Obama's Health-Care Overhaul Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

[shermbodius]

Haha, sorry Sherm, I was being sarcastic in reference to the quote I posted by Mitt Romney when it was actually considered a good idea by him. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.....

Ought, that Ned Stark thing is brilliant. hahaha

LOL! I am glad you caught that. Ha ha!

[RangerChallenge]

Haha, sorry Sherm, I was being sarcastic in reference to the quote I posted by Mitt Romney when it was actually considered a good idea by him. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.....

Ought, that Ned Stark thing is brilliant. hahaha

If I understand right there is an incentive. They way its set up is if you buy the insurance you won't pay more taxes and if you opt out of it you owe an extra 1% to the IRS. No matter which you choose you're going to owe money to someone somewhere. Seems fair enough. But maybe I'm just confused as to what your position is....

[justin84]

so because of SCOTUS's ruling on healthcare and citizens united, i think we can all agree that supreme court justices should have term limits.

yes? no?

[shermbodius]

Yess^^^
......................

[C.Puffs]

Ill tell you how it will end: millions of young Americans who are already struggling, paying another $2000 in taxes a year they cant afford, to fund a 'health program' they will never see the benefits of (of course the unemployed welfare queens will.) More companies willl forgoe providing any coverage all together.

And the stupid part of this is the sheer number of idiots who are cheering about it. Two guys I work with (Liberals) were high-fiveing this decision. Then I pointed out, "you know, there's a pretty good chance our company will drop our insurance now right?" "What do you mean?" "Well, because of what's going to be dicatated to them that they provide us, it'll be cheaper for them to not provide insurance at all and just pay the fines." "Wut?" The stupid fvckers had never even considered that.

[C.Puffs]

If I understand right there is an incentive. They way its set up is if you buy the insurance you won't pay more taxes and if you opt out of it you owe an extra 1% to the IRS. No matter which you choose you're going to owe money to someone somewhere. Seems fair enough. But maybe I'm just confused as to what your position is....

Except that for many, what they pay in taxes under the new "plan" will be far higher than what they'd pay for insurance previously. (See Ought Six's example.)

[Ought Six]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...it_114646.html

This is a thought-provoking article on the underlying motives and logic behind this decision. If this analysis is valid, this decision may not be as bad for conservatives as it appears on its face.

In addition to the court finally putting limits on the commerce clause, by defining the individual mandate as a tax, that causes the equal protection clause to apply. This means that Obama cannot give waivers to his cronies anymore. Existing waivers may well also be struck down, which will have the unions howling.

[C.Puffs]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...it_114646.html

This is a thought-provoking article on the underlying motives and logic behind this decision. If this analysis is valid, this decision may not be as bad for conservatives as it appears on its face.

In addition to the court finally putting limits on the commerce clause, by defining the individual mandate as a tax, that causes the equal protection clause to apply. This means that Obama cannot give waivers to his cronies anymore. Existing waivers may well also be struck down, which will have the unions howling.

We can only hope.

[usa320]

And the stupid part of this is the sheer number of idiots who are cheering about it. Two guys I work with (Liberals) were high-fiveing this decision. Then I pointed out, "you know, there's a pretty good chance our company will drop our insurance now right?" "What do you mean?" "Well, because of what's going to be dicatated to them that they provide us, it'll be cheaper for them to not provide insurance at all and just pay the fines." "Wut?" The stupid fvckers had never even considered that.

I hear you. it sickens me how many kids my age have taken to facebook to post status about "OMG FREE HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE!!! GOD BLESS OBAMA!!!11" without having any idea what the legislation even entails. Mentality like that is exactly how this guy got elected in the first place. Its like Idiocracy. only worse.

[American Caesar]

Meh when the taxes kick in Jan 2013 for this the Obamabots will come down to earth.

[Ought Six]

Wow! I just read another interesting point. By defining the individual mandate as a tax, Roberts may have set up the mandate to be struck down. The Constitution requires that all tax bills must originate in the House. The Obamacare bill originated in the Senate. So the first time the penalty for refusing to buy health insurance is applied, that person will have standing to sue on that basis.

[muck]

And the stupid part of this is the sheer number of idiots who are cheering about it. Two guys I work with (Liberals) were high-fiveing this decision. Then I pointed out, "you know, there's a pretty good chance our company will drop our insurance now right?" "What do you mean?" "Well, because of what's going to be dicatated to them that they provide us, it'll be cheaper for them to not provide insurance at all and just pay the fines." "Wut?" The stupid fvckers had never even considered that.

Why would they. It was pointed out in this thread why this isn't likely to happen: A, the non-wage labour costs are still below the projected fines so simply dropping insurance wouldn't pay off at all, B, a PR shitstorm would go down on any employer pulling off such a thing anyway, C, employers rival each other over skilled labour and treating your employees like crap isn't exactly going to stop them from leaving for a better employer, D, regular risk insurers would jack up all the other rates seeing the working place environment.

Well, should it happen anyway I'll be interested to see where your employer stands a year from today.

[HK in AK]

What I am looking for next is a lawsuit alleging that all the insurance waivers that were granted to companies for exemption from the healthcare law are illegal.

[FlintHillBilly]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...it_114646.html

This is a thought-provoking article on the underlying motives and logic behind this decision. If this analysis is valid, this decision may not be as bad for conservatives as it appears on its face.

In addition to the court finally putting limits on the commerce clause, by defining the individual mandate as a tax, that causes the equal protection clause to apply. This means that Obama cannot give waivers to his cronies anymore. Existing waivers may well also be struck down, which will have the unions howling.

Thanks for posting.

Very well written and thoughtful. The article brings out very good points IMO.

Roberts has basically done what John Marshall did: Insulate the court from criticism of bald partisan bias and infidelity to, as he once put it, calling balls and strikes. He’s earning plaudits from the left. Though the right is grumbling, I suspect they won’t be doing so for long

He made a good decision regarding current politics and I think this statement highlights it well.

As the article states a few sentences down, this isn't the most important Supreme Court major decision nor its last. We have had alot of big cases pass and there will be more lawsuits and cases to come that will triumph what the Supreme Court has currently undertaken.

We live in some interesting times.

What I am looking for next is a lawsuit alleging that all the insurance waivers that were granted to companies for exemption from the healthcare law are illegal.

That will open a can of worms.

How/why did they chose those who are exempt? Who gets exempt/why? I think its a validated question. I would like to know the answer.

[Soldat_Américain]

You understand that with this ruling the SCOTUS will not touch this even with the ten foot pole from your backyard?