OT: Obamacare decision rassling ring

[spdrun]

Ding! Ding! Bring it ON …

[UCGal]

I think a lot of the talking heads were completely wrong in their predictions of what the Supremes would do. I can state that now, since hindsight is 20-20.

I’m personally glad since I’ve been trying to figure out my healthcare options if I retire early in a few years. It’s good to know recision and pre-existing conditions won’t keep me from purchasing insurance.

For those who believe in market based solutions – hopefully the market will drive prices down. If a company charges too much, people will shop around… like they do for car insurance.

[briansd1]

Victory for my side! 😉

I always had a good feeling that the Surpreme Court would uphold Obama Care.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court to save the heart of President Obama’s landmark health-care law, agreeing that the requirement for nearly all Americans to secure health insurance is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-rule-thursday-on-health-care-law/2012/06/28/gJQAarRm8V_story.html?hpid=z1

[briansd1]

Roberts wrote that the portion of the health-care law that expands Medicaid “violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding.”

On the Medicaid expansion provision, the states that will choose not to expand Medicaid will likely be Red States like Mississipi. Tough luck for the non-college educated, low-income folks there who lack insurance. They’ll know which side to vote for the next time around.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Victory for my side! 😉

[/quote]

Brian: Yup, it definitely is a victory for Obama and he sorely needed some good news, especially after the month he had.

However, the GOP will make hay of this, too. Romney raised $1MM in 3 hours following the ruling, when he called for repeal.

I think the GOP would have been more hurt by Obamacare being overturned than the Dems. Now, the GOP can campaign against ACA, even though I believe the chances of repeal are nil.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Yup, it definitely is a victory for Obama and he sorely needed some good news, especially after the month he had.
[/quote]

Arizona victory, health care victory… it’s shaping up to be good for Obama.

Obama will be in the history books pretty much forever.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
However, the GOP will make hay of this, too. Romney raised $1MM in 3 hours following the ruling, when he called for repeal.

I think the GOP would have been more hurt by Obamacare being overturned than the Dems. Now, the GOP can campaign against ACA, even though I believe the chances of repeal are nil.[/quote]

Funny how we see thing differently.

Campaigning against something might work with the fervent base, but it’s an uphill battle with the general electorate.

On the other hand, campaigning for something is always more positive.

I think that Obama’s reelection prospects just looked brighter.

I think that poorgradstudent has it right. His analysis is always very even handed and realistic.

[zk]

[quote=briansd1]Victory for my side! 😉
[/quote]
Maybe. Maybe not.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/john-roberts-evil-genius-article-1.1103982

[svelte]

[quote=zk][quote=briansd1]Victory for my side! 😉
[/quote]
Maybe. Maybe not.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/john-roberts-evil-genius-article-1.1103982%5B/quote%5D

We shall seee, zk. We shall see….

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=svelte][quote=zk][quote=briansd1]Victory for my side! 😉
[/quote]
Maybe. Maybe not.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/john-roberts-evil-genius-article-1.1103982%5B/quote%5D

We shall seee, zk. We shall see….[/quote]

I think SCOTUS handed a victory of sorts to both sides. Obama has to be heaving a sigh of relief, but the Romney campaign is reporting a huge donation windfall and largely from small donors (as opposed to Dr. Evil, Sheldon Adelson.) Conventional wisdom has it that small donors = votes.

Both sides are energized by the decision, that’s for sure.

[livinincali]

I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by).

The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.

[ninaprincess]

How it’s a tax? If you have insurance from your employer then this law will not affect you. If you are self employed and decide not to buy insurance, you want a free ride when you end up in a hospital and declare bankruptcy?

Do you buy car insurance?

[quote=livinincali]I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by).

The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

[briansd1]

[quote=livinincali] I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

In this case, I do admire the Court’s prescience in dealing with the needs of society.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by).

The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience [sic]it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

The law didn’t change. It’s still the same mandate it was before the decision. Judge Roberts (and concurring judges Kagen, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsburg) agreed with the less strongly argued case, that Congress has the power to tax, instead of the more strongly argued case for the powers granted under the commerce clause. The legal claim upheld does nothing to change the law. It’s still the same mandate as it was before the decision. (Though Grover Norquist might hate it even more now.)

[livinincali]

[quote]
How it’s a tax? If you have insurance from your employer then this law will not affect you. If you are self employed and decide not to buy insurance, you want a free ride when you end up in a hospital and declare bankruptcy?

Do you buy car insurance?
[/quote]

It’s a tax because that’s what made it constitutional. The same is true of social security, it’s a tax also so there’s no guarantee that you’ll get anything from the system. EMTALA of 1986 is law that made it a requirement for hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay. It survived constitutionality on the premise that if you take medicare tax dollars than government could regulate your business.

My comment was based on the constitutionality, not whether it’s right health care system or the wrong one. Health care is a contentious issue.

Everybody is probably going to need health care at some point in their life but most of us want somebody else to pay the high cost of having the best services on demand. Health “insurance” should cover the unexpected, the accidents, the random cancer early in a person’s life, not standard things that happen when you get old.

This law does nothing to change the escalating costs of health care.

[beanmaestro]

I think this decision is a good compromise:
– It upheld the basic law. Given the divisions in Congress and the stupid expansion of the filibuster, it would have been impossible to make any health care laws if this one was struck down
– It didn’t use the commerce clause to uphold the law. Doing so would have noticeably widened a part of of the constitution that’s already being grossly abused to reduce states’ rights
– If red states don’t want to accept government money to pay for the health of poor people, that’s unfortunate, but they’re basically just letting Washington keep money that would otherwise go to their state economy. I suspect in the long run, most states will either take the money or suffer.

[svelte]

[quote=beanmaestro]I think this decision is a good compromise:
– It upheld the basic law. Given the divisions in Congress and the stupid expansion of the filibuster, it would have been impossible to make any health care laws if this one was struck down
– It didn’t use the commerce clause to uphold the law. Doing so would have noticeably widened a part of of the constitution that’s already being grossly abused to reduce states’ rights
– If red states don’t want to accept government money to pay for the health of poor people, that’s unfortunate, but they’re basically just letting Washington keep money that would otherwise go to their state economy. I suspect in the long run, most states will either take the money or suffer.[/quote]

Have to say I’m happy with the SC today too. I was not wanting Obamacare to pass on the commerce clause, but I’m perfectly happy with the way it did pass.

Obamacare is not perfect, it’s definitely not my idea of the perfect healthcare legislation, but I think it is a long shot better than what we had before.

I’m an independent, and I have to tell you the Republicans are alienating me more and more with their BS. Romney, *their candidate*, passed this same stuff in his state! The individual mandate was the brainchild of the Republican Heritage Foundation! Yet they seem so outraged at “Obama”‘s plan…

To top it off, they hold the Holder vote on the same day…ya think that’s coincidence? Makes me ill…

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
The law didn’t change. It’s still the same mandate it was before the decision. Judge Roberts (and concurring judges Kagen, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsburg) agreed with the less strongly argued case, that Congress has the power to tax, instead of the more strongly argued case for the powers granted under the commerce clause. The legal claim upheld does nothing to change the law. It’s still the same mandate as it was before the decision. (Though Grover Norquist might hate it even more now.)[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote=livinincali]I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by). [/quote]

I don’t see how this decision is polarizing. The Court deferred to Congress and let the law that Congress passed stand.

In this case the Court stayed out of “judicial activism” and left politics to the politicians. Roberts did the right thing.

Now we all know why Scalia was ranting like a nutcase on Monday.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/antonin_scalia_ranting_old_man/

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Now we all know why Scalia was ranting like a nutcase on Monday.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/antonin_scalia_ranting_old_man/%5B/quote%5D

I’m mildly surprised there wasn’t a single curse word in Scalia’s dissent. He has jumped the shark.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/legal-scholar-scalia-has-finally-jumped-shark

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=briansd1]Now we all know why Scalia was ranting like a nutcase on Monday.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/antonin_scalia_ranting_old_man/%5B/quote%5D

I’m mildly surprised there wasn’t a single curse word in Scalia’s dissent. He has jumped the shark.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/legal-scholar-scalia-has-finally-jumped-shark%5B/quote%5D

SK: Yeah, for a devout Catholic, that boy has a mouth on him. And, he ordinarily seems so sane…

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Yeah, for a devout Catholic, that boy has a mouth on him. And, he ordinarily seems so sane…[/quote]

Growing up, I always imagined conservative, religious people as well-dressed, well-behaved educated people who behave perfectly all the time.

Now, I know better. Conservatives tend to be the ranting and raving kinds full of personal flaws. Liberals are more composed, well-spoken and well-behaved. Think professorial Obama vs. ranting Gingrich. Compare and contrast Stephen Breyer to Antonin Scalia.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Yeah, for a devout Catholic, that boy has a mouth on him. And, he ordinarily seems so sane…[/quote]

Growing up, I always imagined conservative, religious people as well-dressed, well-behaved educated people who behave perfectly all the time.

Now, I know better. Conservatives tend to be the ranting and raving kinds full of personal flaws. Liberals are more composed, well-spoken and well-behaved. Think professorial Obama vs. ranting Gingrich. Compare and contrast Stephen Breyer to Antonin Scalia.[/quote]

Brian Brian Brian. What am I gonna do with you?

Conservatives look and talk just like liberals. They just tend to be a little whiter, a little more likely to have a penis, and they smoke less dope.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV]
Brian Brian Brian. What am I gonna do with you?

Conservatives look and talk just like liberals. They just tend to be a little whiter, a little more likely to have a penis, and they smoke less dope.[/quote]

SK: I’m willing to put up with a lot of insults, but that dope crack was too much!

I went to an arch-conservative Catholic HS where the motto was, “There ain’t no hope without dope!” If it weren’t for the weed, dude, I’d be in San Quentin right now.

For reals.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
Brian Brian Brian. What am I gonna do with you?
[/quote]
hahaha..

[quote=SK in CV]
Conservatives look and talk just like liberals. They just tend to be a little whiter, a little more likely to have a penis, and they smoke less dope.[/quote]

They may smoke less dope but they do more meth.

Not sure that we all look and talk the same.

Last weekend I was in University City at UPenn in Philadelphia. I had dinner at the Vientiane Cafe and all the customers there were young, thin and fairly attractive. That day, everyone was White. I bet they were well-educated and liberal leaning also.

Real capitalists (as some conservatives here have called them), such as those who work at Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.. tend to be liberal also.

In the 80s, preppies were conservatives, but today the science and computer savvy yuppies tend to be liberal.

What’s the image of the typical conservative that comes to mind?

This is all in good fun and I hope we can look at ourselves and have a good laugh. I’m perfectly fine with being perceived as a tree hugging, tofu eating, late sipping, iPhone carrying, Mini-Cooper driving metrosexual.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Last weekend I was in University City at UPenn in Philadelphia. I had dinner at the Vientiane Cafe and all the customers there were young, thin and fairly attractive. That day, everyone was White. I bet they were well-educated and liberal leaning also.
[/quote]

I remember being in the Hotel Adlon on the Unter den Linden in Berlin in 1936. All the patrons were young, thin, attractive and steeped in the culture that gave us Schiller, Goethe, Bach and Beethoven. They all looked resplendent in their SS, SD and Wehrmacht uniforms.

Interestingly, they all had strong opinions on how to handle the “undesirables” (you know, those that don’t look, act or think like us) and were also all ardent believers in the “triumph of the will.”

At some point, it all becomes a distinction without difference. Personally, I don’t want everyone to look, act or think the same. Vive la difference as your French compatriots would say, Brian. I know you believe that your heart’s in the right place, but your beliefs are your business and mine are mine and the gubment has NO BUSINESS in either.

[spdrun]

The problems I have with the law are as follows:
(a) too complex. Public coverage for everyone, with the right to purchase additional private coverage would have much simpler.
(b) it doesn’t necessarily cover the very poor. Medicaid eligibility is raised to 133% of the poverty line, but states aren’t actually required to implement that provision.

[svelte]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: Yeah, for a devout Catholic, that boy has a mouth on him. And, he ordinarily seems so sane…[/quote]

Growing up, I always imagined conservative, religious people as well-dressed, well-behaved educated people who behave perfectly all the time. [/quote]

He is the only SCOTUS member who has ever scared me. This man should not be on the SC. He’s not balanced. I don’t have the slightest inclination to believe he can be a fair judge.

[UCGal]

[quote=livinincali]I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by).

The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

If you don’t purchase a house using a mortgage, you don’t get the tax breaks. So that’s a case where doing nothing /buying nothing means more tax.

Our tax code is full of moral decisions: Kids are good, mortgages are good, yada yada yada. In this case congress said “buying health insurance is good”.

And did you really mean prescience – are you saying the supreme court can see the future? That’s both scary and exciting at the same time.
(I assume you meant precedence.)

As far as the partisan nature of the court – in this case Roberts *didn’t* vote in a partisan fashion. Are you saying you wish he had? Or are you complaining about the 8’s predictable votes?

I think this will be good for folks with an entrepreneurial spirit. Even if they have a pre-existing condition, they can leave their corporate health insurance next week. They can go into business for themselves… spurring the economy, creating jobs. (Next week will be 18 months till 1/1/14… so Cobra can tide them over till the pre-existing condition part goes into effect.)
No longer will people be tied to employers *just* for healthcare. This is huge!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal] . . . I think this will be good for folks with an entrepreneurial spirit. Even if they have a pre-existing condition, they can leave their corporate health insurance next week. They can go into business for themselves… spurring the economy, creating jobs. (Next week will be 18 months till 1/1/14… so Cobra can tide them over till the pre-existing condition part goes into effect.)
No longer will people be tied to employers *just* for healthcare. This is huge![/quote]

I agree, UCGal, but have you checked the price of COBRA lately? It is typically more per month than your employer even pays for your plan and can be VERY cost-prohibitive, depending on what kind of a plan you have at work. If you currently have a PPO, you may find that an HMO offered by your employer is all you afford at COBRA rates.

18 months at $600-$800 mo (for the ex-employee ONLY) is enough incentive to keep working, IMHO, at least until 2014.

Individual plans can cost less than COBRA, but until 2014, the carriers of these plans are allowed to underwrite them upon application and price them accordingly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I agree, UCGal, but have you checked the price of COBRA lately? It is typically more per month than your employer even pays for your plan and can be VERY cost-prohibitive, depending on what kind of a plan you have at work. [/quote]

I’m pretty sure we’ve been through this before. The cost charged for COBRA (for most employees) can only exceed what the employer pays for the coverage by 2% for administrative costs.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal] . . . I think this will be good for folks with an entrepreneurial spirit. Even if they have a pre-existing condition, they can leave their corporate health insurance next week. They can go into business for themselves… spurring the economy, creating jobs. (Next week will be 18 months till 1/1/14… so Cobra can tide them over till the pre-existing condition part goes into effect.)
No longer will people be tied to employers *just* for healthcare. This is huge![/quote]

I agree, UCGal, but have you checked the price of COBRA lately? It is typically more per month than your employer even pays for your plan and can be VERY cost-prohibitive, depending on what kind of a plan you have at work. If you currently have a PPO, you may find that an HMO offered by your employer is all you afford at COBRA rates.

18 months at $600-$800 mo (for the ex-employee ONLY) is enough incentive to keep working, IMHO, at least until 2014.

Individual plans can cost less than COBRA, but until 2014, the carriers of these plans are allowed to underwrite them upon application and price them accordingly.[/quote]

It can only be a small percentage (2%) over what the full cost is.
If you had a large employer – they get cheaper rates through economy of scale. If you had a small employer – your overall rates were higher. In that case it might be cheaper to shop around. Assuming no pre-existing conditions.

Trust me – I pay attention not just to the employee rates (subsidized) but the cobra rates – it’s how I know my employer has been steadily increasing the employee paid percentage of the overall cost. With my large employer the cost of Kaiser Permanente (the cheapest option – even cheaper that the High Ded. plan… so the one I’m on) is about 20% via cobra than what KP quotes online. Assuming my family would even qualify… my husband has had knee surgery, is on a staten drug, etc… my son has an all all which might be considered a pre-existing condition.

My best friend is the poster child for a healthy person with a boatload of pre-existing conditions. She had scoleosis and a fused spine. She had a congenital condition with her kidney as a child. She’s got an auto-immune condition that flares up a bit – similar to lupis. She had to turn down a job with a start up because it did not offer insurance. (Small company – everyone else got insurance through their spouse.) When she was laid off – she had to take a job in a grocery store bakery for insurance, while consulting as a programmer to pay her mortgage. Pre existing conditions are a HUGE deal if you have them. They literally impact where you work in order to get insurance.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal][quote=bearishgurl][quote=UCGal] . . . I think this will be good for folks with an entrepreneurial spirit. Even if they have a pre-existing condition, they can leave their corporate health insurance next week. They can go into business for themselves… spurring the economy, creating jobs. (Next week will be 18 months till 1/1/14… so Cobra can tide them over till the pre-existing condition part goes into effect.)
No longer will people be tied to employers *just* for healthcare. This is huge![/quote]

I agree, UCGal, but have you checked the price of COBRA lately? It is typically more per month than your employer even pays for your plan and can be VERY cost-prohibitive, depending on what kind of a plan you have at work. If you currently have a PPO, you may find that an HMO offered by your employer is all you afford at COBRA rates.

18 months at $600-$800 mo (for the ex-employee ONLY) is enough incentive to keep working, IMHO, at least until 2014.

Individual plans can cost less than COBRA, but until 2014, the carriers of these plans are allowed to underwrite them upon application and price them accordingly.[/quote]

It can only be a small percentage (2%) over what the full cost is.
If you had a large employer – they get cheaper rates through economy of scale. If you had a small employer – your overall rates were higher. In that case it might be cheaper to shop around. Assuming no pre-existing conditions.

Trust me – I pay attention not just to the employee rates (subsidized) but the cobra rates – it’s how I know my employer has been steadily increasing the employee paid percentage of the overall cost. With my large employer the cost of Kaiser Permanente (the cheapest option – even cheaper that the High Ded. plan… so the one I’m on) is about 20% via cobra than what KP quotes online. Assuming my family would even qualify… my husband has had knee surgery, is on a staten drug, etc… my son has an all all which might be considered a pre-existing condition….[/quote]

$600 – $800 would be about the mo premium for standard PPO coverage working for a small business of under 50 employees (the vast majority of law firms are small businesses). I know larger firms pay premiums which are significantly less than that (in exchange for more insureds).

UCGal, if you lose your job before your kids reach 18 (or 23 if they are FT college students) and it turns out to be too expensive to insure them thru COBRA, they should be able to get individual coverage for $90-$110 mo ea. This is of course barring anything serious such as being childhood cancer survivors, asthmatic or diabetic, etc.

If they qualify for “Healthy Families” thru the state, the premium is about $37-$54 mo ea … free if the parent(s) are on TANF or any kind of gov’t disability.

[svelte]

[quote=livinincali]
The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

You must hate tax deductions then.

You did’t buy a house? You get taxed a lil harder.

[poorgradstudent]

I think we can all agree Roberts threw everyone a curve ball. People were thinking Kennedy would be the swing vote, and he didn’t seem very sympathetic in questions.
I actually think the Supremes handed Republican House members seeking re-election a gift. Not so much Romney; he implemented RomneyCare and has been flopping like a fish on the issue since the mandate became unpopular. But a lot of House Republicans will be able to make “Repeal ObamaCare” their *only* platform plank and get re-elected on it.

[livinincali]

[quote]As far as the partisan nature of the court – in this case Roberts *didn’t* vote in a partisan fashion. Are you saying you wish he had? Or are you complaining about the 8’s predictable votes? [/quote]

The 7-8 predictable votes. Where any kind of relatively 50-50 legislation is a 5-4 vote. Things should either be constitutional or not most decisions should be 9-0 maybe 7-2 We have a mechanism to amend the constitution if it’s truly something the people want. The problem is our 2 party system has succeeded at dividing us down the middle on silly stuff like God guns and gays and there’s no room for a good decision where a constitutional amendment would succeed. People just want to be on the winning side instead of the good decision side.

Maybe the ACA is a good law but when half like it half don’t like it and 99% don’t really know how it really affects them it’s scary how adamant people get about it.

[svelte]

The biggest reason I’m glad it was upheld?

I’m going to a big party in a few days that will be filled with Republicans. I was not looking forward to their gloating if it had been struck down.

I’m certainly not going to gloat, so maybe this topic will be discussed little if at all…at least I can hope that is true.

[bearishgurl]

brian, I DO worry about my aging brethren living in the “red states.” Even the ones significantly younger than me don’t seem to take very good care of themselves. I’m pretty sure most vote Republican and some vote Independent. Even many people “of color” (whatever that means, lol) living in “red states” vote Republican and there are many Republican elected representatives “of color.”

I see huge populations of these “red states” not being healthy enough to “weather the storm” (last until old age). I think this mindset is a function of local food and culture (incl smoking allowed in restaurants, bars and offices), the dearth of fresh produce in many areas and wanting freedom from all government restrictions (having thin local governments to protect them from polluted waters and so forth). The meth scrouge has invaded the states of KS, MO, IL, TN, AR, OK (and maybe others), incl their environments and their thin ranks of rural law enforcement cannot keep up with it (even with the DEA “setting up shop” in targeted areas there). I think there is a bit of malaise caused by “situational depression” going around in some of those parts but if you ask the locals if they would ever consider relocating, the answer is a resounding, NO! They love where they are.

I don’t know the answer. Perhaps more education on TV there on nutrition and effects of environmental hazards??

We’re all going to have to pay for their healthcare in one way or another beginning 2014.

[sdrealtor]

BRian
Did you mean the Venetian Cafe? I know the owner well. Not bad but you gotta step it up. I could send you to. Much better eats

[briansd1]

sdrealtor, I don’t know the Venetian Cafe.
My friends live near Upenn and they wanted to go to the Vientiane Cafe which is a Thai restaurant on Baltimore.

BTW, Asian food in california is much better, IMO.

[Veritas]

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7cT5xD2aM[/quote]

Interesting. But the supreme court ruled that it’s not a tax. Nuance is importance.

[Aecetia]

“The Supreme Court upheld most of President Obama’s Health Care law, including the controversial individual mandate that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance or be subject to a fine. The court said that fine ultimately amounts to a tax, and therefore the government does have the power to impose it.”

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/06/28/high-court-rules-obamacare-mandate-penalty-tax-contradicting-obam#ixzz1z9GCD4x7

“In other words, the Court said that Congress can impose a ‘tax’ on people if they don’t buy health insurance.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577494472052048242.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]”The Supreme Court upheld most of President Obama’s Health Care law, including the controversial individual mandate that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance or be subject to a fine. The court said that fine ultimately amounts to a tax, and therefore the government does have the power to impose it.”

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/06/28/high-court-rules-obamacare-mandate-penalty-tax-contradicting-obam#ixzz1z9GCD4x7

“In other words, the Court said that Congress can impose a ‘tax’ on people if they don’t buy health insurance.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577494472052048242.html%5B/quote%5D

Yep. Roberts also said:

“The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits ‘for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’… Congress, however, chose to describe the ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a ‘tax,’ but as a ‘penalty.’ …There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to ‘any tax’ would apply to a ‘penalty.’”

Congress’s decision to label this exaction a ‘penalty’ rather than a ‘tax’ is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as ‘taxes.’”

….

The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.”

The court applied two different tests to determine whether the penalty is a tax under two different powers. It is not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction act, and is a tax under the taxing powers of congress.

In the same ruling, it was judged to be both a tax and not a tax.

[svelte]

[quote=SK in CV]
The court applied two different tests to determine whether the penalty is a tax under two different powers. It is not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction act, and is a tax under the taxing powers of congress.

In the same ruling, it was judged to be both a tax and not a tax.[/quote]

Yeah, I caught that, too. I wasn’t quite sure what to make of that.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]

In the same ruling, it was judged to be both a tax and not a tax.[/quote]

Roberts wanted to rule on the constitutionality of penalty now rather than wait for later, until the penalty goes into effect. So he took advantage of the fact that Congress did not label the penalty a tax.

The Anti-Injunction Act is a act of Congress, so it makes sense that the Supreme Court defer to Congress when it comes to the definition of a tax.

But for all intents and purposes, the penalty is a tax so it’s allowed under the Constitution regardless of the label. Here, the Court is deciding powers defined in the Constitution itself.

Makes prefect sense to me.

[briansd1]

fwiw, after subsidies and other help to get people into insurance plans, the penalty will affect about 2% of taxpayers. Hardly a huge middle class tax increase.

Obama is vindicated and riding high this week.

A Supreme Court defeat would have emboldened his critics and depressed his base making him vulnerable to the charge that he wasted political capital for nothing.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Veritas]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7cT5xD2aM[/quote]

Interesting. But the supreme court ruled that it’s not a tax. Nuance is importance.[/quote]

SK: Good point, as many are missing the nuance in the Roberts’ decision, which did emphatically reject the Obama Administration’s Commerce Clause argument: “The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. … 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. … 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.”

While some, like Brian, are gloating over what they perceive as a clear-cut victory, in truth, it’s anything but. The rebuke: “Under our written Constitution … the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”

This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.[/quote]

I’m less than convinced that this was a meaningful decision wrt that battle. It appears to limit the commerce clause to activity, rather than inactivity. There is some almost ancient precedent allowing regulation of inactivity, which was ignored (i think?) in the majority opinions. But then the court allowed regulation of inactivity through taxation (penalties). Arguably a wash. Powers under the commerce clause may suffered a little damage around the edges. It will take something bigger to shove Wilsonian evolution back in the bottle.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.[/quote]

I’m less than convinced that this was a meaningful decision wrt that battle. It appears to limit the commerce clause to activity, rather than inactivity. There is some almost ancient precedent allowing regulation of inactivity, which was ignored (i think?) in the majority opinions. But then the court allowed regulation of inactivity through taxation (penalties). Arguably a wash. Powers under the commerce clause may suffered a little damage around the edges. It will take something bigger to shove Wilsonian evolution back in the bottle.[/quote]

SK: It will definitely take something bigger than ACA, but, if you take the wider (and non-partisan) vantage, then Roberts’ decision was entirely consistent and in keeping with his views as a jurist.

Many on the liberal side celebrated his decision as some sort of “revolt”, but the truth is far more sanguine. It was very much a conservative opinion and it pushed back strongly on what was viewed as an over-reach. His language was emphatic and it was clear.

Within the larger and looming battle over entitlement reform, this decision will have due weight. The days of the “Blue State Model” and the “New Deal/Great Society” Dems are approaching an end and for reasons other than politics or partisanship. Simple arithmetic is going to kill or severely curtail programs dating back to the 1930s. It’s becoming all of a piece and, as the saying goes, “The best laws are made in the courts.”

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Many on the liberal side celebrated his decision as some sort of “revolt”, but the truth is far more sanguine. It was very much a conservative opinion and it pushed back strongly on what was viewed as an over-reach. His language was emphatic and it was clear.[/quote]

Justices are people too.

I believe that Roberts wanted ACA because the country needs health care reform. ACA may not be ideal but it’s better than nothing, because nothing is what we’d get without ACA.

Scalia knew of the Court’s decision so that’s why he was so furious on Monday. Scalia’s rant was directed at Obama but he was furious at Roberts.

Roberts ruled that the penalty for not having health insurance was not a tax for the purpose of the Anti-Injuction Act. He could easily have reached that same conclusion with regard to the constitutionality of the penalty/tax and sided with the conservative wing of the court.

But Roberts chose to hand Obama a victory because it was the right thing to do for the country and the credibility of the Court.

I also think that on gay marriage, Roberts will side with the liberal wing. We shall see.

[svelte]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Many on the liberal side celebrated his decision as some sort of “revolt”, but the truth is far more sanguine. It was very much a conservative opinion and it pushed back strongly on what was viewed as an over-reach. His language was emphatic and it was clear.[/quote]

Justices are people too.

I believe that Roberts wanted ACA because the country needs health care reform. ACA may not be ideal but it’s better than nothing, because nothing is what we’d get without ACA.
[/quote]

I take Roberts at his word. He feels it is the SC’s job to find any way possible to prove legislation passed is legal. Barring that, they have to strike it down.

And so he did just that – found a thread through the labyrinth of US judicial history to find the law legal.

I would be disappointed in him if he ruled in favor simply because he thought the US needed healthcare reform. I think he truly believes the law is valid.

I think Allan is right also – the ruling is really noteworthy for what it didn’t allow (ie use of the commerce clause).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
I believe that Roberts wanted ACA because the country needs health care reform. ACA may not be ideal but it’s better than nothing, because nothing is what we’d get without ACA.

But Roberts chose to hand Obama a victory because it was the right thing to do for the country and the credibility of the Court.
[/quote]

Brian: Roberts “wanted” ACA? Really? Based on what reasoning? I hate to break this to you, but you’re arguing about another entitlement amidst impending massive fiscal dislocation. You did notice that Stockton went belly up, right?

Whether or not this country “needs” health reform is actually irrelevant right now. The Great Society programs of the 1960s were enacted during a period of surplus, meaning we could afford both Beans (Great Society) and Bullets (Vietnam War.) Those days are looooong gone, my friend.

Times have irrevocably changed and neither the Dems nor the GOP is prepared. At this point, it doesn’t matter if Obama gets elected, or Romney. Neither has a clue and neither has a plan. So, as to handing Obama a victory? In the grand scheme of things, eh, not so much. The SCOTUS decision actually handed both Obama AND Romney a victory, of sorts. You’re familiar with the term “Pyrrhic Victory”, right?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Roberts “wanted” ACA? Really? Based on what reasoning? [/quote]

I’ll give you some reasoning. Roberts has been called a corporatist. The ACA, with the mandate was (and since it is now intact, it remains) a multi-billion dollar gift to insurance companies. In that context, if he wanted the ACA, it was only with the mandate.

Was that meaningful in his thought process? I really have no idea. Scalia and Thomas are partisan hacks. I think it’s pretty clear they care about politics. I’m not sure Roberts does.

Obviously, I’m pleased about the ruling. But I’m far from convinced that Roberts is going to be a Justice that will be predictable as Scalia and Thomas (or Bryer and Ginsburg for that matter) have proved to be. I have no doubt that the Justices, just like most of us, make decisions, then go find support for those decisions. I don’t suspect Roberts is any different. But the zeitgeist in which he operates may be very different than his neighbors on that side of the bench.

Again, this is just a possible reasoning. In twenty years we may know more.

[briansd1]

Allan, you’re thinking too far and broad from Madison to Wilson and now to Obama.

I don’t think that anybody makes decisions with this broad of an outlook. We make decisions that affect our own lives.

Again, Roberts could have easily struck down ACA. But he didn’t.

SK makes a good point that Roberts is a corporatist and ACA works best with the mandate; so it was important to preserve the mandate with the law.

Also, as SK points out, with regard to the Commerce Clause, nothing has changed, so you’re reading too much into the decision.

I have hopes that Roberts, as Chief Justice, wants to run the Court in a fashion that builds a lasting legacy. Yes, in 20 years we may know more.

Allan, you keep on saying that it doesn’t matter if Obama gets reelected or not. If that’s the case, then stop disparaging him; reelect him and be done with it.

Then you can sit back, relax and watch the events unfold. You’d better live a long time if you want to see your long term predictions come true.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

So, when you start discussing “outlawing” obesity or “eradicating” redneck culture.[/quote]

Who’s talking about outlawing anything?

As a conservative, you should know about certain things being frowned upon and socially undesirable. Didn’t some Moral Majority evangelist say that Rap music is detrimental to our youth?

Anyway, I wouldn’t want to eradicate redneck culture. Where would I find my entertainment?

Allan, it’s all in good fun. I’m all for “vive la difference”. I just like to draw caricatures for the fun of it. After all, didn’t your side, over the years, make enough fun of treehuggers, granola munchers and tofu eaters? How times have changed… it now turns out that appreciating different kinds of tofu is quite yuppieish and elegant.

Allan, I bet that if you invited your daughter’s boyfriend’s parents over for dinner, you’d rather they came in a Prius than a jacked-up 4×4.

[scaredyclassic]

I don’t know anything about the law and really have no opinion on it other than it does seem like in the richest nation on earth you shouldn’t be tied to a job for health innsurance reasons.

[DataAgent]

[quote=squat250]I don’t know anything about the law and really have no opinion on it other than it does seem like in the richest nation on earth you shouldn’t be tied to a job for health innsurance reasons.[/quote]

ditto

[Hobie]

You’re not.
All of the self employed folks purchase health insurance on the open market at market price. Which is very high when compared to employer group policies.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Hobie]You’re not.
All of the self employed folks purchase health insurance on the open market at market price. Which is very high when compared to employer group policies.[/quote]

It’s only “very high” if the applicant has “pre-existing conditions.” HOWEVER, the lower-priced individual policies have MUCH higher co-pays and deductibles than a typical employer-sponsored policy. I’m referring to PPO’s here. Not sure if HMO’s are actually more expensive on the open market for a healthy person as opposed to an employer policy because the healthy person is “underwritten” as an individual-policy applicant. An “employee” is not. This “underwriting” requirement will go away in 2014 under HCRA.

In any case, an employer usually pays at least 60% of the monthly premium and charges the employee for the balance. Some employers even subsidize the policies of the employees’ immediate family members. A individual policy holder has to pay 100% of the premium but has far more choice in the type of coverage (and providers avail to them) than does an “employee” (who has to accept the plan(s) their employer offers).

[mike92104]

I just wish the legislation had actually tried to tackle the cost rather than just determining who pays for it. The bill sucks ass, but all people hear is “Healthcare Reform”, and therefore it must be good.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]

Allan, I bet that if you invited your daughter’s boyfriend’s parents over for dinner, you’d rather they came in a Prius than a jacked-up 4×4.[/quote]

Brian: Touche. You’re absolutely right on that one. Although, I’d prefer something a little less smug than a Prius.

You’ll never change my mind on tofu. That shit is wretched.

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]

Allan, I bet that if you invited your daughter’s boyfriend’s parents over for dinner, you’d rather they came in a Prius than a jacked-up 4×4.[/quote]

Brian: Touche. You’re absolutely right on that one. Although, I’d prefer something a little less smug than a Prius.

You’ll never change my mind on tofu. That shit is wretched.[/quote]

Shit…Time for me to sell my truck…But I have a few more years.

[Aecetia]

flu,

I sent you some more of the taxes that apply to many working people and not just the “rich.”

[Hobie]

Hey, send me them too.! Or post them. Maybe we need to start a new thread of new ‘non’-taxes as a result of ACA.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=flu][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]

Allan, I bet that if you invited your daughter’s boyfriend’s parents over for dinner, you’d rather they came in a Prius than a jacked-up 4×4.[/quote]

Brian: Touche. You’re absolutely right on that one. Although, I’d prefer something a little less smug than a Prius.

You’ll never change my mind on tofu. That shit is wretched.[/quote]

Shit…Time for me to sell my truck…But I have a few more years.[/quote]

FLU: Ah, dude, that rule wouldn’t apply to you! I think just the sight of you deplaning from a lifted 4×4 would be worth the price of admission. Of course, the truck would need a gun rack and a Confederate flag in the rear window. Oh, and those classy female cutouts on the mudflaps. Crank some Lynryd Skynyrd (“Sweet Home Alabama” or “Freebird”) on the 8-track and you’d be in bidness!

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=flu][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]

Allan, I bet that if you invited your daughter’s boyfriend’s parents over for dinner, you’d rather they came in a Prius than a jacked-up 4×4.[/quote]

Brian: Touche. You’re absolutely right on that one. Although, I’d prefer something a little less smug than a Prius.

You’ll never change my mind on tofu. That shit is wretched.[/quote]

Shit…Time for me to sell my truck…But I have a few more years.[/quote]

FLU: Ah, dude, that rule wouldn’t apply to you! I think just the sight of you deplaning from a lifted 4×4 would be worth the price of admission. Of course, the truck would need a gun rack and a Confederate flag in the rear window. Oh, and those classy female cutouts on the mudflaps. Crank some Lynryd Skynyrd (“Sweet Home Alabama” or “Freebird”) on the 8-track and you’d be in bidness![/quote]

Would mind if I show up with truck nutz on the hitch?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_nuts

I considering getting one and put it onto my X5 hitch that I just got. I’m sure Carmel Valley soccer moms would just love that….

But in all seriousness I really really want an F150 raptor… Those things kick ass totally.

I’ve already got a confederate flag ready. I got one from a KKK rally I went to in Chicago when I was an intern one time.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=flu]
But in all seriousness I really really want an F150 raptor… Those things kick ass totally.

I’ve already got a confederate flag ready. I got one from a KKK rally I went to in Chicago when I was an intern one time.[/quote]

FLU: Yeah, those things are badass. I spoke to a coach at a skills camp who just finished tweaking his (it was black on black and all the upgrades were done real cleanly), and loved it.

He had the 6.2L and had performance tuned the plant. Told me he could smoke pretty much anything off the line and that it handled surprisingly well for a truck.

I had an F-350 King Ranch with the twin turbo diesel and could jolly stomp a Porsche off the light (truck had BAGS of torque), so I’m not surprised.

Throw your Confederate flag on that sucker and you’re good to go. I’d trade out Lynryd Skynyrd for some All Shall Perish or Ministry, though.

[paramount]

Liverpool Care Pathway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_dying_patient#Controversy

[briansd1]

I’m seeing a lot of flip flopping on the part of Romney on the tax thing.

An adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney broke from the messaging of other Republicans Monday, arguing that the health-care mandate in the Affordable Care Act is not a tax.

“The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court, he agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia, that very clearly said that the mandate was not a tax,” Eric Fehrnstrom said on MSNBC. “The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-adviser-breaks-from-gop-message-says-mandate-is-not-a-tax/2012/07/02/gJQAF76JIW_blog.html

As SK mentioned before, Roberts is a corporatist. And at first, ACA is a give-away to the insurance companies…. But I believe that, over the years, the business community, as a whole, will embrace ACA as a way of holding down costs.

We need to prevent health costs from growing beyond the current 18% of GDP, while expanding health care to all. That will mean some rationing, but it’s all for better, IMO.

Unlike an earlier poster, I believe that certain minimal health coverage should be available to everyone, with Cadillac coverage as extra options.

[briansd1]

And of course, we need to old drug companies accountable like the Justice Department’s recent settlement with Glaxo.

WASHINGTON — GlaxoSmithKline LLC will pay $3 billion and plead guilty to promoting two popular drugs for unapproved uses and to failing to disclose important safety information on a third in the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history, the Justice Department said Monday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/record-settlement-glaxosmithkline-to-plead-guilty-pay-3b-for-illicit-promotion-of-drugs/2012/07/02/gJQABroGIW_story.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: It will definitely take something bigger than ACA, but, if you take the wider (and non-partisan) vantage, then Roberts’ decision was entirely consistent and in keeping with his views as a jurist.

Many on the liberal side celebrated his decision as some sort of “revolt”, but the truth is far more sanguine. It was very much a conservative opinion and it pushed back strongly on what was viewed as an over-reach. His language was emphatic and it was clear.

Within the larger and looming battle over entitlement reform, this decision will have due weight. The days of the “Blue State Model” and the “New Deal/Great Society” Dems are approaching an end and for reasons other than politics or partisanship. Simple arithmetic is going to kill or severely curtail programs dating back to the 1930s. It’s becoming all of a piece and, as the saying goes, “The best laws are made in the courts.”[/quote]

His language was emphatic, clear, and as related to the commerce clause, non-binding dictum.

Justice Ginsburg said about a week ago that this term has been “more than usually taxing”. (I got quite a chuckle when I went back and found her precise wording.) Ignoring the precise wording she used, I think she was referring to her rebuke of Justice Roberts insistence of including dictum related to the commerce clause in this decision, when it was wholely unnecessary. She found the inclusion “puzzling”. While it may portend Justice Roberts’ future thinking, and potentially pursuasive to lower courts, it does not represent legal authority. So technically, as specifically related to the commerce clause, nothing happened.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
While some, like Brian, are gloating over what they perceive as a clear-cut victory, in truth, it’s anything but. The rebuke: “Under our written Constitution … the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”
[/quote]

It’s time for celebration indeed. A victory for a signature legislation, something that eluded presidents for decades.

When the Court ruled in favor of Bush and gave him the presidency, the other side celebrated. Now it’s our turn. Fair is fair.

How is this not a clear victory as far the Affordable Care Act is concerned?

You’re thinking too far, Allan. The Administration was not seeking to expand the power of the Federal government infinitely beyond health care.

Here, Obama got the law that he wanted and that’s what matters.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.[/quote]

Madbury v. Madison?… Maybe my American history is rusty.

A number of legal observers compared Roberts’s threading-the-needle approach Thursday to the strategy used by one of Roberts’s judicial heroes, Chief Justice John Marshall.

In the landmark 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, Marshall established the court’s power of judicial review that persists to this day. But the decision itself was a legal pretzel, concluding that Thomas Jefferson’s administration had acted illegally but also that the court lacked jurisdiction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/robertss-health-care-decision-stuns-many-but-in-line-with-his-outlook/2012/06/28/gJQAFdv19V_story.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.[/quote]

Madbury v. Madison?… Maybe my American history is rusty.
[/quote]

Brian: I don’t have the time or the inclination to take you to task for your imprecise understanding of American history.

No, I wasn’t referencing Marbury versus Madison, but rather Madisonian ideals (limited government as dictated by the enumerated powers found in the Constitution) versus Wilsonian ideals (misguided and wrong-headed philosophy that holds government involvement as necessary to cure/prevent all manner of social “ills” and pushes the Constitution to its most elastic limits.)

We continue to live with Wilson’s misbegotten legacy, most notably in the Nanny State foisted upon us by the “Progressives”, those do-gooders who ultimately do the most harm.

ACA remains a deeply flawed piece of legislation, and largely because Obama decided to outsource it to Congress, versus taking the role on himself and crafting a law that would stand the test of time. In terms of a Dem who knew how to get things done, you need look no further than LBJ. This was a hardball negotiator of the first order and the legislation that emerged HAS stood the test of time. Obama was so concerned over his “legacy” that he forgot to do the actual work. And, if you think the GOP isn’t going to use this decision to their utmost advantage in what will prove to be a vicious and hard-fought election, well, Brian, you truly do NOT have a good understanding of American history.

[briansd1]

Allan, my AP History teacher’s husband was a scholar of Woodrow Wilson. I don’t know much about Madison.

Beside, Wilson is much more of our times… I don’t really want to go back to Madison’s time. Anything before the Industrial Revolution and WWI is a different world. The way we live has changed so much.

Despite how you feel about Obama, I believe that even you have to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s decision is to Obama’s advantage. A negative outcome would have done much more damage to Obama’s reelection chances and legacy.

BTW, whereas Antonin Scalia represents the other side, Stephen Breyer is my hero. I think it’s a comparison that people living today can more easily understand.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, my AP History teacher’s husband was a scholar of Woodrow Wilson. I don’t know much about Madison.

[/quote]

Very short version. Madison-limited federal government. Wilson – federal government solves problems. Wilson, think FDR New Deal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, my AP History teacher’s husband was a scholar of Woodrow Wilson. I don’t know much about Madison.

Beside, Wilson is much more of our times… I don’t really want to go back to Madison’s time. Anything before the Industrial Revolution and WWI is a different world. The way we live has changed so much.

Despite how you feel about Obama, I believe that even you have to acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s decision is to Obama’s advantage. A negative outcome would have done much more damage to Obama’s reelection chances and legacy.

BTW, whereas Antonin Scalia represents the other side, Stephen Breyer is my hero. I think it’s a comparison that people living today can more easily understand.[/quote]

Brian: Wilson may have been more contemporary, but that isn’t the issue at hand.

Wilson, that poor misguided soul, was of the belief that government and a proper, “Progressive” animating spirit could go out into the world and reverse many of the ills we confronted, most notably war. Hence, Wilson’s belief in “outlawing” war and the laughable notion that became the League of Nations. You might want to check history and see how Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy thought about the League of Nations.

So, when you start discussing “outlawing” obesity or “eradicating” redneck culture, I think of misguided Wilsonian ideals and try to remind you that, in America, you need to mind your own business. As long as we’re not infringing on each other’s rights, we should be perfectly able to do as we please, including consuming massive quantities of Mountain Dew (or a nice Merlot), watching a truck pull (or an opera) and bolting down innumerable Big Macs (or Pad Thai) without ham-handed gubment interference.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: I don’t have the time or the inclination to take you to task for your imprecise understanding of American history.

[…]

ACA remains a deeply flawed piece of legislation, and largely because Obama decided to outsource it to Congress, versus taking the role on himself and crafting a law that would stand the test of time. In terms of a Dem who knew how to get things done, you need look no further than LBJ. This was a hardball negotiator of the first order and the legislation that emerged HAS stood the test of time. Obama was so concerned over his “legacy” that he forgot to do the actual work. And, if you think the GOP isn’t going to use this decision to their utmost advantage in what will prove to be a vicious and hard-fought election, well, Brian, you truly do NOT have a good understanding of American history.[/quote]

Yeah, there’s definitely a lack of historical knowledge here. But at least some people are able to acknowledge what they don’t know.

Once again the discussion is steered toward a perception of Obama’s character flaws. It always comes down to that in Allan’s “analysis.”

LBJ’s legislation stood the test of time?

I guess you are right, decades later there are still plenty of unexploded mines strewn throughout the jungles of Southeast Asia.

Or are you talking about Medicare? Might want to check the history of that one. Started out much like Obamacare, controversial, and has changed much over time (as Obamacare will also.)

It is true that Medicare was not as misunderstood, since there was no Murdoch propaganda machine back then.

It’s the same tired old argument: Obama loses, even when he wins.

How’s that “vigorous” Rick Perry campaign doing?

The Court’s decision validates the key legislation of Obama’s fist term, and completely deflates Romney’s and the Republican’s main point of attack. It’s that simple.

All they got now is the jobs issue, and there’s no way Romney can frame himself as someone that will create jobs.

You are right that the Republicans will try to use this ruling against Obama, and in frighteningly desperate ways.

I’ve said it before: They are going full-on Orwell in this election. The Ministry of Truth will be working triple shifts.

Allan, the rich vocabulary and vague historical references don’t change the score: Your analysis and predictions are consistently wrong (and the wishful thinking is utterly transparent.)

…and btw, Nazis? Seriously…Nazis?

[briansd1]

[quote=harvey]
It’s the same tired old argument: Obama loses, even when he wins.
[/quote]

I find this quite common among the right-wing these days.

We now often hear arguments such as: “an Obama victory is the best thing that can happen to the Republican party”, “they are all the same so it doesn’t matter; but I still prefer the Republicans”, “Roberts followed the Constitution and preemptively protected conservative values into the future although the Commerce Clause has not changed”.

Republican values are now so indefensible that their supporters can’t even point to anything positive. So they fall back to: “they are all the same; but we all lost because you won.”

Remember the Bush doctrine of preemptive defense? You annihilate the future enemy before he can attack you.

So now, according to some, we have Roberts’ preemptive jurisprudence. You rule for the other side, so that you can preemptively defend your own values later. Pure genius. Who needs Scalia when we now have Roberts?

[Aecetia]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV][quote=Veritas]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7cT5xD2aM[/quote]

Interesting. But the supreme court ruled that it’s not a tax. Nuance is importance.[/quote]

SK: Good point, as many are missing the nuance in the Roberts’ decision, which did emphatically reject the Obama Administration’s Commerce Clause argument: “The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. … 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. … 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.”

While some, like Brian, are gloating over what they perceive as a clear-cut victory, in truth, it’s anything but. The rebuke: “Under our written Constitution … the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”

This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.[/quote]

Excellent discussion as always by Allan and SK, but as Shakespeare might say: “A tax by any other name would smell as sweet.” And Zeit might say looks like a tax, walks like a tax, etc.

[sdrealtor]

Must be a different place. You are right about Thai, sushi, Indian,Vietnamese etc being better but Chinese food is better there. Hit up Chinatown next time

[briansd1]

I’m becoming like flu, I gave up on the Red States some time ago. Screw them if they can’t make the right decisions for themselves.

We need to proceed as if they don’t exist because they can’t be persuaded by logic anyway.

Economically though they can’t do without us and their elite all live in our states while keeping their official residences back home so they can hold on to power.

[ocrenter]

I loved how for the whole day the Fair and Balanced FOX news had a neat “obamaTAX” corner graphic on.

[Coronita]

Don’t forget about the two new tax surcharges that some of you folks will now be paying for as a result of obamacare.

http://www.cliftonlarsonallen.com/inside.aspx?id=364

3.8 percent net investment income tax

Beginning in 2013, higher income individuals with net investment income will be subject to a 3.8 percent tax of the lesser of two amounts:

Your net investment income, or
the excess of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income over a $200,000 (single) or $250,000 (joint filers) threshold amount.

If the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income is greater than the $200,000/$250,000 threshold, the excess becomes a limitation on the amount of net investment income exposed to the surtax. For example, if a joint return has a modified adjusted gross income of $260,000, the $10,000 excess becomes the limitation.

Also tax #2

Medicare surcharge tax on earned income

Presently, the Medicare tax applies to all wages and self-employment income. For wage earners, both the employer and the employee pay 1.45 percent, whereas a self-employed taxpayer pays the entire 2.9 percent.

Beginning in 2013, the health care legislation imposes an additional 0.9 percent surtax — but only on higher income households. The tax applies to income in excess of:

A single person’s wage and self-employment income over $200,000, or
the combined wage and self-employment income of a married couple exceeding $250,000.

“There is no employer match on the 0.9 percent,” says Chris Hesse, a tax partner with CliftonLarsonAllen. “This tax is entirely paid by the employee or the self-employed individual. There will be employer withholding, but if you are self-employed, you will need to build this into your quarterly tax estimates. And some joint filers will have less withheld than their combined 0.9 percent tax.”

Then again, I’m sure a lot of piss ants will say if you earn 200/250k, then you should pay more taxes. Some other piss ants will say it’s “just an incremental tax”…

all while not having to pay the tax themselves, and/or all while collecting a public pension…

Notice the fine print of these taxes. It taxes individual’s passive income. BUT if you conduct business in sort of way, you won’t be subject to it..Same old same old.

[Author]

Posts