For everyone except Americans, that is.
-
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
For everyone except Americans, that is.
Nah. We're stuck in this euro zone crap still.
el retorno
Member
This is stupid.
But I think all the articles about Robert's playing politics with this decision are silly as well. Why are liberals really so obsessed with convincing themselves the conservatives always win even when they don't.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-political-genius-of-john-roberts/
I think he'd have no problem overturning it, he doesn't like it reading his opinion he makes a few comments that insinuate that he feels its a bad law but the court shouldn't be activist and actually try to find all the technicalities to keep the law constitutional . I just don't understand people who really think roberts is sitting there saying "I'll give them this but I'll take away other things." (I am worried about the next term though with AA and the voter's right act in the docket.)
As anybody actual read the opinion? Roberts did confuse me with his reason that is not a tax for the anti-injunction act (congress choice of words matters there) but it functions as a tax (even if its not called one) for constitutional purposes? I understand his reasoning for the first a lot more than the second.
el retorno
Member
Roberts even goes into his reasoning for judicial restraint. That the court should go through every possible constitutionality (no matter how obscure) before overturning it. I don't understand how NOT overturning a law is activism or legislating from the bench.
Where do the subsidies come from?
To be fair, the argument is that Roberts re-wrote the law. As passed, the mandate as a penalty under the Commerce Clause, is unconstitutional - Roberts himself said this.
el retorno
Member
He didn't though.
Look at all that precedent.
It functions as a tax the words don't matter when refering to the consitutionality.
He goes into more reasons why this is a tax, but he doesn't rewrite the law. If they would have written the word tax this case would have been thrown out till 2014. He didn't change a single thing in the law about the mandate.
Ignoring the first part (because that's what I heard from the crazies on AM radio today), the other 4 Justices voting with Roberts were fine with using it in context of the Commerce Clause I believe. Let's not keep pulling the "but it's unconstitutional!" card.
Rocket Scientist
Member
I can't believe two 'news' stations reported the outcome incorrectly. Disgusting. Good news though. Let's see what it wil do to premiums, deficit etc.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Gotta be first, regardless of the consequences. So stupid
They literally read one sentence of the ruling and reported immediately
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Isn't the point that in early 2011 an assistant attorney general denied to congress that this program was designed to give guns to drug smugglers, and the DoJ failed to correct that statement until December? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Have you ever seen a long Supreme Court opinion with separate concurrences and dissents? It's not a USA Today article. It's embarrassing to screw up, but it's not disgusting that people can't skim it in a matter of minutes to summarize for live TV.
el retorno
Member
He does go on for a few pages about how it doesn't fit and then at the end he's like "we'll its a tax though so who cares about the other arguments."
They should have waited till they new. Nobody would lose anything if they waited a bit longer. Nobody is gonna change the channel for 5 minutes if you say your reading it.
talisayNon
Member
Day off. Got the lube and been beating it to Bachman's salty tears on CNN this morning. Glorious.
Byakuya769
Member
No, it is disgusting. Accuracy should be pretty damn important. If they wanted to be quickest they easily could have went to the "we hold" portion of the opinion. Most of the current justices, ESPECIALLY Roberts and Sotomoyor telegraph the legal holdings pretty easily
Besides, it doesn't matter if it took them days to read the opinions and then report, doing that was much more important than getting it first and completely wrong as it sat right in front of them.
Byakuya769
Member
You're on the wrong side of this man. The people and issues with the largest amount of irrational haters are coming out on top this year. LeBron, ACA, and hopefully Obama. May the bitter tears provide fertility to the valleys.
Largely, Medicare Advantage.
The program where America tried to give the private insurers the chance to really compete with Medicare in providing services, but they ended up adding little to no value and charging 20% more for the same services.
I know the GOP loves to point to this as a huge cut to Medicare, but I think most people would see stopping this as a part of the vaunted waste/fraud/abuse category.
Also:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/cantor-health-ruling-sets-up-big-choice-for
I thought the GOP needed this election to be a referendum on Obama's first term, not a choice
Had good laugh when I saw this on FB yesterday:
damn dude :lol
It's been a couple good weeks for metldowns on GAF, yes.
damn dude :lol
It's been a couple good weeks for metldowns on GAF, yes.
Frank the Great
Banned
so far, i have calmed some people who are butthurt after yesterday by comparing the mandate to the child tax credit. i simply ask them if they would like that to be ruled unconstitutional too because it's the exact same concept. and i ask if the government is forcing them to have children by offering the credit.
that shuts them up.
that shuts them up.
The Librarian
Banned
They're not exactly the same thing. It's a tax credit for having a child, meaning you pay less in taxes. It's a penalty for not buying health insurance, meaning you pay more in taxes.
Just compare it to paying taxes for firefighters. That should shut them up.
Frank the Great
Banned
they don't understand the nuances in how the tax code works, the argument works. they all have kids which is why i used it.
plus logically speaking there is little difference between a credit and a penalty. all people without children are penalized by paying higher taxes than people with children, just as people without insurance will be penalized by paying higher taxes than those with insurance. it's the same shit, just different mechanisms.
plus logically speaking there is little difference between a credit and a penalty. all people without children are penalized by paying higher taxes than people with children, just as people without insurance will be penalized by paying higher taxes than those with insurance. it's the same shit, just different mechanisms.
The Librarian
Banned
The effects are the same, yes: encouraging a certain behavior.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Haha. As a liberal, Hispanic, Heat fan... This past month has been pretty awesome for me.
The Librarian
Banned
Bobby Jindal is refusing to comply with the ACA.
Modern day nullification.
Modern day nullification.
Krauser Kat
Member
Until he doesnt take the medicare monies and his state gets really mad at him.
the only thing he is allowed to "not comply with" is the medicaid expansion. Which as pointed out above, stops him from getting the extra money from the gov't teat. Which means he will comply with it
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I know we're all getting off on the politics of this -- it's a huge win for Obama and a huge loss upon which he can't really object for Romney -- but does everyone kinda get how big of a deal this is?
This is truly historic legislation. Not perfect, but it's a big fucking deal.
This is truly historic legislation. Not perfect, but it's a big fucking deal.
Ooomg I am loving how you keep posting these things and I agree with the parts that make you happy and and rejoice in the parts that make you sad.
Absolutely, yes. It will affect two people very close to me directly and personally, and I came close to tears thinking about it. My parents also fought hard for its original passage and they've been smiling nonstop since the ruling. The politics are fun to talk about of course, but you're right on the money.
The Librarian
Banned
He's saying he doesn't want any part of it. He may not be allowed to do it, and he may end up doing it (or the federal government will do it), but what he's saying right now is nullification.
Bobby Jindal has gone from hero to zero in the matter of 15 seconds when he opened his mouth in that one rebuttal that he's constantly jumping around saying "HEY! I'm still here!!"
and besides that, its not really his choice
This is probably going to sound goofy because I'm obviously opposed to the ACA (specifically the mandate) but the more I read and digest the ruling the more I like it.
This is a deep, complex and seemingly profound ruling. This really does seem to limit the ability of a congressional abuse of the commerce clause. At the end of the day, we're on a march to single payer. That much is simply unavoidable. Like smoking bans and letting women vote, I've come to accept it. The issue for me has been how we get there. Abusing the commerce clause was about the absolute worst in my eyes.
That said, I also don't want the Supreme Court to have unmitigated legislative-via-veto power either. It's up to us to elect the people we want to make the laws we want.
I think this ruling does a good job of keeping the checks and balances in place. That said, this ruling is far more complex and complicated than people seem to be giving it credit for so as I get a chance to read further and read additional analysis from people far more intelligent than I my mind might completely change.
This is a deep, complex and seemingly profound ruling. This really does seem to limit the ability of a congressional abuse of the commerce clause. At the end of the day, we're on a march to single payer. That much is simply unavoidable. Like smoking bans and letting women vote, I've come to accept it. The issue for me has been how we get there. Abusing the commerce clause was about the absolute worst in my eyes.
That said, I also don't want the Supreme Court to have unmitigated legislative-via-veto power either. It's up to us to elect the people we want to make the laws we want.
I think this ruling does a good job of keeping the checks and balances in place. That said, this ruling is far more complex and complicated than people seem to be giving it credit for so as I get a chance to read further and read additional analysis from people far more intelligent than I my mind might completely change.
RustyNails
Member
The fun part begins. Just like how the federal government dragged racist red states kicking and screaming into full equality and voting rights for minorities, it again befalls upon the federal government to drag red states kicking and screaming into having healthcare for their people.
The Librarian
Banned
I'm very curious as to your thinking on this. Why? What evidence do you have for it? And do you think it's a possibility Roberts ruled the way he did to entrench private businesses in health care rather than forcing liberals to campaign for single-payer had the law been struck down?
gutter_trash
Banned
excuse my ignorance but what is ACA?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Affordable Care Act. It's the actual name of the legislation, not Obamacare.
Mandating private insurance isn't going to last long. IMO what it does is make the private insurance game more unpalatable to people in general and the skyrocketing costs are going to drive any sane president to propose single payer or in the very least, step up with a public option in the future. That or with the handful of states that want to enact single payer, if it proves to be much cheaper then the private insurance shit sandwich (and better for businesses), you'll see others moving that way as well.
Thats been my opinion from the minute the legislation was passed, its just a trojan horse for single payer because as it is will not be sustainable for a long time. Eznark may have different reasons
Why do I think it is inevitable? Because I think the incremental approach to governmentalization of more aspects of health care will make it a fairly easy sell moving forward.
I think Roberts ruled the way he did because he doesn't think it is the Courts role to legislate. That much seems to be obvious.
Technically it's PPACA, preferably pronounced "puh packa"
Now that it has cleared its last real hurdle, Obama would be smart to embrace the ObamaCare name.
Black Republican
Member
damn the dow really shot up today, 12800 roughly
My parents actually called this over a year ago- that even though the right wing would try to tag him with unpopular legislation, successfully brand the thing as Obamacare, then when it turned out to be popular and successful they'd have unintentionally helped his brand.
Well yeah, that's obvious. The problem was if it crashed and burned in the SC or had/has significant negative unintended consequences. Since the first didn't happen and the second won't be known til after the election, he should embrace it now.
Byakuya769
Member
Well yesterday was obviously a negative reaction to Obamacare, now the markets have clearly changed their minds.
- Status