What Is The Republican Alternative To ObamaCare

[Redfish]

[MENTION=42379]Redfish[/MENTION]

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

That is why the founding fathers and the framers (who won the arguments of the day) had so much contempt for the majority. Think they referred to it as a mob.

So you favor minority rule?????????? WTF are you trying to say?

Nope. Like Madison and Hamilton, this liberal favors representative democracy over direct democracy any day. Majority rule is inevitable in any democracy. What can be corrected for is excesses and other flaws built into any democratic model

We have a representative democracy, we have the bill of rights, the constitution protects minorities from discrimination. But be truthful, thats not what you want.

You liberals think that you know how we all should live and want the government to dictate your ideas on the rest of us. Admit it, and then we can continue with a meaninful debate.'

your continued disengenuousness destroys your credibility.

You want a liberal minority to control the country, you want a dictatorship by a small group of liberal elites. Admit who and what you are.

 

[Redfish]

Slavery was once the law of the land, also.
Whether the left wing fringe wants to admit it or not, this bill is not going to serve the purpose it was established for. The packaging and selling was based on lies to get enough democrat votes to get it passed. It's not going to be funded fully and there will be new taxes and huge premium increases to fund the bill.

Once again it proves that our president was not ready for primetime

The "purpose it was established for"?

Ahem: "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay." - The Affordable Care Act Cases | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

How so?

note: Agree with not ready for prime time during first term.

Tell Dante that the bill would have never passed if the stipulations were known before the vote....period.
What was stated was you can keep your dr.
You can keep your healthcare.
You'll save an average of 2500 dollars a year.

Not the huge premium hikes to middle income people.
Not the loss of dr.'s and healthcare coverage to millions.

So tell Dante he can spin 'till the cows come home, but the reality is.....now that the stipulations ARE known, the dems are running away from this debacle.

If the truth was known the ACA bill would never have passed. Obama and his minions LIED in order to force socialized medicine on the country. It was never about healthcare or insurance or the uninsured, It was about a socialist takeover of 1/6 of the economy, because liberals believe that they know better than we how we should live. fuck em!

 

[RKMBrown]

Slavery was once the law of the land, also.
Whether the left wing fringe wants to admit it or not, this bill is not going to serve the purpose it was established for. The packaging and selling was based on lies to get enough democrat votes to get it passed. It's not going to be funded fully and there will be new taxes and huge premium increases to fund the bill.

Once again it proves that our president was not ready for primetime

The "purpose it was established for"?

Ahem: "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay." - The Affordable Care Act Cases | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

How so?

note: Agree with not ready for prime time during first term.

Tell Dante that the bill would have never passed if the stipulations were known before the vote....period.
What was stated was you can keep your dr.
You can keep your healthcare.
You'll save an average of 2500 dollars a year.

Not the huge premium hikes to middle income people.
Not the loss of dr.'s and healthcare coverage to millions.

So tell Dante he can spin 'till the cows come home, but the reality is.....

Anyone that actually believed the lies about lowering costs for health care by creating half a dozen new taxes and robbing medicare of 700b and forcing healthy people to buy expensive insurance plans and forcing insurance companies to add people with preexisting conditions, is either fool or an idiot.

Elect a lawyer to run the country... and you get whimsical catch phrases that mean absolutely nothing unless you have a secret democrat decoder ring.

Example:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o16MGTbAmL0]Another Barack Obama WTF Moment - YouTube[/ame]

This is not politics of the moment, this is what we can do right now. ROFL IOW I don't want you to say it that way, I want to to say it this way.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXq1G_GuG8Q]Obama Lies 16 times in under 3 minutes on ObamaCare - YouTube[/ame]

Sorry to say it but I just want to spit on this guy and slap him on the face.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And Republican alternatives are out there. I found this in two seconds.

http://camp.house.gov/uploadedfiles/summary_of_republican_alternative_health_care_plan.pdf

Did you read the document you posted?

I wonder, how they plan to Lower health care premiums? Writing it is easy, do they plan to have the Congress pass price controls and direct private business to lower their fees? Or, provide insurance companies with subsidies, using our tax dollars?

Next, the plan is to Establishing Universal Access Programs to guarantee access to affordable care for those with pre-existing conditions. Well, in what form? Will the government establish such programs and run them, and if so isn't that "Socialism" in the broad sense used today? Or, will they require insurance companies - as in Obamacare - to provide insurance to those with already diagnosed serious illnesses (diabetes, cancer, heart disease) without the subsidies guaranteed by the PPACA?

Ending junk lawsuits. What is one man's junk is another's treasure. Seems to me this is a legal issue to be determined by the judiciary.

Prevents insurers from unjustly canceling a policy or instituting annual or lifetime spending caps.. Why wasn't this passed by the Congress when GWB was President and the Republicans held the H. of Rep. majority and Sen. and Doctor Bill Frist was Senate Majority Leader? That said, isn't this a requirement in Obamacare?

Encouraging Small Business Health Plans, Easy to say, how easy will it be to 'encourage' owners of McDonald's Franchises to come together and provide health care to worker's already the lowest paid in the nation? What is a small business? 50 Employees? Or more or less.

Encouraging innovative state programs. Fine and dandy. How and in what form? What if Democratic Governors simply say F off to the Federal Government simply because the ideas came from the GOP?

Allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. Does the phrase "too big to fail" ring any bells?

Codifying the Hyde Amendment. Oh, goody. Politicize the entire 'plan' with red meat for the crowd who hope to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Promoting healthier lifestyles. LOL, sure, all those who hate Obama and complain about the "nanny state" are going to embrace the ideas of Bloomberg and his war against 64oz sodas.

Enhancing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Have any of you looked at bill after someone, for example, has a serious leg break and needs surgery? Oh, and where will this saving account be stored, in the safe keeping of a Wall Street firm (for a fee no doubt) which may or is too big to fail. Dumb idea. People don't earn enough to save for retirement let alone for an accident or illness which may not occur.

Allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ policies. Gee, what a novel idea. Obamacare already includes this, yet the big change is to lop of one year. And to what effect: it gives the insurance industry another year of premiums from thousands of generally healthy 26 year olds.

This 'plan' is ridiculous.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

Truly amazing

Hey dumb ass when did I say that obamacare was as a tax was unconstitutional? Now you are making shit up.

obamacare as a tax according to the supreme court is constitutional but as a mandate alone is not.

a. So basically you are arguing that if Obama care mandated that we buy insurance it would be unconstitutional, but since it did not mandate that we buy insurance it is constitutional. This of course is your opinion as the SCOTUS did not rule on that, because it does not include said mandate.

b. However, it does include a fine/fee/tax or whatever you want to call that revenue shit the IRS collects from worker's income. Thus your argument amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation, since as we all know it was always a tax. Oddly a tax taken in the form of fine/penalty when you file and only if you have a rebate and did not buy insurance (rumors say). I'll wait to see it the tax forms before I'll believe much on this matter.

a. "The mandate "requires" we buy insurance." comes from a failure of reading and comprehension skills so prevalent in today's society. Here is a quote taken out of context - "The individual mandate was Congress’s solution to these problems. By requiring that individuals purchase health insurance, the mandate prevents cost-shifting by those who would otherwise go without it." - CJ Roberts - The quote are Robert's words, but his words before saying the argument was invalid.

Here too (a), you are falling into rebtard's alternate reality where the mandate is the shared responsibility payment penalty/tax. It is not. The penalty/tax is part of the mandate, the enforcement mechanism.

---

Two arguments were ruled invalid: the mandate under the commerce clause, and the mandate under the necessary and proper clause.

CJ Roberts: "Just as the individual mandate cannot be sustained as a law regulating the substantial effects of the failure to purchase health insurance, neither can it be upheld as a “necessary and proper” component of the insurance reforms. The commerce power thus does not authorize the mandate. Accord, post, at 4–16 (joint opinion of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting)"

"That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl."

---

"The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause
argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a
tax on those who do not buy that product.

The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion). The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance."

"After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C.§5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.

Under the mandate, 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. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, 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 income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648,
657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below..."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Slavery was once the law of the land, also.
Whether the left wing fringe wants to admit it or not, this bill is not going to serve the purpose it was established for. The packaging and selling was based on lies to get enough democrat votes to get it passed. It's not going to be funded fully and there will be new taxes and huge premium increases to fund the bill.

Once again it proves that our president was not ready for primetime

The "purpose it was established for"?

Ahem: "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay." - The Affordable Care Act Cases | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

How so?

note: Agree with not ready for prime time during first term.

Tell Dante that the bill would have never passed if the stipulations were known before the vote....period.
What was stated was you can keep your dr.
You can keep your healthcare.
You'll save an average of 2500 dollars a year.

Not the huge premium hikes to middle income people.
Not the loss of dr.'s and healthcare coverage to millions.

So tell Dante he can spin 'till the cows come home, but the reality is.....now that the stipulations ARE known, the dems are running away from this debacle.

And if pigs could fly...

This is just another Fast and Furious, Birth Certificate, Benghazi bullshit talking point the right has glommed on to.

We will see just how many people will have to pay more. Anecdotal stories are falling apart. We will soon see, as with Romneycare, nobody but wingnuts singing this tune come a year from now.

Websites are easily fixable. Lots of people (tens of millions) will be doing better. Things will even out and wingnut world will be left eating their own yet again, arguing over who is and is not Republican enough, conservative enough, and American enough...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Slavery was once the law of the land, also.
Whether the left wing fringe wants to admit it or not, this bill is not going to serve the purpose it was established for. The packaging and selling was based on lies to get enough democrat votes to get it passed. It's not going to be funded fully and there will be new taxes and huge premium increases to fund the bill.

Once again it proves that our president was not ready for primetime

The "purpose it was established for"?

Ahem: "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay." - The Affordable Care Act Cases | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

How so?

note: Agree with not ready for prime time during first term.

and the millions who are losing their coverage because of obamacare. AHEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Losing or being offered other policies? Did millions of Americans lose policies before Obamacare and get offered shit?

 

[regent]

Perhaps all these arguments boil down to a few questions:

Should all Americans have proper health care?

If so, shall government be responsible to see that all Americans have that proper health care?

If insurance corporations are to be involved in the health care, shall government supervise that corporate health-care responsibility by law?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To democrats, the constitution is a really old piece of paper written by a bunch of republicans that were not in touch with the socialist dream of this democrat nation of moochers, union workers, government workers, and aristocrats.

ok you slide one over on me I have nothing to argue with on this post

I'm with ya on the OCA "should" be un-constitutional view. I'm sure I could make dozens of excellent arguments for that case. Keep watching, whether or not the bill is constitutional is still in play. Till the next cases are heard, we'll just have to bite our tongues on the issue, as it won't help to cry about loosing the first fight. The smartest thing they did was to delay the implementation, as delaying the implementation delays the SCOTUS viewing the cases seeking relief from it.

The best thing we can do is elect conservatives who do everything they can to throw it out. Note: I did not say republicans. I don't trust most republicans any more than democrats. I see both of them as the same beast. Look at the media darling Christie. You really think he won't veto a bill throwing out OCA? If you want the bill thrown out elect a guy like Rand Paul or Rubio, people who believe in liberty.

What's really bothering me, has almost gone on without discussion. Which is Obama selectively providing exemptions to our laws. Sure that has been done before but never to this extent.

Elect me, I'll exempt all Americans from Income tax.

Your perceptions are as seriously flawed as your argument. Bush and Bush and
Reagan raised the bar on administrative stuff. see: C. Boyden Gray et al

President Obama's use of administrative acts dealing with stuff is mostly caused by a far right group withing the GOP using the Congress to stymie and halt real legislative work.

A Congress that spends most of it's time trying to make this President look bad. what a waste...but gerrymandering has left us with this.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perhaps all these arguments boil down to a few questions:

Should all Americans have proper health care?

If so, shall government be responsible to see that all Americans have that proper health care?

If insurance corporations are to be involved in the health care, shall government supervise that corporate health-care responsibility by law?

Should all Americans have access to basic health care? see: Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

If so, can the people demand their government through regulation of a market, be responsible to see that all Americans have that access to health care?

If not-for-profit insurance is set up to guarantee access to basic health care, what will the private insurance industry do? see: Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[RKMBrown]

The "purpose it was established for"?

Ahem: "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay." - The Affordable Care Act Cases | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

How so?

note: Agree with not ready for prime time during first term.

Tell Dante that the bill would have never passed if the stipulations were known before the vote....period.
What was stated was you can keep your dr.
You can keep your healthcare.
You'll save an average of 2500 dollars a year.

Not the huge premium hikes to middle income people.
Not the loss of dr.'s and healthcare coverage to millions.

So tell Dante he can spin 'till the cows come home, but the reality is.....now that the stipulations ARE known, the dems are running away from this debacle.

And if pigs could fly...

This is just another Fast and Furious, Birth Certificate, Benghazi bullshit talking point the right has glommed on to.

We will see just how many people will have to pay more. Anecdotal stories are falling apart. We will soon see, as with Romneycare, nobody but wingnuts singing this tune come a year from now.

Websites are easily fixable. Lots of people (tens of millions) will be doing better. Things will even out and wingnut world will be left eating their own yet again, arguing over who is and is not Republican enough, conservative enough, and American enough...

Don't get your paper towel out yet for that whack off session you are whipping up. Just because this Act is merely a rape of the American tax payer is no reason to allow it. Just because the scotus ruled, again, that congress can tax us, does not mean F&F not happen, nor does it mean Obama has a real BC or a real SS card, nor does it mean that Obama's going to sleep on the night of Bengazi after forcing the commanders to stand down, then firing all the commanders in the following months will soon be forgotten, nor does it mean that a socialist like Romney is gonna win the republican primary again. In short, don't get your hopes up for a communist takeover, I don't think the demo-wussies have the stomach for all out war.

 

[RKMBrown]

Perhaps all these arguments boil down to a few questions:

Should all Americans have proper health care?

If so, shall government be responsible to see that all Americans have that proper health care?

If insurance corporations are to be involved in the health care, shall government supervise that corporate health-care responsibility by law?

Should all Americans have access to basic health care? see: Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

If so, can the people demand their government through regulation of a market, be responsible to see that all Americans have that access to health care?

If not-for-profit insurance is set up to guarantee access to basic health care, what will the private insurance industry do? see: Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

>> Should all Americans have access to basic health care?
Who said they don't? They have had that since way before Obuma Care.

>> If so, can the people demand their government through regulation of a market, be responsible to see that all Americans have that access to health care?

Who said they don't? They have had that since way before Obuma Care.

>> If not-for-profit insurance is set up to guarantee access to basic health care, what will the private insurance industry do?

Starve to death? Isn't that the goal of democraps? To destroy every industry in this country, burn it to the ground, rape and pillage workers of their income and jobs to hand over to government control in a quasi marxist / communist nirvana where the aristocrats throw bread over the castle walls to their grateful slaves?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

Hey dumb ass when did I say that obamacare was as a tax was unconstitutional? Now you are making shit up.

obamacare as a tax according to the supreme court is constitutional but as a mandate alone is not.

a. So basically you are arguing that if Obama care mandated that we buy insurance it would be unconstitutional, but since it did not mandate that we buy insurance it is constitutional. This of course is your opinion as the SCOTUS did not rule on that, because it does not include said mandate.

b. However, it does include a fine/fee/tax or whatever you want to call that revenue shit the IRS collects from worker's income. Thus your argument amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation, since as we all know it was always a tax. Oddly a tax taken in the form of fine/penalty when you file and only if you have a rebate and did not buy insurance (rumors say). I'll wait to see it the tax forms before I'll believe much on this matter.

a. "The mandate "requires" we buy insurance." comes from a failure of reading and comprehension skills so prevalent in today's society. Here is a quote taken out of context - "The individual mandate was Congress’s solution to these problems. By requiring that individuals purchase health insurance, the mandate prevents cost-shifting by those who would otherwise go without it." - CJ Roberts - The quote are Robert's words, but his words before saying the argument was invalid.

Here too (a), you are falling into rebtard's alternate reality where the mandate is the shared responsibility payment penalty/tax. It is not. The penalty/tax is part of the mandate, the enforcement mechanism.

---

Two arguments were ruled invalid: the mandate under the commerce clause, and the mandate under the necessary and proper clause.

CJ Roberts: "Just as the individual mandate cannot be sustained as a law regulating the substantial effects of the failure to purchase health insurance, neither can it be upheld as a “necessary and proper” component of the insurance reforms. The commerce power thus does not authorize the mandate. Accord, post, at 4–16 (joint opinion of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting)"

"That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl."

---

"The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause
argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a
tax on those who do not buy that product.

The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion). The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance."

"After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C.§5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.

Under the mandate, 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. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, 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 income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648,
657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below..."

forgot to address (b.)

---
b. your words: "However, it does include a fine/fee/tax or whatever you want to call that revenue shit the IRS collects from worker's income. Thus your argument amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation, since as we all know it was always a tax. Oddly a tax taken in the form of fine/penalty when you file and only if you have a rebate and did not buy insurance (rumors say). I'll wait to see it the tax forms before I'll believe much on this matter."
---

Nothing odd about a tax taken in the form of fine/penalty, is there?

"since as we all know it was always a tax." - semantics, but in the law it is a penalty, 'it' being the "shared responsibility payment" The court ruling did not change the language of the act, the law.

CJ Roberts: "It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

Our precedent reflects this: In 1922, we decided two challenges to the “Child Labor Tax” on the same day. In the first, we held that a suit to enjoin collection of the so called tax was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. George, 259 U. S., at 20. Congress knew that suits to obstruct taxes had to await payment under the Anti-Injunction Act; Congress called the child labor tax a tax; Congress therefore intended the Anti-Injunction Act to apply. In the second case, however, we held that the same exaction, although labeled a tax, was not in fact authorized by Congress’s taxing power. Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S., at 38. That constitutional question was not controlled by Congress’s choice of label.

We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress’s power to tax. In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Don't get your paper towel out yet for that whack off session you are whipping up. Just because this Act is merely a rape of the American tax payer...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

to democrats, the constitution is a really old piece of paper written by a bunch of republicans that were not in touch with the socialist dream of this democrat nation of moochers, union workers, government workers, and aristocrats.

ok you slide one over on me i have nothing to argue with on this post

i'm with ya on the oca "should" be un-constitutional view. I'm sure i could make dozens of excellent arguments for that case. Keep watching, whether or not the bill is constitutional is still in play. Till the next cases are heard, we'll just have to bite our tongues on the issue, as it won't help to cry about loosing the first fight. The smartest thing they did was to delay the implementation, as delaying the implementation delays the scotus viewing the cases seeking relief from it.

The best thing we can do is elect conservatives who do everything they can to throw it out. Note: I did not say republicans. I don't trust most republicans any more than democrats. I see both of them as the same beast. Look at the media darling christie. You really think he won't veto a bill throwing out oca? If you want the bill thrown out elect a guy like rand paul or rubio, people who believe in liberty.

What's really bothering me, has almost gone on without discussion. Which is obama selectively providing exemptions to our laws. Sure that has been done before but never to this extent.

Elect me, i'll exempt all americans from income tax.

damn dude where the hell have you been?

 

[RKMBrown]

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

a. So basically you are arguing that if Obama care mandated that we buy insurance it would be unconstitutional, but since it did not mandate that we buy insurance it is constitutional. This of course is your opinion as the SCOTUS did not rule on that, because it does not include said mandate.

b. However, it does include a fine/fee/tax or whatever you want to call that revenue shit the IRS collects from worker's income. Thus your argument amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation, since as we all know it was always a tax. Oddly a tax taken in the form of fine/penalty when you file and only if you have a rebate and did not buy insurance (rumors say). I'll wait to see it the tax forms before I'll believe much on this matter.

a. "The mandate "requires" we buy insurance." comes from a failure of reading and comprehension skills so prevalent in today's society. Here is a quote taken out of context - "The individual mandate was Congress’s solution to these problems. By requiring that individuals purchase health insurance, the mandate prevents cost-shifting by those who would otherwise go without it." - CJ Roberts - The quote are Robert's words, but his words before saying the argument was invalid.

Here too (a), you are falling into rebtard's alternate reality where the mandate is the shared responsibility payment penalty/tax. It is not. The penalty/tax is part of the mandate, the enforcement mechanism.

---

Two arguments were ruled invalid: the mandate under the commerce clause, and the mandate under the necessary and proper clause.

CJ Roberts: "Just as the individual mandate cannot be sustained as a law regulating the substantial effects of the failure to purchase health insurance, neither can it be upheld as a “necessary and proper” component of the insurance reforms. The commerce power thus does not authorize the mandate. Accord, post, at 4–16 (joint opinion of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting)"

"That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl."

---

"The Government’s tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its commerce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause
argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a
tax on those who do not buy that product.

The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion). The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance."

"After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C.§5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government’s alternative reading of the statute—that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.

Under the mandate, 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. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, 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 income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648,
657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below..."

forgot to address (b.)

---
b. your words: "However, it does include a fine/fee/tax or whatever you want to call that revenue shit the IRS collects from worker's income. Thus your argument amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation, since as we all know it was always a tax. Oddly a tax taken in the form of fine/penalty when you file and only if you have a rebate and did not buy insurance (rumors say). I'll wait to see it the tax forms before I'll believe much on this matter."
---

Nothing odd about a tax taken in the form of fine/penalty, is there?

"since as we all know it was always a tax." - semantics, but in the law it is a penalty, 'it' being the "shared responsibility payment" The court ruling did not change the language of the act, the law.

CJ Roberts: "It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

Our precedent reflects this: In 1922, we decided two challenges to the “Child Labor Tax” on the same day. In the first, we held that a suit to enjoin collection of the so called tax was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. George, 259 U. S., at 20. Congress knew that suits to obstruct taxes had to await payment under the Anti-Injunction Act; Congress called the child labor tax a tax; Congress therefore intended the Anti-Injunction Act to apply. In the second case, however, we held that the same exaction, although labeled a tax, was not in fact authorized by Congress’s taxing power. Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S., at 38. That constitutional question was not controlled by Congress’s choice of label.

We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress’s power to tax. In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal...

Dude. Just because I argued you are correct based on (a) and (b) does not mean you have to provide detailed support for my statements but, thx. I guess.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perhaps all these arguments boil down to a few questions:

Should all Americans have proper health care?

If so, shall government be responsible to see that all Americans have that proper health care?

If insurance corporations are to be involved in the health care, shall government supervise that corporate health-care responsibility by law?

Should all Americans have access to basic health care? see: Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

If so, can the people demand their government through regulation of a market, be responsible to see that all Americans have that access to health care?

If not-for-profit insurance is set up to guarantee access to basic health care, what will the private insurance industry do? see: Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

>> Should all Americans have access to basic health care?
Who said they don't? They have had that since way before Obuma Care.

>> If so, can the people demand their government through regulation of a market, be responsible to see that all Americans have that access to health care?

Who said they don't? They have had that since way before Obuma Care.

>> If not-for-profit insurance is set up to guarantee access to basic health care, what will the private insurance industry do?

Starve to death? Isn't that the goal of democraps? To destroy every industry in this country, burn it to the ground, rape and pillage workers of their income and jobs to hand over to government control in a quasi marxist / communist nirvana where the aristocrats throw bread over the castle walls to their grateful slaves?

Semantics again? "Access to basic health care" - "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay." - The Affordable Care Act Cases | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

"Starve to death?" -- more weirdo stuff? Look into reality: Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the "purpose it was established for"?

ahem: "amid intense public interest, congress passed the patient protection and affordable care act (aca), which became effective march 23, 2010. The aca sought to address the fact that millions of americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay." - the affordable care act cases | the oyez project at iit chicago-kent college of law

how so?

note: agree with not ready for prime time during first term.

and the millions who are losing their coverage because of obamacare. Ahem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

losing or being offered other policies? Did millions of americans lose policies before obamacare and get offered shit?

offering other polices? Thats still loosing what they had.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dude. Just because I argued you are correct based on (a) and (b) does not mean you have to provide detailed support for my statements but, thx. I guess.

again, your arguments are as flawed as your opinions

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

ok you slide one over on me i have nothing to argue with on this post

i'm with ya on the oca "should" be un-constitutional view. I'm sure i could make dozens of excellent arguments for that case. Keep watching, whether or not the bill is constitutional is still in play. Till the next cases are heard, we'll just have to bite our tongues on the issue, as it won't help to cry about loosing the first fight. The smartest thing they did was to delay the implementation, as delaying the implementation delays the scotus viewing the cases seeking relief from it.

The best thing we can do is elect conservatives who do everything they can to throw it out. Note: I did not say republicans. I don't trust most republicans any more than democrats. I see both of them as the same beast. Look at the media darling christie. You really think he won't veto a bill throwing out oca? If you want the bill thrown out elect a guy like rand paul or rubio, people who believe in liberty.

What's really bothering me, has almost gone on without discussion. Which is obama selectively providing exemptions to our laws. Sure that has been done before but never to this extent.

Elect me, i'll exempt all americans from income tax.

damn dude where the hell have you been?

He crawled out from under a rock on the other side of the snake pit from where you reside.