Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

Thanks for stopping by to play again, Tracy Coxx. It's always refreshing to see the consistency in your game. If you don't have an answer when your factually challenged, provocation-riddled posts are responded to, you simply ignore them. Kudos for making such fine contributions to the community.

[transjen]

Who ever believes that this unsupreme court will make there ruling based on the law and not party dogma stand on your head and spin
The block of five already know how they would vote even before a sign word was said want proof just look at Thomas who just sat there not making a peep or asking one single question
It'll be another five to four vote with the five in lock step just like there five to four vote giving America the biggest in 2000 with putting W in the white house
Where's the GOP's outrage about activest judges? as none are more activest judges then the gang of five who can careless about law and only care about there parties dogma
the supreme court should be done away with all together
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

Who ever believes that this unsupreme court will make there ruling based on the law and not party dogma stand on your head and spin
The block of five already know how they would vote even before a sign word was said want proof just look at Thomas who just sat there not making a peep or asking one single question
It'll be another five to four vote with the five in lock step just like there five to four vote giving America the biggest in 2000 with putting W in the white house
Where's the GOP's outrage about activest judges? as none are more activest judges then the gang of five who can careless about law and only care about there parties dogma
the supreme court should be done away with all together
Jerseygirl Jen

C'mon, Jen, you know that a judge is only an "activist judge" when he or she disagrees with the right-wing ideologues. Otherwise, they are "constitutionalists."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

the supreme court should be done away with all together
Jerseygirl Jen

LOL yeah, that'll happen.

Btw, here's a few numbers for you Jen.

Obama says Obamacare will cost $900 Billion over the next decade.
Then the congressional budget office says it will actually cost $1.76 Trillion.
Quite a bit more eh? But hold on to your socks. It was recently learned that the number went up to $2.6 trillion over the next decade.

Oh if it were only that cheap. They continued looking into it and the number is up to $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This comes from Obama's own numbers when combined with existing medicare and medicaid funding shortfalls.

This is what happens when you take a democrat's word when she says "You'll have to pass it to find out what's in it."

This bill alone, that was put together behind closed doors, and delivered to congress in the form of a 2000+ page bill that you know good & well no one had a chance to read but a fraction of it, will double our national debt within 10 years. Our current debt level and problems with passing a budget already took us from a 5 star rating to 4 stars for the first time in history. What effect do you think this will have?

I can look into your future though. When the next republican comes into office, you'll be cursing their name because of the $17T debt that developed during their terms LOL.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

I've been following the news of this court case from my side of the border. According to one legal analyst in the US, Obama's proposal does not fall withing the jurisdiction of your federal government. However, it would be legal for any state to implement such a program.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

I've been following the news of this court case from my side of the border. According to one legal analyst in the US, Obama's proposal does not fall withing the jurisdiction of your federal government. However, it would be legal for any state to implement such a program.

Right, like Mitt Romney's healthcare program for his state. States are test-beds where things like this can be tried out, although I don't see the point since once you bring it up to the federal level it becomes unconstitutional.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Right, like Mitt Romney's healthcare program for his state. States are test-beds where things like this can be tried out, although I don't see the point since once you bring it up to the federal level it becomes unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

Don't take my word for it. Take Obama's... well at least the one on the right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Don't take my word for it. Take Obama's... well at least the one on the right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs

Of course, neither of the two words "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" appear even one time in the video you posted. But don't let that get in the way of trying to make your point ... a point that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

As for the "individual mandate," irrespective of whether Obama changed his position on it, are you willing to admit to the fact that the concept was first developed by Republicans back in 1989 and introduced in the U.S. Senate as an alternative to the Clinton healthcare plan later. And that when it was introduced by Republicans, the penalty for failure to buy insurance was actually a fine equal to the lowest-cost premium available on the market for insurance, and being forced to enroll in a plan, and an escalating penalty over time for refusal (unlike the measly penalty in so-called "ObamaCare"). Or, as is typical, will you simply ignore the fact or, even more typical, just go on to some other topic and pretend I never posted this?

[GRH]

The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Now whether you believe this power should be interpreted broadly or narrowly may depend on your political stripes; however, the Court's earlier rulings in Wickard and Raich so broadened the interpretation of what constitutes "regulating interstate commerce" that I'd personally consider ANYTHING fair game. Normal judicial interpretation would be bound by precedent set by the earlier Court rulings-- but I'm sure the block of 5 are figuring a technical loophole so that they can say Wickard, et al. does not in fact apply.

What's interesting is, Congress could have EASILY mandated a flat tax on EVERY citizen (let's call it the Health Care Tax). They could have then offered an offsetting tax credit (equal to the original tax) for anyone that had qualifying health insurance. This would have easily fallen under Congressional authority to tax. This would have had the same practical effect as the insurance mandate. A lot of the Constitutionality of the mandate hinges upon whether it is in fact a tax or a penalty. The political distaste for being seen as "raising taxes" is coming home to bite the Democrats in the butt. If they had the foresight to simply levy a tax (and call it that), this bill wouldn't be in Court today (at least for the individual mandate).

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

As for the "individual mandate," irrespective of whether Obama changed his position on it, are you willing to admit to the fact that the concept was first developed by Republicans back in 1989 and introduced in the U.S. Senate as an alternative to the Clinton healthcare plan later. And that when it was introduced by Republicans, the penalty for failure to buy insurance was actually a fine equal to the lowest-cost premium available on the market for insurance, and being forced to enroll in a plan, and an escalating penalty over time for refusal (unlike the measly penalty in so-called "ObamaCare").

I don't care who came up with it first. It's unconstitutional. Mitt Romney forced it upon his state. How many republicans do you see supporting that now?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, back on topic. Go back to what I wrote about the subjectivity of determining the "constitutionality" of something and respond to it.

Ok back on topic...

Originally Posted by smc

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

It's not opinion. There simply is no power granted to the government by the constitution to force citizens to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. If the Constitution does not restrict the government from doing something, does that mean it's constitutional for them to do it? No. For example, the mandate to pay income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895 because that power was not granted to the government. The Constitution had to be amended via the 16th amendment go give the government power to collect income taxes.

The Affordable Care Act would impose a penalty, not a tax, on individuals who do not get health insurance. That power is nowhere in the constitution. If the government really wanted that power they would have to amend the constitution.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok back on topic...



It's not opinion. There simply is no power granted to the government by the constitution to force citizens to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. If the Constitution does not restrict the government from doing something, does that mean it's constitutional for them to do it? No. For example, the mandate to pay income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895 because that power was not granted to the government. The Constitution had to be amended via the 16th amendment go give the government power to collect income taxes.

The Affordable Care Act would impose a penalty, not a tax, on individuals who do not get health insurance. That power is nowhere in the constitution. If the government really wanted that power they would have to amend the constitution.

You say it is a penalty, not a tax, and that the government has no power to impose such a penalty. Yet, one issue before the Court is, in fact, whether the penalty is a tax. Some argue that it IS simply because it happens to be collected by the IRS. But that, logically, does not AUTOMATICALLY make it a tax. Hence, my point about subjectivity. The justices must opine as to what it is. As I wrote earlier, the Founding Fathers are not here to weigh in, and who knows ... perhaps they would not have seen it as a tax, according to their understanding of what "tax" means.

Further, the Constitution does allow the government to regulate interstate commerce. Some argue that this penalty falls under that allowance. Again, it is a subjective judgment that must be made.

[GRH]

That's an excellent point smc about the subjectivity of determining the supposed "Constitutionality" of things not explicitly granted or forbidden to the government. Personally, do I think it's wise governance to go mandating the purchase of certain independent, third party products/services? No, not really. However, reading our current Constitution also does not lead me to feel such regulation is outside the realm of what Congress can legally do.

The commerce clause reads pretty broadly to me-- and it has been interpreted in such a way historically. For anyone (aka. Tracy) who feels that this is such an obviously unConstitutional issue, I want to know why you feel that the precedent of Wickard can be ignored in this case? Some of the Supreme Court justices were mockingly asking questions if the Affordable Care Act's logical conclusion was that the government could mandate buying broccoli, etc. Personally, I don't think it matters if this is the end conclusion of such "mandates." I find that such market regulation to not be forbidden by the Constitution.

I take it that Tracy finds the individual mandate repulsive because it "mandates" the purchase of insurance through the use of coercive penalties (taxes?). Whether this is Constitutional or not has yet to be determined. But you can't deny the broad power to tax, can you? Congress has the power to tax income via the hallowed Constitution. It would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to levy a healthcare tax on EVERYONE...Then offer an offsetting tax credit to anyone that holds an acceptable health insurance policy. This would have the same income effect-- people would be financially incentivized via the tax code to purchase insurance. However it would not selectively impose a penalty?/tax? on someone who chooses to not do something (even though the private insurance market routinely penalizes market participants for inaction).

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

You say it is a penalty, not a tax, and that the government has no power to impose such a penalty. Yet, one issue before the Court is, in fact, whether the penalty is a tax.

It is an issue before the court because that is the only argument Obama's administration has that would make it constitutional. They don't have a leg to stand on though. Now it may be subjective in the sense that certain justices are biased. Such as Sotomayor, who would have been one of the ones who would argue the case to the supreme court for the administration. Why hasn't she recused herself? If Sotomayor, or any justice, explains their ruling based on what can be found in the constitution, then I wouldn't call it a biased ruling. But someone like her, who would have been instrumental in arguing the case to the supreme court that she now is part of is obviously a conflict of interest.