What Is The Republican Alternative To ObamaCare

[bigrebnc1775]

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

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.

Still he got it wrong about the mandate to buy something, that argument was found unconstitutional.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Still he got it wrong about the mandate to buy something, that argument was found unconstitutional.

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.(a)

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44

-
. . . . http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Still he got it wrong about the mandate to buy something, that argument was found unconstitutional.

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.(a)

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44

-
. . . . http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Dumb ass the commerce clause was the argument used for the mandate to buy obamacare it was shot down, and found unconstitutional. you keep forgetting that part it does not matter

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Twenty-six States, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Medicaid expansion as a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, but concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the individual mandate. Finding the mandate severable from the Act’s other provisions, the Eleventh Circuit left the rest of the Act intact.

Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The Robert Court reversed the mandate being severable from the PPACA.

poor Meister ans rebtard

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Twenty-six States, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Medicaid expansion as a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, but concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the individual mandate. Finding the mandate severable from the Act’s other provisions, the Eleventh Circuit left the rest of the Act intact.

Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The Robert Court reversed the mandate being severable from the PPACA.

poor Meister ans rebtard

dumbass how many times does it take for you to grasp the fact without the tax verbiage in the law obamacare would have been struck down.
because the commerce clause argument was shot down.Roberts said that the government could not compel someone to buy something the government could levy a tax.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

dante how does it feel to know that you support the biggest tax on the middle class and the poor that America has ever had?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Still he got it wrong about the mandate to buy something, that argument was found unconstitutional.

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.(a)

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44

-
. . . . http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Dumb ass the commerce clause was the argument used for the mandate to buy obamacare it was shot down, and found unconstitutional. you keep forgetting that part it does not matter

Not 'the' argument used, but one of two arguments used.

Roberts:

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms.

Second,the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.(a)

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44

-
. . . . http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Dumb ass the commerce clause was the argument used for the mandate to buy obamacare it was shot down, and found unconstitutional. you keep forgetting that part it does not matter

Not 'the' argument used, but one of two arguments used.

Roberts:

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms.

Second,the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

yes stupid the argument that is correct the argument used for the mandate to buy healthcare.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

dante how does it feel to know that you support the biggest tax on the middle class and the poor that America has ever had?

What did Romney and the Tea Party say about them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

dante how does it feel to know that you support the biggest tax on the middle class and the poor that America has ever had?

What did Romney and the Tea Party say about them?

how does it feel to know that you support the biggest tax ever on the middle class and the poor? I bet you feel really good.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dumb ass the commerce clause was the argument used for the mandate to buy obamacare it was shot down, and found unconstitutional. you keep forgetting that part it does not matter

Not 'the' argument used, but one of two arguments used.

Roberts:

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms.

Second,the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

yes stupid the argument that is correct the argument used for the mandate to buy healthcare.

Roberts "the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not 'the' argument used, but one of two arguments used.

Roberts:

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms.

Second,the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

yes stupid the argument that is correct the argument used for the mandate to buy healthcare.

Roberts "the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause."

Once again you're confusing the mandate to buy healthcare with a tax mandate. neither are the same

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

yes stupid the argument that is correct the argument used for the mandate to buy healthcare.

Roberts "the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause."

Once again you're confusing the mandate to buy healthcare with a tax mandate. neither are the same

Stick with the Individual Mandate within the PPACA

You are deluded in thinking two arguments for the mandate equaled two separate mandates.

Roberts "the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Roberts "the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause."

Once again you're confusing the mandate to buy healthcare with a tax mandate. neither are the same

Stick with the Individual Mandate within the PPACA

You are deluded in thinking two arguments for the mandate equaled two separate mandates.

thats not the mandate that was ruled unconstitutional. The mandate to buy healthcare was.
how does it feel to know that you support the biggest tax ever on the middle class and the poor?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Once again you're confusing the mandate to buy healthcare with a tax mandate. neither are the same

Stick with the Individual Mandate within the PPACA

You are deluded in thinking two arguments for the mandate equaled two separate mandates.

thats not the mandate that was ruled unconstitutional. The mandate to buy healthcare was.
how does it feel to know that you support the biggest tax ever on the middle class and the poor?

Roberts "the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

An argument supporting the mandate is ruled invalid, another argument supporting the mandate is ruled valid. The mandate is ruled constitutional under one of two arguments.

No mandate was ruled unconstitutional as there is only one mandate.


how screwy is the rightwing? pretty damn screwy

 

[RKMBrown]

An argument supporting the mandate is ruled invalid, another argument supporting the mandate is ruled valid. The mandate is ruled constitutional under one of two arguments.

No mandate was ruled unconstitutional as there is only one mandate.


how screwy is the rightwing? pretty damn screwy

Ironic. Screwy left arguing against the screwy right for hating the left's screwy plan to screw over healthy people that don't need health care by forcing them to buy insurance they don't need to pay for the health care of people who refused to pay for health insurance even though they needed it, while simultaneously claiming this as a way to reduce costs of health care for everyone. ROFL

Then even after their screwy leader admits he blatantly lied, the screwy left continue to maintain his innocence. I know it's popular to pretend the scumbag in chief is magnanimous and all, but this worship thing needs to be curtailed a bit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

An argument supporting the mandate is ruled invalid, another argument supporting the mandate is ruled valid. The mandate is ruled constitutional under one of two arguments.

No mandate was ruled unconstitutional as there is only one mandate.


how screwy is the rightwing? pretty damn screwy

no one has to buy healthcare coverage would mean the mandate to buy healthcare coverage was found__________________?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Stick with the Individual Mandate within the PPACA

You are deluded in thinking two arguments for the mandate equaled two separate mandates.

thats not the mandate that was ruled unconstitutional. The mandate to buy healthcare was.
how does it feel to know that you support the biggest tax ever on the middle class and the poor?

Roberts "the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause."

no one has to buy healthcare coverage would mean the mandate to buy healthcare coverage was found__________________?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

An argument supporting the mandate is ruled invalid, another argument supporting the mandate is ruled valid. The mandate is ruled constitutional under one of two arguments.

No mandate was ruled unconstitutional as there is only one mandate.


how screwy is the rightwing? pretty damn screwy

Ironic. Screwy left arguing against the screwy right for hating the left's screwy plan to screw over healthy people that don't need health care by forcing them to buy insurance they don't need to pay for the health care of people who refused to pay for health insurance even though they needed it, while simultaneously claiming this as a way to reduce costs of health care for everyone. ROFL

Then even after their screwy leader admits he blatantly lied, the screwy left continue to maintain his innocence. I know it's popular to pretend the scumbag in chief is magnanimous and all, but this worship thing needs to be curtailed a bit.

Obama went with the for-profit model. Dante is far more progressive on this single issue than Obamacare is Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS