The Liberal Gun Club Forum

CSPAN reports that the act has been mostly upheld. The details are still being worked out by reporters.

The individual mandate survives as a tax.

heard that the mandate was the only thing that was struck down this morning, that made me happy. It sounded too good to be true as the most un corporate friendly option..... apparently i was wrong.

Warning flag: Mandate as a tax?! possible legal precedent for the government to control what you buy?

The devil is in the details. I do not have the opinion in front of me and have to rely on folks who do have the opinion so I'm getting bits and pieces.

Let's rephrase this: the court has said that the government may penalize those who do not buy insurance for themselves. The penalty is a tax.

One great thing is that the majority of the SCOTUS justices hold that the Commerce Clause does not give power to the government to impose the mandate. This is absolutely great.

At the end of the day, however, taxation powers is the only thing necessary to maintain the mandate. So... it survives.

This is a good day. Roberts showed some balls and stood up for the other branches of government. He is the Severus Snape of the supreme court.

WOOOOOOOOOO!

gendoikari87 wrote:Warning flag: Mandate as a tax?! possible legal precedent for the government to control what you buy?

That's nothing new. Tax credit for replacing an old heater with an energy efficient heater is the first example that comes to mind. Tax credit for interest on a home loan, tax credits and subsidies for renewable fuels, Alcohol tax, tobacco tax; the list goes on and on and on.

'Cash for Clunkers' comes to mind as well.

Positive incentives work far better than negative penalties, especially when its something that ends up saving the government as well as the taxpayer some money.

Alcohol tax is the most egregious you aks me. Likker should be free.

A brief outline of the logic, re the mandate:

1. Neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper clause give the government the power to enact the mandate.

2. If an act can be interpreted in a way that violates the constitution but it can also be interpreted in a way which is constitutional, then the 2nd interpretation is the one by which the court will base its decision. (Roberts lists previous cases and opinions on this. It is not new reasoning created just for this opinion.)

3. It so happens that the taxation powers give the government the power needed to impose a penalty. This is the constitutional way to read the act so by 2 above this should be the way the act is interpreted. The plaintiffs point out that the "penalty" was not presented as a tax to congress but it does not matter. Robert makes a case for why the absence of the "tax" label should not be determinant.

BTW, the PDF of the opinions contains 193 pages.

Cabrito wrote:Alcohol tax is the most egregious you aks me. Likker should be free.

I agree why should the only free booze be dandylion wine and home brewed beer cloudy with yeast wads, TO ARMS!!!!

lemur wrote:BTW, the PDF of the opinions contains 193 pages.

Anybody ever wonder what gets snuck into these bills and reports that are obscenely long, i mean who's going to read a 2,000 page bill or a 10,000 page expenditure authorization word for word? I mean they probably don't stick anything in there that's of any consequence but still it's something to think about.

gendoikari87 wrote:

lemur wrote:BTW, the PDF of the opinions contains 193 pages.

Anybody ever wonder what gets snuck into these bills and reports that are obscenely long, i mean who's going to read a 2,000 page bill or a 10,000 page expenditure authorization word for word? I mean they probably don't stick anything in there that's of any consequence but still it's something to think about.

Yeah, on page 82 there's an obscene drawing.

lemur wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

lemur wrote:BTW, the PDF of the opinions contains 193 pages.

Anybody ever wonder what gets snuck into these bills and reports that are obscenely long, i mean who's going to read a 2,000 page bill or a 10,000 page expenditure authorization word for word? I mean they probably don't stick anything in there that's of any consequence but still it's something to think about.

Yeah, on page 82 there's an obscene drawing.

that would not surprise me in the least. After all, I'd be tempted to do it as well. though if it was law, i'd probably draw a stick figure bashing his head against the wall.

My primary benefit is the laughs I get from reading the barely legible comments section of articles about this topic written by teabaggers.
" dam gubmint making me pay for inshurince! welkum to rusha under sochulist obuma!"

gendoikari87 wrote:heard that the mandate was the only thing that was struck down this morning, that made me happy. It sounded too good to be true as the most un corporate friendly option..... apparently i was wrong.

Warning flag: Mandate as a tax?! possible legal precedent for the government to control what you buy?

Try to buy a car without a converter.

I am glad that this act survived, even though single payer would be better.

I am absolutely ecstatic that the court found that the Commerce Clause does not give government power to regulate non-action. That would be an absurd reading of the constitution. (And yet, the Commerce Clause was the primary battle horse of the Obama team. ) Ditto for Necessary and Proper.

I must admit I thought it would also fail under the taxation powers argument due to the way the act framed the mandate, but Roberts makes a good argument as to why labels "penalty" vs "tax" should not matter. So, ok presented with a compelling argument, I am persuaded. As Roberts points out, taxing person A more because they do not do something person B does is nothing new.

All I have to say is congratulations to President Obama, and the people that worked so hard on this step forward for the poor and middle class ! And to the teabaggers

Conservative ideas. If we had a true National health care, the insurance company's would all go belly up, and their stockholders wouldn't be happy.

So pro-business DINO presides over this clusterfuck of a mandated health care which will be applied unequally.

I guess I should buy stock in the health insurance INDUSTRY. Looks like a good bet.

Now there will be no reason to try for single payer. There will be no reason to enroll ALL US citizens in Medicare.

Business Uber Alles

This is how the stock market is reacting:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherp ... -you-know/

Stocks are reacting very much as analysts predicted in the event that the law was upheld. Hospital stocks such as HCA (up 8%) and LifePoint (up 4%) are rising because the law is likely to result in increases in volume for their businesses without added costs. Insurers such as Wellpoint and Cigna (down 4% and 5% respectively) are dropping because the law is likely to crimp their profit margins.

GuitarsandGuns wrote: Now there will be no reason to try for single payer. There will be no reason to enroll ALL US citizens in Medicare.
Business Uber Alles

Which was the whole point of the thing anyway.
Even the ubercapitalist state of Signapore has a public healthcare option.

Ok, so at my income level, my guess is that I'll be paying the "tax" because I'm probably just outside of the envelope for assistance, yet there's NO WAY that I can afford several extra thousands/yr, if not quarterly. So rather than benefiting from insurance, I've likely just incurred an extra $800 in penalties/taxes each year. I'm pissed! If this is now going to be the law, we really need to fucking regulate the insurance industry. There needs to be standard rates, with maximum fees assessed per year.

If the public in general is happy with the result the gop can claim it as theirs, it was the gop alternative for the clinton plan. The mandate belongs to newt gingrich. I still agree with Cabrito, they should stop taxing booze.

Fyi, I was really hoping that the individual mandate had been struck down so we could implement single payer. Fuck the insurance industry... They ARE the reason that we have the most expensive, yet (on the whole) least effective medical system of any modern western society.

The look on Backmans face? Priceless!

Against my better judgment I decided to take a peek at how this is being discussed on a right-wing forum I know...

Holy cow, the insanity!

"Who put the screws on Roberts? "

"Roberts is crazy! He is a traitor!! "

"If Roberts is crazy, he's crazy as a fox! He's just given Romney what he needs to defeat Obama! "

"This will go down as the day the Republic died!"