Uncle Punk Posted March 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Here's a thought that can't comfort President Barack Obama: The fate of his health care overhaul rests with four Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices.http://news.yahoo.com/4-republican-justices-control-fate-health-law-115552374.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Another reason this election is so important. Look at our supreme court a fewof them already look like the crypt keeper. There will be some nominations to the supreme court coming soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I'm sick of all this military spending... wait if we elect either of the republican candidates it will just get worse... guess i'm stuck with obama.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted March 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 I hate the remaining viable candidates and if it weren't for the Supreme Court I would abstain from voting for a president. This debate about healthcare is going to get a lot of coverage next week when arguments are made. June is going to be very interesting when the verdict comes out. I’m still on 5-4 against but doubt it will be an overhaul of the bill until after the election cycle in November and all of the new offices are sitting. Unforeseen twists or turns can happen but I doubt the bill gets thrown out totally even though it is an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Kellor was 5-4 also. To me that is just to close of a decision... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted June 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 This is going to be a very busy news day.http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/anticipating-the-health-care-decision-in-plain-english/#more-147840 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Breaking... ACA is upheld.The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 and it stands...I've evolved my position on this...I'm still not so excited about the individual mandate, but even with it in there, I'm glad the law stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 IMO, this is a dangerous precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 IMO, this is a dangerous precedent.The individual mandate, or the ACA itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 IMO, this is a dangerous precedent.IDK, it was upheld as a "tax" with a waiver for those who carry heath insurance... it was written as a "fine"...I can see how they upheld it, but it should have been written better.edit:The individual mandate, or the ACA itself?I guess i should have asked for clarification as well, but I'm assuming he meant the mandate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted June 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Wow, very, very disappointed in this outcome. Hopefully the republicans can get a super majority in place to repeal the law all together. This is another nail in the coffin of the debt that is not sustainable by government and it accelerates the spiral to harsh decisions that will forever change the countries future. I'm not sure I will recognize this country in twenty years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/dont-call-it-a-mandate-its-a-tax/ Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form. Since President Obama signed the new law, it has been understood by almost everyone that the expansion of health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans without it could work — economically — only if the health insurance companies were guaranteed a large pool of customers. The mandate to buy health insurance by 2014 was the method Congress chose to supply that pool. It is not immediately clear whether the Court’s approach will produce as large a pool of new customers. The ACA’s key provision now amounts to an invitation to buy insurance, rather than an order to do so, with a not-very-big tax penalty for going without. The decision to keep at least some foundation under the expanded coverage will lead almost certainly to renewed efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal all or most of the new law. And, of course, the Court’s decision is guaranteed to become a very prominent fixture of debate in this year’s continuing presidential and congressional elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 See I've heard speculation in both directions...Some think the fact that it was upheld entirely would slow down or quiet the republicans' "repeal it now" chant, others seem to think they will get louder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 The individual mandate, or the ACA itself?The mandate. Specifically, federally imposed financial penalties for not purchasing a consumer product.Now that the Supreme Court has set this precedent will it appear in other legislation? I see this as dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Wow, very, very disappointed in this outcome. Hopefully the republicans can get a super majority in place to repeal the law all together.This is another nail in the coffin of the debt that is not sustainable by government and it accelerates the spiral to harsh decisions that will forever change the countries future. I'm not sure I will recognize this country in twenty years.Not just related to this outcome...or the Obama administration...I would also include legislation like the Patriot act......Our government is looking more and more like the one our Founding Fathers found intolerable about 237 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 There is no mandate.It's a tax. See above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 There is no mandate.It's a tax. See above.The decision leaves in place the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement on Americans to have or buy health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a penalty -- although many are exempt from that provision.In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So, all opposed can decide to pay the tax.We'd be having a different discussion if none of us ever used any portion of the health care system we have in this country, but the fact is most if not all persons are involved in the system at some point in their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So, all opposed can decide to pay the tax.No, they can't decide anything, it's been mandated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) No, they can't decide anything, it's been mandated.they absolutely can... just as you can decide to speed, you can decide to go without health coverage... If you're discovered, you will pay a nominal penalty....or alternately...you are charged this "health coverage flat tax"... should you prove that you have health coverage, that amount will be returned to you in the form of a tax credit.as worded by the deciding justice"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income." A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe explains the reasoning further. "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax." Edited June 28, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) they absolutely can... just as you can decide to speed, you can decide to go without health coverage... If you're discovered, you will pay a nominal penalty....or alternately...you are charged this "health coverage flat tax"... should you prove that you have health coverage, that amount will be returned to you in the form of a tax credit.as worded by the deciding justiceYour analolgy doesn't fit. I can choose not to buy gas, pay the gas tax, or buy auto insurance. I can walk or ride a bicycle, stay home, etc.In the case of APA, I am being taxed for NOT buying a consumer product.You can call it a tax or a fine or a penalty or a kick in the balls. Either way it's money leaving your pocket because you didn't buy a consumer product. Edited June 28, 2012 by Tpoppa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted June 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So, all opposed can decide to pay the tax.We'd be having a different discussion if none of us ever used any portion of the health care system we have in this country, but the fact is most if not all persons are involved in the system at some point in their lives.And so the debates begin again. The court ruled that it is a tax and within the government’s authority, they didn't decide if it was a good law or not. I don't see where you are going with "everyone will be involved in the system at some point". That doesn't mean the government should be involved in every business we all get involved with, I can't get my mind around the leap it takes to find it okay for the government to decide the businesses I use. Their involvement only means that the cost is driven up such as is already is now by making the businesses give away free services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Your analolgy doesn't fit. the speeding ticket one may not apply to you, but the second part absolutely fits..."health insurance flat tax" pay up... if you have health insurance, you get a tax credit or a waiver for this new flat tax.I like the way this was upheld, because it paves the way for other waivers...for example, a bunch of my money leaves my paycheck every 2 weeks in the form of "social security" if the precedent stands, perhaps I could get a waiver for proving I have my own retirement plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tpoppa Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 for example, a bunch of my money leaves my paycheck every 2 weeks in the form of "social security" if the precedent stands, perhaps I could get a waiver for proving I have my own retirement plan.You're kidding right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.