Federal judge declares entire Obamacare law void
-
dwccrew
ptown_trojans_1;662840 wrote:I agree on point that no agreement equals no more massive bills. But, no agreement also means the status quo, which we all agree is not sustainable. The debt will continue to rise, the budget will continue to grow or at the very least stay flat with CR's and the country will be worse off.
I can tolerate the status quo until they get the rest of the knuckleheads (whether it be R or D) out of Congress in 2012 and the biggest knucklehead out of the WH in 2012. Once we have another round of "cleaning" in Congress, I think we'll finally have some change. At least, I hope. -
BoatShoesBe careful what you wish for...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020203149.html?hpid=topnews
"Good afternoon, I'm Brian Williams reporting from Washington, where it looks like October 26, 2017, will be a day that truly goes down in history. In a few moments, at a table not far from where I now stand, President Hillary Clinton will sign into law the universal health-care legislation - "Medicare for All," as she calls it - that completes a journey Mrs. Clinton began nearly 25 years ago. Back then, as first lady, her attempt to reform the health-care system proved a fiasco that cost Democrats their hold on power. Who would have thought then - or later, when President Barack Obama's big health reform was overturned by the Supreme Court in a controversial 5 to 4 ruling in 2012 - that today's bipartisan bill would be the result? For some perspective on the twists and turns of history, we're joined by NBC's David Gregory. David, health reform seemed dead in the water in 2012. How did we get from that Supreme Court ruling to today?"
"Brian, when historians look back on this period, they'll see it as a classic case of shortsighted politics - of Republicans winning the battle but losing the war. It really dates to the fight to overturn Barack Obama's health reform. There's no question the GOP got a boost from that 'victory' - it galvanized their base, and, combined with high unemployment and the dollar crisis right before the 2012 election, denied President Obama a second term.
"But some Republicans now say the trouble was that their party never acknowledged that health care wasn't just about politics - it was a major policy problem that needed real solutions. President Mitch Daniels, of course, had to spend virtually all of his term in office getting America's fiscal house in order, what with the International Monetary Fund and the rating agencies telling Washington the jig was up. The new carbon and value-added taxes he enacted, and the spending cuts he muscled through, left Daniels respected but hardly popular.
"Meanwhile, as you know, Brian, health costs kept soaring, employers kept dropping coverage they could no longer afford, and by the 2016 campaign, with 70 million Americans uninsured, something had to give. It was Hillary Clinton's moment, Brian."
"David, it seems hard to recall now, but back in the fight over Obamacare, Republicans only offered plans to insure 3 million of the 50 million who were uninsured back then. Today, most Republicans have signed on to Mrs. Clinton's plan to have government provide every American with basic coverage, with a much more modest role for private insurance as a supplement. What accounts for the change?"
"Well, Brian, a cynic might say that when you get to 70 million uninsured, some of them are actually Republican voters! But the key difference was the way business and labor came together behind Mrs. Clinton's approach. Top chief executives agreed companies shouldn't be expected to bear these costs anymore and backed the modest taxes needed to move health costs from private payrolls to public budgets, as happens in every other wealthy nation. The unions finally took a larger view, too. Instead of moaning about the 'loss' of a benefit they'd bargained for, labor leaders accepted that most workers had gone years without real wage increases, because health costs were devouring every penny available for compensation. Having government fund health care was the only way to give Americans a raise."
"What seems so ironic, David, is that Republicans now endorse a much more 'liberal' solution than they would have had if they'd supported Barack Obama's approach years ago."
"That's right, Brian. Obama modeled his reform on Mitt Romney's in Massachusetts. It had an individual mandate because of something Republicans privately understood: The only way to reach universal coverage through private health plans that cover folks regardless of health status is to require everyone to be in the insurance pool. If people are free to wait until they're sick to buy in, premiums soar and coverage erodes. Republicans who knew better assailed the mandate not because they really cared about some constitutional defect - after all, that could have been fixed easily by structuring incentives to buy coverage as opposed to a mandate. They did it because it was a way to take a bite out of Obama. In the near term, it worked. In the long term, they lost the chance to preserve the private-sector role they claimed to cherish in health care."
"Ironic indeed. We're getting word that President Clinton is about to speak. We join her now in the Rose Garden."
"Thank you all for being here. It's hard to imagine a better 70th birthday present for a president than the law I am about to sign. . . ." -
ptown_trojans_1
dwccrew;662847 wrote:I can tolerate the status quo until they get the rest of the knuckleheads (whether it be R or D) out of Congress in 2012 and the biggest knucklehead out of the WH in 2012. Once we have another round of "cleaning" in Congress, I think we'll finally have some change. At least, I hope.
Fair enough.
Just seem like some on here are doing double talk. They want to cut spending, yet do not want Congress to do anything. -
fish82
They want Congress to cut spending. Plenty of room for cutting Medicare/Medicaid without the "benefit" of the HCR law.ptown_trojans_1;662926 wrote:Fair enough.
Just seem like some on here are doing double talk. They want to cut spending, yet do not want Congress to do anything. -
BGFalcons82
ptown_trojans_1;662840 wrote:I agree on point that no agreement equals no more massive bills. But, no agreement also means the status quo, which we all agree is not sustainable. The debt will continue to rise, the budget will continue to grow or at the very least stay flat with CR's and the country will be worse off.
Au contraire, ptown. I am with dwccrew and believer in that gridlock is best for right now. No more monumental colossal spending bills that only stimulate Dem loyalists and unions. I would lightly argue that the economy is indeed expanding at this time. Is it enough to dramatically reduce unemployment to where it was 3 or 4 years ago? No. Is it enough to reduce it to under 9%? I would say yes. An expanding economy does a couple positive things to the debt: 1. It increases the number of taxpayers and reduces the number of those dependent on tax dollars. 2. It increases revenue receipts as profitable companies pay more of their "fair share". Therefore, as the economy improves, so does the debt situation.
Do we need to cut spending by at least $500,000,000,000 per year? You betcha we do. But the premise that doing nothing worsens our situation is not correct, IMO. Your turn.... -
ptown_trojans_1
BGFalcons82;662954 wrote:Au contraire, ptown. I am with dwccrew and believer in that gridlock is best for right now. No more monumental colossal spending bills that only stimulate Dem loyalists and unions. I would lightly argue that the economy is indeed expanding at this time. Is it enough to dramatically reduce unemployment to where it was 3 or 4 years ago? No. Is it enough to reduce it to under 9%? I would say yes. An expanding economy does a couple positive things to the debt: 1. It increases the number of taxpayers and reduces the number of those dependent on tax dollars. 2. It increases revenue receipts as profitable companies pay more of their "fair share". Therefore, as the economy improves, so does the debt situation.
Do we need to cut spending by at least $500,000,000,000 per year? You betcha we do. But the premise that doing nothing worsens our situation is not correct, IMO. Your turn....
Fair enough.
I just find it odd posters were complaining about cutting spending (we had 2 or 3 threads on it) and now it seems that doing nothing is acceptable.
I agree the economy will grow, and is slowly. But, I'd press we do need common action to tackle this problems. -
Cleveland Buck
Doing nothing is not acceptable, it is just preferable to they are going to do. -
QuakerOats
How do you fix a ponzi scheme after everyone has found out it is a ponzi scheme ...... short of eliminating it?ptown_trojans_1;662699 wrote: I was just pointing out that they need to reduce the debt, reduce spending and fix SS, Medicare, etc. -
Ty Webb
dwccrew;662847 wrote:I can tolerate the status quo until they get the rest of the knuckleheads (whether it be R or D) out of Congress in 2012 and the biggest knucklehead out of the WH in 2012. Once we have another round of "cleaning" in Congress, I think we'll finally have some change. At least, I hope.
Keep dreaming brother -
Ty Webb
ptown_trojans_1;662501 wrote:Instead, go back to committee and go through the bill, adding and subtracting sections.
Then, bring it to the floor.
Exactly... -
Ty Webb
Ohh...by the way
The "repeal" vote failed by a vote of 51-47 -
BoatShoesThe more I think about Judge Vinson's decision the more reasonable he seems to me. The problem is, in my view, is that the democrats foreseeing this, or at the very least somebody on capitol hill thinking about the potential constitutionality of the mandate, ought to have constructed it in a better way to make it conform to taxation norms. Nevertheless, as most the courts have ruled, it seems more like a penalty than a tax. I have to say that I'm drifting off into conspiracy land but, although Congress has never ceased to embellish their incompetency, it strikes me as hard to imagine that nobody would demand that they properly construct the mandate as a tax if they had one last chance at getting a bill through (and one most D's weren't very happy with for that matter). I just can't help but think that maybe this was all by design and Democrats hope it gets knocked down and the reality of the burdens of health insurance on our economy becomes even greater until the Chamber of Commerce comes to the feds begging them to socialize healthcare so that they may focus on being in business and growing the economy rather than providing healthcare, etc. I mean, I not only do they fail to properly construct the mandate as a tax knowing that the bill is going to be challenged and then also don't make it severable....
-
BGFalcons82
Ty Webb;663259 wrote:Ohh...by the way
The "repeal" vote failed by a vote of 51-47
23 of the 51 get to defend their vote for an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law as they explain how they are to protect and defend the Constitution. How's that gonna go? "My fellow Missourians, please vote for me to defend the Constitution as I vote to keep unConstitutional laws on the books." That's gonna take some fancy dancin and use of smoke & mirrors, now isn't it?
McConnell was brilliant to bring this to a vote after Vinson's decision. Best move he's made in quite awhile and Harry was ball-less to stop it.
The Senate changes leadership on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2012. -
Apple
From what I understand, if they made the IM severable, the CBO would not count the revenue that the IM presumedly would generate. No IM = no glowing CBO report = no passage of the bill. -
BGFalcons82
Good post, BS. You are right, if they'd sold it as a tax - which is what their lawyers have argued in defense of ObamaKare in front of a judge - then it may have passed. But then, Obama could NOT have signed it. Remember his little pledge when he ran for POTUS?? Something like, "if you make less than $250,000, your taxes will not rise one dime." How would he say....."oops, sorry" by signing onto a massive tax increase for everyone? His parsing of words, much like the maestro Der Schlickmeister, of calling it a "mandate" instead of a tax has come back to bite his ass. Just like, "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is"...it's indeed his Waterloo.BoatShoes;663302 wrote:The more I think about Judge Vinson's decision the more reasonable he seems to me. The problem is, in my view, is that the democrats foreseeing this, or at the very least somebody on capitol hill thinking about the potential constitutionality of the mandate, ought to have constructed it in a better way to make it conform to taxation norms. Nevertheless, as most the courts have ruled, it seems more like a penalty than a tax. I have to say that I'm drifting off into conspiracy land but, although Congress has never ceased to embellish their incompetency, it strikes me as hard to imagine that nobody would demand that they properly construct the mandate as a tax if they had one last chance at getting a bill through (and one most D's weren't very happy with for that matter). I just can't help but think that maybe this was all by design and Democrats hope it gets knocked down and the reality of the burdens of health insurance on our economy becomes even greater until the Chamber of Commerce comes to the feds begging them to socialize healthcare so that they may focus on being in business and growing the economy rather than providing healthcare, etc. I mean, I not only do they fail to properly construct the mandate as a tax knowing that the bill is going to be challenged and then also don't make it severable.... -
Ty Webb
BGFalcons82;663349 wrote:Good post, BS. You are right, if they'd sold it as a tax - which is what their lawyers have argued in defense of ObamaKare in front of a judge - then it may have passed. But then, Obama could NOT have signed it. Remember his little pledge when he ran for POTUS?? Something like, "if you make less than $250,000, your taxes will not rise one dime." How would he say....."oops, sorry" by signing onto a massive tax increase for everyone? His parsing of words, much like the maestro Der Schlickmeister, of calling it a "mandate" instead of a tax has come back to bite his ass. Just like, "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is"...it's indeed his Waterloo.
You're kidding right? -
fish82
I doubt that he is. Whoever wrote this turd fucked up in epic fashion. I wonder if he/she is still employed?Ty Webb;663411 wrote:You're kidding right?
-
BGFalcons82
Ty Webb;663411 wrote:You're kidding right?
Maybe just a skoosh....but he boxed himself in by declaring he would not raise taxes on anyone under $250,000 and then sends lawyers to courthouses saying that's exactly what his mandate to purchase insurance is.....a tax. He cannot have it both ways; try as he might. He also boxed himself in as Apple has pointed out...by not making the I.M. severable, he forced CBO scoring to regurgitate the lie that spending will decrease and the budget will be saved. Funny....how the truth always rises to the surface when it's all said and done....and we've had a chance to read it!
I'll be very interested in how senators will defend their vote yesterday to keep a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by 2 federal courts. Lucy...you got some splainin to do!! LOL -
Ty Webb
BGFalcons82;663449 wrote:Maybe just a skoosh....but he boxed himself in by declaring he would not raise taxes on anyone under $250,000 and then sends lawyers to courthouses saying that's exactly what his mandate to purchase insurance is.....a tax. He cannot have it both ways; try as he might. He also boxed himself in as Apple has pointed out...by not making the I.M. severable, he forced CBO scoring to regurgitate the lie that spending will decrease and the budget will be saved. Funny....how the truth always rises to the surface when it's all said and done....and we've had a chance to read it!
I'll be very interested in how senators will defend their vote yesterday to keep a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by 2 federal courts. Lucy...you got some splainin to do!! LOL
Keep laughing....I'll have my laugh when this law is upheld by the SCOTUS and president Obama wins re-election. -
BoatShoesBGFalcons82;663449 wrote:Maybe just a skoosh....but he boxed himself in by declaring he would not raise taxes on anyone under $250,000 and then sends lawyers to courthouses saying that's exactly what his mandate to purchase insurance is.....a tax. He cannot have it both ways; try as he might. He also boxed himself in as Apple has pointed out...by not making the I.M. severable, he forced CBO scoring to regurgitate the lie that spending will decrease and the budget will be saved. Funny....how the truth always rises to the surface when it's all said and done....and we've had a chance to read it!
I'll be very interested in how senators will defend their vote yesterday to keep a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by 2 federal courts. Lucy...you got some splainin to do!! LOL
When he was saying that I took it to mean marginal rates. But, either way, for me, it wouldn't have any affect on my opinion of him if he broke a campaign promise to pursue a supposedly good policy. Same goes for any politician. In fact, a lot of newly elected conservatives vowed never to vote to raise taxes at any time. To me, this is an absurd position to hold. If an asteroid is headed to Earth for instance I'd hope as a matter of principle a legislator might find it necessary to bring in revenue to prevent a celestial impact, etc. -
BGFalcons82
BoatShoes;663476 wrote:When he was saying that I took it to mean marginal rates. But, either way, for me, it wouldn't have any affect on my opinion of him if he broke a campaign promise to pursue a supposedly good policy. Same goes for any politician. In fact, a lot of newly elected conservatives vowed never to vote to raise taxes at any time. To me, this is an absurd position to hold. If an asteroid is headed to Earth for instance I'd hope as a matter of principle a legislator might find it necessary to bring in revenue to prevent a celestial impact, etc.
We have something akin to an asteroid plummeting to earth...specifically the USA. It's called +$14,000,000,000,000 in debt.
Regarding his stance on taxes, his "not one dime" in new taxes was pretty close to "read my lips" made by the evil Bush's daddy. There was no way he could equivocate that one. He also impugned Hillary during the primaries for her mandate and his denial of a mandate...something judge Vinson mentioned in his footnotes. As Barry's 20 year mentor was fond of saying....his chickens have come home to roost. -
Apple
Vinson using BHO's own words to solidify his decision to deem the entire Obamacare law unconstitutional was absolutely awesome!BGFalcons82;663530 wrote:...something judge Vinson mentioned in his footnotes. -
CenterBHSFan
Yeah, but... Obama never heard him talk like that before. Remember? lolololBGFalcons82;663530 wrote:As Barry's 20 year mentor was fond of saying....his chickens have come home to roost. -
ptown_trojans_1
BGFalcons82;663530 wrote:We have something akin to an asteroid plummeting to earth...specifically the USA. It's called +$14,000,000,000,000 in debt.
Yet, some on here want Congress to do nothing.
Nothing=not cutting the budget, not reforming SS, etc. -
BoatShoesBGFalcons82;663530 wrote:We have something akin to an asteroid plummeting to earth...specifically the USA. It's called +$14,000,000,000,000 in debt.
Regarding his stance on taxes, his "not one dime" in new taxes was pretty close to "read my lips" made by the evil Bush's daddy. There was no way he could equivocate that one. He also impugned Hillary during the primaries for her mandate and his denial of a mandate...something judge Vinson mentioned in his footnotes. As Barry's 20 year mentor was fond of saying....his chickens have come home to roost.
Who cares? It's people like you who are petty over campaign promises instead of embracing the realities of governance. Thank God Bush 41 raised taxes. Thank God BHO found wisdom and embraced a mandate grounding a predominantly private health insurance bill instead of creating Medicare for all. Thank God most people are more reasonable than Tea Party patriots, etc. Perhaps there is still hope??And, if I'm to take your reasoning seriously, I argued that a rational person might agree that raising taxes would be justified to prevent the destruction caused by an asteroid. You've compared the consequences of 14 trillion in debt to that of an asteroid. Nevertheless, I'm sure you wouldn't consider raising taxes to handle that debt problem.