Over 3 days the Supreme Court will hear 6 hours of oral argument about the Constitutionality of Obama Care (aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx)

It unfortunately will not be televised ;but transcripts and audio tape will be made available .

Here are some of the issues that the Justices may consider,
- Obamacare destroys the foundation of American contract law .
James Wilson was a framer and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
About contract law he wrote that American contracts were about liberty... that if one could argue that they were compelled to enter into contract ,the contract was not binding .A contract has to be between mutually willing participants .

The government compelling someone to enter into such a contract with a private company violates that principle .

Defenders will argue that the court has allowed an ever expansive use of government regulations under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. This is true ,however never before has the court used the commerce clause to regulate and control inactivity... the non-act of not buying health insurance.

The National Federation of Independent Business wrote in its brief to the court that , “uninsured status neither interferes with commerce or its regulation nor constitutes economic activity. Instead, the uninsured’s defining characteristic is their non-participation in commerce.”
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/11-398_private_respondents.authcheckdam.pdf

This principle in essesnce gives Congress unlimited power over every aspect of American life . This is what the Administration will argue anyway.
The 11th Circuit court's ruling on Obamacare states as much .

The Government concedes the novelty of the mandate and the lack of any doctrinal limiting principles; indeed, at oral argument, the Government could not identify any mandate to purchase a product or service in interstate commerce that would be unconstitutional, at least under the Commerce Clause.
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201111021.pdf
Best guess is that if the Solicitor General doesn't come up with something that puts a limit on the mandate then the Administration doesn't stand a chance in court. I don't think he can.

I would argue that already the court has distorted the origninal meaning of the Commerce Clause in previous rulings like the depression era Wickard case ( a farmer was barred from growing wheat to feed his pigs)because the clause was never intended to regulate commerce inside a state . But I don't think it's probable that almost a century of SCOTUS bad calls will be reversed .

But this is a barrier that has never been crossed . Think of the possibilities .The Obots could mandate the purchase of the Chevy Volt. A conservative Congress could mandate the purchase of firearms .

If this is allowed by SCOTUS (probably under some dodge about Congress having unlimited taxing authority ;or calling the whole issue a "political question" ) then there will be nothing that can't be done ;all the limits and restraints on government cease to exist... the Constitution rendered virtually null and void.

We may as well scrap the document and adopt the Aussie system that has been so well explained to us by our Aussie participants where the only restraint on the legislature and executive is the threat of an election.

Hello tom:

So, those are the choices, huh? Obamacare or liberty? Frankly, giving a sick person a chance at life, is spreading a LOT of liberty around, but that's just me.

Looks like there's ONE guy, Kennedy, who's going to decide it too. It seems to that IF the commerce department can tell you what you CAN'T buy, and it does, then it certainly can tell you what you MUST buy. After all, the government tells you that you MUST buy immunizations (http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/exemptreview101503.pdf).

excon

Wrong

Immunization policies are set individually by every state, with the HHS regulating vaccine production, purchasing vaccines and making them available to states.

The federal government makes recommendations for states to consider in setting immunization policies, but does not mandate them .

Ps your link says it in the 1st paragraph .

One of the strategies used in the US to control vaccinepreventable
Diseases (VPDs) has been state laws mandating
Vaccination for school entrance. There are no federal laws
Mandating vaccinations

It seems to that IF the commerce department can tell you what you CAN'T buy, and it does, then it certainly can tell you what you MUST buy.

I've already made comment on the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause in it's regulation of what can be purchased inside the individual states . I don't think that can be reversed . What Obamacare seeks to do is unchartered territory in the scope and power of the Federal Government .

WrongHello again, tom:

Well, because you're so mean about it, the Supreme Court will rule Obamacare Constitutional.. So there.

excon

Lol probably . I don't trust some of the conservatives on the court. Besides Kennedy ,Roberts could side in a majority confirming Obamacare... and so might Scalia.

The government does mandate a procedure, and regulate the standards of what states can do regarding what to use to immunize the population with, even if you don't want it. Try sending your kid to school without it.

As to health care, a standard for one encompassing policy makes proper sense. That insures the same protections for all, and not just the ones with money, who can afford liberty. Life is the most essential ingredient for liberty that there is. That's in the Constitution to. To deny life, is to deny liberty, and renders the Constitution a lie!

Is expansive government control also in the Constitution ? No . You may not like it ;but the document is a document that limits government power . You may think that a standard for one encompassing policy makes proper sense . You just can't find that clause that makes it so.

Yes it implied in the constitution as equal protection for all its citizens.

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause)


The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process

You just can't find that clause that makes it so.Hello again, tom:

Yeah, we can. It's that pesky old Commerce Clause again. In Gonzales v. Raich, SCOTUS ruled that under the Commerce Clause, congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it...

excon

The opinion by Scalia in Gonzales v. Raich is the reason I don't trust him to overturn Obamacare.(he said it was valid under 'Necessary and Proper ' clause) The case was not decided correctly because the State had a medical marijuana law on the books ,and Raich was not going to sell his plants ,but use them himself.

Are you saying it was decided correctly ? Because that would be the only way you could say that Obamacare is constitutional under the precedent of the Gonzales v. Raich decision.

Here is the amicus presented by the Social Security Institute to SCOTUS against Obamacare


The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce; it does not grant Congress the power to compel individuals to enter into interstate commerce. The Congress itself has recognized this limitation for 220 years; never before has it enacted a law compelling individuals to purchase particular products and services. Anything like that (such as mandatory automobile insurance) always before has been recognized as a prerogative of the police power reserved to the states.

No precedent, judicial or legislative, exists upholding anything like the power of Congress to impose an individual mandate compelling all citizens in America to purchase particular products and services.

Upholding the individual mandate here would leave no principled limit on the federal government's powers. As a result, it would demolish two of the most fundamental doctrines of the Constitution: 1) The federal government is limited to delegated, enumerated powers; and 2) All powers not delegated to it are reserved to the states respectively or the people. Upholding the individual mandate in this case would require tearing down these two fundamental pillars of the entire constitutional architecture, like blind Samson pushing over the pillars of the temple, causing it to collapse on the heads of everyone inside.
Social Security Institute | ObamaCare Or The Constitution: One Must Fall (http://socialsecurityinstitute.com/blog/obamacare-or-the-constitution-one-must-fall)

Are you saying it was decided correctly ?Hello again, tom:

No, but it's a precedent they can use.

excon

Nice argument, for the by gone pre civil war past, but fails to recognize the very modern real world of a weak central government subverted by states influences, that lead to the civil war.

Maybe that's what we have here, the states rights to discard the federal rules, which is again patently unconstitutional. Like I said before, every American has equal protection under the law, and the states cannot undermine that basic American RIGHT, by laws, or policies. I think we also lose site of the governments duty to mitigate its costs of what has grown to be an important and basic obligation to the health of its citizens, and consumer protections against those greedy b@stard private insurance companies.

Medical Loss Ratio: Getting Your Money's Worth on Health Insurance | HealthCare.gov (http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/11/medical-loss-ratio.html)


Today, many insurance companies spend a substantial portion of consumers' premium dollars on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead, and marketing. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, consumers will receive more value for their premium dollar because insurance companies will be required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement, rather than on administrative costs, starting in 2011. If they don't, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012.

The whole purpose of the mandate is to bend the cost curb DOWN, and not continue on the rising trend of premiums going up driven by profits over actual services. The funny part to me is that the right wants interstate competition, and that's the whole point of the mandate in making all the states toe one standard.

And lets not forget that the mandates affect only 33 million of UNINSURED consumers, who have NO heatlth insurance. So while the right hollers liberty, they are against the very tools that cost them the most money, the uninsured, particularly the uninsured who can afford health insurance. Hospitals and care providers have always passed those costs onto the consumers that do have and pay for insurance. The mandates mean you no longer bear the cost of someone else getting free care that WE pay for. Or a major part of it.

I ask you Tom, as someone that pays for those that are not as responsible as you are, should the uninsured pay something toward their own costs?

That's why the Supreme Court will uphold the federal mandate on health care consumers, because it's a fair way to keep the irresponsible out of the pocket of the responsible, and makes them pay something for their own care.

No way do I think that you want to pay for them, when you are paying for yourself, right??

I'm not here to argue the rationale or justification for the unconstitutional mandate. That's been done here . I gave the case why I think the mandate violates the Constitution.
"Fairness" is not the purpose of the Constitution. If what you say is true then sure toss the Constitution and adopt a French system of Equality and Fraternity .I'd add liberty ,but that's what's lost.
I have read many of the briefs or good sections of them . One thing I know is that the Adm will not say it's constitutional over 14th amendment or equal access grounds . They will make a case on the Commerce clause ,possibly the Necessary and Proper clause ;or they'll pivot like Roosevelt and argue that it's part of a broad taxing authority .

But in reality Tom it is a tax, because it is being imposed in a manadtory manner, that makes it a poll tax, but with specifics about the way it can be spent. Too much pussyfooting around the edges here

I would argue that already the court has distorted the origninal meaning of the Commerce Clause in previous rulings like the depression era Wickard case ( a farmer was barred from growing wheat to feed his pigs)because the clause was never intended to regulate commerce inside a state . But I don't think it's probable that almost a century of SCOTUS bad calls will be reversed .



Hi Tom,

You know the original meaning? As opposed to those who, for 100 years didn't know the meaning?

Tut

You have made that argument before Tom, and even you have to admit that the original intent of the Constitution has undergone changes when circumstances have changed. I mean they have added 37 states since the original thirteen colonies.

Hi Tom,

You know the original meaning? As opposed to those who, for 100 years didn't know the meaning?

Tut

Yes I do ;all you have to do is read the Federalist papers ,especially the ones authored by Alexander Hamilton 12,17,21,35 (who was by far the biggest proponent of a strong central government of the ratifiers ) .
In all there are 63 times that the subject of the commerce clause is mentioned. In NONE of them was the clause meant to mean anything EXCEPT interstate trade between the states , and trade with foreign nations .

The only reason they added it at all was because the original Articles of Confederacy had collapsed because of tarriff issues between the states. They wanted to eliminate the trade barriers between the states . There was absolutely no intent in having the Federal government imposing absolute control of trade.

Further ,you do recall when the British tried to impose taxes on non-activity (the purchase of British tea) don't you ?

The Judge who declared Obamacare unconstitutional in his ruling wrote this in his opionion:

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html (page 42)

I concure .

You have made that argument before Tom, and even you have to admit that the original intent of the Constitution has undergone changes when circumstances have changed. I mean they have added 37 states since the original thirteen colonies.
There is a way to amend the Constitution that is supposed to deal with these "evolutions" . It has been effectively used in the past . If you guys want the central government to have no limits then just amend the Constitution... You can call it the Leviathan Nanny-state amendent .

Government needs limits, but given the state of affairs in the world, not just in this country, I think we the people have to have a strong, effective, and efficient central government.

Or else no amendment will change the united states of the Koch brothers, or the united states of Prudential, or the united states of BP, or the united staes of shell oil, or the united states of the bank of america.

We already have the united states of the national rifle association, I mean come on big money owns it all as it is. Would you rather have a nanny state, or slavery, and subjugation by the rich business interests?

I want the rules we live by to be constitutional. It's your side that think it is a living breathing document where the things written are different.

But the genious of the document was that the Founders foresaw the need to change the document to reflect changing times. They even envisioned a day when the People would find the Constitution obsolete .(like that nut job justice Ginsberg who goes around the world telling countries not to use ours as a model) . The Founders saw that too and made provisions for a Constitutional convention to make wholesale changes.
The problem is that these provisions are not used .

There are also provisions for legal remedies, if you have standing to bring it and those provisions ARE used. You don't need a new amendment to define the language, intent, which is highly subjective, or standing, which is not that clear cut either.

My only regret, NO CAMERAS!

Hello tom:

So, those are the choices, huh? Obamacare or liberty?? Frankly, giving a sick person a chance at life, is spreading a LOT of liberty around, but that's just me.

The Nancy Pelosi argument (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pelosi-defends-obamacare-using-declaration-of-independence/). You know you've really been stretching your arguments pretty thin lately.

It all boils down to which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on, left or right.

You know you've really been stretching your arguments pretty thin lately.Hello again, Steve:

My arguments never varied.. From the git, I NEVER understood WHY you guys were against making sure everybody got decent health care... Wondering who would PAY for it is a legitimate concern, but simply to DENY your fellow citizen access to health care is despicable.

Nothing has changed. It's STILL despicable.

Oh, I know you guys are STILL living with the fantasy that your cancer will be treated at your local emergency room. I don't know WHY you believe that crap...

excon

My argument has never wavered either, no one is denied access to health care. But Obamacare is damn sure making mine more expensive mine AND destroying the first amendment in the process. But again, what's a little thing like the first amendment?

no one is denied access to health care.
If they can afford it, many can't.

That's a convenient myth, NK.

That's a convenient myth, NK.
None are so blind as those who will no see:

Almost 1 in 5 Americans Going Without Health Care (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4509618&page=1#.T3Co31uK9XQ)

Barely Hanging On: Middle-Class and Uninsured (http://www.rwjf.org/healthpolicy/product.jsp?id=58049)

Insured but bankrupt: The hidden side of health care costs (http://www.chron.com/opinion/article/Insured-but-bankrupt-The-hidden-side-of-health-3419042.php)

The subject even has it's own Wikipedia entry LOL: Medical debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_debt)

But in reality Tom it is a tax, becuase it is being imposed in a manadtory manner, that makes it a poll tax, but with specifics about the way it can be spent. Too much pussyfooting around the edges here

Today they heard argument for 2 hours ,and it appears ,because they intend to proceed with the case ,that they recognize that the penalty for not purchasing insurance is indeed a penalty ,and not a tax.
This will create a problem for the Adm because they have said that the power to impose a fine is under the Congressional taxing authority of the Constitution.

Had they decided it was a tax ,then by law ,there would be no standing to take on Obamacare in court since no 'tax' aka penalty will be imposed.. yet .(according to the Anti-Injunction Act no one can challenge a tax until a tax has been imposed... if the Judges wanted to punt on the issue ,they could've said there was no standing for a challenge at this time).

In speaking of the mandate, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli frequently used tax and penalty interchangeably ,and was challeged by a few of the Justices ;especially Alito. Kagan tried to lead Verrilli through the minefield of his gaffs ;but he didn't get the hint.
Justice Stephen Breyer said "Congress has nowhere used the word 'tax.' What is says is 'penalty.' Moreover, this is not in the Internal Revenue Code but for purposes of collection."
"[The penalty is] "not attached to a tax. It is attached to a health care requirement." That it's being "collected in the same manner as a tax doesn't automatically make it a tax."

Both the administration and those who filed the suits both want SCOTUS to hear the case so I'm not quite sure why it took so long on this issues except perhaps that both sides were preparing the battlefield for tomorrow's hearing.

After listening to the audio and reading the transcripts ,I'm a little more optimistic about the mandate to purchase insurance being declared unconstitutional .
Tomorrow they wrap it up . The big issue will be severability . If they declare the mandate unconstitutional will the rest of Obamacare go down .

I addressed that issue here :
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obamacares-unconstitutional-534343.html

Hello again, tom:

It doesn't sound good for the law. I think a defeat will hurt Obamas chances for reelection... The conservatives KNOW that... Don't tell me they don't make POLITICAL calculations. Balls and strikes - CRAP!

The good news, is that the public option looks like it'll be the one to replace Obamacare anyway. It should have been the way from the git.

excon

I don't think they will strike it down, even with the weak showing by the government. The reason is that this is no different than when social security, and the new deal where implemented.

The reason is that this is no different than when social security, and the new deal where implemented.Hello tal:

I think it's different. Here's why: (1) There WAS a time when the court DID call balls and strikes. Now, they're as partisan as ever. (2) We have a BLACK president who is LOATHED by the right. (3) When I said partisan, I meant BEYOND the pale. This group of right wingers makes BORK look liberal.

excon

I would have to see how the public option is constructed ;but generally agree that IF the country makes the decision to take over a huge sector of the economy ,that a public option would most likey be a constitutional alternative .

IF the country makes the decision to take over a huge sector of the economy ,that a public option would most likey be a constitutional alternative .Hello again, tom:

If the mandate fails, then it's only the funding that needs a fix. Surly, the parts of the law that people LIKE and KNOW about will remain, and that will NEED to be paid for. Those are that insurance companies can't deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, keeping children on their parents policy's till they're 26, and I seriously doubt whether the country will abide dropping 30 million people from health insurance...

So, if we can find a way to PAY for that stuff, I'm all ears. Oh, I have a way.

excon

Sour grapes aside implicit is Excon's reply ; the reason we have social security is because Roosevelt played hardball with the court. The threat of packing the court was always in the back of their mind. Balls and Strikes ? They cowered under the threat . He was not successful in the court packing plan. But the net result was the same . He achieved a significant shift in policy direction in SCOTUS and a win in 'Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis' .

If the mandate fails, then it's only the funding that needs a fix. Well there are other challenges ,but that is the big one.. I'll see how arguments go today on the severability issue,and challenges on 10th amendment grounds.

We all know what happens if the whole bill goes down, Dramatically higher costs for those that have health care insurance, for which there will be less of. I doubt they want THAT to happen despite the ones that do!

If it goes down, for sure, guaranteed, social security, and medicare are next. What you think the right will stop at health care?? I don't.

Our laws have to be constitutional.. bottom line. If the mandate is constitutional then there are no limits to what the government can do .There were ways to do all this without the power grabs ,deceptions and sleigh of hand that the Dems pulled .

If the mandate fails, then it's only the funding that needs a fix.
Initial reading of the testimony today leads me to believe that if the mandate declared unconstitutional then the whole legislation goes down. The mandate is a vital instrument of the law ,and it doesn't appear that the justices would be willing to read the 2000+ pages of the bill to decide which part is good or bad ;and essentially rewrite the whole law for the Congress.

I was listening to Tom Hartman on progressive radio today ,and he was bemoaning 'Marbury v Madison' and was complaining loudly that (now get this ) the Founders NEVER intended SCOTUS to have judicial review . While I wholeheartedly agree with him ,I have to wonder when this progressive learned to appreciate originalism ?

I think he does Ex

I have to wonder when this progressive learned to appreciate originalism ?Hello again, tom:

He's believed it for as long as I've been listening to him... Which is as long as I've been here. I DID wonder why he agreed with you. I STILL do.

excon

Our laws have to be constitutional.. bottom line. If the mandate is constitutional then there are no limits to what the government can do .There were ways to do all this without the power grabs ,deceptions and sleigh of hand that the Dems pulled .

The question is if THIS particular mandate is constitutional. Worry about the next one when it comes. That will give SCOTUS another case in the future. Now if they shoot this one down, Medicare for all is down the road. But then there is those pesky poor people. Will the government take food stamps?

Will the right wing even allow that?


If the mandate fails, then it's only the funding that needs a fix.

You guys don't want to fund fixing bridges, or FREE contraception for women, so I doubt seriously if you can fund somebody who can't afford health insurance, or worse, those that don't WANT it. Raising taxes maybe, only on lower incomes?? Heck you guys want to do that any way. Ask Romney, Ryan, and Santorum.

Go ahead, shoot the whole thing down, then I won't have to have insurance either. Funding from you guys for poor peoples insurance, HA, that will be a bigger circus than this Constitutional thing you guys are freaking over. So get ready for republican ideas about paying for something.

To each his own eh! We will see how well that works out for you

To each his own eh! we will see how well that works out for you

Now what could that mean?

Now what could that mean?

It means that when people only look after themselves they deserve all they get

The question is if THIS particular mandate is constitutional. Worry about the next one when it comes. That will give SCOTUS another case in the future. Now if they shoot this one down, Medicare for all is down the road.
Nope ;the difference here is that never before has the federal government madated a contract between citizens and a private company. Medicare is a tax according to the Social Security ruling .

nope ;the difference here is that never before has the federal government madated a contract between citizens and a private company. Medicare is a tax according to the Social Security ruling .

So look to see medicare updated

I was listening to Tom Hartman on progressive radio today ,and he was bemoaning 'Marbury v Madison' and was complaining loudly that (now get this ) the Founders NEVER intended SCOTUS to have judicial review . While I wholeheartedly agree with him ,I have to wonder when this progressive learned to appreciate originalism ?

Hi Tom,

I know you favour original intent. So, which is it?

Originalism or original intent?

You can't hold both at the same time.

Tut

Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)

Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism)

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the link.

I think if you look a bit more into it you will find this article and similar articles support what I have said.

5.4.1 Originalism is not a theory of original intent. Also Justice Scalia's comments in the article you posted. What Scalia is saying is that he does not support original intent. It is reasonable to assume he does not do this on the basis of original intent being a 'committee decision' This was the basis of our discussion a month or so ago.

Scalia says, "You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist and secondly an originalist"

Most people reject original intent because it has too many problems not least of all the problems Scalia is alluding to. Basically, original intent takes a group decision and gives it expansive or all embracing status. In other words, this goes against the notion of the separation of the powers;notably, the separation of the legislative bodies when it comes to decision making.

Another problem I see is that original intent can mean what ever or choose it to mean. This is especially relevant to the conservative side of politics. Original intent can be what my side of conservative politics wants the Constitution to say.

You are better off being an originalist.

Tut

I don't always agree with Scalia . Where he applies the text's meaning at the time of its adoption in his decisions I tend to agree with him . Whatever semantics that's called is OK with me . I know it is harder than saying that the text means whatever the language has evolved in 200+ years ,or the even lazier application that the living breathing crowd thinks. But it sets the only true standard for interpretation in my opinion.

Hi again Tom,

In relation to Tom Hartman. It is probably also worth noting that you don't have to be a conservative to support originalism.

Tut

Hartman believes in judicial activism. I bet you never heard him saying his critique of Marbury the number of times the courts intervened ,and ruled against laws ,and then imposed remedies on states and local governments.I bet he didn't object when Roe v Wade was decided . I bet he believes this statement ......“specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” (the idiot Justice William O. Douglas )

So Tom are you telling us your Bill of Rights is not sacrosanct

No he is saying his interpretation is the correct one and any other is WRONG!!

Hartman believes in judicial activism. I bet you never heard him saying his critique of Marbury the number of times the courts intervened ,and ruled against laws ,and then imposed remedies on states and local governments.I bet he didn't object when Roe v Wade was decided . I bet he believes this statement ......“specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” (the idiot Justice William O. Douglas )

Hi Tom,

My comment was in relation to Hartman, not about Hartman.

As I said, you don't have to be a conservative to support originalism.

Tut

I think that anything that ignores actual cause and effect, also ignore the solutions. I guess that's why we have none. You can interpret any thing you want, any way you want, but if the corn don't get planted you eat dirt.

So interpret the law, but fix the process that the law was made, then you fix the problem. And the corn can grow. I know too deep for the politician, who wants to look good with his arguments, and goes over the head of a judge who has never seen corn, but the hungry guy with his sleeves rolled up knows exactly what I mean.

So if the law doesn't work for the practical purpose of the peoples actual good, then the hell with interpretation.

You mean like the farmer who was growing wheat to feed his pigs and the Federal Government told him if he did that he'd have to pay a penalty... ooops I mean tax ?

I don't always agree with Scalia . Where he applies the text's meaning at the time of its adoption in his decisions I tend to agree with him . Whatever semantics that's called is ok with me . I know it is harder than saying that the text means whatever the language has evolved in 200+ years ,or the even lazier application that the living breathing crowd thinks. But it sets the only true standard for interpretation in my opinion.

Hi Tom,

You mean that you agree with it because it must be something conservative about it? I would have thought you would need a good understanding of something before you can come up with an informed opinion.

Tut

It's a simple concept . We know what the founders meant because there are enough supporting documents by them telling us what the clauses mean. We know what the meaning of the amendments are because we have the public records of the deliberations and the opinions of the authors. It's only a conservative thing because conservatives tend to respect the narrow original meaning ,rather than the expansions that have rendered the original text meaningless in many instances.

you mean like the farmer who was growing wheat to feed his pigs and the Federal Government told him if he did that he'd have to pay a penalty... ooops I mean tax ?

You mean a farmer who wanted to save money by growing his own wheat? That's actually a great idea, but at the time of the ruling the fear was wheat prices being unstable across the market. The rationale was that if all the farmers did it locally, the price of wheat would be destabilized on the markets.

Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)


In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (4.5 ha) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices, Filburn planted 23 acres (9.3 ha) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (4.8 ha) of excess area.[1]
The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Act required an affirmative vote of farmers by plebiscite in order to implement the quota. Much of the District Court decision related to the way in which the Secretary of Agriculture had campaigned for passage: The District Court had held that the Secretary's comments were improper. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which called the District Court's holding against the campaign methods which led to passage of the quota by farmers a "manifest error." The court then went on to uphold the Act under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

What happened to supply and demand that you free traders love so much, and the profits? Lets not forget the profits.



It's a simple concept . We know what the founders meant because there are enough supporting documents by them telling us what the clauses mean. We know what the meaning of the amendments are because we have the public records of the deliberations and the opinions of the authors. It's only a conservative thing because conservatives tend to respect the narrow original meaning ,rather than the expansions that have rendered the original text meaningless in many instances.

Not meaningless I would say, but you have to be able to change with time, and circumstances. I mean the country has changed since the days of 13 original colonies. Innovation, and technology and an ever expanding capability has to be met with a wider view just to accout for the effect on the way we do things or see things. Especially since the day of the farmer has given way to industry, and manufacturing.

If you don't change with the times/conditions, how do you solve the challenges? I seriously doubt that Jefferson would be able to make policy for the auto industry, or rail roads for that matter.

It's a simple concept . We know what the founders meant because there are enough supporting documents by them telling us what the clauses mean. We know what the meaning of the amendments are because we have the public records of the deliberations and the opinions of the authors. It's only a conservative thing because conservatives tend to respect the narrow original meaning ,rather than the expansions that have rendered the original text meaningless in many instances.

Hi Tom,

Yes it is a simple concept and that is exactly the problem problem.

"Narrow meaning" is convenient because it unites original intent, textualism, originalism or any other way you want to derive it so long as it is a descriptive interpretation it exists under the one banner.

Isn't that why Scalia makes clear distinctions in relation to this issue? In other words, to avoid the fallacy of group think as it applies to committee decisions.

Tut

Tal ,why punish self sufficiency ? Do they make you pay a fee for growing veggies in a home garden ? Filburn had no intention of selling his wheat . So the market impact was abstract in the mind of the activist judges .

But the effect was that it completely distorted the role of the Federal government in our lives by this ridiculous expansion of the Commerce Clause . Hopefully SCOTUS will finally put an end to that with this ruling on Obamacare as the only barrier that hasn't been crossed yet is the Federal government forcing people to enter into contract with another private company /individual.

Back to cause and effect Tom, as yourself sufficiency is my bankruptcy. More so the court has to deal (hopefully), with the practical effects on people as that's the final judgement of any law or policy.

And rigging the game is not my idea of freedom, nor equal protection under the law.

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMFNLclr-033012-encroachme.jpg.cms

tal ,why punish self sufficiency ? Do they make you pay a fee for growing veggies in a home garden ? Filburn had no intention of selling his wheat . So the market impact was abstract in the mind of the activist judges .


"So the market impact was abstract in the mind of the activist judges"

Sorry to push your previous "narrow meaning" thing again, but you are advocating the same type of abstractionism as the activist judges.

The only arguments I have seen so far are those that support a generalized conservative position. In other words, the correct interpretation of the Constitution is the interpretation that people who think like me prefer.

Tut

Tut , the commerce clause says that[ Congress has the power ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

So tell me how in hell that gives them the power to do what they did to Filburn ,or to mandate the purchase of goods or services that an individual doesn't want ? You have to have a very creative imagination to divine that from the penumbras and eminations of the clear written word. I also backed that up with many references to the clause in the Federalist papers ,written by the key founders at the Constitutional Convention.

Try it this way Tom, Filbin acted outside the law for his own advantage. If everyone did that, what would we have? The same with health insurance, if I pay for yours, can I afford mine?

It may smack down your rugged individualism, but it helps the village get through the winter. We can all gain, and are stronger for having defined boundaries of good behavior. As a nation we all have to move together in one direction to thrive and survive, or fall to our own inefficiency. My gosh, the reality of uniting 360 million people requires the co-operation of all of them, and for whatever reason the right is against that, I respectfully submit the notion of returning to the good old days of a few million people mostly Euro, white christians having there complete way, and subjugating others to their standard, are not feasible, or sustainable.

What part of equal and fair are you afraid of? Why are you ignoring and dismissing those that don't agree with you? Why can't you compromise?
It appears to me that you have a single minded goal of how everyone should live, think, and act, that preserves your own superiority, and suggests everyone else inferiority. Sorry, that's not reality.

Try it this way Tom, Filbin acted outside the law for his own advantage. If everyone did that, what would we have? The same with health insurance, if I pay for yours, can I afford mine?

It may smack down your rugged individualism, but it helps the village get through the winter. We can all gain, and are stronger for having defined boundaries of good behavior. As a nation we all have to move together in one direction to thrive and survive, or fall to our own inefficiency. My gosh, the reality of uniting 360 million people requires the co-operation of all of them, and for whatever reason the right is against that, I respectfully submit the notion of returning to the good old days of a few million people mostly Euro, white christians having there complete way, and subjugating others to their standard, are not feasible, or sustainable.

What part of equal and fair are you afraid of? Why are you ignoring and dismissing those that don't agree with you? Why can't you compromise?
It appears to me that you have a single minded goal of how everyone should live, think, and act, that preserves your own superiority, and suggests everyone else inferiority. Sorry, that's not reality.

The law was an unconstitutional exercise of power by the Roosevelt Adm. I don't care how SCOTUS ruled ,they were wrong.

I respectfully submit the notion of returning to the good old days of a few million people mostly Euro, white christians having there complete way, and subjugating others to their standard, are not feasible, or sustainable
Strawman ,that is not what I am saying and you know it. The Constitution works for a nation of a few million or hundreds of millions ;if it is followed .


Why can't you compromise? Love it ! All week long ,all I read in the press is which Conservative judge would compromise . I read nothing about how the progressive judges need to budge... and that's the same argument you are making . I have to compromise which means move closer to your position without any reciprocal move .

You need to get closer to the middle. I mean you can't stay far right, and say NO! You have to actually have a solution to negotiate.

No I don't. Compromise means the left entrenched and their agenda moving a little more slowly than they like. Eventually their Fabian strategy wins.

no I don't.Hello:

Here's the right wing plan... Give tax breaks to the richest of the rich. By and by, it'll make its way down to the poor, and then they can BUY insurance.

What's more American than that?

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Creating commerce for the purpose of regulating it, then penalizing those who do not wish to participate is what a dictatorship does.

How about creating commerce to generate money? Profit... the oldest motive in the world.

Easy to profit when you force your service on your clientele . In the underword they call it a protection racket .

Hello again, tom:

Let me see if I can reduce your argument down to it's basics... You got those who want to make sure that insurance companies can't dump you when you get sick, versus FREEDOM.

Seems like those are two great arguments that pass each other in the night.

excon

easy to profit when you force your service on your clientele . In the underword they call it a protection racket .

So Tom perhaps the legislation can be struct down as contravening the RICO Act

The answer to preventing insurance companies from dumping people is to reward them by forcing people to buy their services ?

The answer to preventing insurance companies from dumping people is to reward them by forcing people to buy their services ?Hello again, tom:

How else are they going to pay the claims if they can't dump people?

excon

Tut , the commerce clause says that[ Congress has the power ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

So tell me how in hell that gives them the power to do what they did to Filburn ,or to mandate the purchase of goods or services that an individual doesn't want ? You have to have a very creative imagination to divine that from the penumbras and eminations of the clear written word. I also backed that up with many references to the clause in the Federalist papers ,written by the key founders at the Constitutional Convention.


Hi Tom,

You want the judges to apply the law in this particular case because you think their job is interpret the law rather than make the law. No doubt you see the Filburn decision as an example of judges making the law. Law making should be the job of Congress.

If this is what you are saying then there is a problem of bivalence here. The Constitution interprets itself using itself. Unfortunately, this tells us nothing about the way the world is at the moment. Judges can and do make constitutional decisions sitting in an armchair.

This is bootstrap theory. This idea may work well in some idealized reality but this principle of bivalence doesn't work in the real world.

It seems to me that you agree with Justice Scalia when you see him applying the law, but disagree with him when you see him interpreting the law. I am sure Scalia is aware he is doing both. You can't help but do both at the same time.

As I said before, you agree with a decision if it suits a political belief. That's the beauty of putting all conservative interpretations under the one banner. You get to pick.

Tut

Tut , not exactly . The Filburn case was a case where Congress overstepped it's Constitutionality. It was the duty of the Court to reverse it. They didn't and instead allowed a massive expansion of the Federal Government that was not the intent of the founders. There were some in the nation like Patrick Henry that opposed the adoption of a federalist system for that very reason .

Scalia is a faint hearted originalist. He recognizes the absurdity of past decisions ,but doesn't have the desire to reverse the previous bad decisions.

Ex ,you see the solution to the problem of 3rd party payer as a massive government takeover of the industry. I see it as a return to free market principles .

Constitutionally ,the problem with the mandate is just like I stated ,the government is creating commerce for the purpose of regulating it .

Tut , not exactly . The Filburn case was a case where Congress overstepped it's Constitutionality. It was the duty of the Court to reverse it. They didn't and instead allowed a massive expansion of the Federal Government that was not the intent of the founders. There were some in the nation like Patrick Henry that opposed the adoption of a federalist system for that very reason .

Scalia is a faint hearted originalist. He recognizes the absurdity of past decisions ,but doesn't have the desire to reverse the previous bad decisions.


Hi Tom,

Well, of course he is. That's the whole idea. It's the only sane approach if you are not an armchair conservative. I am still interested in which part of originalism you adopt.

The Founding Fathers could not have predicted the Great Depression and the way it changed society. Probably more importantly the way society is continually changing.

The amendment process just goes to show that Wendell Holmes is correct. "The life of the law has not been logic it has been experience"

Tut

Wickard reversed 130 years of constitutional law. Something that so fundamentally changed the relationship between the people and the Federal Government needed an amendment ,not a judicial stamp of approval on a blatant power grab. If the people wanted a behomoth Leviathan central government (and perhaps they did in 1942 ) ,then it should've happened through the amendment or Constitutional convention process. That is my brand of originalism .

Wickard reversed 130 years of constitutional law. Something that so fundamentally changed the relationship between the people and the Federal Government needed an amendment ,not a judicial stamp of approval on a blatant power grab. If the people wanted a behomoth Leviathan central government (and perhaps they did in 1942 ) ,then it should've happened through the amendment or Constitutional convention process. That is my brand of originalism .



Probably wouldn't make any difference. Any such amendment would have become part of the formalist process. The judiciary would still get the final say.

Tut

Originally Posted by tomder55
Wickard reversed 130 years of constitutional law.
That's your spin, Filburn was asessed a fine, legal under The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) set quotas on the amount of wheat put into interstate commerce and established penalties for overproduction. He chose not to pay, and go to court


Something that so fundamentally changed the relationship between the people and the Federal Government needed an amendment ,not a judicial stamp of approval on a blatant power grab.
There was no fundemental change, it was the law, and he chose to ignore it. He exercised his rights, he lost.


If the people wanted a behomoth Leviathan central government (and perhaps they did in 1942 ) ,then it should've happened through the amendment or Constitutional convention process. That is my brand of originalism .
They should have stopped the congressional law from being implemented in the first place, but after it became the law, he was bound to obey it, as we all are.

The fact was that circumstances dictated the reasons behind the law, wheat prices on the global market, and had farmers been allowed to over plant, for whatever reason, the price of their wheat would have fallen.

"The goal of the Act was to stabilize the market price of wheat by preventing shortages or surpluses. Filburn (P) sold part of his wheat crop and used the rest for his own consumption. The amount of wheat Filburn produced for his own consumption combined with the amount he sold exceeded the amount he was permitted to produce.

Secretary of Agriculture Wickard (D) assessed a penalty against him. Filburn refused to pay, contending that the Act sought to limit local commercial activity and therefore was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

Filburn brought this lawsuit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Act and a declaratory judgment that the wheat marketing provisions of the AAA were unconstitutional for exceeding the scope of Congress's commerce power. The court below, a district court panel of three judges, entered judgment for Filburn and the Supreme Court granted cert."

So despite your rhetoric, and spin, the legal process played itself out, it's the results you don't like. Which don't get me wrong, I do understand, given your position of small government, and do as you please states, and individuals, but this was about market regulation, and the needs of the many, over the wants of the few.

Ex ,you see the solution to the problem of 3rd party payer as a massive government takeover of the industry. I see it as a return to free market principles .Hello again, tom:

I'm a BELIEVER in free market solutions, WHEN free market solutions address the needs of the citizen. The PROBLEM with free market solutions, is that companies generally address the NEEDS of their customers and their stockholders OVER that of the citizenry. As we've discussed before, I don't believe ANY private company would build a sidewalk in front of your house. Government WOULD, and DID.

Now, there's a free market solution to old people starving, and that's for old people to work until they drop. Social Security is the government solution that FIXED that.

The difference between us, is you're fine with people working until they drop, and/or dying because they don't have access to health care. I'm not. Those are things I associate with third world countries.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I'm a BELIEVER in free market solutions, WHEN free market solutions address the needs of the citizen. The PROBLEM with free market solutions, is that companies generally address the NEEDS of their customers and their stockholders OVER that of the citizenry. As we've discussed before, I don't believe ANY private company would build a sidewalk in front of your house. Government WOULD, and DID.

Now, there's a free market solution to old people starving, and that's for old people to work until they drop. Social Security is the government solution that FIXED that.

The difference between us, is you're fine with people working until they drop, and/or dying because they don't have access to health care. I'm not. Those are things I associate with third world countries.

excon

Boom, BADDA BING! The righties love profits over people, and will bend over and get screwed themselves to prove it!

Point of fact, all poor, old, and disadvataged are not democrats, or ARE THEY??

Hmm better check on that!

.

So despite your rhetoric, and spin, the legal process played itself out, its the results you don't like. Which don't get me wrong, I do understand, given your position of small government, and do as you please states, and individuals, but this was about market regulation, and the needs of the many, over the wants of the few.

Hi Tal,

A good point. Sometimes unusual circumstances require a different approach. In this particular case I can see why SCOTUS decided to promote the needs of the many over the few.

It would make no difference if it were possible to travel back into the past and talk to the Founding Fathers. It would make no difference if they told you to the man they want small government, limited involvement in state economic matters, limited government services.

You many well come back and bang you fist on the table and tell us, "This is the case" and "This is also the case". We couldn't disagree with you. After all, you were there, they told you exactly.

I think this particular case demonstrates that no amount of knowing what 'is the case' in terms of the Constitution can ever tell us what 'ought to be the case'. Only events such as the Great Depression being played out will ever tell us what we ought to do.

I think Wendell Oliver Holmes Jr. Said something along the lines of life being an experience and so is the law.

Tut

So just for some of us who might be confused what did the court decide?

So just for some of us who might be confused what did the court decide?Hello clete:

They didn't yet. Said they would in June.

excon

Hello clete:

They didn't yet. Said they would in June.

excon

Thanks ex, so why is the discussion proceeding as if the result had been handed down?

Because we like to watch the talking heads on TV twist and turn reporting every fact and nuance. It's the end of basketball and the beginning of baseball. That's the beauty of 1400 channels on TV!

1400 channels and nothing on

There is plenty on and 80% of the people have better things to do than watch the political wonks all day.

Yes like hang out here

SCOTUS decided Friday.. They will spend the next couple months writing their opinion on the case. On rare occasions a justice has changed his/her opinion based on the written opinion of another; but that is rare.

The reason this one is getting so much attention is because of how fundamental the change in the relationship between the people and the Federal Government ,the States and the Federal Government will be if this law is allowed to stand .

It goes WAY beyond individuals buying insurance. Throughout the questioning the justices asked the proponents what are the limiting principles of the law . They could not clearly identify one. This law gives the Federal government carte blanche to do anything in the name of commerce... commerce as the government defines commerce. It is a game changer ;and clearly justifies the attention it is getting .

But Tom the relationsship between government and the people has changed since the eighteenth century. The whole world has changed remarkably and irrevocably, it is surely time to recognise this. Your founding fathers never envisaged the world as it exists today, they could hardly see beyond their slave quarters and their plantations

The founders knew how badly organs of government can misfire, and so far the checks and balances have kept us on the map. The Constitution was supposed to be the template , that with amendment ,would last forever. If the only way to govern is to govern outside the framework of the Constitution ,I prefer it get scapped and we start over. But I still believe in the framework and will be on the side that prefers to preserve it.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut threatened the court with violence if they overturned Obama care .The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it. I guess since the President commands an army ,he doesn't need the credibility . This reminds me of Stalin's flippant comment "How many divisions does the Pope command ? " For the record ;the Soviet Union is history ,and the Papacy is still around.

Andrew Jackson once verbally challenged the court in a similar manner and eventually complied with it's decision. SCOTUS overturned the whole original framework of Roosevelt's New Deal . Roosevelt complied and rebooted to get the law to comply with the Constitution. If a clearly unconsititutional law is allowed to stand then indeed SCOTUS will have lost the last vestige of credibility .(it already stands on that balance with some of it's own brand of usurpation of powers).
Indeed it's credibility is at stake. If it overturns it preserves the constitution. If not , then the concept of limited powers of the government ,and the Constitutional framework is consigned to the scrap heap of history .

I totally disagree Tom, because one of the weaknesses of your arguments about limited government is that it often reacts to slowly to changes, and situations. Limited government may have been great when it to a letter a week to go 100 miles, but the world has indeed changed and a derivative can go around the world in 10 minutes, 10 times. To handcuff the government and limit its power is like giving a house burglar, your house keys before you go on vacation.

Cause and effect IS the relationship between government, and the governed. What the founding fathers intended was a fair government, and their ideals and interpretation of what that was was limited only to the thinking of the time. They created a framework that they knew would be added to and modified with time and conditions. For sure they didn't intend for us to be slaves though they owned slaves, just as they didn't intend us to be enslaved by the system they created.

We can argue the merits of intent, but we can only judge by the effects , and that led to a bloody civil war, when powerful states were in opposition to that limited, central government.

The Constitution should not be scraped Tom, because that's not the problem at all. The problem is that government itself is subverted by influences that serve the interests of a few, and the many are locked out of the process. The relationship has become vastly unequal. Between people and its government.

Its one thing to work to strike down a law you feel is unconstitutional, but quite another to replace it with something that is, given the FACT that what we had before was not working, ineffective, and was bankrupting both government, and people.

In effect, going back to a situation that was unacceptable. For these reasons I don't see the entire law as being struck down, just the part that says the feds can mandate, as its clearly the states that can do so, constitutionally.

The severability of this law is the main issue, but the weakness is the states response so far in doing its job to address the problem in the first place.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.James Madison, Federalist No. 45
Most bad government has grown out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one-James Madison

If it overturns it preserves the constitution. If not , then the concept of limited powers of the government ,and the Constitutional framework is consigned to the scrap heap of history .

There is again, that Hobson's choice and perhaps it should be consigned to the scrap heap of history because it seems to me you spend a tremendous amount of time referring to the constitution, and debating issues that arise out of it, over there and here it barely rates a mention yet nothing unconstitutional is done. What this tells me is the twenty-first century keeps bumping up against the eighteenth centry

Indeed it's credibility is at stake. If it overturns it preserves the constitution. If not , then the concept of limited powers of the government ,and the Constitutional framework is consigned to the scrap heap of history .


Tom, this is clearly a fallacy of false dilemma. If anything gives rise to this fallacy it is politics. Things don't stack up in a neat dichotomy. I am sure the justices are well are of the importance of avoiding this very dilemma.
If not then what was for so long your strength will fast become your weakness.


Tut

Then they will overturn it .

I don't see why them doing their job is such a problem . They are not a rubber stamp to a tyranny .

And as for Scalia ; the SCOTUS recognized it made a bad move in the Plessy decision and corrected it later in Brown v Board of Ed. I don't understand why he accepts bad calls in the past as something he shouldn't reverse .

The Wickard case was clear government expansion of it's enumerated power and to accept it is ridiculous. If the court allows this then I am 100% correct in my assessment . Even progressive justice,and Obama appointee Sotomayor asked the Solicitor General what limits the government if this law is confirmed . He could not give an answer.

Then they will overturn it .

I don't see why them doing their job is such a problem . They are not a rubber stamp to a tyranny .

And as for Scalia ; the SCOTUS recognized it made a bad move in the Plessy decision and corrected it later in Brown v Board of Ed. I don't understand why he accepts bad calls in the past as something he shouldn't reverse .

The Wickard case was clear government expansion of it's enumerated power and to accept it is rediculous. If the court allows this then I am 100% correct in my assessment . Even progressive justice,and Obama appointee Sotomayor asked the Solicitor General what limits the government if this law is confirmed . He could not give an answer.

Hi Tom,

May I suggest that you don't see it as a problem because you are still stuck on original intent.

The Constitution means what it means and says what it says. There is no need for the judiciary to go into any further details in terms of discussing meanings. Their job is to decide on the legitimacy of the law not to make the law as they go along. True?

If you are agree with this then there are problems. In fact many problems. It doesn't matter what I think, but it seems clear to me that Scalia thinks along the same lines as myself. Despite the fact that I am not in any way an originalist I can see what has been presented so far on Scalia's behalf seems consistent.

As I said before It is not possible to make a ruling and believe you have not created a law. I think Scalia recognizes this fact.

Perhaps the Solicitor General's answer should have been along the lines:

Of course there are no limitations. The law is not a statue. We discover its relevance as we go along. It is it's relevance to the current situation that determines its necessity.

I would have thought that was obvious.

Tut

Hello again, tom:

How dya rule on a law that you're NOT going to read? Scalia said he ain't going to, and he chuckled about it...

Scalia: You Expect Us to Read 2,700 Pages? | Conservative Byte (http://conservativebyte.com/2012/03/scalia-you-expect-us-to-read-2700-pages/)

excon

As I said before It is not possible to make a ruling and believe you have not created a law. I think Scalia recognizes this fact.
Nope ,Scalia just doesn't want to revisit the past. If that was the opinion then segregation would never 've been reversed . I call him a faint hearted originalist . Bet you didn't see that in Wiki . The case law and decisions by SCOTUS has completely distorted the Commerce Clause beyond recognition.He knows this is true ;but doesn't have the heart to fight the battles of the past . But I was encourged with his line of questioning to believe that even he sees a line in the sand that can't be crossed if the Constitution has any integrity left .

The Constitution means what it means and says what it says. There is no need for the judiciary to go into any further details in terms of discussing meanings. Their job is to decide on the legitimacy of the law not to make the law as they go along. True?

As I said before It is not possible to make a ruling and believe you have not created a law.
It is very possible to make a court decision and not make a law. All you have to say to Congress is "no ;the law we just decided doesn't cut Constitutionality " .Then all they need do is hand it back to Congress to make whatever revisions are necessary to make a constitutional law . It's been done many times in the past.
Where the court excedes it's authority is when they impose a solution.

Perhaps the Solicitor General's answer should have been along the lines:

Of course there are no limitations. The law is not a statue. We discover its relevance as we go along. It is it's relevance to the current situation that determines its necessity.

If there are no limits to the government's authority then there is no need for the Constitution ,which is a limiting document by definitiion in that it defines the limits of the Federal Government's authority and power.

Hello again, tom:

How dya rule on a law that you're NOT gonna read?? Scalia said he ain't gonna, and he chuckled about it...

Scalia: You Expect Us to Read 2,700 Pages? | Conservative Byte (http://conservativebyte.com/2012/03/scalia-you-expect-us-to-read-2700-pages/)

excon

And Congress didn't when they passed it ;and the President didn't when he signed it .
It's very simple because they are ruling on the mandate . Then they simply say that anything that was funded by the mandate is not allowed until they craft a new law with an alternate funding mechanism.

Yeah Scalia joked about it and he was right. The Obots were trying to tell the court that if they strike down the mandate ,that they should go over the bill ,page by page ,parsed language and all ;and pick which parts were constitutional . THAT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE COURT despite the left's delight in the court making law in the past . All the court need to do is decide if a law is constitutional or not . If the mandate is unconstitutional then the whole law is .

Nope ,Scalia just doesn't want to revisit the past. If that was the opinion then segregation would never 've been reversed . I call him a faint hearted originalist . Bet you didn't see that in Wiki . The case law and decisions by SCOTUS has completely distorted the Commerce Clause beyond recognition.He knows this is true ;but doesn't have the heart to fight the battles of the past . But I was encourged with his line of questioning to believe that even he sees a line in the sand that can't be crossed if the Constitution has any integrity left .


It is very possible to make a court decision and not make a law. All you have to say to Congress is "no ;the law we just decided doesn't cut Constitutionality " .Then all they need do is hand it back to Congress to make whatever revisions are necessary to make a constitutional law . It's been done many times in the past.
Where the court excedes it's authority is when they impose a solution.

If there are no limits to the government's authority then there is no need for the Constitution ,which is a limiting document by definitiion in that it defines the limits of the Federal Government's authority and power.


The reason some originalists are faint hearted is because they don't want to subscribe to a tautology. See the section on orginalism not being in and of itself. This points to the problem I have been highlighting all along. Simply describing a case doesn't decide a case. Describing a case is just an exercise it tautology. It is the same as saying the Constitution means what is says and says what it means. While this is the domain of the original intentists, it only tells us of a strange type of way we ought to do things.

By revisiting the past and changing previous decisions we will only end up doing what you are trying to deny. We are creating laws rather than ruling on them. By doing 'nothing' you are still doing something. Whatever we do we will always have a foot in both camps.

I was being a bit flippant in relation to the," no limits comment" asked of the Solicitor General. You know, ask a silly question...

Again I would say there is an attempt to set up a false dichotomy in relation to limits and no limits. So on this basis you and some other people would not be 100 percent correct. There are in fact a number of incremental choices that exist between limits and no limits.

There is a law written in stone that tells us that we shall not steal. One may well see the importance of a person breaking this law in order to feed his starving family. Opponents of this may well argue that if we allow one or two exceptions here and there then it become 'open season' on stealing. It will be tantamount to letting everyone steal.
The choice is stealing or no stealing there is no in between.

The actual dichotomy trying to be set up at SCOTUS is a choice between limits and no limits. In my view it is a false dichotomy. It would only be an incremental expansion of government powers.

Tut

Interesting concept Tut, entertaining other perspectives rather than just one to proceed forward, and address real problems for real people. I don't see it as expansion, but somebody finally got off their a$$ to get a solution rather than let a growing problem keep growing. Indeed if a government cannot address problems for the country as a whole, then what's the point of government?

We are UNITED states, not Divided states, in theory at least. That's why we have a court of "learned" men and women to solve deputes, right? Some will like the ruling, some will NOT!

Will it solve the problem? Not if they strike it down and we have to go back to the way it was. But then again, if states and federal governments had of been working together, we wouldn't need this decided by a court!

So now we wait.

Interesting concept Tut, entertaining other perspectives rather than just one to proceed forward, and address real problems for real people. I don't see it as expansion, but somebody finally got off their a$$ to get a solution rather than let a growing problem keep growing. Indeed if a government cannot address problems for the country as a whole, then whats the point of government?

We are UNITED states, not Divided states, in theory at least. Thats why we have a court of "learned" men and women to solve deputes, right? Some will like the ruling, some will NOT!!

Will it solve the problem? Not if they strike it down and we have to go back to the way it was. But then again, if states and federal governments had of been working together, we wouldn't need this decided by a court!

So now we wait.

Well you had a civil war to make that point but you haven't gotten rid of those state rights or the idea that those states are somehow separate. One way we overcame this was to have the states cede certain rights in exchange for funding. Eg; they ceded their right to taxation in exchange for a guarantee of share of revenue, Thus we have uniform income taxes and a GST, replacing sales tax. Which is uniform. We still have some way to go as they still have some regressive taxes they were supposed to get rid of but haven't, but it set a platform for cooperation. Next to go will be state involvement in delivery of medical services because parts of the state systems are unsustainable, again the deal will be done with funding, in fact it was done by another government, with one state holding out, then undone after the coup

That's well put Clete, as the minority party is trying to get the power back from the last main election. After the last president and his party screwed everything up for everybody else.

You might say we have a perpetual civil war here, that's not so civil at times.

Interesting take, not so much a civil war as a rights war, tjhat same thing your civil war was about, states rights. We reserve all that war for our parliament, it is certainly not civil there and they rarely talk about states

Interesting concept Tut, entertaining other perspectives rather than just one to proceed forward, and address real problems for real people. I don't see it as expansion, but somebody finally got off their a$$ to get a solution rather than let a growing problem keep growing. Indeed if a government cannot address problems for the country as a whole, then what's the point of government?

We are UNITED states, not Divided states, in theory at least. That's why we have a court of "learned" men and women to solve deputes, right? Some will like the ruling, some will NOT!

Will it solve the problem? Not if they strike it down and we have to go back to the way it was. But then again, if states and federal governments had of been working together, we wouldn't need this decided by a court!

So now we wait.


The actual dichotomy trying to be set up at SCOTUS is a choice between limits and no limits. In my view it is a false dichotomy. It would only be an incremental expansion of government powers.


That's the advantage of Fabianism . Even when they lose ,they win. They keep the ball rolling towards their utopian goals.. a defeat is an incremental advance.Incremental expansions have distorted the meaning and intent of the Constitution(that being a limiting document on government power ).

One way we overcame this was to have the states cede certain rights in exchange for funding.
Yes ,the Federal Government frequently uses that form of coercion. They take our money and tell us that we can have some of it back if we meet certain conditions .

That's the advantage of Fabianism . Even when they lose ,they win. They keep the ball rolling towards their utopian goals .. a defeat is an incremental advance.Incremental expansions have distorted the meaning and intent of the Constitution(that being a limiting document on government power ).

Hi Tom,

I can't disagree with your comments about Fabianism. All I am saying is there is an attempt to set up a false dichotomy, intentionally or unintentionally. Idealism seems to be getting in the way. Let's look at the alternative.

I understand THE THEORY.

There should be three branches of government, each providing a check upon the other. No need to go into obvious detail but as far as the judiciary is concerned its job is to rule on whether a law is constitution or not constitutional. It's job is not to make laws, the limits of its powers are clearly defined.

Again, all I can say is that this exists in an idealistic world. The actual reality is that the three branches of government are 'nuts and bolts'. They are very much ground in reality. If this wasn't the case then there would be nothing to discuss here.

All I can say is can you show me a SCOTUS decision handed down in terms of a law being constitution or not constitutional that avoids providing us with some type of prescriptive explanation? If it turns out every decision ever handed down is necessarily prescriptive then they are ruling on a law and creating a law at the same time. Can you show me how this can be avoided?

Tut

Hi Tom,


I understand THE THEORY.

Tut

Yes tut I think we all understand the theory but the practicalities are very different in different places. In some places the executive keeps it's nose out of the legistlature and in some places the judiciary keeps its nose out of the legislature and in some places the legislature does what it supposed to do which oddly enough is to look after the citizens. However it seems the citizens have a different opinion to the legislature and appeal to the judiciary instead of doing what they are supposed to do which is use the ballot box

Can you show me how this can be avoided?


Yes ;just overturn it and send it back to Congress. There is no need at all ;nor is it desirable for SCOTUS to give a prescriptive . All they need to do is give their opinion as to why it is unconstitutional .

however it seems the citizens have a different opinion to the legislature and appeal to the judiciary instead of doing what they are supposed to do which is use the ballot box
I keep on bringing this up . People don't realize the huge power grab that SCOTUS did early in the nation's history in the Marbury v Madison decision. Perhaps Scalia doesn't want to revisit that or other cases like Wickard ;but these have all been part of the erosion of constitutional law.
Tut is correct in saying that SCOTUS essentially makes law .They make it because no one has challenged their decisions . That makes them a more powerful branch than was intended in the co-equal framework.
You are also correct in that the people's house by design should be making the law ,and more often than not there is a presumption of constitutionality (that is what the Obots are clinging to ) . But there is a tyranny of the majority that the founders were very fearful of . That is why the laws have to pass constitutional muster.

What the combined branches of the government have done is to chip away at that foundation (more accelerated in the last century) . SCOTUS more often than not looks at the case history than the document to a point that one can't use the document as the logical framework for the decision.
Fine then... if that's the way to govern in the 21st century then why the pretense of government by constitution ? Let the people in power ,the party in power have carte blanc control... the road to serfdom and tyranny realized..

Yes ;just overturn it and send it back to Congress. There is no need at all ;nor is it desirable for SCOTUS to give a prescriptive . All they need to do is give their opinion as to why it is unconstitutional .

.

Hi Tom,

Are you telling me that SCOTUS has the power to overturn legislation even before the case is brought before them? Might be wrong, but it doesn't sound right to me.

In fact that would be ludicrous. It would give the judiciary the opportunity to mold legislation as to how they see fit. Isn't it all about limiting the power of the judiciary when it comes to making descriptive decisions?

Are you sure you are not talking about giving an opinion in terms of proof reading legislation to see if it is constitutional in terms of format? In other words, their job is not overturning the content per se. but rather pass muster. That would sound more likely. If this is the case then yes it would be SCOTUS giving a descriptive explanation rather than a prescriptive.

My position is still that once the case actually comes before SCOTUS it's rulings must necessarily contain a descriptive explanation.

Some clarification as to how it is possible for SCOTUS to overturn legislation even before the case gets to them would be appreciated.




Tut

Are you telling me that SCOTUS has the power to overturn legislation even before the case is brought before them? Might be wrong, but it doesn't sound right to me.

No it's not that simple . Someone has to bring the case to court ;and SCOTUS has to determine that they have "standing " to bring the case.

Some clarification as to how it is possible for SCOTUS to overturn legislation even before the case gets to them would be appreciated.
I never said that . I don't know where you are getting that impression.
Everything I've said about the decisions made by SCOTUS has been after hearing a case they gave standing to. What I am saying is that SCOTUS should simply give a law an up or down decision on it's constitutionality ,and to explain why it is . They should not be required ;as the Administration lawyers suggested , to parse through a bill and line item which part of it can remain law and which part must be scrapped . That is where they cross the line into making law... well that ,and when the impose solutions.

No it's not that simple . Someone has to bring the case to court ;and SCOTUS has to determine that they have "standing " to bring the case.
I never said that . I don't know where you are getting that impression.
Everything I've said about the decisions made by SCOTUS has been after hearing a case they gave standing to. What I am saying is that SCOTUS should simply give a law an up or down decision on it's constitutionality ,and to explain why it is . They should not be required ;as the Administration lawyers suggested , to parse through a bill and line item which part of it can remain law and which part must be scrapped . That is where they cross the line into making law ....well that ,and when the impose solutions.


That's what I thought. This is why we have, so and so versus so and so. The history of cases decided by SCOTUS would be a mile long. These are the cases I am talking about.

I am also trying to find one; wherey when a decision is hand down it doesn't come with a prescriptive explanation.

If unsuccessful then my original contention seems to stand. You carn't rule on a law without creating a law.




Actually, I got the impression from your last posting.

"Yes; just overturn it and send it back to congress" You used the word "overturn". Perhaps you were going to say, revise or fix up.

Tut

No I mean overturn
Who can overturn a law pass by congress (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_can_overturn_a_law_pass_by_congress)
Just declare it unconstitutional ;explain why it is unconsitutional ;and then the ball is back in Congress court.

"Yes; just overturn it and send it back to congress" You used the word "overturn". Perhaps you were going to say, revise or fix up.

Tut

Now Tut you know that's naughty, the court isn't in the position of advising the government how to frame leglislation, but its ruling that the law is unconstitutional overturns it

Now Tut you know that's naughty, the court isn't in the position of advising the government how to frame leglislation, but its ruling that the law is unconstitutional overturns it

Thanks Tom and Clete. I didn't realize that 'overturn' was the term used in this type of thing.

Tut

Plain language Tut use the word invalidate if you like

Whether it is, or isn't constitutional has yet to be announced. I bet it is.

The President's preemptive smear of SCOTUS makes me think that Kagan gave him a heads-up about the results of Friday's vote. Perhaps he thinks some Chi-town arm twisting will convince Kennedy to change his vote before the June release of the decision ? Look for Spike Lee to tweet Kennedy's address.

.getting conflicting reports on theSCOTUS decision..

OK cleared up now. Obamacare has been upheld by the court . They rejected all the arguments except the absurd contention that forcing people to buy insurance is covered under the government taxing authority . ALL I HAVE TO SAY TO THAT IS BULL SH*T!

So sad your side lost a really big one. :D

Go figure, Kennedy voted against the mandate and Roberts upheld. The leftists will be dancing in the streets today. Can't for that arrogant putz Obama to spike the ball.

Hello again, tom:

Big decision. There's going to be a lot of fallout. I think it hurts Republicans across the board. It has implications in the presidential race..

Wow, is all I got to say.

excon

Such class, calling someone a penis. A great example of the righties.

The question asked in the oral arguments has been answered . There is nothing ;absolutely no limits ,beyond the taxing or regulatory authority of the non-federal Leviathan government of America.

There is nothing ;absolutely no limits ,beyond the taxing or regulatory authority of the non-federal Leviathan government of America.Hello again, tom:

You, Scalito and the quiet one can lament this all you want.. But, the IMPORTANT discussion is how the constitutional law will be jiggered and expanded to cover all Americans. Frankly, I think it's our FIRST step toward universal coverage, and I think ALL your arguments against it have been severely damaged.

excon

Yeah ironically the President swore to the world that it wasn't a tax ;and that was the argument that idiot Roberts bought . All the other arguments that the government made were rejected . But the court's majority said that anything and everything can be taxed ;and any confiscation of people's property can be done under the government's vast expansive power to tax.

Well I for one remember what the revolution was about .

Such class, calling someone a penis. A great example of the righties.

The word was putz, only you would use the vulgar interpretation of that.

Hello again, tom:

Big decision. There's gonna be a lot of fallout. I think it hurts Republicans across the board. It has implications in the presidential race..

Wow, is all I got to say.

excon

This is a sad day for America as we are getting back to square one where it all started. A revolution over taxation. Having yet more rights stripped is going to cause major waves. And this is a new previously unknown power given to the government. I believe they got it wrong. What is next? Force us to buy solar or tax us out of our homes? Its within the law now to do so.

What's next? I'm afraid to ask.

I don't know if Obama has spiked the ball yet but the DNC executive director has (http://washingtonexaminer.com/photo/pid/2504103) with, "it's constitutional, b*tches."

Now THAT'S classy, NK.

This is a sad day for America as we are getting back to square one where it all started.Hello dad:

In my view, there's more to LIKE about it, than not. But, first and foremost, medical bills will NO longer be the number one reason for bankruptcy in this great land of ours.

There's more, of course. Stay tuned.

excon

Hello again,

Brief interuption... Romney says the WORST thing about Obamacare is that it puts the government between you and your doctor...

Hmmm... If right wingers had their way, there would be a federal PREGNANCY cop in between you and your doctor... How come he/you don't get that?

Back to the program in progress.

excon

Not really stopping bankruptcy, now you can't afford to pay for the insurance that they say you must take, and will tax you when you can't afford it.

So you still will not have insurance because you can't pay for it, and then you will pay a penalty for not having it.

Right now a man and wife in their 40s or 50s will pay about 700 a month for health insurance, if they both work min wage jobs and both work full time they may gross about 2400 a month before taxes and may at best clear about 1920 where are they going to have the money to pay ?

Can't get medicaid since in my state a family of 3 earning 1000 dollars a month can't get it.

So still who is going to pay my premium ? What about the family where the wife or husband is out of work, and only one working,

It is fine to say everyone has to be insured. But where and how do I pay for it?

That's why universal health care is the way to go. But I see your opposition to it by saying that the government doesn't run anything well - that is indeed true in your country. I don't know how you're going to fix that. Most if not all wealthy nations use UHC or single payer for the healthcare of their citizens. In the US the corporations will fight tooth and nail against it. Good luck, I don't see any outcome that please anyone.

There is no federal pregnancy cop and as far as I know, none are planned. That's how I don't get it.

P.S. Obamacare is now a tax paid to the insurance industry, who gets to tax us next? Car makers? Plumbers? Electricians? "Green" energy corporations?

Whoever gives your politicians the biggest donations. I thought you all knew that.

Well the debate is over, now the candidates have something to fight about

who gets to tax us next? Car makers? Plumbers? Electricians? "Green" energy corporations?

They already do, seen any bills lately?

Back at the governors meeting in 2011, Obama told ALL the governors if they have a great idea, he would listen, and so far the governors, 26 of them, only response is a lawsuit. And now that SCOTUS is affirmed it, the right says REPEAL, even Romney, though the system was based on HIS idea.

I think its going to be hard to take away what most Americans have said they liked so far that the law does provide, and as they see more, that REPEAL cry by the right won't work. But now the issue is how the states run their Medicaid programs which is optional instead of mandatory.

People seem to forget that the poor, and working poor are more affected by this no insurance deal than anyone, and get tax credits and subsidies that help them pay for it, as well as many small businesses. Don't think its fair to take all those things away, or the provisions the republicans can't stand, and seems unfair that since 85% of Americans will not be affected at all since they have their own insurance anyway.

You tell all those seniors that the price of a do nut hole just went back up.

But the right never tells you the whole story, and facts are lacking in their REPEAL arguments. But I give you guys credit, it was an impressive push to obstruct, and get this to the SCOTUS in record time. Truly impressive. Seems to me if they showed the same zeal helping solve problems as they do harassing presidents, and AG's, we would have a lot more bridges schools roads, fixed, more teachers, fireman, and police, doing important jobs, then nobody would be paying a tax for not having affordable insurance, and access, to health care.

Yeah repeal the working poors' only chance to get what the rest of us have. Until we wake up and get single payer.

Any body getting a rebate from their insurance company? That's in the new law too!

Isn't our fault that there are a couple thousand pages of garbage in a bill that has a couple good ideas worth saving . The only thing that makes sense to me is the repeal and start over . That could happen quickly with some Democrat cooperation. Once they stop their Snoopy dance celebration maybe they will consider it .They should you know ;now that the "affordable " health care act has been defined by the so called 'final arbiters' as a huge middle class tax increase ;that the majority of the people do not like in general.

The only thing that makes sense to me is the repeal and start over . That could happen quickly with some Democrat cooperation.Hello again, tom:

It'll NEVER be repealed. Even IF Romney wins. You AIN'T going to get a super majority in the Senate. But, it surely can be tinkered with to keep the good stuff and to find a better way to pay for it.

But, there WILL be good stuff, and it's Going to be paid for. You can COUNT on that. You wingers LOVE to inflict programs on us that AREN'T paid for, like two wars and a massive tax cut for the richest of the rich amongst us. We AIN'T going to let you do that again.

excon

It's a work in progress. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Thursday, "The Affordable Care Act is not like the Ten Commandments, chiseled in stone; it's like a starter home, suitable for improvement. ... I invite the Republicans to bring their tool kits, not their sledgehammers."

Collecting taxes on behalf the government is not the same thing. AT&T forwards their taxes collected to the government, insurance companies will be keeping theirs. Surely you see the difference.

It's a work in progress. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Thursday, "The Affordable Care Act is not like the Ten Commandments, chiseled in stone; it's like a starter home, suitable for improvement. ... I invite the Republicans to bring their tool kits, not their sledgehammers."

Yes we understand the progressives definition of work in process. They will never be satisfied until it is a single payer ,top-down government managed and controlled plan.

And now a word from Emperor Zero.

Presidents tried to pass health care reform for decades—and this one got it done.
Twitter / BarackObama: Presidents tried to pass h (http://twitter.com/BarackObama/statuses/218399408008597506)

Yes we understand the progressives definition of work in process. Hello again, tom:

We too, understand how the right wing governs. Spend a bunch of money on two wars and huge tax cuts, and DON'T pay for it..

In response to the SCOTUS ruling yesterday, Romney said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/mitt-romney-health-care_n_1632944.html)he would like to see health care reform legislation that ensures "people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so," enables people with preexisting conditions to get insurance, gives states more support in their efforts to expand health care access and focuses on lowering the cost of such care.

In other words he wants all the GOOD stuff in Obamacare. He just doesn't want to PAY for it...

excon

"people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so,"
You think Obamacare takes care of that ? Employers are going to start dropping employee coverage in droves. It will be cheaper for them to pay the fine... ooops I mean tax ;and let their employees go into the state pools .

Not the small businesses who get the CREDITS, and subsidies for having medical insurance for there employees. And employees of most companies already have a percentage of insurances premiums deducted out of their monthly, weekly, or bi weekly pay checks. Both public, and private sectors.

What you thought the boss totes the entire costs?

Tal you know and I know that they still pick up the bulk of the cost. Again ; is there a mandate that employers provide this benefit (what your crowd calls "right ") ;or will cost analysis say it is more prudent for them to either drop employee coverage ,and pay the ummm tax ? Or perhaps even charge the employee more for all the premium increases that comes with freebies in the mandates ?
Here is the inconvenient Fact of Obamacare... After next year ;starting in 2014 all employers with more than 50 employees will be required to offer health benefits to every full-timer or to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker .These requirements will increase medical costs for many companies. It's a fact that the penalty for not offering coverage is significantly below these costs.

This will force employees to find their own coverage (or pay that... tax);or to sign up in one of these state insurance exchanges that are being formed with the Obamacare cuts in Medicare . I guarantee you that the States are not prepared for this influx of new beneficiaries ;even with this Federal Government transfer .
You don't know the folly of what Obamacare has wrought because it hasn't really begun yet .
Now many employers plan on adjusting compensation and benefits in other ways. But the real issue is going to be the massive influx of the newly uninsured that the government programs will be responsible for. I think the ones that the States and National Government have already are on the death bed due to poor financing structures and future obligations to the entitled . Imagine a 10-20 % increase in the 1st year of these new exchanges. It's an approaching disaster .

Hello again,

Here's the deal.. We debated it way back when. It's the LAW of the land. It's Constitutional.. It won't be repealed. Get over it.

excon

By the way... since it is now a tax bill ;there is only a majority vote needed in the Senate . All that is needed for repeal is a Mittens Presidency and the Repubics getting a simple majority in both Houses.Remember that "budget reconciliation" game ?

QUOTE by tomder
Tal you know and I know that they still pick up the bulk of the cost. Again is there a mandate that employers provide this benefit (what your crowd calls "right ") ;or will cost analysis say it is more prudent for them to either drop employee coverage ,and pay the ummm tax ? Or perhaps even charge the employee more for all the premium increases that comes with freebies in the mandates ?

WRONG!! The law actually gives tax breaks and incentives for employers who offer health care. Health insurance is the reason some people stay at a company, at most businesses deduct a portion of the premiums from the employees pay check. Most people would rather have better insurance benefits than actual wages. Check it out companies have been doing this for decades to attract and keep workers. Of course unions have fought for that, and non union companies followed suit.

That what the Wisconsin battle was about. Walker wanted the public sector workers to pay as much as private sector workers, and they AGREED to the increases in their contributions to both insurance, and pensions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10


Here is the inconvenient Fact of Obamacare... After next year ;starting in 2014 all employers with more than 50 employees will be required to offer health benefits to every full-timer or to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker .These requirements will increase medical costs for many companies. It’s a fact that the penalty for not offering coverage is significantly below these costs.

Companies don't pay medical cost, the insurance companies do, they pay a group rate for a plan, and employees contribute a percentage, and they can shop for the best rates and its been done this way for decades by most companies.


This will force employees to find their own coverage (or pay that... tax);or to sign up in one of these state insurance exchanges that are being formed with the Obamacare cuts in Medicare . I guarantee you that the States are not prepared for this influx of new beneficiaries ;even with this Federal Government transfer .


You don't know the folly of what Obamacare has wrought because it hasn't really begun yet .

The system is nothing more than an expansion of what's already been going on.


Now many employers plan on adjusting compensation and benefits in other ways. But the real issue is going to be the massive influx of the newly uninsured that the government programs will be responsible for. I think the ones that the States and National Government have already are on the death bed due to poor financing structures and future obligations to the entitled . Imagine a 10-20 % increase in the 1st year of these new exchanges. It's an approaching disaster .

That would depend on how companies and state government structure this expansion, BUT Medicare for all would solve all those problems and bend the cost curve greatly.

Everybody loves Medicare, even if you have insurance and Medicare is a supplement to what you have and like. That's a viable and workable plan to save individuals, and corporations and everyone has insurance.

LOL!! What's funny is everybody likes the parts they have seen of the ACA, even the right wing. It's the name that has you guys stuck ain't it. Heck judge Roberts even liked it.

Go ahead Righties, REPEAL IT!!

btw ...since it is now a tax bill ;there is only a majority vote needed in the Senate . All that is needed for repeal is a Mittens Presidency and the Repubics getting a simple majority in both Houses.Remember that "budget reconciliation" game ?Hello again, tom:

It's true. But, you forget that most people LIKE the good stuff - even right wingers. Recent polls (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/republicans-actually-like-obamacare-642471/) find that strong majorities favor the laws individual provisions - including solid majorities of Republicans.

It's PAYING for it that you don't like. That poses quite a quandary for Romney. I'm telling you, that it will NEVER be repealed. Get over it.

excon

Some people like some of the provisions because no one has had to pay for it yet . That's due to change next year. Add this massive tax increase with the massive tax increase coming when the Dems increase taxes when the current rates expire ;then we'll see how people like it.

But I'm more concerned with the lasting damage to the Constitution . What the Wickard v Filburn case did to the Commerce Clause ;Roberts v America has done to the Article 1 Sec 8 taxing authority. The bonds of restraint have been forever removed from the Federal Government .

The bonds of restraint have been forever removed from the Federal Government .
That's good for Romney then if he becomes President! He will have a field day!

Roberts v AmericaHello again, tom:

I don't know. You LOVED him when he told congress that he was ONLY going to call balls and strikes.. But, when he DOES exactly that, you don't like it. You wanted him to be ACTIVIST, like Scalito, and he called a strike instead...

Roberts is a young man. He's going to be your Chief Justice for a LOOOOONG time. Get over it.

On second thought... Since YOUR choices for Supreme Court turn out soooo badly, maybe you shouldn't have another shot at it.

excon

What part of people need access to quality heath care is it you righty, small government types don't get?

Pre Existing Conditions - Understanding Pre Existing Conditions (http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/healthinsurancebasics/a/preexisting_conditions_overview.htm)

Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) | HealthCare.gov (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/pre-existing-condition-insurance-plan/index.html)

This country has survived and thrived through high taxes before, will again. Relax, we might get a raise out of this. Well 14 million people will that HAVE health insurance.

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=health+insurance+rebates&qpvt=health+insurance+rebates&FORM=EWRE

http://www.examiner.com/article/40-000-utah-families-to-get-health-insurance-rebates-after-supreme-court-ruling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/health-insurance-rebates_n_1616204.html

This is happening all over the country because insurance companies have been over charging for premiums. Wonder how that happened? I'll ask Mitt. Maybe he knows why health care is so expensive.

Just a side note to make a point, most of the volunteers fighting those fires in Colorado, don't have insurance either, they can't afford it! Like we forgot the fiasco after 911 with treating first responders. Need a link or is the memory selective.

Just think of the saving we all can have if we didn't have to pay for ultra conservatives FEARS.

You LOVED him when he told congress that he was ONLY going to call balls and strikes.. But, when he DOES exactly that, you don't like it. You wanted him to be ACTIVIST, like Scalito, and he called a strike instead...

Wrong ,I made no opinion of his referee comments .To me that was rhetoric to make it easier for the Dems to confirm. The fact is that a Justice of the Supreme Court cannot be both a referee and a player of the game.

In granting new taxing authority out of whole cloth ;he indeed became an activist... or please show me exactly what clause of the Constitution gives them to tax non-activity ,and cloak it in the language of "penalty "?. and don't give me the necessary and proper clause or the General welfare clause .They don't justify unconstitutional exercises of power.
The only expansion of the Congressional taxing authority before Thurday was through Amendment to the Constitution. Earl Warren when he described income: “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.”Is it an income tax ? No people not working can still be slapped with the penalty . Is it a direct tax ? Nope A direct tax under Art 1 Sec 9 must be apportioned among the States in proportion to their representation based on population .
.Is it an excise tax ? Excise taxes require some sort of action or activity on the part of the individual to be assessed. No . It is a “tax” upon individuals who purchase no product, realize no gain on investment, or receive no income from their labors. Is it a tax similar to FICA ? No... again that is clearly linked to income. (and the tax justification for Social Security was also a complete unconstitutional fraud ). Also the seizure of FICA has at the end of it a promise of income at a certain age ,or when they become disabled . This penalty promises nothing except the ability to purchase insurance at some later date with preexisting conditions.

If Congress wanted to pass a tax bill ,they would've done so . But in fact ,they and the President ran away from that definition . If this was a bait and switch ,then it is a fraud perpetrated on the American people. During oral arguments ,the government made a very weak defense of the law as justified under Congress' taxing authority ,and it was easily shot down . It was also destroyed completely in an amicus by Landmark Legal Defense.
And yet Roberts found a preposterous "it looks like a tax" justification for the worse biggest expansion in government power since Wickard . I find little satisfaction that he finally found a red line that Congress can't cross under the Commerce Clause . The result is the same ;an expansion of Federal powers well beyond intent ,or Constitutional restraints.

Hi Tom,
As strange as this seems... I 'm sorry things didn't work out for you.

Tut

Hi Tom,
As strange as this seems... I 'm sorry things didn't work out for you.

Tut

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." James Madison.

Your premise that the court is wrong is in error, and fails to account for the entire collective that does take your view of what the court did. They did in some was expand the power of government to tax, but they limited the scope of the tax.

But you guys got what you wanted, a constitutional hearing, it was heard, and a judgment rendered, so that's over, lets move on. We have Obamacare! Lets make it work! So far it has. Most people like what they have seen.

I am waiting for when people can not afford the coverage, and can not afford the tax, will they start putting them in prison for not having health insurance?

And of course if they wanted everyone to have it, why not just universal health insurance provided free by the government.

Your premise that the court is wrong is in error, and fails to account for the entire collective that does take your view of what the court did. They did in some was expand the power of government to tax, but they limited the scope of the tax.

But you guys got what you wanted, a constitutional hearing, it was heard, and a judgment rendered, so thats over, lets move on. We have Obamacare! Lets make it work! So far it has. Most people like what they have seen.

No such luck . Where I reallly despise the Court's stamp of approval ;what Roberts did right was to put it back into the political arena. By defining it as a tax ;that means... 1. repeal originates in the House of Reps. 2. The reconciliation process means that it can be repealed with a simple majority vote in the Senate .
When the people see ALL the taxes in the bill realized ,they will be demanding repeal.

You left out that it requires the signature of the president, and a majority in the senate cannot be gained without an election, so repeal depends upon the vote of the people in the next election, so as a practical matter, it ain't happening until then.

When the people see ALL the taxes in the bill realized ,they will be demanding repeal.


Or modifications that keep the parts they like. I doubt seriously if they go for going back to the way things were that was causing so much grief while the insurance industry and big pharmacy were writing rules and raising rates and getting fat!

Most of us don't mind paying for the things that give us service or meets our needs, and protects our interests. Its common sense to pay for consumer protection in today's world of corporate greed, and criminality. Consumers are as entitled to get more bang for their buck as corporations right?

I don't get you guys' you are debating an issue that has been put to rest, now you hve some of the health care you should have enjoy it and strive to do better, take the vested interests out of service provision

i don't get you guys' you are debating an issue that has been put to rest, now you hve some of the health care you should have enjoy it and strive to do better, take the vested interests out of service provision

The reason for the debate is because it is still an open issue until at least after November (our election period). The decision is a landmark one at this point because of the how the ruling was made. The healthcare bill is still an unknown as its not even in affect yet. You may remember the phrase " we have to pass it to know what is in it".

So for now until it takes full affect its open as to what is really going to happen with it all. We still have no idea what this new form of taxation will bring.

i don't get you guys' you are debating an issue that has been put to rest, now you hve some of the health care you should have enjoy it and strive to do better, take the vested interests out of service provision

I still debate the implications of the Social Security Court decision . This decision will impact the US for a 100 years (if we last that long) . It was not only about health care .It was also about the limits of Federal power. Apparently there is none so long as it can be couched the new broadly defined tax language.

It was also about the limits of Federal power. apparently there is none so long as it can be couched the new broadly defined tax language.Hello again, tom:

You'll forgive me for not feeling sorry for your crocodile tears... You tirade against federal power doesn't impress me when you SUPPORT the NSA in their SEARCH of our email and LISTENING to our phone calls... You CERTAINLY support a nation wide ban on abortions which WILL necessitate a federal COP in every doctors office across the land. You CERTAINLY support the federal DRUG WAR...

So, you can see why I think your outrage is misplaced.

excon

. We still have no idea what this new form of taxation will bring.

Yes you do it is spelt out for you ; pay up or pay up. Now if you had a carbon tax you could truly say We still have no idea what this new form of taxation will bring.[

i don't get you guys' you are debating an issue that has been put to rest, now you hve some of the health care you should have enjoy it and strive to do better, take the vested interests out of service provision

For one I don't like bald-faced liars and this whole Obamacare debacle has been one bald-faced lie after another. He flat out said the goal was single payer in 2007, then had the chutzpah to tell us if we liked our insurance we could keep it. Well that's not going to happen, and I would much rather take my chances in a free market than with the government managing my health. I mean hey, they've done so well with the debt and the deficit, the stimulus, green energy investments and the economy and all.

Hello again, Steve:

Apparently, you have the voters support. So, I say, repeal it if you can. Vote for Romney...

Santorum was right about ONE thing, though. Romney is the WORST of the Republican candidates to carry the torch AGAINST Obamacare. But, you guys chose him. Now you got to live with him.

excon

Hello again, wrongwingers:

Help me out here... IF the poor are getting their health care at the emergency room, and you say they are, then you and I are PAYING the bill... That situation doesn't seem like it would be tolerable to MOST right wingers, but you seem to think it's great.. Why is that? Even though I don't happen to BE a right winger, I don't like paying for "free riders". What's the matter with you?

excon

Hello again, wrongwingers:

Help me out here... IF the poor are getting their health care at the emergency room, and you say they are, then you and I are PAYING the bill... That situation doesn't seem like it would be tolerable to MOST right wingers, but you seem to think it's great.. Why is that? Even though I don't happen to BE a right winger, I don't like paying for "free riders". What's the matter with you?

excon

One minute you say the "general welfare" includes not "Dying because you can't afford to see a doctor. Going bankrupt because you can't pay your medical bills. Going hungry, or going without shelter." Now you don't want to pay for free riders? What the..

I guess we agree then that we need welfare reform and get some of those lazy "free riders" off the taxpayer dole instead of adding millions more.

Now you don't want to pay for free riders? What the...? Hello again, Steve:

I guess you really don't understand the law.

Here's the deal, Steve. When a guy with NO insurance goes to the emergency room, it costs YOU & ME many thousands of $$$$'s. If, however, you and I subsidize his INSURANCE, then when he gets sick, it only costs hundreds.

It's simple math. What I don't understand, is why you support paying the HIGHER amount for the same thing you could be getting for a LOWER amount.. THAT is where your conservatism confuses me.

excon

Meanwhile you guys have this: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/mobile-uncategorized/hospital-bills-678346.html
So sad.

Meanwhile you guys have this: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/mobile-uncategorized/hospital-bills-678346.html
So sad.

Meanwhile, you have this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14249733)

Hello again, Steve:

I guess you really don't understand the law.

Here's the deal, Steve. When a guy with NO insurance goes to the emergency room, it costs YOU & ME many thousands of $$$$'s. If, however, you and I subsidize his INSURANCE, then when he gets sick, it only costs hundreds.

It's simple math. What I don't understand, is why you support paying the HIGHER amount for the same thing you could be getting for a LOWER amount.. THAT is where your conservatism confuses me.

excon

Apparently you haven't done the constantly evolving, ever increasing "simple math" of Obamacare.

P.S. I don't much care for the idea of lowering the quality of health care for everyone. That's the problem with liberalism, it doesn't foster success, it drags us all down.

Meanwhile, you have this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14249733)I'm quite certain they are not a rich country.
The problems there are exacerbated by a fanatical religious group in charge of the country. It is also very sad.

I get you are a bigheart that hates to see others suffer, but show the same charity at home as you do others abroad. At least understand in your heart, and don't blame others for taking care of home in their own CHARITABLE way!

To put down your own poor, is judgemental!!

Apparently you haven't done the constantly evolving, ever increasing "simple math" of Obamacare.

P.S. I don't much care for the idea of lowering the quality of health care for everyone. That's the problem with liberalism, it doesn't foster success, it drags us all down.

Harshness warning

You have done the math?? I doubt it, I doubt you have even read the bill!

I'm quite certain they are not a rich country.

And we are, our poor tend to fare pretty well so cry me a river for the those living off less than a dollar a day, not the guy struggling to pay for both his iPhone and Xbox Live membership.

And we are, our poor tend to fare pretty well so cry me a river for the those living off of less than a dollar a day, not the guy struggling to pay for both his iPhone and Xbox Live membership.Yea, that stupid lady with the cancer treatments she can't pay for, what a loser she is eh? I guess she should just die. You should jump in that thread and ask her about her Xbox and iPhone.

Yea, that stupid lady with the cancer treatments she can't pay for, what a loser she is eh? I guess she should just die. You should jump in that thread and ask her about her Xbox and iPhone.

Let's be clear, those are your words, not mine. You're so concerned with her then you jump right in and do something instead of pushing her off on me. See, that's how it works in my world, I help who I can and who I want, but I don't push them off on someone else. That's what the left does.

And when you need help, speechless?

Harshness warning

LOL, if you think that was harsh then wait 'til football season.


You have done the math?? I doubt it, I doubt you have even read the bill!

The CBO keeps doing the math and it keeps increasing. So far it's almost doubled. Fact (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=284782).

Have you read the bill? You've read the 2000 plus pages of government legalese? How about the hundreds if not thousands of pages (I think it's up to 4000 pages of code so far) of code written since its passage?

LOL, if you think that was harsh then wait 'til football season.



The CBO keeps doing the math and it keeps increasing. So far it's almost doubled. Fact (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=284782).

Have you read the bill? You've read the 2000 plus pages of government legalese? How about the hundreds if not thousands of pages (I think it's up to 4000 pages of code so far) of code written since its passage?
And let's not forget the decrees from Kommisar Sebelius .

And when you need help, speechless?

That would be God, but otherwise they're called friends. Running to the government for help would and should be the last resort, not the first.

And if those friends aren't there after all?

And if those friends aren't there after all?

I forgot family as well. But I repeat, running to the government for help would and should be the last resort, not the first.

Well, our library homeless guy refused to even collect his SS. We had to convince him to go to the ER before his foot fell off from cellulitis. And he didn't have a cellphone or a Wii or even an XBox.

I had clients receiving food stamps or public aid who were living hand to mouth. My treat when I made home visits was a glass of water.

Carol, I never said there weren't poor among us and I have specifically argued for a government safety net for them. But I don't believe in expanding that net to nanny people that could and should be taking care of themselves. What's wrong with that?

So, how do you sort out the truly needy from the greedies?

So, do you think we shouldn't try?

Huh? I asked how.

It isn't braggin how many people have signed up for food stamps like the Obots do. It's putting in policies so the people can become self sufficient .
Even Clintoon got that.

Create jobs, and you have less poor people. Otherwise people have to go looking for what they can get, and moving around this country costs money. Have kids, it costs even more. Have a house, no job?

Who has time for "job creators" BS! Or "patient centered health insurance"!! Waiting for that jobs bill out of the house. Can't wait until those governors that refuse to obey the law wake up to reality.

Waiting for that jobs bill out of the house A "jobs bill" for what it's worth was just passed. Of course it is your definition of what a jobs bill is. I say end the threat of the Obama tax increase that's scheduled to kick in at the end of the year... reform the tax code to flatten it ;repeal the Obamacare tax ,and elect Romney ,then you'll see the private sector create jobs by the thousands.

Can't wait until those governors that refuse to obey the law wake up to reality.

They are obeying the law according to the 7-2 decision on the Medicaid mandate. They are the wise ones ,and the governors who are implementing it will have a rude awakening when the Federal money gets yanked and the states are left holding the bag.

Btw ;that Medicaid decision is more far reaching in it's implication than most people realize. Wait until you see the Federalism challenges on Federal revenue sharing on issues like education ,highway funding ,etc. That is one part of the decision the court got right. Tax revenues are supposed to be apportioned based on population ,and not on some quid pro quo that Congress divines. This decision puts the nail in the coffin on that practice.

Huh? I asked how.

And I asked if we should try or not.

Of course we should try and separate the needy from the greedy. But we also have to accept the fact that long term poverty, and lack of opportunity have also led to people hustling any way they can to have something they don't. It's a buyer beware market in most cases, and various degrees of illegal in others, but it has existed for a long time, in many countries.

Many in the sub economy have fallen through the cracks and suffer without knowing, because the hustle is ALL they know. If you never been that poor in America, you would never know. I respectfully submit that its beneath the notice of the main stream, except when there is a sensational headline to report.

Tal, all I had to eat in my place once was a box of pancake mix and somehow, some grenadine.

I took the liberty of grabbing a few pics in my neighborhood as I drove home from the store yesterday. The first two are 2 blocks from my house. The 3rd is across the street. I'm not insensitive to the struggles of others, I've been there - and they're my neighbors...

By the way, someone tell me how anyone can wade through 13,000 pages of health care code (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/)? And they aren't done yet.

Instead of making health care more efficient, let's complicate the hell out of it, whaddya say?

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (http://www.cbo.gov/)

http://housedocs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf

Its only 2300 pages.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (http://www.cbo.gov/)

http://housedocs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf

Its only 2300 pages.

I made no comment of the bill, I said 13,000 pages of CODE, i.e. regulations - the bureaucratic offspring of the bill which we will have to live under.

How long is the code/regulations for a large HMO?

I said 13,000 pages of CODE, i.e. regulations - the bureaucratic offspring of the bill which we will have to live under.Hello again, Steve:

I regret to inform you that our health care system is quite complicated.. It ain't going to get fixed with a few short words. The LENGTH of it shouldn't bother you, unless you have a short attention span.

excon

How long is the code/regulations for a large HMO?

I don't know and HMOs don't make the laws.

What else do reps, and senators have to do?? It's their job to read and write legislation, laws, and codes.

Whaaaa, I have to do that too? If they quite cheesin' for the cameras, they should have been done 2 years ago, the lazy b@stards!

Hello again, Steve:

I regret to inform you that our health care system is quite complicated.. It ain't going to get fixed with a few short words. The LENGTH of it shouldn't bother you, unless you have a short attention span.

Excon

Dude, my wife is a medical coder, I know it's complicated. Why then would we want to complicate the hell out of it even more?

And by the way, you should be happy to know that to deal with the cuts in compensation, health care facilities will just treat us like cattle (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304708604577505210356532588.html?m od=rss_opinion_main).


We’ll have 32 million potential customers who will come in, get treatment and pay,’ said Alan Miller, chief executive of University Health Services, a King of Prussia, Pa. company that runs 24 acute-care hospitals around the counter. ‘Previously, they got good treatment and said, “We can’t pay,”’ he said. Mr. Miller waved off the cuts, saying, ‘we will make it up in volume.’”

Yessirree, another good liberal solution that instead of making things better for all just lowers the quality for everyone (unless you're a Democrat congressman who voted for this mess I'm sure ). I can't wait until I quit being a human patient and become "volume."

I don't know and HMOs don't make the laws.

Don't you enter into a contract with them?

If you don't know then how can you complain that the government's version is big?

Don't you enter into a contract with them?

If you don't know then how can you complain that the government's version is big?

There are more choices in the marketplace. HMO is just one of them. Its possible to go a lifetime and not belong to a HMO. It's a little different here then where you are.

Yessirree, another good liberal solution that instead of making things better for all just lowers the quality for everyone (unless you're a Democrat congressman who voted for this mess I'm sure ). I can't wait until I quit being a human patient and become "volume."

More doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Don't let the rhetoric scare you. They talk volume in the emergency room too! Doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Don't you enter into a contract with them?

If you don't know then how can you complain that the government's version is big?

The last handbook I saw was probably 150 pages. And I can understand it just fine.

More doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Don't let the rhetoric scare ya. They talk volume in the emergency room too! Doesn't have to be a bad thing.

I guess you missed this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hope-change-670749-4.html#post3154120). If that happens - even half of it - we're up sh*t creek without a paddle.

The last handbook I saw was probably 150 pages. And I can understand it just fine.Hello again, Steve:

If the Democrats were good at communicating, they could reduce the ACA down to 150 pages too. Somebody will come along to do it.

excon

I guess you missed this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/hope-change-670749-4.html#post3154120). If that happens - even half of it - we're up sh*t creek without a paddle.

I haven't forgotten how afraid of the unknown some people are. So do we stepup and make thing better for more,or sit in a corner drowning in our own shat?

http://newamericamedia.org/2012/07/memphis-doctor-on-obamacare-put-politics-aside-focus-on-facts.php


So when patients and friends ask me. "Is the Supreme Court decision good or bad?" I reply "It depends on your insurance and your political affiliation." And then I come back to what Cyril Chang said. Our health system has too many moving parts, "implementing and improving" the present law may be as good or bad as "repealing and replacing" it.

Yet, all the details about the ACA only matter once we sidestep the political rhetoric, which neither political party is willing to do in an election year.

The rulings have been made, lets get the cart down the road, and see what happens. Enough crying, and gloom and doom! Action, and accomplishment is the best antidote to fear, so you conservatives need to get with the program, and help YOUR country.

The debate is over!! Time to stop crying about what if. Lets get busy and do what we have to.

Lets get busy and do what we have to.

Yup time to get busy... repealing Obamacare and repealing Obama.

Hello again, Steve:

If the Democrats were good at communicating, they could reduce the ACA down to 150 pages too. Somebody will come along to do it.

excon

Not going to happen. But could I interest you in some prime beach front property near Claude, Tx?

You righties let me know how you like what Mitt trickles down his leg, and calls it properity.

Or you guys must REALLY love rich guy pee! That explains a lot! Hmmm. Sorry guys, I didn't know. Give me your adresses, and I will send you an umbrella. I still have a few from the Reagan/Bush eras.

Trust me you will need them!

Yup time to get busy ....repealing Obamacare and repealing Obama.
It seems to me that is ALL the GOP has to offer.

It seems to me that is ALL the GOP has to offer.

It seems to me your specialty is clichés.

It seems to me that is ALL the GOP has to offer.

That probably would be enough .

It seems to me your specialty is cliches.
Oh the irony LOL!

Hello again, Steve:

If the Democrats were good at communicating, they could reduce the ACA down to 150 pages too. Somebody will come along to do it.

excon

150 pages ? 20 ought to do the trick. That would be 2 more that it took the founders to establish the whole Federal Government . In fact... we should change the Constitution to insist that every piece of legislation can be read... in plain English ,in an hour or less.

If we did that ,then we wouldn't have a law like Obamacare ,that has plain language regarding taxes when it comes to tanning salons and other medical devices ;but still allows a language twisting judge to find a tax where the law calls for a penalty . In fact ;there are to date 21 new or higher taxes discovered in the bowels of the bill . Seven of those taxes apply to individuals making $250,000 or less.(another broken Obamapromise.) The additional tax code required means that the government needs to hire 16,500 new IRS personnel to collect,and audit our returns .(jobs created ? ) .

If we had that limit on the size of bills, then we wouldn't have a 2,572 that no one has read yet ;that has already 13,000 pages of code written ,with many thousand more to come. It has already consumed a $ billion taxpayers dollars in implementation ;with many more to be spent.

If we had that limitation then legislators wouldn't have the ability to add hundreds of pork rides onto bills and exceptions written into bills to buy off legislators.

Bottom line ,the bigger the bill ,the greater the chance of mischief... and Obamacare is loaded with mischief. There will be court challenges to the individual components for years to come (job security for the lawyer clowns that helped write the bill).

Oh the irony LOL!

You really have nothing useful to add to the duscussion do you?

You really have nothing useful to add to the duscussion do you?

Good thing nobody got killed or anything, right?

The mischief Tom is sitting on your hands and doing nothing when you know people are dying.

You think leglislation is a mischief but the greater mischief is doing nothing. However not to worry, your congress has a long history of doing nothing when mischief is a foot. They obviously believe that if you do nothing long enough the problem will go away. I expect this is preferable to preemptive strikes based on the mischief of misleading information

Good thing nobody got killed or anything, right?

Plagiarizer.