OT: Obamacare decision rassling ring

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts