5-4 Insurance Mandate Upheld

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

My favorite quote in Justice Robert’s Decision:

“…We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders…”

“…Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices…”

Mufasa

102

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.[/quote]

False dichotomy. [/quote]

You know I made that all up just to see if you would use that reply again.

103

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.[/quote]

Well, I do.

I prefer a constitutional republic, where the constitution is written on roughly 16 pages in simple declarative sentences so that no judge could possibly interpret anything into it that it clearly not there.

Its a pipedream, I know. [/quote]

What language could that possibly be done in? not English

104

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
My favorite quote in Justice Robert’s Decision:

“…We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders…”

“…Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices…”

Mufasa[/quote]

I like these quotes too. Time will ultimately tell if this act is a “good idea”, but I’m glad to hear that he felt he voted on the basis of constitutionality. I think it’s important to remember it’s not too late to improve the act, ammend it, or eventually do away with it all together.

105

Obama pawned this off as it NOT being a tax, that’s the real bitch of it.

A recent poll about the SCOTUS decision…

106

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Loving today.

Progress at its finest.

I agree with you, as do many Americans.[/quote]
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/LED-280877/Poll-Only-36-percent-of-Americans-support-the-ACA.html

Yea roughly 1/3…congrats on that.[/quote]
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/LED-280877/Poll-Only-36-percent-of-Americans-support-the-ACA.html

36% think its a “good idea” compared to 44% that don’t and 20% that are unsure.
[/quote]

Yes, roughly 1/3. You do know how to compute factions, right?[/quote]

my apologies already for writing you a smarmy post in response to this, but in all seriousness the numbers just aren’t that compelling given the nature of the poll.

If you study statistics than one of the first things you learn is that variables are ranked on a scale of usefulness. The question they asked precludes data that can be deemed significant. Actually, there is one test–Chi-square goodness of fit-- that can determine if the percent differences are significant; I did the calculations myself and found that there were significant differenceS in the frequencies reported. BUT, what the test actually showed is that because only 20% are unsure the significant difference is between people that have an opinion and those that don’t. Ergo, this poll is stupid.

Also, if you study this in college one funny thing you learn is that depending on how these types of questions are asked can WIDELY impact responses. For instance if the questioner asked “do you think ACA is a bad idea” the frequencies would be very different.

Finally,and most importantly, does it really matter what people think now? Shouldn’t peoples opinions on this matter be more valuable down the road?

107

[quote]orion wrote:
In case anyone wondered what free market healthcare looks like, that is what it looks like:

http://www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing.php

Yeah, they have their prices on their web page.

Yes, they started out with the average infection rate of US hospitals and brought it down to 0,0001%.

Someone must have caught a cold while he spent time there.

Bastard.

Just for shits and giggles lets take a random procedure that is pretty straightforward:

Carpal Tunnel Release $ 2,750.00

Average cost in the US: $ 8,185.00

Yeah, thats like 66% cheaper.

Thyroidectomy $ 6,160.00

What real people paid somehwere else, you might want to see for yourself:

Tonsillectomy $ 3,050.00

Average cost US: 4000-7000

Adenoidectomy $ 2,695.00

Average cost US: 5000-8000

http://www.costevaluation.com/tonsillectomy-cost.php

All of these costs of course assume that the hospital in question does not spring any nasty surprises on you, which it will, whereas said hospital above has an all inclusive policy.

I never want to hear that “oooohhh, lests take the profit motive out of healthcare” BS again, THAT is whata free market hospital looks like. [/quote]

Thanks for sharing that.

That’s already impressive, so imagine how much more affordable it would be if that center was set up in a more ‘Laissez-faire’ economy.

108

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Nope. No clue. But I’d love you to teach me. what sort of statistical analysis do you use? Is it an independent samples t-test? No? How about a dependent samples test, I’ve heard of them before. No? How about a complex statistical analysis, like a one way ANOVA, you must need one of those right? RIGHT???

Awww shit, I guess computing fractions is out of my league.

But if I was a thinking man I wouldn’t need to,I’d notice that their’s an 8% difference in frequencies of a nominal variable from a small poll that asks a stupid question. Then I’d notice that the question is so stupid that it isn’t even followed up by a useable statistical measure that can be used to determine if the difference is ACTUALLY significant.

But you were saying something about fractions, right?[/quote]

Congratulations, you passed intermediate statistics. You still failed logical fallacies 101 because I was not talking about the study. I would never take a study done by NBC/Wall Street as serious (mostly because trusting a non-statistician to give you remotely accurate numbers is like trusting a homeless guy for a diagnosis) unless I ran it myself.

I was talking about your reply to the 1/3 comment.

109

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.[/quote]

False dichotomy. [/quote]

You know I made that all up just to see if you would use that reply again.[/quote]

Last time it wasn’t towards you. So, it’s like the first time.

110

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
my apologies already for writing you a smarmy post in response to this, but in all seriousness the numbers just aren’t that compelling given the nature of the poll.[/quote]

Never said they were compelling.

[quote]If you study statistics than one of the first things you learn is that variables are ranked on a scale of usefulness. The question they asked precludes data that can be deemed significant. Actually, there is one test–Chi-square goodness of fit-- that can determine if the percent differences are significant; I did the calculations myself and found that there were significant differenceS in the frequencies reported. BUT, what the test actually showed is that because only 20% are unsure the significant difference is between people that have an opinion and those that don’t. Ergo, this poll is stupid.

Also, if you study this in college one funny thing you learn is that depending on how these types of questions are asked can WIDELY impact responses. For instance if the questioner asked “do you think ACA is a bad idea” the frequencies would be very different.[/quote]

Thanks, I’ll take that into account next time I write up a statistical analysis.

Well, I’ll put this out there. I could care less about what people think when it comes to situations like this. However, the issue stands that he dropped a number based off the comment of many americans liking this decision. However…

Nothing new under the sun. I’m all for UHC, but Europe already tried a UHC by having UHI and that just back fired. There has to be some solidarity in the matter. And, so I say again…opinion means jack.

111

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.[/quote]

False dichotomy. [/quote]

You know I made that all up just to see if you would use that reply again.[/quote]

Last time it wasn’t towards you. So, it’s like the first time.[/quote]

Okay in that case I didn’t make anything up and I wasn’t even thinking about you when typing it.

113

I must say that the further I study and read into the court findings, the more appalled I am. The four dissenting said that the bill was unconstitutional in its entirety. Period. End of story. Commerce clause handled. Everything handled. Stick a fork in it. It is done.

Roberts had to do some extreme mental contortion to come to his decision. He decided he was to try to find a path of constitutionality for the law since the solicitors themselves could not. Excuse me? What the fuck is this nonsense. He resorted to the general welfare clause, something that was barely touched upon by the government lawyers and covered less than 21 lines in their BACK UP argument. It was not the point of focus so why in the hell was it used as the justification to ram a red hot poker up the ass of the US citizen.

Again, Roberts said that “they had a duty to find a constitutional path for the congressional law, not to just throw it away.” Having no justification in the commerce clause, the back up was all that remained.

Roberts said, " The mandate is not a Legal Demand to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. In essence this mandate is operating like a tax. Congress has broad powers to tax, therefore it is constitutional.

Now note the legal gymnastics. They first had to treat it like a penalty to get past the anti injunction act held as federal law.

This is straight, distilled, unadulterated bullshit. You can take a work and use one definition for it at one point of a law and then use another definition to full full another portion of the law.

Get this one more time…YOU are TAXING the ABSENCE of BEHAVIOR. How do ya’ like them apples? You can’t regulate inactivity but apparently you can tax it.

In the end the dissenting justices stated that what Roberts did in stating enforcing the individual mandate id merely a tax is not to interpret this stature, but to rewrite it.

Upon further reflection, ladies and gentlemen, I now declare what Justice Roberts gave us was a pure cluster fucking.

114

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.[/quote]

Well, I do.

I prefer a constitutional republic, where the constitution is written on roughly 16 pages in simple declarative sentences so that no judge could possibly interpret anything into it that it clearly not there.

Its a pipedream, I know. [/quote]

What language could that possibly be done in? not English[/quote]

Dunno, maybe we could use phrases like “Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW” and such.

Just in bold letters and underlined just so they know that we really mean it.

What could possibly go wrong!?!

115

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Last time it wasn’t towards you. So, it’s like the first time.[/quote]

I bet you say that to every girl you meet.

116

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think that it was brinksmanship, Aragon.

The Federal Government does, and always has, had the ability to tax; and Robert’s said that the Mandate IS a tax (not some weak interpretation of the Commerce Clause). In fact, it’s a tax to be collected by the beloved IRS.

He goes on to say (and believe me; these opinions will be studied for YEARS); that repealing this particular law is NOT the place of the SCOTUS but of the Law Makers.

What was brilliant to me is that Robert’s defined the Mandate for what it was; (which IMO was correct); defined it’s Constitutionality (and even though we ALL abhor further taxes and involvement of the IRS, taxing by the Feds IS constitutional); then went on to define other aspects of the law (in broad generalities).

It’s now up to the Executive and Legislative branches as to the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well said, anyone who thinks this is unconstitutional is just upset it was not ruled in their favor. If people like you and me got to decide what was constitutional then whats the point of even having a constitution? Just drop the constitution and let everyone vote for it. We are a constitutional republic and today was a fine example of that at work, if you disagree then maybe you would prefer some other type of government.[/quote]

False dichotomy. [/quote]

It’s a good thing some people didn’t listen to Sufi here when the SCOTUS upheld slavery.

117

[quote]JEATON wrote:

Roberts had to do some extreme mental contortion to come to his decision. He decided he was to try to find a path of constitutionality for the law since the solicitors themselves could not. Excuse me? What the fuck is this nonsense.
[/quote]

You know very well what this nonsense is.

It is keeping the semblance of the old republic intact while changing the institutions in a way that nothing of substance remains that even closely resembles it.

That is so old a trick it is not even worth commenting it, let alone wonder why people go along with it.

118

[quote]orion wrote:<<< You know very well what this nonsense is.

It is keeping the semblance of the old republic intact while changing the institutions in a way that nothing of substance remains that even closely resembles it.

That is so old a trick it is not even worth commenting it, let alone wonder why people go along with it.
[/quote]And there you have it boys n girls. Orion at his very best. You sir have hit the nail so squarely on the head as to forbid any hope of improvement. This is EXACTLY what has been goin on for a couple generations over here now.

119

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:<<< You know very well what this nonsense is.

It is keeping the semblance of the old republic intact while changing the institutions in a way that nothing of substance remains that even closely resembles it.

That is so old a trick it is not even worth commenting it, let alone wonder why people go along with it.
[/quote]And there you have it boys n girls. Orion at his very best. You sir have hit the nail so squarely on the head as to forbid any hope of improvement. This is EXACTLY what has been goin on for a couple generations over here now.
[/quote]

That is Aristotle, beautifully implemented by Octavian, the first Roman emperor, um, excuse me, First Citizen.

Nothing new to see here folks…

120

Mandates in Mass. Mass has the highest rates in the nation…

But don’t worry guys, this is progress.

Progressively taking away your disposable income, little bit of Obama’s pocket change at a time.