Byakuya769
Member
Spot on username. When have I argued that it wasn't constitutional?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Spot on username. When have I argued that it wasn't constitutional?
Yes, it's a copy paste from a post I made a few weeks ago, but it bears repeating, because no one came up with a good response to it when I made it.
I am sick of conservatives, the people who pushed a private insurance mandate as the most effective way of achieving universeal coverage in the first place, saying it's unconstitutional simply because their "enemy" presided over such a policy being enacted.
For achieving universal coverage, a mandate without a public option is at the bottom of my list, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. I want to know why the people who wanted it in the first place have now come to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, given prior precedent and some logical reasoning.
Learn2read
Member
What does that have to do with....durrr "copy. paste."?
The Librarian
Banned
So the capital gains tax is unconstitutional now?
Tax brackets are unconstitutional.
Byakuya769
Member
Look at my primary assertions. 1) alteredbeast's argument was mischaracterized. (pointing that out immediately gets you marked "ENEMY, ENEMY, HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!"
2) These arguments aren't really thought out, if you want to see the legal arguments against the constitutionality.. go to the opposite sites from which you're pulling the "it's constitutional" ones from.
So when I see posters who are actually trying to work through the hazards and challenges inherent to this sort of mandate and how it relates to its constitutionality, I'm going to stand up for them, even if I think their argument is wrong.
I will especially stand up for them when I see them being jumped on with a fervor by people who are just parroting other's arguments.
When I ask someone why they think it's unconstitutional considering other facts, I'm not doing it to put them on the spot. I am doing it because I legitimately am open to the possibility that my understanding is wrong, and that it is, in fact, unconstitutional, and if I am mistaken, I want to be shown the flaws in my thinking/understanding. Which is also why I bring up past cases. I don't just go on my gut feeling. I look at the world around me to see if my thinking has anymerit, and if I am mistaken, I want it to be fully clarified to me.
I am not a lawyer. But that does not mean I don't want to understand the law. And if my understanding is flawed, I want it to be called out, not just ignored as the ramblings of an idiot.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I actually think that should the bill remain, sans the mandate, and costs will obviously sky-rocket, it will force a true universal healthcare to the market much quicker than should the mandate be upheld. No matter what, costs are not going DOWN with the mandate in place. Anyone who thinks that healthcare is about to get cheaper if it is upheld is fooling themselves. What it might do is stagnate costs for a little bit until they again start climbing at a rate much higher than inflation again.
Byakuya769
Member
Fair enough.
Yup
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/
This election is going to be so so close. Meh. Once the GE really heats up Romney's approval might improve. He can't get much worse as is.
Source pls?
Ehhh...
*is sad that a thirst for knowledge and understanding needs to be pointed out as his motive for asking questions*
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
*is sad that a thirst for knowledge and understanding needs to be pointed out as his motive for asking questions*
Eh, nothing is sacred on an internet message board, and anyone who posts in the style that you did is going to look like you are out to be the one that is showing everyone else how dumb they are. We are all calloused and cynical.
There's more to it than that.
Eh, nothing is sacred on an internet message board, and anyone who posts in the style that you did is going to look like you are out to be the one that is showing everyone else how dumb they are. We are all calloused and cynical.
I ask questions eager to be proven wrong, but knowing that 99% of the time I will either:
A: Be ignored
Or
B: Have my question answered directly, but in a way that fails to address, refute, discredit, or acknowledge any of the points I made in support of my initial line of thinking. So basically another form of A.
So maybe that cynicism comes out in my posts
thezerofire
Banned
What do you guys think would have happened if a draft had been instituted? Do you think people might care more about ending wars/not going to wars if their kids were the ones who had to fight? Just something I was thinking about.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the number is so high since the vast majority of Americans already get their healthcare through their employer and a large chunk of the others are over 65 or eligible for Medicaid.
Also, a note:
Obamacare does not do this.
I don't think a draft is ever tenable in this country again. Unless there was a serious threat to the United States' border (which seems very unlikely).
Even a scenario where Iran attacks Israel won't be enough to cause a draft. The political consequences are too great.
We would have never gone to Iraq and we would've already been out of Afghanistan.
It should be a surprise if you have 0% unemployment and mandate health coverage for every employer.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Don't worry, the IRS will just get another another few hundred million dollars to ramp up enforcement if and when it becomes expedient. Nothing like more bureaucracy to cover more bureaucracy.
As it stands now, the most they can do is withhold tax returns or harrass you (like a collection agency would). For people that are self-employed, that doesn't mean much as the majority of them pay taxes quarterly/bi-annually and never have a return.
But that does represent a small number of Americans.
You could also work your deductions to where you don't have a return either. But I don't know if the average person will go to that lengths to save a thousand dollars or so.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Wall of Shame from |OT1|
PD really skyrocketed over the last 10 pages of OT1! Sorry about the piss poor quality, at work
This whole thing is stupid, we act like there's some major difference between the two, when in reality, it was just some stupid ass maneuvering so Obama can say "no new taxes".
We spend so much time arguing something that really doesn't matter all that much.
But that's what you get when you let lawyers run your country.
No, as long as it's constitutional. Nobody has argued that Congress could not have done this through a straight tax, but they choose to do it through a "penalty" for political reasons. Practically, there is no difference. Constitutionally, there is.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
The way the solicitor general had to argue it in front of the Supreme Court was cracking me up. Even he couldn't get it right.
I guess it is a real shame that taxes are looked at so negatively by 90% of Americans...unless "someone else" is going to have their taxes raised.
The Librarian
Banned
What's the difference between the penalty and the tax?
Congress has the power to tax, they do not (presumably, we'll find out Thursday) have the power to charge you a penalty if you do not buy a certain product.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Reading too much into Scalia's outburst yesterday?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/06/ive_wondered_too.php?ref=fpblg
The thought crossed my mind yesterday as I read some of his dissent, but then again it was typical Scalia being Scalia.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/06/ive_wondered_too.php?ref=fpblg
The thought crossed my mind yesterday as I read some of his dissent, but then again it was typical Scalia being Scalia.
The Librarian
Banned
The government takes a certain amount of your money through taxes.
The government will take a certain amount of money through this penalty.
What's the difference? It's a tax by another name!
As I said, practically, there is no difference. Constitutionally and politically, there is. The President himself argued time and and again it was not a tax, I assume to keep his pledge of no taxes on those making under $250K. You should be arguing with him, not me.
PhoenixDark
Banned
If only the administration argued it was a tax. Whoops.
The Librarian
Banned
I dunno what you're talking about here, but I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were talking about people paying the penalty because it's not enough, not because there isn't sufficient enforcement mechanisms.
So the Supreme Court is going to rule something unconstitutional because it wasn't given the right name? Oh, that's just great. That makes a lot of sense.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/06/26/new_poll_shows_romney_ahead_in_virginia.html
That's a clown pollster, bro.
That's a clown pollster, bro.
It's kind of their job.
No it isn't. Their job is to look past the wording and examine the implications and practical effects of legislation.
The Equal Protections clause of the 14th amendment wouldn't amount to shit if the courts could only look at the letter of the law and not the spirit or effects of the law.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
I still laugh at diablos' "DOOOOOOOOM" every few pages. The map speaks for itself: this isn't going to be close like he thinks.
It's going to be closer than McCain and I think there will still be a lot of uncertainty right up until the last week. But, I think he's still a lock.
Is everyone that uttered that question a loathsome cunt?
That's a clown pollster, bro.
All signs point to yes.
Yeah baby, I'm on the ground floor of Bryce Harper's hate train.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Closer than McCain yeah, but I think Obama cracks 300, barely.
I ain't even panicking, son
PA voter ID law is bullshit and if you lived here you'd be raging with me. Corbett is easily the worst PA Gov of my lifetime.
PhoenixDark
Banned
That's going to be the greatest hair ticket since Buchanan\Breckinridge.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Also, just because someone gets vetted doesn't mean they're a serious candidate. Everyone knew McDonnell would get some looks. the problem is his far right record on women issues
Portman bros...
Portman bros...
How can Barry be a lock if there's going to be "uncertainty right up until the last week"?
And yeah, I think Portman is shaping up to be the most likely bet. He's from a critical swing state, and is probably the safest most whitest looking and talking candidate of them all. Mittens can't go wrong by picking him.
Vet a woman - pandering to women.
Vet Rubio - pandering to Latinos
Vet a white guy - Romney only like white people
You guys crack me up.
maximum360
Member
That is somehow correct.
/Dave Chapelle voice
Really, single payer is the best solution but this is a step in the right direction even if it's into a puddle.
Romney is a lost cause with women.
Rubio from what I have read would do very little with Latinos overall because they're onto his bullshit, but I dunno, maybe he'd be a good pick (doubtful).
So, might as well play it safe. Whites are the only thing he has going for him, so he needs to double down on that.
I think Obamacare is an improvement over the current situation, but I don't see how it's a step toward a single payer solution.
If we had the public option there I would agree, but we don't.
- Status