June 29, 2012

Obama Surrogate: ObamaTax is Not a Tax
— Ace

Devall Patrick, an Obama surrogate, re-stated on a conference call that the ObamaTax was not a tax, but a penalty.

“Don’t believe the hype that the other side is selling,” Patrick said on a conference call organized by President Obama’s campaign.

“I just want to respond to the frankly bizarre attack, which is the claim this act represents a big tax increase on the middle class,” Patrick said. “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

Taxes are for the purpose of raising revenues, not for penalizing activities (or inactivities) the government doesn't favor. So on that score, he's right.

Okay, let's put this in writing. Let's pass a law that states, unambiguously, that neither Congress nor the President believe that this is a tax, and do not intend it to be a tax, and do not mean for it to have the legal classification of a tax. That it is and shall be American law that the mandate is not a tax for any purposes, including as parsed by the courts.

Let's pass that bill, and send it on over to the President for his signature. After all, he says it's not a tax.

Or Do It The Other Way... and propose that Democrats state it's officially a tax.

If they decline, bring suit again.

via @tsrbike.

Good Piece By Richard Epstein: He wrote in the NYT, but I'm linking American Thinker.

As a matter of constitutional text, legal history and logic, the power to regulate commerce and the power to tax should not be separated. It is not good for the court or the country that the chief justice's position in such an important case is confused at its core.

...

Through the early 20th century, the Supreme Court was cognizant of this tight relationship between the power to regulate an activity directly and to the power to tax it. The basic idea relies on a simple economic insight: taxation and regulation are close substitutes, so a limitation on one power matters little if the other power is still available. There is no practical difference between ordering an action, and taxing or fining people who don't do that same thing. If the Constitution limits direct federal powers, it must also limit Congress's indirect power of taxation.

...

Chief Justice Roberts has ignored this fundamental principle: If direct regulation is beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause (as he held), then taxation as an indirect route to the same regulation should be off limits as well (as he failed to hold).

Obama's lawyers urged to Roberts that the federal government's powers were unlimited, via the Commerce Clause.

Roberts sharply disagreed -- he ruled the federal government's powers were unlimited, via the taxing power.

Color me unpersuaded by the chorus of "Wow, we super-won the long-game!"

That last bit via Andy, @theh2.

Posted by: Ace at 08:24 AM | Comments (326)
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

1 If the GOP cannot convince a majority of the public of the flim-flammery of this administration, it deserves to wither and die.

Posted by: SFGoth at June 29, 2012 08:26 AM (dZ756)

2
This, THIS, is the one silver lining in all this.

4 months of the Democrats either lying about Obamatax or admitting it's a Tax.

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:26 AM (G/zuv)

3 Fucking surreal.

Posted by: Jaws at June 29, 2012 08:26 AM (4I3Uo)

4 Devil Patrick?  Yep, there's a real beacon of integrity and smarts.

Posted by: RushBabe at June 29, 2012 08:26 AM (tQHzJ)

5 The reasoning the Roberts Court used was absurd, do you really think any future Court is going to hold future legislation to the same standard regarding limits to the Commerce Clause?

Of course not, all that matters is how many liberals are on the Court.  And squishes.

Posted by: BradleyJ at June 29, 2012 08:26 AM (XDRsa)

6 Sorry dems, you can't have it both ways.  You liked the SC ruling.....well, THEY called it a tax so suck it.

Posted by: Tami at June 29, 2012 08:27 AM (X6akg)

7
And there are no better experts on "freeloaders" than Democrats. It's their base.


Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:27 AM (G/zuv)

8 After the ruling, they pretty much have to call it a tax, right? Isn't that the only way it remains "constitutional"?

Posted by: weew at June 29, 2012 08:27 AM (4yFKY)

9 If you like your reality, you can keep your reality.

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 08:27 AM (Hx5uv)

10 They're all liars. But Obama is a dog eatin' liar.

Posted by: Jypsea Rose is @AmericanGypsea at June 29, 2012 08:28 AM (iKSAz)

11 Still lying.

Posted by: huerfano at June 29, 2012 08:28 AM (bAGA/)

12
Tax, period.
-- SCOTUS, Final Arbiter, and all that...

As for the freeloaders, sir, they are YOUR voters. Nice of you to show them some love!

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at June 29, 2012 08:29 AM (HmCnI)

13 Ewe.... Ace.... I LIKE that Idea!

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2012 08:29 AM (lZBBB)

14 It's not a tax. Ask the IRS.

Posted by: Good Lt. at June 29, 2012 08:29 AM (uWetr)

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at June 29, 2012 08:30 AM (HmCnI)

16 There can be only ObamaTax.

Posted by: esch at June 29, 2012 08:30 AM (bYCJw)

17
This quote is m-o-n-e-y.

“First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

A penalty on whom?

It's a penalty on "the rest of us" as Deval Patrick puts it, to pay for the perpetual freeloaders that Deval and Obama and the Democrats put in the system.

It's a goddamm racket.

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:30 AM (G/zuv)

18 “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders --



That's a mighty strange way to say 'Our constituency..'.......

Posted by: Portnoy at June 29, 2012 08:30 AM (AXpz0)

19 These people without insurance are freeloaders.  Now let's get them signed up to a taxpayer-subsidized government plan...

Posted by: Devil Patrick at June 29, 2012 08:30 AM (/Mla1)

20 He has chosen.... poorly

Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 08:30 AM (UZQM8)

21

 

Since health insurance is now....a Tax...

We can deduct this expendature on our tax returns now, right?

Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 08:31 AM (jPxSq)

22 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 29, 2012 08:31 AM (8y9MW)

23

Unfortunately most of the nation likes being lied to. 

 

Whisper sweet nothings in their ears, they'll believe them. 

 

Trust me honey, I won't in your mouth,

I'll have the money next week,

Your healthcare will always be free,

Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 08:31 AM (9sUlj)

24

Here's a nail and a hammer, here's some Jello and there's the  wall.

 

Have fun!

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 29, 2012 08:31 AM (d0Tfm)

25 It's a Big F'N TAX!!!

Posted by: @ParisParamus at June 29, 2012 08:31 AM (GFX++)

26 I'm two threads late, but I gotta ask...

Why the fuck would liberals have donated millions yesterday  when they won the decision??

They tell such stupid lies...

Posted by: Mama AJ at June 29, 2012 08:32 AM (SUKHu)

27 In Massachusetts, the mandate is a tax DEDUCTION.  It's like being able to deduct mortgage interest, or being able to claim a child as a dependent and take that deduction.  If you have a 1099HC form from your insurance company, which lists all 12 months of the year for both you and any dependent you claim, you can take the deduction.  If you don't have it, you can't take the deduction without lying on your return.  You'd have to make up the ID number that is on the 1099HC.  That's why they were able to get rid of the jail penalty.  They didn't need a jail penalty for failure to pay the "fine" or "penalty" because it isn't either.  It's a deduction and if you take it without being entitled to it they've got you for fraud or perjury and that's what they'll put you in jail for. 

Posted by: Jaynie59 at June 29, 2012 08:32 AM (4zKCA)

28 Suck it Morons, I am an outcomist now, a liberal one.

Posted by: Scummy Dread Lord Judge Pirate Roberts at June 29, 2012 08:32 AM (YdQQY)

29 I'm very angry with the argument, made by Charles Krauthammer among others, that Roberts did what he did because he wanted to guard the court's legitimacy and therefore did not want a left/right schism on this important decision.  If that was his intent, he blew it big time.  For every lefty elite he impressed, there are two liberty-loving citizens who think the Court's legitimacy has been harmed.  If this was his rationale, the Court has become a super-legislature and deserves no respect.

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 08:32 AM (Hx5uv)

30 And this of course, makes me more disgusted than ever with Roberts, and more convinced than ever that they got to him and flipped his decision.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 29, 2012 08:32 AM (w41GQ)

31 the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today." What a fookin dumbass... because OTax is going to get them to go run and get insurance now? Bullshit I says, the tax is to subsidize their behavior... what will they say when it becomes obvious that this was the plan all along?

Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 08:33 AM (UZQM8)

32

“First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

ER's are packed full of illegals.  Even in areas where you didn't even know there ARE illegals.  And this law (and the tax that goes with it) doesn't apply to illegals.

Posted by: yinzer at June 29, 2012 08:33 AM (/Mla1)

33

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'


Posted by: Zombie Lewis Carroll at June 29, 2012 08:33 AM (i3+c5)

34 Hmmm.....Preznit BFD's twitter is down now.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 08:33 AM (UOM48)

35 Sorry dems, you can't have it both ways. You liked the SC ruling.....well, THEY called it a tax so suck it.
Posted by: Tami at June 29, 2012 01:27 PM


I'm pretty sure the people who shamelessly claim free contraceptives and abortion are women's healthcare issues can have it both ways.

Posted by: huerfano at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (bAGA/)

36
Young people, by and large, do not need health insurance.

It's nice to have, but unnecessary for most young people under 40. We call these people "freeloaders," now.

The real freeloaders, the illegals and the public sector employees, will never pay for health insurance.

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (G/zuv)

37 In the end there will be ObamaTax and chaos. 

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (Hx5uv)

38 I'm not sure what you're going for Ace.  Please elaborate.  I thought it was good that it was approved as a tax and not under the CC because it's now easier to overturn.  Is that wrong?

Like many here, I was depressed about this yesterday, but I'm also quite willing to admit that I don't understand all of the legal implications and outyear effects.  There are simply too many indisputably conservative heavy hitters (except for the reflexive RINOs under every bed types) who like the decision to dismiss it out of hand as a capitulation and a disaster.  Yes, you can wrap yourself in knots trying to suss out the n-dimensional chess aspects, but at this point, I'm going to chew on it for awhile before I cut my wrists.  I just don't know yet.

Posted by: pep at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (YXmuI)

39

ObamaTax is a tax.  No  - it's a dessert topping.

Relax, ObamaTax is both a tax and a dessert topping.

Posted by: Roy at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (VndSC)

40 If I may be so bold.

Posted by: pep at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (YXmuI)

41 It doesn't matter.

I haven't read the whole decision, but from what I have read, Roberts wasn't even calling it a Tax.

Try to follow this "logic."

The Mandate is not a tax, therefore the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply.
The Commerce Clause does not stretch so far as to allow congress to force you into purchasing a product, so the Mandate would be unconstitutional.
However, the if it were passed as a Tax, it would be constitutional.
Therefore, even though it's not a tax, since it would be constitutional if it were a tax, it is now constitutional.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (8y9MW)

42 To boldly tax, when no man has taxed before...

Posted by: Roy at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (VndSC)

43 Who shit the bed?

Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (UZQM8)

44 Patrick said. “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

And Choomer sent this metal midget out there to defend ObamaHealthTax?

Smooth move there, Choomer...

Posted by: Mjlnir the banhammer at June 29, 2012 08:34 AM (Jls4P)

45 This November, we must all be bold.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 08:35 AM (UOM48)

46

Only   now that they have a finanical interest in the money they spend on our healthcare are they concerned about the amount they spend.

 

*sigh* I miss the old days when we weren't slaves...

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 29, 2012 08:35 AM (d0Tfm)

47

S"ince health insurance is now....a Tax...
We can deduct this expendature on our tax returns now, right?"

 

Very interesting...

 

Posted by: Jaws at June 29, 2012 08:35 AM (4I3Uo)

48
But if I get hit by a bus...

Obama actually used that example. Can you believe that? I still can't and I heard the clip a hundred times.

If I get hit by a bus....

If my head suddenly gets stuck in my ass...

If my arms fall off...

If...

If...

...

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:36 AM (G/zuv)

49 Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 01:32 PM (Hx5uv)

It is hard to respect ANY court containing Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg.

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 08:36 AM (i3+c5)

50 We are all enboldened!

Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 08:36 AM (9sUlj)

51   does this work?

Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 08:36 AM (9sUlj)

52 These people without insurance are freeloaders. Now let's get them signed up to a taxpayer-subsidized government plan...
Posted by: Devil Patrick at June 29, 2012 01:30 PM (/Mla1)



Seriously....they were sponging off you before, and now they can continue to do so but we get to take direct credit for it.  Love us, continue to vote for us...WE CARE!!! 

Looters Unite!!!!


Fuckers.....goddamit this shit just pisses me off to no end......

Posted by: Portnoy at June 29, 2012 08:36 AM (AXpz0)

53 The Court said it's a tax. That makes it a tax. You can say it's a mandate, but the Court said that it fails as a mandate. You can keep it as a tax or lose it as a mandate. Your call.

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 29, 2012 08:37 AM (RD7QR)

54 Don't worry, be happy!  Once my soda ban goes nationwide, health insurance costs will plummet 90%!  I promise!

Posted by: Mikhail Bloomberg at June 29, 2012 08:37 AM (/Mla1)

55

@49

 

You can add Robbertz to that list now.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 29, 2012 08:37 AM (d0Tfm)

56 John Roberts made a Supreme Clusterfuck Over A Mandate / Tax.

Posted by: AoSHQ Random SCOAMF/SCOAMT Generator 3000 (tm) at June 29, 2012 08:37 AM (mMijF)

57 And they all said she was the wise one....

Posted by: Roberts at June 29, 2012 08:37 AM (UZQM8)

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 08:37 AM (i3+c5)

59
Last few weeks Deval Patrick has adamantly opposed setting limits to EBT cards.

So he's one to talk about freeloaders.

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:38 AM (G/zuv)

60

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 29, 2012 01:34 PM (8y9MW)

 

Even though as a Tax, it does not meet the 'uniform throughout these United States' (as states can be exempt), and with Religious Exemptions, does not pass the Freedom of Religion aspects because it favors some religions over others.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2012 08:38 AM (lZBBB)

61

Thank you John Roberts. I've been trying my damndest to convince myself to vote for Romney over Gary Johnson. I did it by realizing their would probably be SCOTUS picks that Romney would nominate instead of BHO and that would help us keep unconstitutional laws from being past in Dem controlled years. Look how goddamned well that argument helped yesterday.

New reason? Vote Romney cuz he'll overturn OCare, day fucking one. Seriously? Do you really beleive these spineless bastards would do that?

We had it. We had Kennedy. Remember him? He was the only thing, for months, standing between us and a complete repeal of this shit. One man. If we got Kennedy, Obamacare was history. And he wanted to overturn it. We had him on our side. We had it. We won. Yet another one 'of our own' fucked us.  Again.

Posted by: levi at June 29, 2012 08:39 AM (bQiFu)

62

I just want to respond to the frankly bizarre attack

 

I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Devall MFing Patrick but I agree it's a frank bizarre attack to say this is a tax.

 

brb have to go scour myself with lye for agreeing with the jackhole now

Posted by: alexthechick - Jindal 2020 at June 29, 2012 08:39 AM (VtjlW)

63
So be careful, everyone.

A bus might come by any second now and run you over. It could happen anywhere.


Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:39 AM (G/zuv)

64 Didn't Robert actually make the supreme court completely irrelevant from now on?

It's all a joke now.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 29, 2012 08:40 AM (AWmfW)

65

It may not look like a tax, and you may not think it's a tax.  But if the SCOTUS said it's a tax, it's a fuckin tax.

Posted by: yinzer at June 29, 2012 08:40 AM (/Mla1)

66 65
So be careful, everyone.

A bus might come by any second now and run you over. It could happen anywhere.




Word.

Posted by: Barry's typical white granny at June 29, 2012 08:40 AM (UOM48)

67

"Taxes are for the purpose of raising revenues, not for penalizing activities (or inactivities) the government doesn't favor."

 

Really?  Aren't the smoking/alcohol/etc/ 'sin' taxes all for raising revenues and penalizing activities?

Posted by: Lea at June 29, 2012 08:41 AM (lIU4e)

68

I should clarify I mean it was a bizarre attack by Roberts to say it was a tax.

 

On that whole freeloading by going to the ER thing, well, hey, just a suggestion, why don't you fucking repeal the fucking requirements that anyone who comes to the fucking ER must receive treatment without regard to pay? 

Posted by: alexthechick - Jindal 2020 at June 29, 2012 08:41 AM (VtjlW)

69 Posted by: alexthechick - Jindal 2020 at June 29, 2012 01:39 PM (VtjlW)

Uhhh...that was the main thrust of Robert's opinion.  It's a tax.

Wow, I worked 'thrust' in to a post...

I am so hard right now......

Posted by: Portnoy at June 29, 2012 08:41 AM (AXpz0)

70

27 In Massachusetts, the mandate is a tax DEDUCTION.

 

Ahah!

So there is a precedent.

 

So then....we should be able to deduct what we pay for Health Insurance on our tax returns.

Actually, we should be able to go back and deduct it for the last two years.....since the date they passed the Obamacare law.

Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 08:41 AM (jPxSq)

71

Color me unpersuaded by the chorus of "Wow, we super-won the long-game!" <<<<

 

Those idiots make me want to beat the fucking RINO-gravy out of them.  I've never heard anything as weak and craven from supposed intelligent people.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2012 08:42 AM (QSizi)

72 >>>It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting.

Who could he be talking about there? Illegal immigrants (er, I mean undocumented workers... oops, or should I say "economic refugees") who seem to take advantage of not being denied emergency room care quite a lot?

That sounds kinda raaaaaaaaacist.

Posted by: hmmmm at June 29, 2012 08:42 AM (mMijF)

73

Mandataxalty???

Posted by: Natasha at June 29, 2012 08:42 AM (jU5uf)

74

56@49

You can add Robbertz to that list now

 

And Breyer - don't forget Breyer.

 

RE:  International Law:  "It's not binding, but it's instructive." 

 

What a worm.

Posted by: Marybeth at June 29, 2012 08:43 AM (fkaOH)

75 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 29, 2012 01:34 PM (8y9MW)


The wonderful thing about taxes
Is taxes are wonderful things!
Their tops are made out of rubber
Their bottoms are made out of springs!
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!
But the most wonderful thing about taxes is
Obamacare is one
Taxes are cuddly fellas
Taxes are awfully sweet
Ev'ryone el-us is jealous
That's why I repeat... and repeat

The wonderful thing about taxes
Is taxes are marvelous claps!
They're loaded with vim and vigor
They love to leap in your laps!
They're jumpy, bumpy, clumpy, thumpy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!
But the most wonderful thing about taxes is
Obamacare is one.

Posted by: Tigger Roberts at June 29, 2012 08:43 AM (Hx5uv)

76

Devall Patrick;; Patrick said. “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

 

may i add this is a rather interesting statement , it wasn't sold to the populace  as  freeloaders , in fact hasn't the basic premise been..

 

Poor folks that can't even pay for their own birth control pills? and we should HELP those poor folks with some stuff EVERYONE should have access to?

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 08:43 AM (TomZ9)

77

Those idiots make me want to beat the fucking RINO-gravy out of them.

 

I wouldn't be so sure any one of them beating that drum even wants it repealed, they are likely fighting for it.

 

Oh sure, they're against it... until it looks like it might actually go, and then they draw straws and one of them drops cover and pulls a Roberts.

Posted by: entropy at June 29, 2012 08:44 AM (TULs6)

78 It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting (Democrat Voters). And all the rest of us pay for it (Republican Voters) today." If this were true, then why would the Dims support it.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 08:45 AM (WkuV6)

79

"L" not "i"......"L"

Good lord I'm going to have to get a new username aren't I.

 

I never said "we won the super long game."  (And yes, I realize Ace isn't quoting me with that, he's only h/t me for the VC reference. But here's my counter argument to his post)

I suggested that if we were going to lose, this was a more palatableoption to lose on.  I feel like the expansion of the Taxing power (if there even was one.  Taxes have been used to "encourage" economic activity, e.g. buying a home, for some time.  I don't see a way of turning that clock back) was more acceptable than a wholesale expansion of the commerce clause.  Preferred outcome?  No.  Good Outcome? Also no.  Workable?  Eh, maybe.

Tax code needs a good reforming anyway, that's agreed.  So we can kill two birds with one stone here.  Reform the tax code, whole hog, and solve this nasty "tax power expansion" problem.  Granted it doesn't prevent future groups from coming in and tinkering with the tax code again to encourage "action" but elections do have consequeneces and there will never be a time for which we can not be vigilant against expansive government (as much as I wish there would be.)

Posted by: tsrblke at June 29, 2012 08:45 AM (22rSN)

80 It's all a joke now.

---

Yeah, but unfunny joke like one told by a woman comedian.

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 08:45 AM (Hx5uv)

81 {mumbling} Mrs. Mandataxen....

Posted by: Land Shark (D) at June 29, 2012 08:45 AM (6ITq9)

82 Heath care is a human right and free for one and all.>>

Well as they say you get what you pay for.

Posted by: Doctor at June 29, 2012 08:45 AM (tf9Ne)

83 75 Mandataxalty???

Posted by: Natasha at June 29, 2012 01:42 PM (jU5uf)


It's a taxate! No, it's a mantax!

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 29, 2012 08:46 AM (RD7QR)

84

Chief Justice Roberts has ignored this fundamental principle: If direct regulation is beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause (as he held),

 

Is there a chance that Roberts was able to do this (limit the CC), with the agreement of the 4 libs (or without their realization) ...

 

then taxation as an indirect route to the same regulation should be off limits as well (as he failed to hold).

 

... and the price was this?

 

Maybe this was the best he could do. I remain suspicious, but as posted on Ace yesterday, we, the American People, should not rely on the SCOTUS to fix things ... we should force Congress to not break things. Maybe Roberts really did help.

 

In any event, November is coming, and anything other than a vote for Romney will get us 4 more years.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 08:46 AM (6KG30)

85 O/T  Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are divorcing.  That whole Scientology thing wasn't so fun, was it Katie?

On the upside, Tom and Travolta can finally be together.

*I denounce myself for even going O/T on this, but I'm just so sick and angry over Obamacare I need a distraction*

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 08:46 AM (UOM48)

86

 why don't you fucking repeal the fucking requirements that anyone who comes to the fucking ER must receive treatment without regard to pay?

 

Or even just refuse treatment to people who don't have a medical emergency and use the ER as a primary care provider (without paying).

 

Big difference between that and mandating life saving treatment. Right now ER's are legally obligated to treat your hangnail.

Posted by: entropy at June 29, 2012 08:46 AM (TULs6)

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 08:46 AM (6KG30)

88
First, they opened the floodgates for illegals.
Then they made it against the law for hospitals to refuse giving treatment.

The Democrats are 100% responsible for the "high-cost emergency room setting" costs and they did it by design. It was culminating to this point -- this law -- govt socialized health care.

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:47 AM (G/zuv)

89 Yeah, but unfunny joke like one told by a woman comedian.

And why is it the Constitution never puts the seat back down???!!!

Posted by: Ward of the State #4559141A at June 29, 2012 08:47 AM (6ITq9)

90 Please Democrats, run this fckng idiot in 2016.

Posted by: Win Some, Lose Some! But Mainly Lose. at June 29, 2012 08:47 AM (d2QQ4)

91 the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting.>>

So this is for penalizing the 800,000 illegals he just let stay?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at June 29, 2012 08:48 AM (tf9Ne)

92 >>>Obama Surrogate: ObamaTax is Not a Tax

Sorry the Official Arbiter of Such Things says it is. They made tomatoes a vegetable in 1893 (Nix V Hedden) they can certainly make your penalty a tax.

This is my response to that assertion.

If you disagree that Obamacare is a TAX, do the right thing and support a repeal because SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional on any other basis.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 29, 2012 08:48 AM (0q2P7)

93 I'll just quote the Associated Press:
 
Some parts of the law have proven popular. But the insurance mandate is widely disliked.

Each time The Associated Press has asked in polls, more than 8 in 10 Americans have said the government should not have the right to require everyone to buy health insurance.

 
I added some bolding if it's not all bold. Over 80% of Americans don't think anyone should HAVE to buy a product. That is an unprecedented level of agreement.
 
So call it a tax, a mandate, or Nancy Pelosi's rancid cooter..........nobody wants this turd.
 

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 29, 2012 08:48 AM (ccXZP)

94 Its a BFT ... Big Fucking Tax.

Posted by: Honey Badger, drinker of mead at June 29, 2012 08:49 AM (GvYeG)

95

The sad part is we are ignoring the craven bleatings of the four libs on the court.  

Even though the four liberal justices are hacks that would approve shipping us all off to concentration camps if the democrats were for it. 

 

If any one of them had any integrity, Roberts would not have mattered. 

Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 08:49 AM (9sUlj)

96 Of course it's not a tax.  The left can say whatever the fuck they want to say.

That dude with a dick,  two balls and one X and one Y chromosome is a chick,  because he's wearing a dress and he says he's a chick.

Say whatever the fuck you want to say and it's a fucking fact.

Fuck these mentally insane sacks of shit.

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 08:49 AM (Ky1+e)

97 Katie H. can come and distract me.

Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 08:49 AM (YdQQY)

98 And the taxes on insurers, medical device manufacturers, etc that will get passed on to consumers- are those not taxes either?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2012 08:49 AM (SY2Kh)

99 Re that Deval Patrick piece, never ever forget that the "free rider problem" that this law claims to address is largely a myth.

http://tinyurl.com/cs5kx52

Posted by: Andy at June 29, 2012 08:49 AM (5Rurq)

100 The tax v. penalty debate is not tomayto tomaato debate.  It's more a tomato potato debate.

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 08:51 AM (Hx5uv)

101 102, create a crisis, where have I read that ...

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 08:51 AM (WkuV6)

102 I ride for free quite often ... ask the orion babes ...

Posted by: Honey Tiberius Badger, drinker of mead at June 29, 2012 08:51 AM (GvYeG)

103 Re that Deval Patrick piece, never ever forget that the "free rider problem" that this law claims to address is largely a myth. http://tinyurl.com/cs5kx52 Posted by: Andy at June 29, 2012 01:49 PM (5Rurq) ------------------------------------------------------ Did someone mention free rider?

Posted by: Al Sharpton at June 29, 2012 08:51 AM (jucos)

104 I wish I owned a liquor store and guns and ammo shop. 


Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 08:51 AM (UOM48)

105 Well sure, you have the freedom to refuse to let us inject you with this experimental lifetime nicotine vaccination but you will be taxed $2000 for every year you remain unvaccinated.

Posted by: Daybrother at June 29, 2012 08:52 AM (HHXXi)

106

ok Patrick,

 

So SirTaxalot is penalizing  FREELOADERS (not poor folk that need bcpills for free becuase  that just wouldn't be right to make them pay for it)

Hey Sandra F did you hear what Patrick?Obama just called You and Your friends?

yeah i'm surprised too, I had thought he cared about you and your plight.

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 08:52 AM (TomZ9)

107 Drudge has a banner pointer to a RollCall story that Rep. Issa has posted the "SECRET WIRETAP" applications.

Posted by: E Howad Hunt at June 29, 2012 08:52 AM (e8kgV)

108 It might be cheaper to just station some La Imigra at the hospital?

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 08:52 AM (WkuV6)

109 >>>Big difference between that and mandating life saving treatment. Right now ER's are legally obligated to treat your hangnail.

There are a lot of ways out of our medical trap. And ER management is one of them. No care without proof of payment unless in immediate danger of losing life, limb, or eyesight, in which case the hospital can take your fingerprints and keep them on file pending payment. No forgiveness of debts incurred under obligatory ER visits via bankruptcy.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 29, 2012 08:52 AM (0q2P7)

110 So if I get a bunch of speeding tickets I can pay the penalties and deduct them as taxes paid.  Right?

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 08:52 AM (Ky1+e)

111
1. Force banks to relax loan requirements.
2. Wait for the mortgage collapse.
3. Call for sweeping socialistic banking reforms.

1. unionize the teachers
2. ruin public education
3. demand more $$ to "fix" education

1. Give guns to criminals.
2. Wait for the carnage.
3. pass new gun laws

See the pattern?

1. Create a scenario that precipitates a problem
2. Watch problem manifest itself.
3. Offer leftist solution to fix problem

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 08:52 AM (G/zuv)

112 Drudge has a banner pointer to a RollCall story that Rep. Issa has posted the "SECRET WIRETAP" applications for "Fast and Furious"

RollCall doesn't seem to be responding on the web

Posted by: E Howad Hunt at June 29, 2012 08:53 AM (e8kgV)

113 “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today." ------------------------------- Sweet! You mean I no longer have to pay for 6 out 10 black births in this country? I no longer have to pay for emergency room costs when a thug gets shot in the street by another thug? You mean THOSE deadbeats Deval? You don't, do you, you lying sack of shit.

Posted by: Win Some, Lose Some! But Mainly Lose. at June 29, 2012 08:53 AM (MVGKx)

114 @markknoller At a briefing on Air Force One, spksmn Jay Carney said "it's not a tax...it's a penalty" over which people have a choice.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 29, 2012 08:53 AM (d6QMz)

115 Finally, thank you. This is the very problem...we face. Roberts et al have just given the federal government the ability to control every aspect of our lives leading to a completely indentured population. We will let you pretend to be free until we want you to stop or to do something.

Posted by: Mekan at June 29, 2012 08:53 AM (hm8tW)

116 arizona passed prop 106 in 2010....an amendment to our az constitution "Proposition 106 was proposed to amend the Arizona Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance."

Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny at June 29, 2012 08:53 AM (Ho2rs)

117 Can someone please tell the Urine Czar I would like permission to take a p*ss.

Posted by: Ward of the State #4559141A at June 29, 2012 08:53 AM (6ITq9)

118 In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.

The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.

The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

Posted by: E Howad Hunt at June 29, 2012 08:54 AM (e8kgV)

119 107 I wish I owned a liquor store and guns and ammo shop.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 01:51 PM (UOM4


You could call it Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.*



*Shamelessly stolen from that t-shirt you see sometimes in the redder parts of the country.

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 29, 2012 08:54 AM (RD7QR)

120 Of course they view it as a penalty... They think you should be punished for not doing what they feel is right... That's worse than a tax!

Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at June 29, 2012 08:54 AM (gvWL9)

121 Even though as a Tax, it does not meet the 'uniform throughout these United States' (as states can be exempt), and with Religious Exemptions, does not pass the Freedom of Religion aspects because it favors some religions over others. Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2012 01:38 PM (lZBBB) When are those headed to the SC?

Posted by: Roberts at June 29, 2012 08:54 AM (UZQM8)

122

Obamacare will NEVER be repealed.  Ever.   Too many stupid pigs at the trough and too many gutless Republicans in office guarantee that. 

Posted by: Natasha at June 29, 2012 08:54 AM (jU5uf)

123 3. Put a bloody horses head in Hairy Reed's bed.
Posted by: Doctor Fish at June 29, 2012 01:47 PM (hvwLi)

HEY!!!

Posted by: Ferris Buller's Wife at June 29, 2012 08:55 AM (AXpz0)

124

Poor folks that can't even pay for their own birth control pills? and we should HELP those poor folks with some stuff EVERYONE should have access to?<<<

 

Oh, I'm on board with free birth control.  Sterilization for anyone who wants it.  Absolutely no cost for you to get your plumbing disconnected.

 

And in a couple of generations, we will have finally passed all these useless eaters through the body politic and right on out the politics' ass.

 

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2012 08:55 AM (QSizi)

125 You could call it Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.* *Shamelessly stolen from that t-shirt you see sometimes in the redder parts of the country. Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 29, 2012 01:54 PM (RD7QR) ------------------------------------------------------ WE are not amused.

Posted by: Your Betters in Government at June 29, 2012 08:56 AM (jucos)

126 To think our forefathers went to guns over teeny little penalties on things like stamps and tea.  Buncha wingnuts, those guys.

Posted by: Jaws at June 29, 2012 08:56 AM (4I3Uo)

127 So Gov. Patrick since the only way ObamaCare gets to be law is as a tax, you must be in favor of repealing it, right?

Posted by: Make them own the tax at June 29, 2012 08:57 AM (x8Wor)

128 121 - Rollcall is under a Drudge-alanche.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 08:57 AM (WkuV6)

129 arizona passed prop 106 in 2010....an amendment to our az constitution

"Proposition 106 was proposed to amend the Arizona Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance." Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny


I believe that is constitutional as a blank piece of paper,  otherwise it isn't constitutional.  So it is now a blank piece of paper.  Have a nice day.  - Justice Roberts

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 08:57 AM (Ky1+e)

130 And the taxes on insurers, medical device manufacturers, etc that will get passed on to consumers- are those not taxes either?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2012 01:49 PM (SY2Kh)


Those taxes just impact the evil inventors, manufacturers and distributors of medical devices, they won't apply to you if you vote D.


Now you middle class people that use too much health care, some health care device  "penalties" should be expected to appear so that you pay your fair share.

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 08:57 AM (i3+c5)

131 Your Honor, for the purposes of this court, it was not a gun and that was not a bank.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 29, 2012 08:57 AM (famk3)

132

Per the last story, the economy is slowing down.

 

If O'Dogeater gets reelected, O'DeathPanelCare stays in force, and the result of that will be an economy moving at high speed in reverse.

 

The USA could very well speed right past Europe on the road to ruin.

 

Posted by: Boots at June 29, 2012 08:57 AM (neKzn)

133 >>>high-cost emergency room setting.

An emergency room is only a high cost setting because people don't pay. The overhead of keeping physicians on site isn't real overhead if they are busy the whole time.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 29, 2012 08:58 AM (0q2P7)

134 Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 29, 2012 01:54 PM (RD7QR)

I like the t-shirts that have the caption "Homeland Security" and have a group of Native Americans posing...

Posted by: Mjlnir the banhammer at June 29, 2012 08:58 AM (Jls4P)

135 Try this link for the Drudge story : http://tinyurl.com/7oqz8et

Posted by: Dr Spank at June 29, 2012 08:58 AM (4cRnj)

136

FWIW,

There's absolutely no reason everyone should have to buy insurance anyway.  If Mitt Freaken Romney would prefer just to set aside 5million in an account for "Future healthcare" and just let it sit there until he needs it, that's his freakin problem.

Heck IIRC, even state auto insurance mandates understand this (if you can prove you can basically "self-insure" to speak crudely and not in a legal way, you can avoid said insurance.)

I understand the conundrum the law created, but that's because it was a bad law from the start, you can't simply legislate your way out of a problem you created within the law! (I don't really buy the assessment that the free-rider problem "doesn't exist." because we don't have guaranteed issue right now. Clearly EMTALA creates a problem, and GI would expand that even farther, as EMTALA only creates a duty to stablize, bad enough but not as bad as the ripple effect of GI.  Of course that alone isn't an argument for a mandate, its an argument against GI.)

Posted by: tsrblke at June 29, 2012 08:59 AM (22rSN)

137

 

Barky is in Colorado Springs, to...."visit the wildfires".

 

Eh...I don't remember him being the slightest bit concerned about the wildfires in Texas last year.

Or the ones in Oklahoma, where we even had some 'fire tornadoes'.

 

Millions of acres were burned in TX....and Barky didn't give a shit.

But then, it wasn't an election year last year.

Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 08:59 AM (jPxSq)

138

If the President, Congress and Supreme Court are going to ignore the Constitution.  Does it really matter who is in Washington?

 

We are screwed!!  The great American experiment is over. 

 

Posted by: airandee at June 29, 2012 09:00 AM (9GHCK)

139

"It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

 

Wow. It's now OK to talk directly about "freeloaders" and "the rest of us"..? Cool! You can't win that one, liberals.

 

"It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their Section 8 homes without without paying for them. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

 

"It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their food stamps without paying for it. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

 

"It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their cash benefits without working for it. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

 

"It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their college education without paying for it. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

 

It's a new day.

Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2012 09:00 AM (9KqcB)

140 From the link :

According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.

Holder and Cummings have both maintained that the wiretap applications did not contain such details and that the applications were reviewed narrowly for probable cause, not for whether any investigatory tactics contained followed Justice Department policy.

The wiretap applications were signed by senior DOJ officials in the department’s criminal division, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco and another official who is now deceased.


Posted by: Dr Spank at June 29, 2012 09:00 AM (4cRnj)

141 It's a fucking TAX.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2012 09:00 AM (iYbLN)

142 Barky has a fundraiser in CO.  He's going to stop the wildfires as a gift to the lib voters.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 09:00 AM (UOM48)

143 Jay Carney said "it's not a tax...it's a penalty" over which people have a choice. Posted by: Miss80sBaby

In China you can have more than one child if you pay a penalty.  If you can't pay the penalty they can force you to abort your baby.  Choice!

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:00 AM (Ky1+e)

144 I wish I owned a liquor store and guns and ammo shop.

If you find a gal that does, please let me know so I can immediately marry her.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2012 09:01 AM (SY2Kh)

145 >>>You could call it Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.*

>>>*Shamelessly stolen from that t-shirt you see sometimes in the redder parts of the country.

If you had a black powder magazine at your shop you could add Explosives to the list.*


*(Anyone who has ever purchased black powder to be shipped to their house knows it is classed as a high explosive)

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 29, 2012 09:01 AM (0q2P7)

146 “I just want to respond to the frankly bizarre attack, which is the claim this act represents a big tax increase on the middle class,” Patrick said. “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today." If it's a penalty on the freeloaders, why are the people who can pay for health insurance, the rich and middle class, the ones being penalized? They aren't the ones using the ER, the freeloaders with no money are using the ER and they're not going to have the money to pay the penalty anyway. So the only people who will be paying the penalty are, as always, the people who shouldn't be penalized. Now if it's a tax, sure, that makes sense, you're taxing the people with money to pay for those who don't have money (not that i agree with that, just stating it), but a penalty? No, that makes no sense because the people being penalized, people who have money, have done nothing wrong.

Posted by: booger at June 29, 2012 09:01 AM (HI6wa)

147 Harry Reid won’t say if Obamacare mandate is a tax [VIDEO] > http://thedc.com/MCgqro

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 29, 2012 09:01 AM (d6QMz)

148 Does anyone know any freeloaders who have the money for insurance and instead opt to go into the emergency room for a cold? What bullshit.

Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 29, 2012 09:01 AM (ePYQF)

149
1. Subsidize college tuition with grants
2. Watch the tuition go up and up and up...
3. Demand college loan reform

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:02 AM (G/zuv)

150 "So call it a tax, a mandate, or Nancy Pelosi's rancid cooter..........nobody wants this turd."
===============

Just wait. By the time we're done pimping this POS to the sheep, the majority will love it. LOVE IT!

Posted by: Obama's Palace Guard, the MFM at June 29, 2012 09:02 AM (MBmtt)

151 1) subsidize and obfuscate health costs 2) Watch costs go up up up 3) Pass Obamacare

Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 29, 2012 09:03 AM (ePYQF)

152 So Issa just put evidence of perjury in the Congressional Record, nice. That Congressional Record thingy, could be useful it seems.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 09:03 AM (WkuV6)

153 But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, Oh ya? Well see you and raise you a Commerce Clause... or something...

Posted by: Dems at June 29, 2012 09:03 AM (UZQM8)

154 It's a fucking TAX.
Posted by: mpfs

Hey,  don't give them any ideas.

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:04 AM (Ky1+e)

155 It's a fucking TAX.Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2012 02:00 PM (iYbLN)


I'd be very unhappy to pay a tax for fucking.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 09:04 AM (sbV1u)

156 I'd be very unhappy to pay a tax for fucking. Posted by: Sean Bannion I'd be even unhappier to pay one for not fucking. Somebody ask Ace.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 09:05 AM (WkuV6)

157 1) Pass Obamacare 2) Watch costs go up up up 3) Watch service providers flee the market 4) Ration care 5) PROFIT

Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 29, 2012 09:05 AM (jucos)

158 BOMG OMGOMGOMG

Tom and Katie getting a divorce!!1!!!!!

OMG!!!!

Now THAT puts the icing on the cake for this week.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (CP+yl)

159 The individual mandate is an "individual mandate" (un-Constitutional and thoroughly un-American) and the penalty is a "penalty", not a tax.  Period.  It does not become a tax by anyone calling it a "tax" - not even Benedict Roberts.  It is what it is, a "penalty", unless the word "penalty" has just been rendered totally useless and should just be struck from what's left of the language.

The ruling was total shit and Benedict Roberts clearly violated any sense of "good behavior" (far more than a penalty is a tax, for sure) and needs to be impeached.  But that won't happen. 

Face it, the language has been totally mangled (which some on the right are claiming to be thrilled about for some strange reason) and America has been formally killed.  Welcome to the American Socialist Superstate.  That's what we have now.  Were all things are possible by taxation and all things are possibly taxation ... only the SCOTASS really knows.  So, Congressional rules about taxes ... LOL.  No one can know if something is a "tax" until the SCOTASS gets a hold of it.

It's time for a national divorce.  That's about all there is reasonably left to anyone who wants to remain American.  Yeah ... we'll go through the motions and vote for Mittens - who had to stress that he wants to kill insurance companies by keeping the "no pre-existing conditions" idiocy (because everyone knows that insurance without actuaries is the best sort of insurance business) but we do know that deep down, this nation has been done in.  Liberty is killed.  English has been made a mockery of by our judicial system (even worse than usual).  We have a SCOTASS argument that says up to page 15 that the mandate and penalty is not a tax, but then miraculously deforms into a tax for "arguing on the merits".  LOL.  Morbid humor has a certain bite to it.

We are now all subjects of the insane and lawless American Socialist Superstate.  One election isn't going to change that.  And we have so much pain coming our way as the Fed needs to eventually unwind its positions and drain liquidity ... then one election of reason won't stand.

Divorce papers need to be prepared.  Or, at least expected.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (X3lox)

160 Drudge switched the F and F link to the weekly standard and now it is down.

Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (9sUlj)

161
#5 should be POWER

it's all aboot power

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (G/zuv)

162 1. Limit exploration/permits for domestic supplies of energy.
2. Watch energy prices necessarily skyrocket.
3. Push for unworkable green energy projects that help out well connected political allies.

Posted by: Crisis Creator 3000 (tm) at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (mMijF)

163

Obama's lawyers urged to Roberts that the federal government's powers were unlimited, via the Commerce Clause. Roberts sharply disagreed -- he ruled the federal government's powers were unlimited, via the taxing power. Color me unpersuaded by the chorus of "Wow, we super-won the long-game!"

 

I think that much of the government growth passed via the Commerce Clause would not have passed if it had to rely on a mandate/tax.

Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (9KqcB)

164 ...and another official who is now deceased.
Posted by: Dr Spank

"We working on the others,  please hold... "

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (Ky1+e)

165 I will still get my shit for free right?

Posted by: OWS Maggot at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (jucos)

166 It's still a BFD, bitches!

Posted by: Choom Puff Daddt at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (a1oOO)

167 Maybe someone should propose a masturbation tax and just see how many converts to limited government there are.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at June 29, 2012 09:06 AM (nZvGM)

168

Chief Roberts ruling is beyond flawed and squarely lies within a Faustian type deal structured around ego to the dismissal of .... the foundation of our Republic as stipulated in that which links us to what the founders understood to be our benefactor's perogative for We The People.  Which of course is Liberty as gained from inalienable rights as detailed and memorialized in our founding documents and within the written bedrock of our Republic, The Constitution. Which contains explicit instructions to hold fast to the limitation of escalating centralized power as a check against man's desire to consolidate power through kingsmanship and polity.

As to our friend Dr. Charles Krauthammer... at this point I am more interested in his clinical findings of Chief Roberts than his analysis of how the limitation of the commerce clause for a case of first-impression can be viewed as victorious OVER the new law of the land where a Penalty is viewed as a Tax where both poison and antidote were argued interchangeably so as to achieve whatever the progressives and an egotistical Chief would like it to achieve.

We are operating in wide open space lawlessness at this point.

How could I say anything to the contrary... as lawlessness is now the law of the land.

This new law of the land is constructed around a new progressive influence upon now the Supreme Court which is a new Gestalt legal precedent whereby the NEED basis trumps the logical and formulary structure of law, common sense and reasonableness for the new Gestalt Law of Progressivism sees that which it wants as reality....

Dr. Krauthammer, this is what you should be analyzing... because analyzing, free thought and rational discourse at some point are under threat under the new legal rubric of the Progressive Legal Gestaltism.

Regards,

 

 

Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 09:07 AM (WzLTm)

169

CJ, hysterical isn't it.

 

and much of the countries  folks believe it is a nice FREE gesture from their sweet overlords! because of fairness and stuff.

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 09:07 AM (TomZ9)

170 But...but...but...Roberts just pulled a masterstroke, right?

Posted by: Dumbshit at June 29, 2012 09:07 AM (q177U)

171 This Issa guy, he's a sneaky bastard. Got them to ask the question, by whose answer they will hang. Maybe he an Roberts play 3D chess on the weekends?

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 09:07 AM (WkuV6)

172 Roberts upheld it as a tax, even though Obama lied and said it wasn't a tax. Lol u mad bros?

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:07 AM (tyou3)

173 It's a fucking TAX.


Posted by: mpfs

Hey, don't give them any ideas.

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 02:04 PM (Ky1+e)


================




I LOL'd!!!

Posted by: Tami at June 29, 2012 09:07 AM (X6akg)

174 Oh, I get it now.  It's not a tax, it's only the government controlling my behavior, and what I purchase, through punishment.  OK, I feel better now Deval.  As long as it's not a tax.

Posted by: yinzer at June 29, 2012 09:07 AM (/Mla1)

175 unicorns slayed!

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 09:07 AM (TomZ9)

176

152
1. Subsidize college tuition with grants
2. Watch the tuition go up and up and up...
3. Demand college loan reform

 

--------------

 

Yeah, sooth.....it's a fucking bailout for their lefty college professor buddies.

Who are doing all that great work, indoctrinating the young people into thinking like good little socialists.

Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 09:08 AM (jPxSq)

177 Hey, don't give them any ideas. Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 02:04 PM (Ky1+e) I'd be very unhappy to pay a tax for fucking. Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 02:04 PM (sbV1u) They can't help themselves I'm afraid....

Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 09:08 AM (UZQM8)

178 1) Pass Obamacare
2) Watch costs go up up up
3) Watch service providers flee the market
4) Ration care Single payer
5) PROFIT Watch more people die
6) Save Gaia


FIFY

That's their long-term plan.  This is just a step on that way

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 09:08 AM (sbV1u)

179 Troll, your shtick is old.

Go back to Kos.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 09:08 AM (UOM48)

180 “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."

And for all the folks that choose not to pay for health insurance, because you don't use medical care?  Well, you too are penalized for breathing.

Posted by: Flounder at June 29, 2012 09:09 AM (Kkt/i)

181 ObamaTax is not a tax --
 
"Don't shit on my nutsack and tell me it's pudding".

Posted by: GnuBreed, still very grumpy at June 29, 2012 09:09 AM (ccXZP)

182 We didn't win a darned thing.

Posted by: Lee at June 29, 2012 09:09 AM (RtwOA)

183
It's their patter; the Left's template to gain power.

It's so simple and obvious but it works so well.

It's Cloward and Piven, right?

Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:09 AM (G/zuv)

184 "We are now all subjects of the insane and lawless American Socialist Superstate. One election isn't going to change that." Yup. You guys should just give up and not vote. Maybe you could escape health care socialism by moving to Canada...shit, that won't work either. I guess you're screwed. Lol u mad bros?

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:10 AM (tyou3)

185

Jay Carney said "it's not a tax...

 

At which pont the ad cuts to clips of reporter after reporter declaring the court has ruled it a tax. "Stop the Obama Tax." [fade to black]

Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2012 09:10 AM (9KqcB)

186 Free riders???  That 40 million uninsured Americans lie from the census bureau included 15 million illegal aliens plus millions of young adults who didn't need it or want it.


We could get rid of illegals and other who get a free ride using the ER as a clinic simply by repraling the legislation that caused it.


Also by sending the criminals home.

Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 09:10 AM (YdQQY)

187 That college loan?  It's unfair.  But it would fair if it was a gift.  So now it's a gift.  Doesn't say that in the contract you signed,  but I say it's a gift.  Have a nice day. - Justice Roberts


Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:11 AM (Ky1+e)

188
Come on, Sean. You don't really believe the powers in the Left really give a shit about saving the planet, do you?


Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:11 AM (G/zuv)

189 What the hell happened to that whole 'registration coming' thing?!



Posted by: Tami at June 29, 2012 09:11 AM (X6akg)

190 Tax, not a tax The whole thing is a distraction. It's never been about healthcare. It's socialism. Period.

Posted by: Justamom at June 29, 2012 09:11 AM (Wd1Zo)

191 F and F post up.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 09:11 AM (UOM48)

192 IRS, not a tax, it's a govt revenue enhancement feature.

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 09:12 AM (TomZ9)

193 Eetz naht a taxxxxxxx!

Posted by: Arney Carney at June 29, 2012 09:12 AM (mMijF)

194
Hey, Obama, don't think of November 6th as an eviction notice...

think of it as a penalty.


Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:12 AM (G/zuv)

195 "1) Pass Obamacare
2) Watch costs go up up up
3) Watch service providers flee the market
4) Ration care Single payer
5) PROFIT Watch more people die
6) Save Gaia


FIFY

That's their long-term plan. This is just a step on that way"

===============

Yes. They are a death cult.

Posted by: Kensington at June 29, 2012 09:12 AM (MBmtt)

196 It's closer to the truth to rename ObamaCare and call it ObamaTaxageddon.

Posted by: Jypsea Rose is @AmericanGypsea at June 29, 2012 09:12 AM (iKSAz)

197 Now that I know I have a *special* BFF on SCOTUS I think we may be able to *postpone* elections in November.

Posted by: Choom Puff Daddy at June 29, 2012 09:13 AM (a1oOO)

198 What's gonna be interesting is all those people who are on the bubble economically.  The administration just handed them a bill for their health care.  That's the "health care" they re-prioritized a few notches lower than "eating" for this month.  In this economy having that kind of flexibility is important.

Wait until those folks find out that free shit ain't free.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 09:13 AM (sbV1u)

199 i can hardly wait for the day to be treated  for illness by a DMV type structure.

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 09:13 AM (TomZ9)

200 "And for all the folks that choose not to pay for health insurance, because you don't use medical care?" Yup, all you people who don't get insurance from work, don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, and don't carry any insurance at all, but don't need it because you *never* use any medical care, have to pay a tax penalty. I know that's a huge violation of your liberty, so those of us who have insurance should just have to pay for all the people who don't have insurance but use medical care anyway.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:13 AM (tyou3)

201

And for the upshot.... illegal aliens are exempted from Obamacare.

So the non Tax Tax which is in place to penalize under a framework of a federal statute with new regulations that will increase the cost of healthcare WILL now be paid by citizens for the benefit of non-citizens.

 

Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 09:13 AM (WzLTm)

202

@125: Obamacare will NEVER be repealed.  Never.  Too many stupid pigs at the trough and too many gutless Republicans in office guarantee that.

 

This +1000.

Posted by: Mary Poppins at June 29, 2012 09:13 AM (zF6Iw)

203 "It depends on what your definition of 'is'  is."  -Bill Clinton

"It depends on what my definition of 'penalty' is."  -Justice Roberts


Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:14 AM (Ky1+e)

204

 

If Barky and the Dems keep saying...."It's not a Tax"....

Then they are disagreeing with The Dread Justice Roberts.

 

The Dread Justice Roberts said that the only way ObamaCare is constitutional.....is....as a Tax.

 

So if Barky and the Dems keep saying that..."It's NOT a Tax"....then they are saying that ObamaCare is NOT constitutional.

 

They can't have it both ways.

Even though they may try.

Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 09:14 AM (jPxSq)

205 "What's gonna be interesting is all those people who are on the bubble economically. The administration just handed them a bill for their health care." Yeah, well they handed them subsidies to buy insurance too. (I know, I know, socialism, blah blah blah)

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:14 AM (tyou3)

206 Posted by: Justamom at June 29, 2012 02:11 PM (Wd1Zo) It's about them kicking the socio-economic ladder out from under them so we can't climb it.

Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 09:14 AM (UZQM8)

207 I see most are still in the early stages of reaction. It's only been about 24 hours so that is to be expected. Carry on.

Posted by: Meremortal at June 29, 2012 09:15 AM (Usk3+)

208 I LOL'd!!!
Posted by: Tami

Thanks.  That kind of stuff makes my day.  I'm shallow that way,  ya know.

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:15 AM (Ky1+e)

209 Ace:: Color me unpersuaded by the chorus of "Wow, we super-won the long-game!"

Then let's win the intermediate game by taking the White House and the Senate in 2012.

Interesting how the MSM was so dismissive of the 2010 elections, as if losing the House and several Senate seats was some sort of ex machina anomaly.  Now the ACM is a tax hike, and all of the regulatory authority and the accompanying regulations recently generated by The Hive  now come under the scrutiny of established federal tax law and the US Constitution equal protection clauses, don't they?
.

Posted by: mrp at June 29, 2012 09:15 AM (HjPtV)

210 In 1937, Social Security was upheld as constitutional under the power to tax concept.  Roberts only applied that long-standing precedent to this craptastic legislation, then used the remainder of the opinion to set up new limitations and belittle the tards who whine about ObamaCare, but still like him.

"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." -CJ Roberts, in the opinion

Posted by: A.G. at June 29, 2012 09:16 AM (rHTdD)

211

Its an ObamaCaTax-trophe

or is that ObamaCaTax-trophy ?

Posted by: Cromagnum at June 29, 2012 09:16 AM (ga+7c)

212 I wish I owned a liquor store and guns and ammo shop.>>

I own one but it's not open to the public

Posted by: Buzzsaw at June 29, 2012 09:16 AM (tf9Ne)

213 (I know, I know, socialism, blah blah blah)Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 02:14 PM (tyou3)

Dismissing an argument because you refuse to address it -or can't - really is what we've come to expect.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 09:17 AM (sbV1u)

214 And for the upshot.... illegal aliens are exempted from Obamacare.
So the non Tax Tax which is in place to penalize under a framework of a federal statute with new regulations that will increase the cost of healthcare WILL now be paid by citizens for the benefit of non-citizens.

Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 02:13 PM (WzLTm)


Benedict Roberts personally made a little edit in the preamble of our Constitution (since the document is only for display purposes, these days, anyway):


"and secure the Blessings of Liberty to anyone but ourselves and our Posterity"


What's a few words between subjects and their all-powerful, empathetic, lawless government?

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 09:17 AM (X3lox)

215 First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- ---------------------------------- Does the left really want to get into a debate on dealing with freeloaders? Isn't supporting freeloaders a big reason for most entitlement programs?

Posted by: Dawnsblood at June 29, 2012 09:17 AM (VHPa2)

216 "And for the upshot.... illegal aliens are exempted from Obamacare. " They're not subject to the mandate/tax because they don't get subsidies. I mean, fuck illegal immigrants, but that's got nothing to do with health care.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:17 AM (tyou3)

217 "Isn't supporting freeloaders a big reason for most entitlement programs?" Yeah, dude, all those people getting social security are a bunch of freeloaders.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:18 AM (tyou3)

218

Protect the court's legitimacy by obviously just making shit up?

 

Good plan.

 

Roberts, a good Harvard boy. They are sooper smart, and shit.

Posted by: Invictos at June 29, 2012 09:18 AM (OQpzc)

219 They're not subject to the mandate/tax because they don't get subsidies. Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 02:17 PM (tyou3)

Well, since it's illegal to refuse care in an emergency room in most states, and that's where most illegals end up - your entire argument just disappeared.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 09:19 AM (sbV1u)

220 So if Barky and the Dems keep saying that..."It's NOT a Tax"....then they are saying that ObamaCare is NOT constitutional.

They can't have it both ways.
Even though they may try. Posted by: wheatie

Apparently they can.  Words mean nothing.  Fucking dictionaries,  how do those work?

Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:19 AM (Ky1+e)

221 So, what is the solution for reforming the health care fiasco? We are railing against it but what are the alternatives for small businesses and the medical personnel?

Posted by: GW McLintock at June 29, 2012 09:20 AM (MlL3f)

222 Please do not kill another thread responding to trolls.

Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 09:20 AM (YdQQY)

223 Yeah, dude, all those people getting social security are a bunch of freeloaders. Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 02:18 PM (tyou3)

Yeah, they are.  Because the average pay out is over 4 times more than they put in.

But don't let actual facts from something like an actuarial table, or the Social Security's Administration's own tables change your mind or anything like that.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 09:20 AM (sbV1u)

224 "Dismissing an argument because you refuse to address it -or can't - really is what we've come to expect." I did address the argument. You said what about the "people who are on the bubble economically" who can't afford to buy insurance. I responded that they will get subsidies to afford to buy insurance. That's the response to your argument.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:20 AM (tyou3)

225 Chief Justice Roberts:   It's a tax.

Me:  You lie!!11!

Posted by: Devall Patrick at June 29, 2012 09:21 AM (/ZZCn)

226 So, what is the solution for reforming the health care fiasco? We are railing against it but what are the alternatives for small businesses and the medical personnel?

Posted by: GW McLintock at June 29, 2012 02:20 PM (MlL3f)


There are two possible solutions. The best is an Article V convention. I will not discuss the second because it is a bannable offense.

Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 09:21 AM (YdQQY)

227 Please do not kill another thread responding to trolls.Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 02:20 PM (YdQQY)

Thanks for the reminder Vic.

I just realized that since everything from the left is a bumper sticker anyway, it's sorta pointless.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 09:22 AM (sbV1u)

228 "Please do not kill another thread responding to trolls." Yeah, another one of CBD's sockpuppets is going around trolling.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:22 AM (tyou3)

229 They can't have it both ways.
Even though they may try.

Posted by: wheatie



It's both ways in the Roberts' decision.  It's "not a tax" up to page 15 and then it miraculously deforms into a tax.  Sorry, but they get everything.  That's what introducing inconsistency into a logical system allows for.  All theorems are provable.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 09:22 AM (X3lox)

230 And you wingnuts all said that I was a hapless idiot.....

Posted by: Donald Verrilli at June 29, 2012 09:22 AM (YmPwQ)

231 Freeloaders = illegal aliens (oops not PC) Freeloaders = undocumented workers ( still not quite right) Freeloaders = future Dem voter

Posted by: ADK46er at June 29, 2012 09:23 AM (tkY5j)

232 I will not discuss the second because it is a bannable offense. Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 02:21 PM (YdQQY)

Would it have any basis in a Thomas Jefferson quote?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 09:23 AM (sbV1u)

233 No, that makes no sense because the people being penalized, people who have money, have done nothing wrong.

Posted by: booger at June 29, 2012 02:01 PM (HI6wa)


Wrong oh my friend, the people being penalized under ACA have money thus they have done something wrong!

Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 09:23 AM (i3+c5)

234 "Well, since it's illegal to refuse care in an emergency room in most states, and that's where most illegals end up" That's where everyone without health care ends up. That's one of the reasons why we need a mandate. Obamacare doesn't fix the problem with illegals who will still show up in emergency rooms, but that would still be the case without Obamacare. Illegals should be kicked out anyway, but just kicking illegals out wouldn't solve the health care problem.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:27 AM (tyou3)

235 I'm glad you guys view your only options as (1) a completely unrealistic constitutional convention or (2) an even more unrealistic violent revolution. Good thing you've given up on just winning elections. You shouldn't bother with that. You should stay home and not vote for Romney and just dream of fertilizing the tree of liberty.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:29 AM (tyou3)

236 So, what is the solution for reforming the health care fiasco? We are railing against it but what are the alternatives for small businesses and the medical personnel?

Posted by: GW McLintock at June 29, 2012 02:20 PM (MlL3f)

 

_____________________________________

 

Do you mean to ask what the alternatives are for people operating within the current system, or are you referring to the health care issue in general?__________________If the former, they're going to have to pass on costs to consumers, cut pay for employees, or some combination.  Or just close up shop. _____________________________________As to the later - big picture - Americans need to accept that some people will not get the care they want.  Some people will suffer, and die earlier than they would if they could afford care.  It has always sucked to be poor - today can hardly be different.

Posted by: Reactionary at June 29, 2012 09:29 AM (xUM1Q)

237 Just think of what this ruling means.

Congress could pass a law requiring everyone to become a muslim or pay a "tax."

Congress could pass a law requiring a one child policy and mandatory abortion of any extra children or pay a "tax."

Congress can pass any unconstitutional law but the fine (I mean "tax") for not obeying the law is upheld.

Yet, a bunch of so called republicans want to pass this ruling off as a victory.

Posted by: MrHobbit at June 29, 2012 09:29 AM (sbaXF)

238 Obama care is the Double Mint gum of laws: it's 2 things in one it's a tax and it's a penalty.

Posted by: ADK46er at June 29, 2012 09:30 AM (tkY5j)

239

That's where everyone without health care ends up.

 

Only because the cost of health care is much higher than it was in the 60's ... when health insurance was uncommon, and ususally not needed ... why?

 

Health care is expensive due to malpractice insurance ... malpractice insurance is costly, and effectively mandatory, due to ... lawyers.

 

Tort reform: everyone knows we have needed it for at least 30 years. Cap damages and watch medical costs plummet.

 

That's one of the reasons why we need a mandate.

 

Wrong again. We see from the various European experiences that a mandate is a bad idea, and is unworkable.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 09:33 AM (6KG30)

240 Would it have any basis in a Thomas Jefferson quote?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 02:23 PM (sbV1u)


Yes

Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 09:34 AM (YdQQY)

241 "Congress could pass a law requiring everyone to become a muslim or pay a "tax." No, dude. That would violate the first amendment. The opinion was about the limits of the taxing power. It does give the government the ability to violate other sections of the constitution.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:35 AM (tyou3)

242 Let me be clear: By "freeloaders", I mean you pink people who just graduated college and want to spend your money chasing ass and pimp out your Beemers. Sorry for the confusion.

Posted by: Deval Patrick at June 29, 2012 09:35 AM (sv/s3)

243
That's where everyone without health care ends up.


That's more retardation packed into one sentence than I've seen since Benedict Roberts' 5th grade "What I did last summer" essay.

Health CARE is what one GETS in the emergency room, dumbshit.  Health INSURANCE is what you are referring to.  And, no, everyone without insurance doesn't go to the emergency room.  Most pay cash for their care, which is no longer legal.

Ever hear the phrase, "Get a second opinion"?  It emerged from people seeking ... health care, because most health care is not involving people bleeding to death and in need of emergency services.  But getting second opinions is now illegal, too.  Well, not strictly illegal, but only after I've paid for everyone else's health insurance (except illegals, they have the blessings of liberty in the AMerican Socialist Superstate).

You and your ilk are pathetic, despicable, destructive wastes of flesh.  I can't wait for this nation to split so that you and yours are stuck leeching off of each other and penalizing each other to death.  You and I share NOTHING and you are not my countryman.  You are an alien leech.

I leave you with Samuel Adams appropriate quote (though Sam was far too nice):


"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."


You and your kind are stains on civilization.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 09:36 AM (X3lox)

244 Richard Epstein should be the Chief Justice.

Posted by: sexypig at June 29, 2012 09:37 AM (wWV5q)

245 "Health care is expensive due to malpractice insurance ... " If you think that's the main reason health care is more expensive than it was in the 60s, you're insane. You guys never really address problems. You have a set of ideologically motivated "solutions" that you just relexively propose for everything "Tax cuts! Tort reform! Deregulation!"

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:38 AM (tyou3)

246 "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Dayum!

Posted by: sexypig at June 29, 2012 09:38 AM (wWV5q)

247

 "...taxation and regulation are close substitutes, so a limitation on one power matters little if the other power is still available. There is no practical difference between ordering an action, and taxing or fining people who don't do that same thing."

 

This is it in a nutshell. I can't get past this. As far as I'm concerned the reasoning behind Roberts' opinion ignores this link and is pure sophistry. Can't believe a guy this smart would travel down this road from a pure intellectual point of view.

 

Also warps my mind thinking that he may used this muddy reasoning to work backwards and arrive at a decision that would make the court appear non-partisan in one of the most important SCOTUS cases in our lifetimes.

 

And on that subject, when is the last time a liberal justice bent over backwards in a decision to appease conservatives who might be offended and out of concern that the court "appear non-partisan"?

Posted by: RM at June 29, 2012 09:39 AM (TRsME)

248

once republicans get into power they should pass a law.  Everyone must own a gun or pay a tax.  Then pass another law.  Everyone must own a bible or be taxed.  Then pass another law.  Everyone must send their children to private schools or be taxed.   Then pass another law.  Everyone must  XXXX.

 

Let SCOTUS handle those since they got us into this mess.

 

Posted by: retired military at June 29, 2012 09:39 AM (SElov)

249 I think we should have a law that supreme court justices eat 20lbs of brocolli a day. If they don't comply, well, they can pay the $500,000 a year tax. How fast would that get overturned?

Posted by: sexypig at June 29, 2012 09:40 AM (wWV5q)

250 You guys never really address problems. You have a set of ideologically motivated "solutions" that you just relexively propose for everything

Hello, kettle.

Posted by: Pot at June 29, 2012 09:40 AM (MySKM)

251 Ace, come on. If you think Congress' power to tax is unlimited then you've been listening to your betters for too long. Congress can't tax us without our permission. Sadly, we've lost sight of that, which your comment illustrates. Why haven't the Bush Tax Cuts been allowed to expire? The American people. Taxes live in a political realm. Just because the Congress has the power to tax constitutionally doesn't mean we're obligated to accept them. We need to elect people who will reduce our tax burden.

Posted by: Kim Priestap at June 29, 2012 09:40 AM (xDetv)

252 "Everyone must own a gun or pay a tax." That's actually not a bad idea. "Everyone must own a bible or be taxed" That violates the first amendment.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:41 AM (tyou3)

253 According to recent SCOTUS decisions: • Arizona cannot force its citizens to carry immigration papers. • It's perfectly legitimate to tax someone for NOT doing something, such as NOT buying heathcare. Put those 2 rulings together, and you have your solution: Arizona simply needs to pass a tax on NOT carrying proof of citizenship. Bonus: Go ahead, 0bama administration, take Arizona to court over that one! What are you going to argue? That the power to tax someone for NOT doing something is illegitimate?

Posted by: DavidR at June 29, 2012 09:41 AM (myanI)

254 "Hello, kettle." I don't do that. Some liberals do, I guess, so that's fair.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:42 AM (tyou3)

255 I don't do that.

Yes, you do.

Posted by: Pot at June 29, 2012 09:43 AM (MySKM)

256 @ Paulie Carbone

244 "Congress could pass a law requiring everyone to become a muslim or pay a "tax."

No, dude. That would violate the first amendment.

The opinion was about the limits of the taxing power. It does give the government the ability to violate other sections of the constitution.


Your wrong about the decision. The ruling said the mandate violated the commerce clause but the it can stand as a tax. Using that logic then why couldn't a law violate the first amendment but still have the "tax" still be upheld.

Posted by: MrHobbit at June 29, 2012 09:45 AM (sbaXF)

257 Deval Patrick. There's a deep legal and social thinker. Only took him three times to pass the bar.

Posted by: BuddyPC at June 29, 2012 09:46 AM (KCuY9)

258 It's not a tax. It's the government making you pay for something that will not benefit you

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 29, 2012 09:47 AM (hAvUy)

259

248 Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 02:38 PM (tyou3)

 

If you think that's [malpractice insurance] the main reason health care is more expensive than it was in the 60s, you're insane.

 

Wrong again. The last 20 years have seen thousands of MD either leave private practice or stop providing services.



You guys never really address problems. You have a set of ideologically motivated "solutions" that you just relexively propose for everything "Tax cuts! Tort reform! Deregulation!"

 

How many wrong answers do you have? Your skill at displacement is weak ... ideological motivateion and relexive proposals are hallmarks of socialist apparatchiks who are afraid to think for themselves and simply desire power ... usually by maintaining the currrent problems.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 09:49 AM (6KG30)

260 "Your wrong about the decision. The ruling said the mandate violated the commerce clause but the it can stand as a tax. Using that logic then why couldn't a law violate the first amendment but still have the "tax" still be upheld." No, I'm not. I'll explain this without trolling because it's an important point. The federal government does not have a general "police power" and needs constitutional authorization to do anything. (States don't) It did not "violate" the commerce clause, so much as the court said the commerce clause didn't give the federal government the authority to do it. But they said the taxing power did. But even if the federal government is operating within it's enumerated powers, and still can't violate other provisions of the Constitution like the Bill of Rights. For example, a law banning selling bibles across state lines would be within the power to regulate interstate commerce. But it would still be unconstitutional because it would violate the First Amendment.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:50 AM (tyou3)

261 #SoonYouWillBeTaxedForNOT Watching MSNBC #SoonYouWillBeTaxedForNOT chanting 0bama eight times, 5 times each day

Posted by: DavidR at June 29, 2012 09:52 AM (myanI)

262

OK.... so I was just looking at the ACA again...

 

Its primary funding mechanism, is this Tax (penalty) from uninsured people, the funds of which, will be used to fund the State Exchange where they subsidize Low income participants up to 50% of the cost of insurance...

 

Uh... so what happens IF everyone buys insurance?  as they are supposed to?  Then the funding is gone! but the subsidies continue?

 

Whole plan is smoke and mirrors...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2012 09:55 AM (lZBBB)

263 Sure the govt can do whatever it wants, but it must do it with the word TAX INCREASE next to it. I doubt anything would pass the American public with those two words attached. However, democrats lie - see Deval Patrick, which is why Roberts is to smart by half here. It might appear as a cute way to cut off the commerce clause by forcing congress down the "tax" path, but it's 1 day later, and the liars are already at it again. Roberts Loses, Common Sense Prevails.

Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 09:55 AM (L2x1w)

264

It occurs to me that imposing a tax for failing to purchase a preferred product is the same in practical effect as giving a tax break of equal value for purchasing that product. Let's take the Smart Car example: if the Feds impose a "green tax" of $100 per year that you fail to own a Smart Car, and the car is expected to last 10 years, this has the same effect as giving you a "green tax rebate" of $1000 when you purchase the car. In either case you end up paying $1000 less in taxes if you accede to the Government's demands. Granted, the numbers line up better in hypothetical examples, but the principle holds in theory.

Roberts has actually maintained the status quo vis-a-vis the Federal Government's taxing power while placing a hard limit on future Commerce Clause-based regulation.

Posted by: Marty at June 29, 2012 09:55 AM (VPp80)

265 If people are freeloaders, as Obama and Patrick have said, then I assume they can afford insurance. Why not simply say hospitals DO NOT have to treat you if you can't pay. Then its on the freeloaders to open up their wallets to pay what they think their life is worth. Want to go to the ER for a runny nose - how much is it worth to ya freeloader?

Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 09:57 AM (L2x1w)

266 Arbalest, show me one study that says the majority of health care inflation is due to malpractice litigation. Or do you guys not believe in empirical evidence?

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 09:57 AM (tyou3)

267 Paulie Carbone: Are you truly unaware of the past 30+ years of malpractice suits, malpractice insurance rate increases, MDs closing up shop, and opposition to tort reform?  You seem to be alone in this ...

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (6KG30)

268 "Why not simply say hospitals DO NOT have to treat you if you can't pay" Because the bleeding heart liberals who run this country think it might not be a great idea to have people dying in the streets from easily treatable conditions. Like guy gets mugged and shot, goes to the ER, and they ask "do you have insurance," he says "no," so they say "go bleed to death on the curb." I can't speak for conservatives, but most Americans wouldn't support that.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (tyou3)

269

Posted by: Marty at June 29, 2012 02:55 PM (VPp80)

 

sorry... but no... Roberts just held that it is OK to Tax INACTIVITY.  This is a Tax on a lack of action.

 

Thats a whole different ballgame.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (lZBBB)

270 "Are you truly unaware of the past 30+ years of malpractice suits, malpractice insurance rate increases, MDs closing up shop, and opposition to tort reform?" Yes, I am aware of that issue. Now do you have any evidence to support your claim or not?

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (tyou3)

271 It occurs to me that imposing a tax for failing to purchase a preferred product is the same in practical effectas giving a tax break of equal value for purchasing that product.


Wrong.  Not even close.  You don't seem to understand the difference between an enticement and a penalty.  Not least of which, they work on two totally different populations.

Go study some English.  4th grade is where you should begin.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 10:01 AM (X3lox)

272 In 2004, the CBO found that malpractice costs amounted to "less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.” Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice, Congressional Budget Office, January 8, 2004 Now do have anything to the contrary, or are you just going to babble?

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:03 AM (tyou3)

273 BTW how is the IRS or Obama going to round up all the freeloaders? And once he finds them, will an ATF guy hold a gun to the guy's head until he writes a premium check?

Posted by: PJ at June 29, 2012 10:03 AM (DQHjw)

274 Were we in Britain where no constitution exists, I'd be less opposed to the mandate. However , I would only require cheap catastrophic coverage. People should not be forced to purchase Cadillac plans to subsidize parasites.

Posted by: Avi at June 29, 2012 10:04 AM (Gx3Fe)

275

Yes, I am aware of that issue. Now do you have any evidence to support your claim or not?

 

Then, in all intellectual honesty, you already have the evidence.

 

If you need more, try this link: http://preview.tinyurl.com/7axcu3w

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 10:05 AM (6KG30)

276 Marty is correct. There is no functional difference between taxing people for *not* doing X, and taxing everyone but giving a rebate to those who do X.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:08 AM (tyou3)

277

Wait, what?  They're  freeloaders now?

 

I thought they were the "30 million blessed saints who really, really, want and need health insurance but don't buy it because they can't afford it. or they have a preexisting condition, or their mean old insurance company dropped them whehn they got sick."

 

Thanks for clearing that up, Deval..

Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2012 10:09 AM (NYnoe)

278 "If you need more, try this link" This is an interesting difference between us. I posted a CBO study saying that malpractice only accounts for 2% of health care spending. Your response is to link to list of random malpractice settlements. I'm relying on data. You are relying on anecdotes. That explains a lot about our respective worldviews.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:10 AM (tyou3)

279 Cadillac Coupe Deval is actually bitching about "freeloaders?" Wow. I take it all back. Thank you, justice Roberts. We have won the culture wars thanks to your wisdom. As if. Fuck you more now than ever.

Posted by: Ezra's Equal at June 29, 2012 10:11 AM (+74DP)

280 2004? Holy crap, that's 8 years ago. Our budget deficit for the year $413 billion on its way down until libs took the house and senate.

Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 10:12 AM (L2x1w)

281 Personally, when it comes to any study regarding health care, I only accept Elizabeth Warren led studies.

Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 10:15 AM (L2x1w)

282 "2004? Holy crap, that's 8 years ago" Do you have a more recent study showing that malpractice no constitutes a larger share of health care spending? Do you have any studies at all? Do you understand why the federal budget deficit has nothing at all to do with this question? Do you even believe in the basic idea of supporting your beliefs with evidence?

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:16 AM (tyou3)

283 On a side note, Deval Patrick isn't gonna fall for that banana in the tailpipe trick.

Posted by: Axel Foley at June 29, 2012 10:17 AM (+74DP)

284 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9390009.htm Physicians, hospitals, dentists, therapists and a host of other healthcare providers paid a total of about $31 billion in medical malpractice premiums in 2011 -- a new record, according to a study released Tuesday by Patients for Fair Compensation. The data, compiled by Bioscience Valuation of Germany, showed that all healthcare providers spent that amount last year to protect themselves from lawsuits. Economists claim that malpractice premiums are built into the escalating costs of healthcare for consumers. In addition, the study found that 19,000 patients received compensation from medical malpractice occurrences in 2011. Of the $31 billion in premiums, about 20 percent or $6 billion went to patients. The remaining $25 billion went to attorneys’ fees and other legal costs, administrative costs and insurance company profits. Patients for Fair Compensation estimates that more than $650 billion is wasted each year on unnecessary medical procedures ranging from x-rays, biopsies, CT scan, MRIs and other tests that doctors order to keep from being sued. This is what is known as “defensive medicine.” so 31 some billion in payouts, 650 some billion in defensive medicine so they don't get shut down. I'm sure we could find a middle when you add those two numbers up, but that's still a very good hunk of change, no?

Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 10:18 AM (L2x1w)

285 "Personally, when it comes to any study regarding health care, I only accept Elizabeth Warren led studies." Elizabeth Warren has never worked for the Congressional Budget Office and has nothing to do with the study I cited. You guys really don't believe in evidence at all, do you? I mean, I'm trying to discuss a factual issue with no room for personal interpretation: What percentage of health care spending results from malpractice litigation? You guys are completely unable to advance any relevant evidence. Do you really feel like a random cheap shot at Elizabeth Warren does anything to logically support your point?

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:19 AM (tyou3)

286 I love watching the legislative branch rock and knash their teeth.  They are screwed.  Conservatives won the long haul and states can now opt out without losing retaliatory techniques of with holding Medicaid Dollars. It was judicial activism but it threw Obamacare back into the hands of THE PEOPLE!  WE THE PEOLPE--remember that?  Now they wrote in the bill it was not a tax.  But incase you missed it yesterday Roberts stated that UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Congress can do it if the call it a 'tax' and let's not forget the other tax increases included in the bill--7?  LARGEST TAX HIKE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.  Obama, I'm not a racist.  I abhor stupidity.  Guess that's why you were just a 'Lecturer' at Harvard--not  'Professor'--oops! Sleep well you psychopathic serial LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Pamela H at June 29, 2012 10:20 AM (dwA73)

287 I was referring to Elizabeth Warren's Harvard studies used by the white house. FYI - posting a bunch of nonsense with regards to jokes is kinda pointless here. Regardless my linky says 650 billion, so I win. I could write a law that says 2+2 = 5, tell the CBO to score it and tell me what 2+2 should be, and they must return 5, because that's all they can score.

Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 10:22 AM (L2x1w)

288

This is an interesting difference between us.

 

... and it is about to get more interesting ...

 

I posted a CBO study saying that malpractice only accounts for 2% of health care spending.

 

You only sort of posted .... no link ... why?

 

 Your response is to link to list of random malpractice settlements.

It's data

 

I'm relying on data. You are relying on anecdotes.

 

No, you provided a "quote". I provided a link to data.

 

 That explains a lot about our respective worldviews.

 

True, as does this: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yyudzn

 

It's a link to a 2009 CBO study, not a quote. The .PDF notes savings, drops in various costs, less cost due to less defensive medicine, etc. It's similar to your "quote", except that it's a link to an original source, and provides details that you ... did not provide. This PDF shows, among other things, a trend, a cost reduction trend, which you did not discuss.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 10:22 AM (6KG30)

289 Taxes are for the purpose of raising revenues,

They are raising revenue by taxing young adults who do not buy health  insurance because they feel they didn't need it. Those 30,000,000 or whatever the number they cite is now.

Posted by: mali at June 29, 2012 10:24 AM (KoSNi)

290 A rabbi, a circus midget, and a supreme court chief justice walk into a bar. Bartender says: " Fuck you, Roberts you pusillanimous dick head and spineless meat sack." Get it?

Posted by: Ezra's Equal at June 29, 2012 10:24 AM (+74DP)

291 Marty is correct. There is no functional difference between taxing people for *not* doing X, and taxing everyone but giving a rebate to those who do X.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 03:08 PM (tyou3)


That's not what he wrote, you illiterate moron.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 10:25 AM (X3lox)

292 "but that's still a very good hunk of change, no?" OK, thank you, numbers. Total health care spending is over $2.6 trillion. So $31 billion is a little over one percent. I certainly think we waste a lot of money on unnecessary procedures, and our per capita health care spending is by far the highest in the world. I don't think you can say that all unnecessary procedures are because of malpractice suits--people have a financial incentive to perform procedures any way beyond a fear of being sued. I'm skeptical that any sort of tort reform would do much to reduce that. But thanks for actually posting something relevant. I'll see what studies I can find on the cost of defensive medicine.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:26 AM (tyou3)

293 Hahaha, the big empiricist falls back on "I think" and "I'm skeptical" (because he's not ideological, you know) when confronted with numbers he doesn't like.

Yeah, fuck you, kettle.

Posted by: Pot at June 29, 2012 10:33 AM (MySKM)

294 Making the youth pay for the old. Until death panel time.

Posted by: mali at June 29, 2012 10:34 AM (KoSNi)

295 "It's a link to a 2009 CBO study" Yeah, I just found that study too. So we can both agree that it is a credible source. It states that the impact of tort reform--in terms of reducing the risk of defensive medicine-- would result in an "indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services." It also says that tort reform could directly reduce the costs of malpractice insurance, resulting in 0.2 percent decrease in total health care spending. So when you add both the direct and indirect effects together, it estimates that tort reform could reduce total health care spending by 0.5%.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:38 AM (tyou3)

296 ""I think" and "I'm skeptical" I said that because I was looking for evidence on its effects, which I just posted.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:39 AM (tyou3)

297 The percent of health care spending that goes to malpractice payments has remained the same for at least the last couple decades, while total health care spending has dramatically increased (well beyond levels of inflation), so it's really hard to argue that's what's driving the increase in costs. It's hard to estimate the costs of defensive medicine--how do you know if a doctor ordered a test just because he was afraid of being sued, and how do you that test wasn't really necessary--but I don't see any reason why defensive medicine would suddenly explode, or increase faster than the amount of actual malpractice payments.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:44 AM (tyou3)

298

Jay Carney said today that the Mandate is just a penalty and not a tax

 

"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One. President Barack Obama was on his way to Colorado to view the response to the worst wildfires in the state's history

Posted by: Colonel Pooteh at June 29, 2012 10:46 AM (nsT1z)

299 Roberts also blew it by not forcing Kagan to recuse herself. This would have led to a convoluted plurality decision, which in retrospect could be considered an improvement. The fig-leaf recusal on the Arizona case is another insult to all of us.

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at June 29, 2012 10:50 AM (qwK3S)

300 Jay Carney is full of shit.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:50 AM (tyou3)

301 Again, we need to challenge the REST of the law.  Ok, so the mandate got a BS ruling, where is the constituionality of all the rest of the fucking bill?

These consolidated lawsuits were (I hope) just the fast and easy silver bullets from the states.  They got blocked; now let's challenge the rest. 

Where's the authority for all the rest of it - because otherwise taxation will allow the government to coerce you into anything.  And if that question (power) is just a political (legislative) question, then we are well and truly fucked.

/If you can't ride the dead horse, at least you can beat it.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at June 29, 2012 10:52 AM (X/+QT)

302 158 Concerning the fucking tax Mr. Bannion since I'm not actually having carnal knowledge I'm exempt.

Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2012 10:52 AM (bJKyW)

303 "now let's challenge the rest. " They ruled on the mandate and medicare expansion. What else do you want to challenge, and on what grounds?

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:56 AM (tyou3)

304

Jay Carney said today that the Mandate is just a penalty and not a tax

"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One. President Barack Obama was on his way to Colorado to view the response to the worst wildfires in the state's history

 

Posted by: Colonel Pooteh at June 29, 2012 03:46 PM (nsT1z)

 

What a fucking dumbass.  Ever heard of a tax on early withdrawal from an IRA?  You can choose not to pay that, if you don't make any withdrawals.  It's paid on your tax return and goes to the IRS.  The government decided that it was important for you to leave those funds in until you retire, so you pay a 10% tax if you take anything out early. 

 

And this isn't a transactions tax, either, it's a tax on you accessing your own money.  It's a tax on behavior the government wants to discourage, just like the Obamatax is.

Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2012 11:01 AM (NYnoe)

305 A smart GOP ad would compile all the gloating by all the Democrats and "this one president did it" Obama and intersperse it with the tax increase costs that the Government Health Insurance Takeover Act will impose on average Americans. Show how much the left has cheered and gloated about this, show the footage of them celebrating and grinning and laughing together as you show the quotes. Show the Americans just how gleeful the Democrats are to tax the crap out of them and rape their liberty.
Yeah I know, I live in a fantasy world where the GOP isn't run by mongoloid sloths.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 29, 2012 11:01 AM (r4wIV)

306 Yeah, his explanation is completely illogical. There are thousands of different decisions a person could make that would result in a tax being applied.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:02 AM (tyou3)

307

It also says that tort reform could directly reduce the costs of malpractice insurance, resulting in 0.2 percent decrease in total health care spending.

realityman's link at #287 indicates a $650 billion reduction, roughly an 18.5X increase over the $35billion used by the CBO report.

 

Using a case-by-case study, what would the patient savings be? Figure a private practice MD, with an couple of nurses and an office manager, instead of a Director, a few senior administrators, etc. Suddenly, the 18X cost reduction looks like real money ... and with tort reform limiting lawsuits and payments, and no mandate, maybe most treatment suddenly becomes affordable.

 

The percent of health care spending that goes to malpractice payments has remained the same for at least the last couple decades, while total health care spending has dramatically increased (well beyond levels of inflation), so it's really hard to argue that's what's driving the increase in costs.

 

Start by reading the CBO report ...



It's hard to estimate the costs of defensive medicine--how do you know if a doctor ordered a test just because he was afraid of being sued, and how do you that test wasn't really necessary-

 

The CBO report seems to have access to such information, as does Patients for Fair Compensation ... probably others too.

 

-but I don't see any reason why defensive medicine would suddenly explode, or increase faster than the amount of actual malpractice payments.

 

Perhaps most MDs don't want to be put out of business by lawsuits ... so they practice defensive medicine ... they have to.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:11 AM (6KG30)

308 Just got an email from my GOP congressman saying "The Tax Man Cometh!"  Cites a CBO report that says 76% of the taxes in Obamacare will hit families with incomes below $120,000. 

Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2012 11:13 AM (qE3AR)

309 "Perhaps most MDs don't want to be put out of business by lawsuits ... so they practice defensive medicine ... they have to." OK, but nobody wanted to be put out of business in 1960 or 1985 either. So why would the amount of defensive medicine have increased? (Health care spending has increased dramatically since 1985, but the percentage of costs being paid out in malpractice has stayed the same>)

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:15 AM (tyou3)

310

OK, but nobody wanted to be put out of business in 1960 or 1985 either. So why would the amount of defensive medicine have increased?

 

My link of random anecdotes provides the answer.

 

Who wants to be treated by an MD that just lost  $5million malpractice judgement?

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:17 AM (6KG30)

311 "The CBO report seems to have access to such information, as does Patients for Fair Compensation ... probably others too." Well the CBO's estimate is much, much lower than the PFC estimate.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:17 AM (tyou3)

312 "Who wants to be treated by an MD that just lost $5million malpractice judgement?" I don't really want to be treated by an MD that has a history of malpractice. But people twenty years ago didn't either.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:19 AM (tyou3)

313

True. Who is correct?

 

More importantly, when is one correct, and when is the other correct (interms of percentage savings, not necessarily total savings)?

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:19 AM (6KG30)

314

I don't really want to be treated by an MD that has a history of malpractice. But people twenty years ago didn't either.

 

Me neither ... even 20+ years ago (I was around then). But medical diagnostics are occasionally off (I'm living this, I've changed MDs), and this does not necessarily mean malpractice.

 

But to certain lawyers, it does.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:22 AM (6KG30)

315 I think a better explanation of why costs have gone up is: (1) We have no technologies that didn't exist or weren't widely used decades ago. It's not like doctors are only using MRIs now because they're suddenly much more afraid of being sued. (2) In addition to using more procedures than we used, we also pay a much higher cost per procedure. An MRI costs on average $1,080 here and $280 in France.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:24 AM (tyou3)

316 "But medical diagnostics are occasionally off (I'm living this, I've changed MDs), and this does not necessarily mean malpractice." Yeah, of course. You have no right to expect your doctor to be perfect, just competent.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:26 AM (tyou3)

317

We have no technologies that didn't exist or weren't widely used decades ago.

 

 ... new?

 

(2) In addition to using more procedures than we used, ...

 

This, then is defensive medicine. Is it necessary? Useful? Defensive ...

 

... we also pay a much higher cost per procedure. An MRI costs on average $1,080 here and $280 in France.

 

The French subsidize many things ... and they are going bankrupt. It's in all the blogs. My link of random anecdotes shows perhaps a hundred million dollars of cost .. on page 1. There are more pages.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:29 AM (6KG30)

318

You have no right to expect your doctor to be perfect, just competent.

 

Quite true. But under ObamaCare, could I have changed MDs?

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:30 AM (6KG30)

319 "... new?" Yeah, sorry, new. "But under ObamaCare, could I have changed MDs?" Yeah, there's no rule against that.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:33 AM (tyou3)

320 "This, then is defensive medicine. Is it necessary? Useful? Defensive" Expensive technologies like MRIs are useful. They're not just unnecessary procedures. Maybe we use a few more than we need, but most of the time you get an MRI, it's for some useful purpose.

Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:35 AM (tyou3)

321

Yeah, there's no rule against that.

 

You might want to re-read the ~2000 pages of ObamaCare. There are many "TBD" items, and there are more than a few "panels".

 

We've already seen that "If you like your ____, you can keep your ____." is a lie.

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:37 AM (6KG30)

322

Expensive technologies like MRIs are useful.

 

True

 

They're not just unnecessary procedures.

 

As you wrote this, you suggest that they are unnecessary.

 

Maybe we use a few more than we need, but most of the time you get an MRI, it's for some useful purpose.

 

Probably true, but it's the amount of "a few more than we need" that drives up costs.

 

Do one, and someone pays ... do not do it, and face a lwayer ...

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:41 AM (6KG30)

Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:41 AM (6KG30)

324 Earl Warren was never impeached despite a grassroots campaign because the utterly spineless Republican establishment viewed a real exercise of political power as beneath them. So we suffered through the depredations of the Warren court.

Souter the same. Republicans are spineless.

What needs to happen here is that Roberts should be impeached. He is so concerned with his image and legacy, let's give him an indelible mark of Cain.

If Republicans had impeached either Warren or Souter, Roberts would NEVER have betrayed conservatives and the country.

The complete inaction by the Republican establishment on this betrayal demonstrates that ObamaCare will never be repealed.

Can anyone name a country where socialized medicine was repealed?





Posted by: Harold at June 29, 2012 12:07 PM (wmfzA)

325 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2012 02:44 PM (Xb3hu)

326 Can we nip this bullshit from Devall Patrick in the bud:

"It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting."

In a word - NO.

If you choose not to purchase insurance, have a health situation and go to a  doctor, or even use the emergency room, then pay the bill, you aren't a freeloader. The penalty or tax, whatever it is called, isn't only on those who fail to pay their bills, it applies to those who do pay their bills as well.

That isn't taxing freeloaders.

Posted by: Phil at June 30, 2012 08:50 AM (se1M9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
236kb generated in CPU 0.44, elapsed 1.6794 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3376 seconds, 562 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.