Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

The Health Care bill.

  • Total voters
    120
noob616
Can somebody please enlighten me on what the 🤬 they're trying to achieve with a 40% tax on expensive (good) Health Care plans? What and who exactly is that going to help? (Oh right, the "Underprivileged". I'm so tired of seeing governments all over the world tax the rich higher just because "they can deal with it")

I'm not even American and I'm beyond pissed off.
Click to expand...

They're trying to make it so that instead of rich people having good healthcare and poor people having none, everybody gets crappy healthcare, but at least it's "equal".
 
Duke
They're trying to make it so that instead of rich people having good healthcare and poor people having none, everybody gets crappy healthcare, but at least it's "equal".
Click to expand...

I hate equality. Are a world class architect and a McD's fry cook's contributions to society equal? Sure, equally funding schools, that's great. Equally funding road projects (all based on pop.), sure that's fine too. But legislated equality, isn't.

Hell, let's get away from contributions to society. Why should the government be telling ME, (the taxpayer paying your 6- figure salary Mr. Congressman) where I can and can't spend my money? GAR-BAGE.



Disclaimer: The 2nd paragraph is hypothetical, I'm Canadian, but our Members of Parliament make 6 figures too.
 
Last edited:
I might be moving to Missouri. They have begun the first step in nullification.

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama's administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.

"The citizens of the Show-Me State don't want Washington involved in their health care decisions," said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.

"I've never seen anything like it," Cunningham said at a campaign gathering at a private home in Town and Country. "Citizens wanted their voices to be heard."

About 30 Proposition C supporters whooped it up loudly at 9 p.m. when the returns flashed on the television showing the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote.

"It's the vote heard 'round the world," said Dwight Janson, 53, from Glendale, clad in an American flag-patterned shirt. Janson said he went to one of the first Tea Party gatherings last year and hopped on the Proposition C bandwagon because he wanted to make a difference.

"I was tired of sitting on the sidelines bouncing my gums," he said.

Missouri was the first of four states to seek to opt out of the insurance purchase mandate portion of the health care law that had been pushed by Obama. And while many legal scholars question whether the vote will be binding, the overwhelming approval gives the national GOP momentum as Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma hold similar votes during midterm elections in November.

"It's a big number," state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, said of the vote. "I expected a victory, but not of this magnitude. This is going to propel the issue and several other issues about the proper role of the federal government."

From almost the moment the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the health care law — which aims to increase the number of Americans with health insurance — Republicans have vowed to try to repeal it. Their primary argument is that they believe the federal government should not be involved in mandating health care decisions at the local level.

While repeal might seem an unlikely strategy, the effort to send a message state by state that voters don't approve of being told they have to buy insurance could gain momentum.

That's what Republicans are counting on at least, hoping that the Missouri vote will give the national movement momentum.

"It's like a domino, and Missouri is the first one to fall," Cunningham said. "Missouri's vote will greatly influence the debate in the other states."

Proposition C faced little organized opposition, although the Missouri Hospital Association mounted a mailer campaign opposing the ballot issue in the last couple of weeks. The hospital association, which spent more than $300,000 in the losing effort, said that without the new federal law, those who don't have insurance will cause health care providers and other taxpayers to have higher costs.

"The only way to get to the cost problem in health care is to expand the insurance pool," said hospital association spokesman Dave Dillon. He said the hospital association didn't plan to sue over the law, but he expected it would be challenged.

"I think there is going to be no shortage of people who want to use the courts to resolve this issue," he said.

Democrats also generally opposed Proposition C, though they didn't spend much time or money talking about it.

In the closing days of the campaign, many politicians 'sidled up" to Proposition C, Cunningham said, seeing the momentum the issue had gained.

Among them was U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, who won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate on Tuesday night. Late last week, Blunt announced his support of Proposition C.

On Monday, Blunt said he hoped Missouri voters would send a "ballot box message" to the Obama's administration by overwhelmingly passing the measure.

The question now is whether the administration will respond by suing the state to block passage of the law, much as it did in Arizona recently over illegal immigration.

The issue in both is the same: When state laws conflict with federal laws, the courts have generally ruled in favor of the federal government, because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Reuben, a law professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, said that if the federal government sues on the issue, it would likely win. Several other Missouri legal and political scholars agreed.

But Cunningham is undaunted. She's got her own experts, and they're ready to do battle in court.

"Constitutional experts disagree," she said. "There is substantial legal status to this thing."
Click to expand...
 
This is pretty interesting. I always knew several states planned on attempting to ignore that bit of the law, but that always seemed to me like politicians blowing hot air, and if the Feds really wanted they could just force them to do so. But because this was a proposition vote, I actually can't see Obama forcing the issue even if he would win. There really isn't a way for him to do so that wouldn't make him look like a jerk, and whether he won or not it would just make more people against the law.
 
Toronado
This is pretty interesting. I always new several stated planned on attempting to ignore that bit of the law, but that always seemed to me like politicians blowing hot air, and if the Feds really wanted they could just force them to do so. But because this was a proposition vote, I actually can't see Obama forcing the issue. There really isn't a way for him to do so that wouldn't make him look like a bad guy and just make more people against the law.
Click to expand...
I would honestly like to see him tell 70+% of Missouri's voters that he knows better than they do.

I know we can put it on Discovery and call it Obama Week. It should be as equally entertaining as Shark Week.
 
hambone8611
Wouldn’t that be the state law superseding federal law? I do not think that will happen but I it will be interesting to fallow follow.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's called state interposition and that's the only way that the states can keep from getting screwed by bad laws.

You should read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490/ref=pd_sim_b_1



It's not too long, but contains copies in the back of the book of all the source material that is quoted and referenced. It's really a fantastic book that can help you understand the concept of nullification and what the United States actually are (or are supposed to be).
 
hambone8611
Wouldn’t that be the state law superseding federal law? I do not think that will happen but I it will be interesting to fallow
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your Bill of Rights, but the Tenth Amendment provides for exactly that - Federal Government may not seek to impose any law over the States which is not explicitly set out within the Constitution.
 
Famine
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your Bill of Rights, but the Tenth Amendment provides for exactly that - Federal Government may not seek to impose any law over the States which is not explicitly set out within the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Since I keep it bookmarked, I'll just go ahead and quote it:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentx
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
That is really hard to misinterpret.

But as Congressman Pete Stark shows, it seems that the Federal government doesn't know it has limits.

 
FoolKiller
Since I keep it bookmarked, I'll just go ahead and quote it:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentx

That is really hard to misinterpret.

But as Congressman Pete Stark shows, it seems that the Federal government doesn't know it has limits.

Click to expand...




Thanks for that, it does have an impact on my waffling point of view. Since I am up to 15 employees now I am growing more and more nervous, it could turn into one hell of a line item charge [ not good ]
 
hambone8611
Thanks for that, it does have an impact on my waffling point of view. Since I am up to 15 employees now I am growing more and more nervous, it could turn into one hell of a line item charge [ not good ]
Click to expand...
As an owner of a private business it would do you much good to thoroughly understand all the things the government is doing wrong and how they're infringing your rights as a private business owner. You may not have the tools to make the changes but understanding why it needs to be changed and spreading the word helps greatly. I don't know much about the subject but I do enjoy learning about it.
 
Keef
As an owner of a private business it would do you much good to thoroughly understand all the things the government is doing wrong and how they're infringing your rights as a private business owner. You may not have the tools to make the changes but understanding why it needs to be changed and spreading the word helps greatly. I don't know much about the subject but I do enjoy learning about it.
Click to expand...


Agreed completely, if only they would give me a 8th day in a the week I could devote more time to that goal, but as it is I devote 10 to15 hours a day 6 days a week to running my company and my new wife [3 weeks now] demands some time as well , I fall short.
 
The Supreme Court will deliver its ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) aka 'Obamacare' on Thursday, 28th June - possibly at around 10 a.m. Washington time.

This article provides a neat summary of the possible outcomes, which range from upholding the law completely, or striking down the entire law. It is just as likely that there maybe something in between, but in any case, the outcome of the ruling (which apparently was decided weeks ago, but has been kept secret until now) will have a massive impact on America for years to come, and in the shorter term, could decide who goes into the Presidential Election this year as favourite.

Needless to say, if the law is struck down, or certain key elements are ruled unconstitutional, then Obama could see his most high profile political achievement in tatters, which could spell disaster for his re-election hopes...

Stay tuned - Thursday's going to be an interesting day.
 
I think they are gonna just strike down the individual mandate part of the bill and leave everything else be. If it's just that, Obama will be fine.
 
Breaking News:

From the Supreme Court live blog:

Affordable Care Act (ACA) is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

The Supreme Court rule that the Individual Mandate is constitutional... upheld by a majority of 5-4

From CBS:

Medicaid Expansion Struck Down

Full text of the Supreme Court rulings pertaining to the PPACA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
 
Last edited:
This is ridiculous. America is now a pure democracy instead of a republic. The worst tyranny.
 
Sam48
How is it constitutional again?
Click to expand...

According to the full ruling (page 3): "The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product."

The 16th Amendment grants government the power to lay and collect taxes...

edit: Tree'd!
 
Except it's an excise tax on freedom-- or the default, non-covered state of humanity-- which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It would be like charging homeless people a tax because they don't own a home. What?
 
Touring Mars
According to the full ruling (page 3): "The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product."

The 16th Amendment grants government the power to lay and collect taxes...
Click to expand...

Legally speaking, the terms "tax" and "mandate" can both refer to the same legislation in this case. If I favor one term over the other, is that really the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional? I think not. In the end, we either accept what the government is giving us (And pay for it), or do not accept it (And pay extra for it). Does the government really have the power to tax/penalize someone for not using a good or service? Omnis's gave a good example of this.
 
Touring Mars
... Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product."

The 16th Amendment grants government the power to lay and collect taxes...

edit: Tree'd!
Click to expand...

It is difficult to understand.
If the Congress and the Government would pass a 90% tax on revenue to redistribute this to themselves that would constitutional. It would make that they are not re-elected and the economy would suffer terribly, but they would come out rich?

I'm used to a obligatory health care and profit from it, my wife somehow is excluded and has a "better & cheaper" contract.
A collective state system can help the health of the population and thus create a competitive nation. A monopoly status, like an obligatory state system will lead to abuses due to lack of competition.

I'm for a middle ground, a backup basic state system that you can always join. But the main health system should be competition (no issue if including state) based, that you need to think what you do.
 
So the big deal is that the mandate was found unconstitutional under the commerce clause and rejected - meaning the commerce clause does not cover it. That's a major bullet dodged for us. The commerce clause has been getting abused for a long time, and if this were to be considered constitutional under that clause, we'd be in line for a world of hurt from the laws that could follow.

Of course obamacare is also unconstitutional when considered a tax because of the equal protection clause. But the supreme court would have to kill a large portion of the tax code if they made that argument (they should do that, of course, because our tax code is already unconstitutional).

There were two horrible outcomes at stake for the obamacare ruling. One was an expansion of the commerce clause that could make almost anything up for legislation. The other was the creation of a new entitlement program that will continue to saddle an already faltering country with additional debt. We dodged the first one and got stuck with the second.

Roberts needed to stick to his guns, he's solely responsible for this.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
There were two horrible outcomes at stake for the obamacare ruling. One was an expansion of the commerce clause that could make almost anything up for legislation. The other was the creation of a new entitlement program that will continue to saddle an already faltering country with additional debt. We dodged the first one and got stuck with the second.
Click to expand...

Honestly, given those two options (because you know the sane one, striking down the law altogether, would never go through), I'd rather have the outcome we ended up with. Considering all the other entitlement programs we have in this country, what's one more?
 
Taken from The Volokh Conspiracy:

Text From Chief Justice Roberts's Majority Opinion
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated….. If the power to “regulate” something included the power to create it, many of theprovisions in the Constitution would be superfluous. For example, the Constitution gives Congress the power to“coin Money,” in addition to the power to “regulate the Value thereof.” Id., cl. 5. And it gives Congress the power to “raise and support Armies” and to “provide and maintain a Navy,” in addition to the power to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and navalForces.” Id., cls. 12–14. If the power to regulate the armed forces or the value of money included the power to bring the subject of the regulation into existence, the specific grant of such powers would have been unnecessary…

Our precedent also reflects this understanding. As expansive as our cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they all have one thing in common: They uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity….”

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.
Click to expand...

Good stuff from Justice Roberts in this ruling. This establishes a good precedent against the commerce clause in the future, which I applaud.

Also, in breaking news, (also from Volokh Conspiracy), it appears that the dissent in this opinion was originally the majority opinion and that Roberts switched sides. The question has already been asked "pressure from the whitehouse?".
 
Dotini
Apparently it is constitutional as a tax, but not as a mandate.
Click to expand...
But because the way this is laid out the tax will be used to fund insurance for those who are not required by the law to purchase it. I only see how the tax works if it isn't funding a private program. The money winds up in the same place.

I don't see the difference.

But I do see the SCOTUS ducking the issue. You can challenge a tax, but only if it is applied to you. There will be new lawsuits in 2-3 years. The decision that would ultimately allow the plan to move forward is still out there to be argued over.

Part of me wonders if the angle they took was designed to say no federal mandates are allowed while not truly affecting the election. Obama has a victory to run on, but Romney gets a talking point.

If we recall: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27384.html

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.

.....

The questions from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos highlighted a politically dangerous new aspect of the health reform debate for Obama – as critics from Republican leaders to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say his reform proposals amount to a middle-class tax increase. Obama promised during the campaign that Americans earning less than $250,000 a year would not see any tax increases from an Obama administration.

Obama strongly denied that the mandate amounts to a tax increase – saying it was no different than requiring people to have auto insurance and charging a penalty if they don’t. He also said it was important for everyone to have insurance so that people who do carry insurance don’t have to shoulder the load for people who don’t. The excise tax is designed as an enforcement mechanism to ensure people will carry insurance.
Click to expand...
It is now officially a tax increase. I already heard protestors on TV in DC bringing this up. So, while Obama has a victory it comes at the cost of looking like either a liar or one of the worst legal scholars to have ever gained public office.

Republicans have a talking point and a very easy way to defund the reform: Obama is raising your taxes. Republicans want to give the middle class a tax break by reducing insurance rules and removing the tax penalty.

Basically, this isn't over. If you think the SCOTUS ruined elections with the Citizens United decision, you haven't seen anything yet. As political power fluctuates we will see what minimum insurance should include redefined constantly, see cost controls fluctuate, and even see how severe the punishment for not buying is.


I'm in an awkward place right now. I work for the Department for Public Health. I'm the only one not acting all giddy. Being fairly new I can pass it off as being ignorant to how this should affect us. Oddly, no one else really knows either.

We only know one thing. We deal with helping the under served access primary care doctors who volunteer to help low income families. The reform is actually guaranteeing primary care coverage to everyone. Now cost won't be an issue. But we work with another program that attempts to encourage doctors to work in rural areas without any available. Since cost is a factor only 50% of the population in those areas go when a doctor is available, and we are still falling very short of eliminating health professional shortage areas (HPSA). If those 50% who need care but don't get it due to costs suddenly do go to their area doctors we will need more. If we (meaning the people I work with) succeed at getting doctor's in those HPSAs then that means they came from somewhere else. There are HPSAs within large metropolitan areas as they are calculated both by distance and patients per doctor. I know, some Obama supporter will call it job stimulus. That doesn't work when there isn't a surplus in available professionals. Currently, more doctors are retiring than graduating. I asked my manager what happens when everyone can afford a doctor but the latest studies predicted 60% more retirees than medical school graduates in 15-20 years if trends don't change. His exact words were, "Everybody's screwed, but we will be busy and have more money."

And that brings me back to people all around me cheering. I can't help but believe it has less to do with helping people and more to do with helping themselves.
 
Interesting ruling, especially since Obama claimed it was not a "tax":

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/transcript-president-barack-obama/story?id=8618937

Taken from page 2 of the transcript:

Sep 20, 2009

Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax

ABC News Interview

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here - here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average - our families - in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that.

That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy ...

OBAMA: No, but - but, George, you - you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the ...

OBAMA: What - what - if I - if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I - I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax - "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but ...

OBAMA: ... what you're saying is ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Click to expand...
 
"What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore"

Great! So now corporate bailouts, unending welfare, and long-term unemployment benefits are going away too, right? 💡
 

Similar threads

Tornado
Can we just, like, fire everyone in Congress?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
5K
GTsail
GTsail
m76
GT7 has failed to be Gran Turismo
28 29 30
Replies
873
Views
109K
wheelhp
wheelhp
MagpieRacer
F1 '24 Launch impressions and what should Codies do going forward?
Replies
11
Views
4K
Lightpilgrim
L
CnPx
Can someone explain how this game is still fun?
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
18K
healy66
H
Danoff
High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP)
Replies
18
Views
1K
Omnis
Omnis

Latest Posts

Back