George Will (May 2 column)says that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to declare the ACA unconstitutional if another challenge comes to them--if I read his latest column accurately.
And he also says (I think) that their previous ruling that the ACA was not a mandate that citizens must buy health insurance, but that it was actually a tax, will be a major factor in their next decision.

Is the ACA dead on arrival the next time it comes before the Supreme Court?

George F. Will: The next Affordable Care Act challenge - The Washington Post

(Article exceeds allowable number of characters. I tried to chop it down to a few quotes but I can't do it justice. Not really that long, actually)

Oh I certainly hope its ruled unconstitutional. Its been a world class circle jerk since it was written behind closed doors by the democrats alone and rammed through without a real vote like any legitimate legislation would be.

The frightening part is that when it finally does get thrown out, for whatever reason, Big Insurance will be ready to totally screw over their customers. Many have speculated that this is what Jarret and Reid are counting on so they can "solve" the "problem" with Government paid/run healthcare. Can you say Medicaid metastasized?

An the alternative is..?

Just wondering if there is any substance to Will's analysis. Tal, are you saying that the end justifies the means in this case. Facts and procedures don't matter?
Has anyone read the column or just already back to the standard political bashing. My question was- if Will is correct can the ACA survive another Supreme Court challenge?

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is the blow by by blow details, you tell me and then you judge is G. Will calling foul a valid one, or an opposition to something republicans tried to stop, failed, and continue to oppose. You must also consider that Bush passed his tax cuts under the same rules of reconciliation as the ACA was passed. Repubs had control of the 3 branches of government, we got tax cuts, Dems had control, we got ACA.

Byrd Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,

Best I can tell you is when SCOTUS get the case, they will rule, and we will see. But reconciliation is and has been a tool for decades now. Will and republicans have some high hopes since they have voted more than 50 times for repeal. But his OPINION, is subject to scrutiny by the law. I have serious doubts this latest attempt will be any more successful than the ones before it.

Good answer tal.

Will says:
"In October 2009, the House passed a bill that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers — a bill that had nothing to do with health care. Two months later the Senate “amended” this bill by obliterating it. The Senate renamed it and completely erased its contents, replacing them with the ACA's contents.

Case law establishes that for a Senate action to qualify as a genuine “amendment” to a House-passed revenue bill, it must be “germane to the subject matter of the [House] bill.” The Senate's shell game — gutting and replacing the House bill — created the ACA from scratch. The ACA obviously flunks the germaneness test, without which the House's constitutional power of originating revenue bills would be nullified. "

Will says it is not germane because the Senate replaced a tax credit bill with a healthcare bill. But since the penalty was deemed to be a tax, maybe it can be argued that it is germane to the house bill. And if Will's opinion is that a revenue bill must originate in the house, Roberts could have used his determination that the penalty was a tax, to rule the other way--that is he could have supplied the deciding vote to shoot it down instead of letting it survive. Nothing has changed since the earlier affirmative decision so Roberts would have to say, "Wow, I should have thought of that when I deemed it a tax." (or not)

Also Will said "If the president wants to witness a refutation of his assertion that the survival of the Affordable Care Act is assured, come Thursday he should stroll the 13 blocks from his office to the nation's second-most important court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There he can hear an argument involving yet another constitutional provision that evidently has escaped his notice. It is the origination clause, which says: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”

There again. why couldn't the Supreme Court have killed the ACA based on the origination clause the first time around? Nothing has changed since that time. To rule the other way in the new case (if it ever arrives or ever gets another look), would appear to be an admission that the first ruling was a mistake, seems to me. Or do they say- we never looked at it from the standpoint of the origination clause- because it was not presented to us based on the origination clause, and it had never been determined to be a tax until the first ruling came down.

That's a very narrow view of the reconciliation process by Will, and the flaw is the senate can change any bill the house proposes, and send it back to the house to either accept or reject those changes, and the ACA involved changes to the tax code to allow for immediate tax credits for insurance buyers, as well as the (added as an amendment) the original house language of the initially already passed in the house.

Yes the senate added a lot of stuff to a simple bill, originated in the house, but that's procedure, and repubs were helpless to stop it because they lost the ability to filibuster a spending/tax cut bill in the senate. It is unclear whether Repub can chip away at the law enough to render it useless, but they have been unsuccessfully trying, and no doubt will find another way having failed in SCOTUS already and 50 repeal votes. Do you really think Robert will overturn himself? Or the repubs will prevail in the district court? Despite Wills opinion (and repub hopes), this is hardly a slam dunk, far from it.

If they take the senate in the fall, and keep the house, no doubt another repeal vote will be taken in both chambers but then the question becomes, will they have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act

Quote:

---

On November 7, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act on a 220–215 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage.<sup>[72]

The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[120] The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.[121] Obama signed the ACA into law on March 23, 2010.[122] The amendment bill, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, was also passed by the House on March 21, by the Senate via reconciliation on March 25, and was signed by President Obama on March 30.</sup>

---

don't let the facts get in the way of a good story

I guess that Roberts would say that the appeal to the SC the first time was based on the individual mandate, and that they had no reason (or jurisdiction?) to look at the origination clause, and that it had not yet been declared a tax and not a penalty/mandate. Allowing these vital issues to come down to the way that one individual (out of 315 million citizens) votes, is a huge flaw in the way we are governed in my humble opinion. But so is a legislative body that is gridlocked.

Desperation and obstinance often results in grasping at straws. As in shutting down the government unless the ACA was repealed.

Desperation is those that insist of forcing something on the American people that an overwhelming majority do not want. And was rammed through without a proper vote like any real legislation would have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Desperation is those that insist of forcing something on the American people that an overwhelming majority do not want. And was rammed through without a proper vote like any real legislation would have been.

---

An opinion not based in facts and more illustrative of losers sour grapes than debate of the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

An opinion not based in facts and more illustrative of losers sour grapes than debate of the issue.

---

Something proven by facts...

It was rammed through as a financial reconciliation... or it would have required another Senate vote which there was not enough votes for after Scott Brown won his seat based on his opposition.

Besides tha fact non-partisan polls have should support for that are even lower than Obamas own numbers which are in the pathetic range.

You misinterpret the polls. The ACA is more popular than Obamacare. The sky didn't fall, the world didn't end. Wait until the 5 million uninsured in red states find out they are getting screwed by their elected representatives.

The case that Will referred to: Case | Tax-raising Affordable Care Act started in wrong house of Congress - Pacific Legal Foundation

[Quote]
Tax-raising Affordable Care Act started in wrong house of Congress

Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

Contact: Paul J. Beard II or Timothy Sandefur

Status: Plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Apppeals on Jul. 5, 2013. Briefing completed Dec. 20, 2013. Oral argument scheduled for May 8, 2014.
Summary:
Pacific Legal Foundation has launched a new constitutional cause of action against the federal Affordable Care Act. The ACA imposes a charge on Americans who fail to buy health insurance — a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court recently characterized as a federal tax. PLF's amended complaint alleges that this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution's Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills (Article I, Section 7).

The Origination Clause argument is part of an amended complaint filed in PLF's existing lawsuit against the ACA, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, pending before Judge Beryl A. Howell, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. PLF's Sissel lawsuit was on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considered the challenge to the ACA from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 states, in NFIB v. Sebelius. As initially filed, PLF's Sissel lawsuit targeted the ACA's individual mandate to buy health insurance as a violation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8).

The Supreme Court agreed with this position, in the NFIB ruling
However, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by four justices, characterized the ACA's charge as a federal “tax,” because it requires a payment to the federal government from people who decide not to buy health insurance.
That holding prompted PLF's new cause of action. “If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II. “When lawmakers passed the ACA, with all of its taxes, did they follow the Constitution's procedures for revenue increases? The Supreme Court wasn't asked and didn't address this question in the NFIB case. The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts.”

[Unquote] Videos (2) not included in article quote.

Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the mandates were not penalties but taxes. Will has a point in that all revenue bills must originate in the House .Obamacare originated in the Senate.They creatively replaced an entire text of a bill the House had passed months earlier on a different subject; stripped it of it's language ,and replaced it with language the Senate concocted . No one could read the original House bill and come to the conclusion that it had anything to do with health care .

However .. Roberts also did some creative interpretation of the law and the constitution to define the mandates as taxes in the 1st place. I don't trust him to do the right thing this time either . The Senate 'deemed 'the passing of the law ,and the Roberts Court 'deemed ' it constitutional . (yes the reconciliation process was also violated by the Senate ) .
As for George Will..... he's a little late to the game ,as is this suit. The possibility that the origination clause was violated was brought up here before Obamacare became law. But back then ,George Will was still enamored with the emperor and the creases in his pants.

My bolding and underlining.


"In October 2009, the House passed a bill that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers —..."

"What will be argued on Thursday is that what was voted on — the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not originate in the House, which later passed the ACA on another party-line vote."

House Tax Credit = Senate Revenue Measure/Tax = Germane ? Arguing indisputably that ACA is a revenue measure. Not arguing that it is a healthcare bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You misinterpret the polls. The ACA is more popular than Obamacare. The sky didn't fall, the world didn't end. Wait until the 5 million uninsured in red states find out they are getting screwed by their elected representatives.

---

Really... when did they pass a second one... because ACA actually IS OBAMACARE. And was since day one. They are one in the same. Its a big steaming pile of manure no matter what you call it. You can't polish a turd.

Also....most of those people that signed up are STILL uninsured because very few of them actually paid a dime towards it yet. And until they do....they aren't covered.

Send the uninsured back to Mexico and El Salvador ....because they are illegal to begin with.

And as far as the sky not falling? Tell that to the millions of people who have had their hours cut to less than 30 per week and their insurance benefits cut by their employers because of Obama making it too expensive for them.

Obamacare condensed into 4 simple sentences......
In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.
Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became
un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original
un-insured can be insured, free of charge to them.

now I know why you are in decline, it has become clear, you can no longer do anything simply

We aren't in decline Clete, just at a war of words, and ideas.

it's more than that Tal it is a war of inaction and when you do nothing long enough..............

Relax Clete,the war is almost over. Just takes a few election cycles to flush down the BS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

We aren't in decline

---

When the SWAT team comes to knock in your door looking for a pressure cooker, say that again.

You should do something about those brain farts, tin foil may help. :D

I haven't seen anything IMPROVE in the last 6.5 years. And I actually live in one of if not the the least affected areas of the country.

May I suggest glasses... and a tin foil hat? :D

did you say you lived in a pressure cooker smoothy? No amount of tin foil is going to help, there is only one thing that will and you ain't goin to do that

Washington DC area is the least affected area when it comes to economic downturns... due to the nature of most of the work around here. And there is a 25% REDUCTION in the last year on Federal related contracts... which are not directly tied to economy... which sucks in itself... record numbers of people not working still, 30+ year low point in the labor participation rate, record numbers of people on food stamps, welfare and disability...

Unemployment rates that have not been lower than they were 7 years ago...

THe people wearing the tin foil hats are those that believe its great out there... because nobody that actually have jobs think its all that good. Obama might actually believe it is... but then its also obvious he has been completely out of touch with reality for a lot of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Washington DC area is the least affected area when it comes to economic downturns... due to the nature of most of the work around here. And there is a 25% REDUCTION in the last year on Federal related contracts... which are not directly tied to economy... which sucks in itself... record numbers of people not working still, 30+ year low point in the labor participation rate, record numbers of people on food stamps, welfare and disability...

Unemployment rates that have not been lower than they were 7 years ago...

THe people wearing the tin foil hats are those that believe its great out there... because nobody that actually have jobs think its all that good. Obama might actually believe it is... but then its also obvious he has been completely out of touch with reality for a lot of years.

---

If you take a look at those statistics you will find participation is around the long term average, it jumped when women entered the workforce in large numbers and has fallen back so you can't blame Obama. The participate rate is one of the lies of statistics, you need to look at how many jobs there actually are and vacancies to make sense of it. These statistics are difficult to find because the focus is on unemployment. The baby boomers are beginning to retire so it stands to reason the participation rate will fall over time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

If you take a look at those statistics you will find participation is around the long term average, it jumped when women entered the workforce in large numbers and has fallen back so you can't blame Obama. The participate rate is one of the lies of statistics, you need to look at how many jobs there actually are and vacancies to make sense of it. These statistics are difficult to find because the focus is on unemployment. The baby boomers are beginning to retire so it stands to reason the participation rate will fall over time

---

I've read the labor participation ratestatistics, They haven't been as low as they are since the Jimmy Carter Administration... when hyperinflation made two income households a neccessity, rather than the exception. THey have been anything BUT steady in the last 35 years.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ticipation.jpg


http://media.ycharts.com/charts/2019...3982f2d45c.png

Such statistics are worthless without comparing them with other statistics, including productivity, imports, wages growth.

I didn't suggest they were steady I said they have fallen back to the long term average and there are a lot of factors as to why they have come off the all time high and job availability is a major one, all that exporting jobs has to have an impact sometime, you can't have it both ways and that is one you can't hang on Obama, you need to hang that one on NAFTA, Wasn't it George H. W. who signed that one and the greed that saw jobs exported to China and Korea.

recovery has been slow, not Obama's fault, but the fault of the greedy who won't invest

These labor force participation rates are abolute numbers... X percent of something is still X percent of something irrespective of any other figures.

Quality of life statictics ARE something dependent on other factors.... but the labor force participation rate is what percentage of the adult population actually have jobs, vs those who don't. It doesn't factor in other variables.

That's the problem with it, compare the participation rate with the available jobs or people employed and certainly with GDP. Absolute measures are only good for point scoring, they ignore underlying factors.

It's like the polls, which measure what, popularity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

That's the problem with it, compare the participation rate with the available jobs or people employed and certainly with GDP. Absolute measures are only good for point scoring, they ignore underlying factors.

It's like the polls, which measure what, popularity?

---

No, polls are routinely skewed by the people that creat them. And absolute figure isn't open to interpretation... it is what it is. Problem is many statistics ARE dependent on other variables... and are crafted to skew reality to fit a narrative.

Like the unemployment figures tossed around by the media and the government (the ones that make them look better). Using those of the USA because I know them best... the U-6 is the only true unadaulterated Unemployment number but its rarely referred to... because it shows a much higher number.

THe one brandished around effectively only counts people who are eligible for unemployment benefits.. self employed, Contractors, business owners that go out of business... some people that are fire, and most of those who quit their jobs, and those whoes benefits run out before they find a job... are never counted, yet are still unemployed. They are excluded because they aren't elligible to collect unemployment benifits...so you can see from the numbers in the chart how significant a percentage they are that are being ignored.

Look at the wide range of numbers... for any given period....by the same compiling agency.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

I keep telling you statistics are lies the tools of those who want to decieve. long term trend is the only reliable indicator and then you must have a clear idea of what is going on. I don't believe anyone when they tell me the economy is up or scewed for this or that reason, what I know is over the long term things will improve and no amount of debate will make any difference so stop the BS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I keep telling you statistics are lies the tools of those who want to decieve. long term trend is the only reliable indicator and then you must have a clear idea of what is going on. I don't believe anyone when they tell me the economy is up or scewed for this or that reason, what I know is over the long term things will improve and no amount of debate will make any difference so stop the BS

---

So I should just take your word that things have improved because you say so and because Obama says so or anyone else says so? Despite the fact there exisits NO evidence that there has been a trend of improvement over the last 6 years?

The U-6 number I reffer to is fact... because there are no filters used on that number. It is what it is... everyone is counted... nobody is ignored or discounted. Its totally objective, unlike all the others That makes it reliable. Far more reliable than someone's "feeling", or anyone's propaganda. And why polititions go out of their way to avoid it.

Whether seasonally adjusted or not, your data shows a drop i unemployment. Small but a decrease none the less.

Quote:

---

NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

---

Too many variables not explained, for instance, what the hell are job market related reasons, and discouraged workers? Could this be a regional or location that is harder hit, rural or suburban? Household dynamics, age ranges are also excluded and the biggest question marks is the students at home not working, and the aged,or even retirees, or the newly disabled. In other words, its too road to paint a very clear picture, or an accurate one.

To be fair though, Smoothy, you used the same numbers I do, (BLS) but you have to look at the whole thing and see the slight uptick across the board that breaks the numbers down, positive but small to be sure.

Employment Situation

Helpful to look at individual states and how they are performing some great Minnesota, some NOT, Kansas. Locality, and governess is the whole key here, as well as industry.

Economic Outlooks by State, 2014-Kiplinger

Take it any way you want but slow growth is better than none, or worse shrinkage. You must be one of those glass half empty guys.