to the fact it creates dependencies on Government in the fashion of Medicare and Soc Security which no one in their right mind will try to take away?
I wonder if these people can EVER be honest? Let me bring up what Palin said about 'Death Panels', for example. Care to comment on that Don? How about you go on record, I will .. There WILL be 'Death Panels' limiting the care and expense expended on the aged and infirm. There are now in our current system, and the UK's NHS has that and an ongoing series of scandals relating to that. And there will be in whatever we end up with. The difference should be in where the decisions are made.

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.

Oh, looky... Don invoking the 'I'm leaving' retort. Where did you first hear that.. answer: the second Wednesday of Nov 2004. Who said it? Guess! But, like Don, I say go on ahead! Except I WANTED the NE Blue, Chicago Duchy and West Coast states to Secede.

Trouble is I dont know Rush said that.. I would think I'd run across it. Maybe Don read that on Media Matters or some other Soros outlet.

Universal Health Care is something else than what this case was REALLY about.. it was about:

- Senate taking a House Bill {all bills on/with taxes MUST start in House, for good reason} about Military Benefits and compensation, gutting it, adding 2700 pages of incomprehensible unreadable draconian crap and penalties.. that NO ONE can read.. {Pelosi: We'll have to pass it before we find what's in it"}
- The unbridled abuse of Commerce Clause to bludgeon states into doing whatever the Fed decrees.

- Government saying one thing and acting on another. sorta like any tin horn authoritarian government who believes the electorate is stupid, does . I believe there's already a thread on that, here.

- AGAIN.. I am amazed that even some Law Profs who you have to lump into 'Constitutionalist' camp DONT get this decision.

Background: USSC is loath to 'make' law out of decisions. Every time that happens there are consequences after that continue to be thorny.
Dred Scott
Many FDR era decisions
Roe v Wade
Kelo vs New London.. which BTW was so egregious a land grab, typical lame brain Lefties blamed the conservative side of the Court for it.

But here's what my favorite 'hot chick' Law Prof' at UW-Madison has to say on it:
I'm just another lawprof, but I think the Commerce Clause decision matters a lot. Yes, Congress can work around its limit by tapping the taxing power, but it's not politically easy to tax.
- She links to Paul Mirengoff at PowerlineBlog who doesnt think it matters much. What can I say.. he's a Liverpool fan!
I dont think the anti-commerce effect is absolute but it DOES chink away at it.

[HatterDon]

When you're finished hyperventilating there, Chico, please deal with the Attorneys General comment DIRECTLY. Very early on in the litigation process, the point was made by one of those TV lawyer-whores that, if the Court decided the mandate was a tax, what could happen is what DID happen on Thursday. This was out there before Texas and several other states joined the lawsuit [or filed their own suits].

If they DIDN'T agree that the mandate was not a tax, why would they have wasted all those state funds to litigate a matter in which they were bound to lose -- especially since most of those states had pared their budgets down to the bone? Obviously, they agreed with the president that it WASN'T a tax. Otherwise, they would just be using taxpayer money to pander to the Tea Party folks.

Wrong. Obama and cie knew all along it was a tax.

Wait! Wait! I know this one! Just like gun control, the very fact that Obama has said or done nothing absolutely PROVES that he did/he's going to. You guys are so cute with this.

By the way, I didn't have a personal stake in this until the band played a fund-raiser for a "young people with cancer" outfit. It was only then that I discovered that children who were diagnosed with cancer were routinely being denied insurance as adults because their disease was a "pre-existing condition." I have a friend who has managed to reach 50+ years of living after being born with SMA because she was lucky enough to have been born to a military career enlisted man and -- thus -- covered by "government-run health care." Recently, my sister and law moved from California to Texas. She and her husband are both in ill health. Should anything NEW hit them, they'll be uninsured.

About Rush, my favorite comment by him was, "Well, with student loan repayments extended and people being allowed to stay on their parent's health insurance four years longer, there's even less reason for these lazy punks to go out and get a job." I LOVE compassionate conservatives.

About St. Sarah and her "death panels." 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.

Finally, my friend, I understand why the multi-billionaires don't want tax money spent for public schools, unemployment insurance, teacher salaries, infrastructure, and universal medical care. I understand that it is a simple case of "It doesn't directly benefit me so I'm against it." I also understand their hatred of and desire to punish those folks who stand in their way of eliminating the national government's responsibility to "promote the general welfare" of "We the people of the United States of America." Further, I sort of understand their need to defray all negative aspects of their greed-head nature by blaming the results of their financial manipulation on black people, teachers, and members of govenment unions. I get their motivation. What I DON'T get is why so many working class people are so eager to rush to the aid of people who do not give a crap whether they live or die.

It is a continuing puzzlement to me.

Over to you Vidkund.

[AggieMatt]

Deleted after I re-read Fog's ramble.

[VegasJustin]

He didn't want to call it a tax, but I believe that was their third argument, the first being that it constitutional under commerce and I forget their second argument. Petty is right here.

Now, pardon me as I go wash myself after saying that.

[pettyfog]

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."
Winston Churchill
Rebut THAT Don.

[AggieMatt]

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.

[pettyfog]

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.

[HatterDon]

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."
Winston Churchill
Rebut THAT Don.

1. I was talking about the STATE Attorneys General [please note the plural in the PROPER place] who were the ones who filed/joined lawsuits to declare the law unconstitutional. It was not deflecting the argument; it was talking about the subject of our discussion. It was you ... and not the fat old Texan ... who brought up F&F to deflect the argument. That's something for another rant-thread that you can start.

2. That quote predates Churchill -- I'm pretty sure that you'll find that it was Old Ben Franklin who said that. Didn't even get the right century or country on that one, Fog.

[AggieMatt]

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.

There is no magic fix. You assume a physician will be overworked and underpaid and his determination will take the path of least resistance. Even if we grant that your presumption is correct (and I think it's more likely the exception than the rule), I see that as more preferable to insurance company employees, predisposed to their employers bottom line (read, keeping their job), condemning patients to the same fate. You quoted Palin saying as much and that we'll have death panels (in some form or fashion) regardless of what solution we come up with. I agree with her on that. Now I have to go wash myself.

[pettyfog]

Don, mea culpa! I jumped before I looked.

But.. whether State or Fed, you have to address motive and purpose. You've previously intimated some preference for state rights. The reason for that is it leaves open the ability to fight or flee and still remain 'American'. Which was also touched on here. Under Autonomous Fed, the only recourse is to emigrate.
Related irony: Slate: Do Canadians Ever Threaten to Move to the US?

Not really. They just move here.

Matt, I want to bring up a very basic precept: The supposition by Liberals and the Left {and apparently Don} that administration by central bureaucracy is preferable to adminstration by corporate entity:

- Who do you think will be providing this administration? My thoughts are they will be roughly the same as now in the private sector. Perhaps you can make a case disproving that and provide cases where employee altruism shines through.
- What is the mechanism for the check and balances needed to prevent or remedy corruption on their part? As of the moment it is somewhat a 'free market' mechanism where there are two forces: enrollee feedback and corporate competition.
Do you assume the press will shine the lights? Or do you subscribe to Maoist 'self-criticism' circles?

But the basic point being that the government is able to control and manage every aspect of its citizen's lives, on threat of withdrawing those entitlements and services from individual or entity.

Here's an excerpt from the opinion covering my main point:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/HC%20PDF.pdf

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.

This is where the silly 'broccoli' argument came in - Broccoli is good for you, it is healthy thus you must eat Broccoli.
Before you say 'That couldn't happen'.. I suggest you look at Corn Ethanol and the crony capitalism that exists in THAT Commerce Clause EPA mandate.

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.
(b)
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
U.
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.

[AggieMatt]

There isn't enough room on this board to go into all of that. In short, I believe the government will act in their interests and the private sector will act in their's most of the time. I believe their interests will be aligned much more often than mine will be aligned with either of them. As a result, I accept that I have very little control and don't trust either of them. I realize both sides have checks and balances but I also believe both are equally corrupt and able to maneuver around those for the most part. I also believe that the government exists, today, to serve the private sector. I don't think the framers had that in mind to this extent when we started out on this path, but it's been an evolutionary process to that point and it was reached long ago. I'm not a total cynic though, I do believe there is a human element present in both sides and at times that element will cause them to act w/o regard to profit or elect-ability.

In the example given, if forced to choose who I trust more between an insurance company where I'm a nameless, faceless source of revenue vs having an assigned physician who provides my care face-to-face who can intervene on my behalf with govt provided healthcare/insurance, I side with the government. Obviously there are benefits and consequences with anything. Obviously one example may yield a different result than another. But you brought up death panels, something with which I have intimate experience, and w/o going into any more detail than that on a public message board, and based on my personal experience, that's my answer. I'm just as likely to answer private sector on another example. And that's the point, I don't think it's all one way or the other. Just like I don't think we should view ourselves through a political lens.