Just heard on news that Cantor says a vote to repeal the law will be held on July 11th, 2012. Of course I would think the vote will be negated by the Senate.
There will be many challenges to come.
I really wish people would stop listening to the politicians and media. We as a people need to read the bills that are presented and pass. It's always easy to pass judgement on 1000+ page bills/laws and comment while we don't have a fvckin clue about them.
Just to sum up all the points in one post....
- Making the mandate a tax opens it up to being struck down when the penalty is first applied because the Obamacare bill originated in the Senate, not the House. All tax bills must originate in the House, per our Constitution.
- Making the mandate a tax means the whole law is a tax law. That means that only 51 votes would be needed in the Senate to repeal it, instead of the normal 60 votes required to prevent a filibuster.
- This decision, for the first time ever, puts hard limits on commerce clause powers, previously assumed to be pretty much unlimited.
- Making the mandate a tax means that the equal protection clause applies. This will open up all the waivers Obama has given to his cronies to be challenged and struck down in court, and prevents him from issuing any future waivers.
- The section of the ruling on Medicaid establishes the principle that Congress cannot withhold healthcare funding to punish states for not complying with provisions of the law. This severely limits the Congress's power over the states by taking away their biggest club it uses to beat them with.
- The Medicare section of the ruling was a huge victory for state's rights, as it prohibits the Congress from 'commandeering state resources'. This means that unfunded mandates on the states by the fedgov are now subject to constitutional challenge on this basis.
- By making the mandate a tax, that hangs a huge 'tax-raiser' banner around Obama's neck, per Hank's post below.
If more interesting points come up, I will add them to this post.
Last edited by Ought Six; 06-28-2012 at 10:50 PM.
I think Roberts' choice to cast his vote the way he did stems more from a political ideology than a legal conclusion. By voting to say yes the law in constitutional but the funding is a tax politicizes the argument. Obama will now go down in history as the president that imposed the highest tax burden on the American people. The old CBO estimate was the cost of Obamacare was about $16 trillion over a 10 year period....so political fodder will be that he is a tax raiser and brought about Armageddon.
We can't afford this law in simplistic terms, at current state, and surely don't have the infrastructure to accommodate the new arrivals.
On the other side of the card this is the perfect time, now and in the future, for those to blame Republicans and those Independents who appose it for monetary sake, for being backwords people not willing to live in today's society of those who care..
Just my 2 cents.
A-Are we using the same math that was used to keep this under a trillion dollars? When companies need to trim overhead cutting employee's healthcare will happen before CEO's give up bonuses. After all companies are greedy and evil and they will say well the govt now has a plan for the employees.
B-My company just went through a PR nightmare when it tried to play hardball with its suppliers and instead of bowing they sued and won and my company had to payout 500 million dollars which put the company in the red for that quarter. You are assuming those in charge think things through. As I posted earlier my company has already reduced the options they offer. The're not concerned about PR fallout. Their attitude is "If you don't like go find another job." Which leads me to....
C-WHAT OTHER JOBS???!!!! When I read about hundreds applying for less than 50 job positions that tells me the employers can call the shots. The mall down the street from used to hold job fairs but the last one which was over a year ago only had colleges and trade schools there. That mall has been slowly dying anyway. The food court which has spaces for 20 only has 5 open. In my line of work there are two smaller competitors that pay even less and are facing worse hardship than my company. Also I'm 44 years old and I'm competing with younger unemployed people out there. If I leave I WILL take a paycut. Fortunately I can take a cut in pay but my age will count against me just like older people out there that have been out of work for years.
D- Yes rates will go up or insurers will go out of business. My mother is getting ready to retire from the insurance company she works for and this ruling has been the talk of the business. Oh management there treats their employees like crap and she put in her retirement papers the very second our family financial planner total she could afford to retire.
In one breath they rant about how corporations are greedy and evil and don't care and in the other breath they defend this bill by stating corporations will be too worried about the PR fallout. Make up your fookin' minds!
Stay healthy my friends, stay healthy......
Last edited by American Caesar; 06-28-2012 at 10:57 PM.
Stay healthy my friends, stay healthy.......
Anyways, as I understand it heaven and earth are moved right now to get rid of "Obamacare" regardless of the SCOTUS decision so debating the issue seems rather moot. I respect and appreciate opposition to the bill in principle, I just got curious about this feeble technical challenge to the reform some of you put up.
----------The butthurt is strong with this one.But don't let the door hit you on your way out.