Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act

2»

Replies

  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
    rbsivley wrote: »
    If it's considered a tax don't we get to vote on it?

    No.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • Jim TomJim Tom Member Posts: 338 Member
    It seems to me Roberts had to really split some hairs to uphold the ACA, which seems to becoming what the SCOTUS is doing more often, perhaps they're getting too cute. The worst decision BY FAR in recent memory to me was the Kelo decision, which basically gave governments the right to condemn private property and transfer it to another private party just to increase the governments tax base.

    If there was anything the founding fathers held sacred, it was individual property rights (Don't bring up Dred Scott, Alpha!). In the end, we shouldn't be surprised that any government institution would give or affirm more power over the people to other government institutions; it's the nature of the beast.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Chief Justice Roberts has scored an incredible victory for freedom here, and he got four gullible liberal judges to go along with him. By officially designating the health care financing method a tax, he's stolen the thunder of those who would abuse the commerce clause any further, and he's put the ball squarely in the voters' court to decide if they want to keep electing the same greedy fools to tell them what to do. It's up to us to give Obama and his crew of incestuous cronies their walking papers before a couple more libs get appointed to the court. Roberts is a genius- - - -it's up to all of us to take his gift and run with it!
    Jerry
  • ghostsniper1ghostsniper1 Banned Posts: 2,645 Senior Member
    Yeah that seems like it would be a great step in the right direction, but it's tough to pass because it would cost a ton (in lowered tax revenue) which is why it wasn't included in this plan and why Bush was never able to pass it even though he claimed to want to do so. The biggest issue though seems to be how do you cover old people and people with pre-existing conditions without the large pools provided by employer programs? Being young and healthy I'd obviously benefit from such a system, but anyone who's unfortunate enough to have a chronic condition isn't so lucky. There need to be some kind of protections in place for people who are "uneconomic" for insurers to cover.
    As much as you avoid my replies and posts like the plague since you obviously think you are better than others, please explain.... I am a pure example of "uneconomical," in every sense and still manage to get by without others help. Why should you all have to foot the bill for me or anyone else?
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Chief Justice Roberts has scored an incredible victory for freedom here, and he got four gullible liberal judges to go along with him. By officially designating the health care financing method a tax, he's stolen the thunder of those who would abuse the commerce clause any further, and he's put the ball squarely in the voters' court to decide if they want to keep electing the same greedy fools to tell them what to do. It's up to us to give Obama and his crew of incestuous cronies their walking papers before a couple more libs get appointed to the court. Roberts is a genius- - - -it's up to all of us to take his gift and run with it!
    Jerry

    I normally read an entire thread before commenting but I had to stop here. Teach. You have hit a straight pin with a sledge hammer here. Chief Justice Roberts is widely recognized as a premier Constitutional scholar. By siding with the Obamaist's he's painted them into a corner that the only escape is voter apathy.
    Obama himself said, "Elections have consequences".
    So sayeth Roberts. The trick now is to get out the vote.
    I had considered starting a thread about how I've never felt more like my vote didn't matter. I voted for Romney, for the second time, this year but the nominee was already decided. As usual. You see, Obama lost my state the last time. And will again this time.
    But we must get out the vote. Obama's ground game could prove to be all.
    So preach your sermons and offer rides to the polls. Educate folks. Do what you have to do.
    This guy must go down in ignominious defeat.
    Send that message.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,189 Senior Member
    We need Romney so he doesn't veto a repeal, but we also need to have control of the House and Senate. Don't forget those races. They are going to make all the difference.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • bklysenbklysen Member Posts: 488 Member
    Here's another interesting take, one that I believe dovetails nicely into a few observations from Teach and Razorback.....and reminds us all that the ACA is intensely unpopular with most Americans.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/

    I'm particularly comforted by the last line, suggesting that this might just have handed Mitt Romney the White House.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,812 Senior Member
    In a modern society with the medical technology we have today no one should have to make the decision between bankruptcy and death. Is that Idealistic? Maybe? Socialist? To a degree. Now no one should get these benefits for free and people should have to pay into the system and I'm even ok with people having to pay more who make unhealthy lifestyle choices like smoking etc. but everyone should be able to get coverage and people shouldn't have to pay crazy amounts or go without coverage just because they've already got something (Aids, diabetes, cancer, MS, etc.).

    You are thinking with your heart, and not your brain. When a country is prosperous, all people of good conscience look to taking care of the needy. It is the 'Christian' thing to do, and it seems to be the morally correct thing to do for non-Christians, as well. But, no government should require its citizens to give up their own prosperity to care for strangers. A good citizen will help provide for the poor according to his own ability and conscience.

    Government health care over the long term is going to economically gut any country that is short-sighted enough to attempt it. It is simply too expensive, and it is one of the thousands of things that the government is not competent to administrate, due to its inherent corruption and incompetency.

    All socialist governments eventually run out of other people's money to spend, at which point they become the Soviet Union.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,812 Senior Member
    I didn't anywhere talk about government health care. I was talking about insurance pools and why the prohibition of excluding people for preexisting conditions is needed and also why the mandate is important to protect insurers from free riders. It's not just the poor either, treatment for any number of diseases or accidents can bankrupt even well off people, especially if they're able to be dropped from their insurance as soon as they're no longer profitable.

    Well, when you say everyone should be able to get coverage, who are you saying should pay for it, when they can't?

    My point is that the government has no authority to force citizens to pay for other peoples misfortune. Most folks are compassionate, and have gone along with government assistance for decades. But, that is because they could afford it, and looked upon it as being charitable. Politicians screwed that up by using taxpayer money, intended as charity, to buy votes, and created a huge new class of people who claim taxpayer charity as a right.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    rbsivley wrote: »
    If it's considered a tax don't we get to vote on it?

    Er, bis, when's the last time the general electorate ever got to vote on any federal law, tax or not? That's not how it works. We vote for Prez and the House and Senate, and they vote or sign laws.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,812 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Er, bis, when's the last time the general electorate ever got to vote on any federal law, tax or not? That's not how it works. We vote for Prez and the House and Senate, and they vote or sign laws.

    I give. When?
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,189 Senior Member
    Since this was labeled a tax, only a simple majority is needed to repeal Obamacare. Like I and a few others here have been saying, it was a brilliant move by Roberts. The more I learn about the long term consequences of this decision, the more I am liking it. I am thinking that we got the best overall outcome.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,189 Senior Member
    Roberts made Obama eat a turd sandwich and forced him to smile while doing it= Priceless!
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • ThatMattGuyThatMattGuy Senior Member Posts: 666 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    You are thinking with your heart, and not your brain. When a country is prosperous, all people of good conscience look to taking care of the needy. It is the 'Christian' thing to do, and it seems to be the morally correct thing to do for non-Christians, as well. But, no government should require its citizens to give up their own prosperity to care for strangers. A good citizen will help provide for the poor according to his own ability and conscience.

    Government health care over the long term is going to economically gut any country that is short-sighted enough to attempt it. It is simply too expensive, and it is one of the thousands of things that the government is not competent to administrate, due to its inherent corruption and incompetency.

    All socialist governments eventually run out of other people's money to spend, at which point they become the Soviet Union.

    Bisley this is an awesome quote! May I use it on another forum? I will give you the street cred :)
    The poster formerly known as '69MercCougar
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,812 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    My understanding is that obama's solicitor general who argued for this before the supreme court used the argument that this WAS A TAX, and therefore constitutional.
    Bisley wrote:
    You may be right - the part of it that I actually heard was when he was arguing that the commerce clause in the Constitution did allow this type of mandate. Since the politicians kept denying that it was a tax, I thought he was making the same point. But I only heard excerpts, and that's what I took from it at the time. I may be wrong.

    Upon further review, we may both be right.

    The solicitor general did argue on the first day that the bill was not a tax. In fact, the justices asked him specifically and repeatedly if it was a tax, and he argued that it was not. Had he admitted that it was a tax, it probably would have been thrown out, immediately, because the Supreme Court cannot rule on a tax until it has actually been assessed. The tax collection part of the bill is not slated to kick in until 2014, so the court could have then refused to rule.

    But, later in the hearings, the governments lawyer was allowed to argue that the bill was a tax, and that is what Roberts jumped on to make his ruling.

    In my opinion, the bill had to be ruled on, on the basis that it was a mandate governed by the commerce clause, as it was presented throughout the political debate leading up to its passage, and as it was presented to the court as the first question to be dealt with.

    Granted that this ruling may help Romney defeat Obama, by making him defend the largest tax increase in the history of the world, but I think Roberts was wrong on two levels: 1) the bill was not passed as a tax, and 2) the court can't rule on a tax that has not been assessed yet.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,812 Senior Member
    Bisley this is an awesome quote! May I use it on another forum? I will give you the street cred :)

    Help yourself. I just regurgitate the stuff I read and put my own spin on it.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,692 Senior Member
    George Will had a good opinion piece on why it's better that Roberts was able to convince 4 other justices that the mandate was a tax rather than it was constitutional under the commerce clause.

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/commerce-361220-mandate-court.html

    In short, if it's a tax it represents a miniscule, if any, increase in Congressional power, while if it fell under the commerce clause it would greatly expand Congressional power. In short, the ruling is limiting the mandate to enumerated powers. Furthermore, a tax is generally easier to repeal.

    A bill is being introduced to repeal the mandate.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/235529-120-republicans-introduce-bill-to-repeal-the-healthcare-mandate
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
    I just finished reading an article that claims obamacare is invalid because it is a tax, and all tax bills must originate in the house, which this did not.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-now-invalid-because-tax-bills-must-originate-house?fb_action_ids=10151609024629068&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline

    This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I thought I'd throw it out there for further discussion.

    Surely the supremes know this, and could use this to strike down the law.

    It sounds like wishful thinking to me, but you never know.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,812 Senior Member
    The thing that keeps bugging me about the whole deal is that I would have expected the court (excluding the four liberals, of course) to protect 'the people' from a fraudulent bill that, as written and presented by Congress, violated the commerce clause. The law should have been struck down for that reason alone, as soon as the justices agreed that it was actually a tax. For the court to rule that it was a tax, despite the fact that the Congress and the president insisted that it wasn't, and then allow it to stand for that reason, puts them in the position of 'correcting' legislation, which they have no Constitutional authority to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement