Obama Care, How Will Be Judged On Thursday?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not as long as that overreach is allowed to stand.

Roberts maybe got the result he wanted. Obama did a victory lap but really lost his strategic objective, people with preexisting problems remain covered and wont be sour with the GOP, and the GOP controls the money for funding ObamaCare.

Think of Lee's Spottsylvania victory, he kicked Grants ass and Grant retreated closer to Richmond. And when Lee mauled Grant at North Anna and then Cold Harbor, Grant kept retreating towards Richmond.

 

[coachdb18]

I feel the same regret in today's decision, that I'm sure those who observed the Supreme Court of their day did in watching similarly dreadful decisions being released; declaring blacks were equivalent to 3/5ths of a human being; of deciding that alcohol should be prohibited; Dred Scott, deciding that the blacks of the time were to forever be considered property; and Buck v Bell, in which the Supremes upheld the forced sterilization of the mentally ill.

The fact that we call it the 'Supreme Court' doesn't mean they are wise, nor inafallible. Nor are their decisions always anything but embarassing.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Looks like Zoomy is trying to steal Porky's title of Lit's Most Vile Poster.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m24xtkwqFT1r6aoq4o1_500.gif

 

[busybody..]

How right I was: “IRS The New Health Care Enforcer”





Posted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 12:30pm



56



27


On August 14, 2009, I tried to sound the alarm as to where Democrats’ health care proposals were heading.

At that time I was dealing with the precursors to what became Obamacare. The congressional language distinguishing the mandate as a penalty and the political arguments that it was not a tax had not yet coalesced.

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the mandate as a tax proves me to have been more right than I realized at the time:


IRS The New Health Care Enforcer

People often joke that government-run health care will have the efficiency of the motor vehicle department, and the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service. This joke will become reality if present Democratic health restructuring proposals are enacted.

Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention….

These provisions should have people interested in privacy greatly concerned. While income information already is reported to the IRS, the IRS traditionally has not received personal health care information about individuals.

The IRS involved in health care monitoring and enforcement. Somehow, I doubt that most supporters of Democratic health care restructuring concepts will like this detail.

My follow up post was Taxing Your Mere Existence:


What a bizarre concept is a tax to enforce a health care mandate. If you buy a computer at a store, you expect to pay a sales tax; but do you expect to pay the tax for not buying a computer? If you earn income at a job, you expect to pay taxes on the income; but do you expect to pay taxes for not working?

Meet the new health care enforcer:
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/IRS-homepage-6-28-2012.jpg

 

[cjh]

There was NO "prenumbral solution".
Fuck that.

It was an open-and-shut case of Congress has the authority to levy taxes.

PERIOD.

Spin it ALL YOU WANT, you little bitch, but when you go to bed tonight Obamacare will have passed muster with all three branches of government.

Don't like it? Somalia beckons.

be respectful.

you have not studied law like vette.

just like with economics, he is a savant of sorts.

 

[busybody..]

Clearly

SCOTUS

is

HOCUS

POKUS

Time to pack the COURT

 

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

Roberts maybe got the result he wanted. Obama did a victory lap but really lost his strategic objective, people with preexisting problems remain covered and wont be sour with the GOP, and the GOP controls the money for funding ObamaCare.

Think of Lee's Spottsylvania victory, he kicked Grants ass and Grant retreated closer to Richmond. And when Lee mauled Grant at North Anna and then Cold Harbor, Grant kept retreating towards Richmond.

i may agree with the gist of this.

roberts is worried about his legacy in way that scalia, alito, and thomas are not.

with this opinion, he very well may appear to be giving much more than he actually is; he retains his legacy without compromising his core values.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the President attempts to spin his prior declaration that the individual mandate is not a tax with something like the following:

"As I've said all along, the individual mandate is NOT a tax. The penalty for not buying insurance IS a tax."

I have no doubt he is that brazen.

As it turns out, my little Obama jest may have more substance than I realized. Today’s ruling is fundamentally flawed for its failure to appropriately consider Congressional intent in reviewing the consequences of a person’s failure to obey the individual mandate.

According to Scalia’s dissent, the words Congress uses to describe those consequences matter. They have legal significance that cannot rightly be ignored:

“The issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so.

"Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’ In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act “adopt the criteria of wrongdoing” and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax.” (case citations omitted)​

And the ultra-sticky legal problem for this court, was how do you preserve the regulatory penalty for the individual mandate after that mandate has been examined and held to be an unconstitutional exercise of both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the enumerated powers of Article I?

You can’t. Legislative penalties for unconstitutional legislation are also unconstitutional.

The only alternative was to declare the penalty a tax. Which the court did in direct contradiction of the legislative intent of Congress.

 

[coachdb18]

A scenario:

Let's say a man is employed, and receives HC benefits for the first 3 months of the year. But due to Obama's anti-business climate, his company conducts a RIF, and he loses his job. He finds another five month contract job after going wthout either job or insurance for two months, but there is a two month waiting period to qualify for benefits. At the end of his contract, he is again looking for both work and benefits.

Does he pay the IRS penalty tax?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

A scenario:

Let's say a man is employed, and receives HC benefits for the first 3 months of the year. But due to Obama's anti-business climate, his company conducts a RIF, and he loses his job. He finds another five month contract job after going wthout either job or insurance for two months, but there is a two month waiting period to qualify for benefits. At the end of his contract, he is again looking for both work and benefits.

Does he pay the IRS penalty tax?

I doubt very many people know the answer to the question under the new law. There is going to be a lot of different scenarios involving gaps in employment and how to bridge them.

And how do you do that if you don't know if the gap is going to be a temporary one or long term?

 

[busybody..]

i may agree with the gist of this.

roberts is worried about his legacy in way that scalia, alito, and thomas are not.

with this opinion, he very well may appear to be giving much more than he actually is; he retains his legacy without compromising his core values.

so lets see if I get this staright, NIGGER JACK

if they VOTE LEFT....they are protecting legacy

if they dont, they dont give a shit/

is that IT?


ASSHOLE!

 

[busybody..]

A scenario:

Let's say a man is employed, and receives HC benefits for the first 3 months of the year. But due to Obama's anti-business climate, his company conducts a RIF, and he loses his job. He finds another five month contract job after going wthout either job or insurance for two months, but there is a two month waiting period to qualify for benefits. At the end of his contract, he is again looking for both work and benefits.

Does he pay the IRS penalty tax?

every person MUST have insurance

doesnt matter if you work or not

 

[Sean]

None of you bed wetters pack the gear to get me down, emotionally, or intellectually. I gain nothing but strength from the level of your infantile perceptions. I've parried your bullshit for 8 years now and haven't even broken a sweat. You're way too easy, way to predictable.

How you characterize yourself, or me, in your own mind is none of my concern. The inanity it produces only serves to vindicate in my mind the accuracy of my negative assessment of your worth. That includes that population of mannerless pudgy midgets whom I've found in contempt of humanity and have placed on Iggy.

You are a truly shit writer.

 

[busybody..]

You are a truly shit writer.

yet another FOREIGN NIGGER

 

[Wrong Element]

i may agree with the gist of this.

roberts is worried about his legacy in way that scalia, alito, and thomas are not.

with this opinion, he very well may appear to be giving much more than he actually is; he retains his legacy without compromising his core values.

He also managed to get 5 members of the Court on the record as saying that there are significant limits on the Commerce Clause, which is no small matter. Of course, they can always change their minds again when they want to reach a particular result, like Scalia has.

I feel the same regret in today's decision, that I'm sure those who observed the Supreme Court of their day did in watching similarly dreadful decisions being released; declaring blacks were equivalent to 3/5ths of a human being; of deciding that alcohol should be prohibited; Dred Scott, deciding that the blacks of the time were to forever be considered property; and Buck v Bell, in which the Supremes upheld the forced sterilization of the mentally ill.

The fact that we call it the 'Supreme Court' doesn't mean they are wise, nor inafallible. Nor are their decisions always anything but embarassing.

Human beings as property = health insurance for those currently uninsured.

The analogy is airtight, I'd say.

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

I thought it was an accurate statement. What would you call it when the Chief Justice decides to amend the government's case and uphold it on a point of contention they and the President swore up and down didn't exist?

It's true I never attended law school. I know in your mind this precludes my right to an opinion, but I'm going to post it anyway, your hate for it notwithstanding. So go ahead and disparage it all you want, don't expect me to give a shit though.

Just a note to the esteemed barrister in our midst:

Of the 112 Supreme Court members, only 47 have held degrees from accredited law schools; 18 attended law school, but never attained a degree; and 47 were self-taught and/or went through an apprenticeship.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_qual...come_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice#ixzz1z86rhM9U

and Thomas was a LAWN JOCKEY

I know

The LIBZ say so

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A scenario:

Let's say a man is employed, and receives HC benefits for the first 3 months of the year. But due to Obama's anti-business climate, his company conducts a RIF, and he loses his job. He finds another five month contract job after going wthout either job or insurance for two months, but there is a two month waiting period to qualify for benefits. At the end of his contract, he is again looking for both work and benefits.

Does he pay the IRS penalty tax?

As I heard it this afternoon the IRS has no teeth to compel collection of the tax. I suspect they can keep your income tax refund, but they cant garnish wages or grab your assets or toss you in jail.

 

[busybody..]

PIG PUSSY PELOSI speaks


Pelosi Trashes the Uninsured: 'Free Riders'




Now that the Supreme Court has concluded that Obamacare is a tax, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has trashed the uninsured--those whom the Affordable Care Act was supposed to benefit--as "free riders." Pelosi, speaking to Audie Cornish of National Public Radio, explained that new taxes were necessary because some (many?) of the uninsured actively choose not to buy health insurance, even though they can afford it.

Pelosi's change in attitude towards the uninsured is a complete about-face from the rhetoric that she and the Democrats used in pushing for the massive legislation in 2009-10. Then, Democrats bombarded Americans with heart-wrenching stories--many of them false, particularly those told by President Barack Obama--about the 30, 40, or 50 million people without health insurance. Those who pointed to research that over 40 percent of the uninsured were "voluntary" were dismissed as heartless corporate shills or racists.

Today, Pelosi tells us that the uninsured deserve our contempt because they impose a cost on all of us when they show up injured or ill in the hospital. They are "free riders," she said, and the new taxes in Obamacare are needed to solve the problems they create. That almost sounds like a conservative argument--but it does not explain why the health insurance system has to be overhauled for the other 300-million-plus Americans.

The truth is that Pelosi does not care about the uninsured. Nor does she care about raising taxes, which she is happy to do. And the wealthy, insider-trading Pelosi surely does not believe her rhetoric about how House Republicans who plan to repeal Obamacare are mere tools of the insurance industry. What her remarks reveal is the true agenda of Obama and the Democrats: control of health care, of the economy, of the lives of others.

 

[busybody..]

As I heard it this afternoon the IRS has no teeth to compel collection of the tax. I suspect they can keep your income tax refund, but they cant garnish wages or grab your assets or toss you in jail.

is that true?

been trying to find out

 

[Sean]

Have I ever claimed to be a good writer? BTW, how would you know one way or the other, Englishman? You fuckers can't even speak English.

Quoted for posterity. And hilarity.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]