June 28, 201214 yr http://bluegrasspreps.com/kentucky-national-politics/healthcare-court-ruling-236673.html They guy called it - correctly. See my post in the other thread. If they cut this baby they would have 'owned' it. And no one wants to own a law that is 2,700 pages. So the lesson is this: If you want to pass bad and possibly unconstitutional law make it so large and complex that the court will not 'get active' in trying to fix it.
June 28, 201214 yr It was one of the best parts of the ruling. Roberts is a phenomenal Chief Justice, as part of that job these days is protecting the integrity of the court against politicization. He openly stated that this ruling doesn't address issues of whether or not the law is a good idea or an advisable thing to do, simply whether or not it's legal. It's a pretty darn good bit of writing by Chief Justice Roberts. Agreed. I found myself largely in agreement with it, though I wasn't expecting to. Frankly, I think it's for the best that this wasn't found to fall under the Commerce Clause.
June 28, 201214 yr I thought they tortured the law to get there. And if you had concerns about a powerful IRS before this reenforces their role since everyone will under suspicion of dodging 'their fair share' starting in 2014. The King's, err...federal government, tax collectors will have ultimate power under this - since it is a tax. The law was already pretty tortured. Roberts completely blew past Wickard v. Filburn and the subsequent cases to get around the Commerce Clause and I completely understand why. What specifically do you mean?
June 28, 201214 yr It was one of the best parts of the ruling. Roberts is a phenomenal Chief Justice, as part of that job these days is protecting the integrity of the court against politicization. He openly stated that this ruling doesn't address issues of whether or not the law is a good idea or an advisable thing to do, simply whether or not it's legal. It's a pretty darn good bit of writing by Chief Justice Roberts. He stated it twice. I have heard this ruling referred on FOX and MSNBC as a "boobie trap" for President Obama and Democrats.
June 28, 201214 yr I heard Gov Romney repeat the line that now "govt will come between you and your doctor." What does that mean? They determine what is covered and to what degree and for whom....pretty simple really. If Obama is re-elected, our country gets what it deserves, which will be comng down to the level of Europe, and hope the Chinese don't call in their debt. All Hail the dominant power of the 21st century-China!!
June 28, 201214 yr Author They determine what is covered and to what degree and for whom....pretty simple really. If Obama is re-elected, our country gets what it deserves, which will be comng down to the level of Europe, and hope the Chinese don't call in their debt. All Hail the dominant power of the 21st century-China!! So my health plan through my employer is with United Health. You're telling me that you believe the govt will tell UHC what they can cover? Are you saying UHC will cut coverages? If so, what is that based upon?
June 28, 201214 yr They determine what is covered and to what degree and for whom....pretty simple really. This is among the provisions of the Act I'm not familiar with. How exactly does that work?
June 28, 201214 yr Author Can I get a cliff notes version of the pros and cons of this ruling? Not if you want an accurate one.
June 28, 201214 yr Sad day for America...But at least we have the hope of an Obama defeat this fall...
June 28, 201214 yr Author For the record I do NOT believe this issue will have a major impact on swing voters. I wouldn't spend a lot of time on it if I was Gov Romney.
June 28, 201214 yr The law was already pretty tortured. Roberts completely blew past Wickard v. Filburn and the subsequent cases to get around the Commerce Clause and I completely understand why. What specifically do you mean? That is what I meant. On TV they are saying Roberts 'threaded the needle' by ignoring the Commerce Clause. Unfortunately, the method of choice now in some courts appears to be 'silent' or ignore conflicting rulings or precedent that do not agree. It is interesting. Further analysis says the medicade portion that was struck down will financially cripple the whole bill. You have to love bills that are rushed through, 2,700 pages, passed on party-line votes and voted on on weekends...at night...during the Michigan-Ohio State game. Yes, I remember where I was when this was passed by one of the houses. The adults there told the kids, who could not understand why the game was being interrupted, that the country would not be the same for them. It is certainly coming true.
June 28, 201214 yr Author Sad day for America...But at least we have the hope of an Obama defeat this fall... The beauty of the system.
June 28, 201214 yr I have heard this ruling referred on FOX and MSNBC as a "boobie trap" for President Obama and Democrats. The "this is a tax" opinion sure appeared to come off that way to me...
June 28, 201214 yr For the record I do NOT believe this issue will have a major impact on swing voters. I wouldn't spend a lot of time on it if I was Gov Romney. Not sure...as you pointed out 25% already thought this was 'repealed'. So at least 25% of the country is going to get a wake-up call tonight or tomorrow morning. This will played up as a massive, massive tax increase - which is what it legally is now. I would run every snip of every politician running in November saying - "this is not a tax" in 2009 and put it into commercials. They ask the viewer - if they lied to you about this what else will they lie about? This may be a woke up a sleeping giant action. Apologies to Admiral Yamamoto. But the real issue will still be the economy...and this does not help and as my thread on UE claims points out - we are in trouble as a nation. So the economy will be 'the' factor probably.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.