Is there a silver lining on the Supremes PPACA ruling

Originally Posted by nontheist

That the problem I am seeing right now, people are asking who and how much is everyone going to be paying? All were getting is a "uuuu I dunno" Also this tax will continually increase, when do we stop it? Is there going to be cap? A lot of important questions are unanswered right now, even Obama said some things may need tweaking today....

It's funny though, some are already worried about money - they are seeing government demanding more money, more taxes and they are already up in arms over it, but in the places I visited today, not a one sees or is worried about how much their premiums will rise over this decision, as though insurance companies are they friends and would never do something like that - or worse, they will claim that the poor insurance companies are forced - FORCED to raise their premiums by the bad old source of everything evil, government. Never mind that insurance companies have been raising their premiums to anticipate the changes anyway. Does anyone here think that had the decision gone the other way that those insurance companies would have sent everyone refund (Obamacare didn't pass muster) checks?

Originally Posted by canndo

I've not yet read the entire ruling - it is too damn long, but I believe Roberts claimed that the mandate was simply another tax?

And your saying there may be a silver lining indicates that guaranteeing consumers certain reasonable "rights" is not a "silver lining"?

you are not born with health insurance so how is that a right.

Originally Posted by RyanTheRhino

you are not born with health insurance so how is that a right.

You are most likely born with health. All rights stem from your ability to exist at all. We discover new rights all the time and I believe we have discovered this one.

Originally Posted by canndo

You are most likely born with health. All rights stem from your ability to exist at all. We discover new rights all the time and I believe we have discovered this one.

That's right!!! And there are more to come. Progress!

Originally Posted by canndo

It's funny though, some are already worried about money - they are seeing government demanding more money, more taxes and they are already up in arms over it, but in the places I visited today, not a one sees or is worried about how much their premiums will rise over this decision, as though insurance companies are they friends and would never do something like that - or worse, they will claim that the poor insurance companies are forced - FORCED to raise their premiums by the bad old source of everything evil, government. Never mind that insurance companies have been raising their premiums to anticipate the changes anyway. Does anyone here think that had the decision gone the other way that those insurance companies would have sent everyone refund (Obamacare didn't pass muster) checks?

Well I want to know the difference in pay for insurance from some one that makes 30k a year and someone that makes 200k a year it should be the same right? Its the same insurance, I just want to see how they break the cost up.

Commerce clause gutted!

Limitations to congressional power! Harumph!

Supreme court undoing the undoing of the meaning of the commerce clause.

Women and poor people hardest hit.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...mmerce-clause/


"Charles Fried, a constitutional law professor at Harvard, said from Rome, where he was on vacation, that he was “dispirited” by the ruling. “The limitation of the commerce clause runs counter to 75 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence,” he said. “It is a complete capitulation to the bogus logic of the broccoli argument and its proponents in the Tea Party.”


Professor Fried, a solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, is a conservative and not a fan of the heath care law, but he has consistently argued that it was constitutional.
While the health care legislation itself survived, the limitation of Congressional power under the commerce clause is likely to have far-reaching consequences, and the decision may prove a Pyrrhic victory for liberal supporters of Congress’s expansive power.

Some Libertarians, while disappointed that the law was not struck down, were celebrating the stake the court drove into the heart of the commerce clause."



http://reason.com/blog#article_156442
"Does the Commerce Clause portion of today's ruling count as a binding precedent? It might. As Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum points out at his Legal Theory Blog, the part of Roberts’ opinion which describes why the individual mandate may be described as a tax “suggests that this characterization was influence by the fact that this characterization was necessary to uphold the mandate (and hence perhaps the entire ACA as constitutional).” In other words, when federal judges turn to Roberts’ ruling in the future, they may be required to take his description of the Commerce Clause and its limits into account.

As textual evidence for this reading, Solum points to the following passage from Roberts, which "might be read as signalling that the Commerce Clause discussion was necessary to the logic of the opinion." Here's Roberts:

Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes."

Originally Posted by desert dude

Commerce clause gutted!

Limitations to congressional power! Harumph!

Supreme court undoing the undoing of the meaning of the commerce clause.

Women and poor people hardest hit.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...mmerce-clause/


"Charles Fried, a constitutional law professor at Harvard, said from Rome, where he was on vacation, that he was “dispirited” by the ruling. “The limitation of the commerce clause runs counter to 75 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence,” he said. “It is a complete capitulation to the bogus logic of the broccoli argument and its proponents in the Tea Party.”


Professor Fried, a solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, is a conservative and not a fan of the heath care law, but he has consistently argued that it was constitutional.
While the health care legislation itself survived, the limitation of Congressional power under the commerce clause is likely to have far-reaching consequences, and the decision may prove a Pyrrhic victory for liberal supporters of Congress’s expansive power.

Some Libertarians, while disappointed that the law was not struck down, were celebrating the stake the court drove into the heart of the commerce clause."



http://reason.com/blog#article_156442
"Does the Commerce Clause portion of today's ruling count as a binding precedent? It might. As Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum points out at his Legal Theory Blog, the part of Roberts’ opinion which describes why the individual mandate may be described as a tax “suggests that this characterization was influence by the fact that this characterization was necessary to uphold the mandate (and hence perhaps the entire ACA as constitutional).” In other words, when federal judges turn to Roberts’ ruling in the future, they may be required to take his description of the Commerce Clause and its limits into account.

As textual evidence for this reading, Solum points to the following passage from Roberts, which "might be read as signalling that the Commerce Clause discussion was necessary to the logic of the opinion." Here's Roberts:

Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes."

This is all a lie. Obama loves women and poor people. He would also never let his wife's horse trainer feed their horse too many opiates.

Originally Posted by Scrotie Mcboogerballs

I just got done eating a thin crust veggie and some buffalo wings from Domino's. Breakfast of champs.

domino's sponsors rush limbaugh. they get $0.00 from me.