The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Ummm...this is incorrect on a bunch of levels. Off the top, the govt is ultimately responsible for paying the bills of people who hit the ER without insurance. Therefore its not a tax you have to pay to private companies. The "taxing" part of it goes hypothetically to pay for your uninsured ER care.

Is this actually true in practice? Is there a specific mechanism (beyond special cases like Medicaid eligible-patients) where these bills get taken care of?

Next, there's plenty of precedent for non-governmental organizations requiring payment from you for something as basic as where you live (condo association fees for example).

And those things are voluntary and optional. Nobody can yet force you to live in a certain condo if you don't want to (unless you've been convicted of a felony and the gov't houses you directly).

Finally, the knuckledragger idea of being forced to buy shampoo or veggies is stupid. Not showering isn't costing the taxpayers money. Nor is eating green beans instead of broccoli. This notion may appeal to simpletons, but I'm surprised someone with a college degree would be swayed by it.

I don't think it will necessarily happen that we are overridden by sin taxes, but it is now legal at the federal level that it could happen.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

there are some really fun blog pieces out there today if you dig around. One theory has it that Roberts is actually secretly conservative, but going into deep cover with some kind of long game in mind (taxing abortions out of existence is one theory). Another conspiracy has it that the Kenyan Muslims in Washington may have threatened his family with rape and torture to convince him to change what was actually a notion to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Or it was just "tremendous pressure" from Barry that got him to flip in the last few weeks. In any case, it doesn't say much for Roberts' spine if he flip-flopped that recently.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Kind of my thinking as well.

Many here seem to accept the fact that tax/spend is legal based on the Constitution. Regardless of this...if the right side of the court just ruled to shut down legislations with a blanket...it violates the commerce clause...that seems a pretty radical pov.

Does the left side of the court rule in this manner frequently? I really don't know the answer to this.

The Constitution specifically provides for two things: what to tax for (Section I, Article 8), and how to tax it (Amendment 16).

With interstate commerce, there is something that you can use to justify that, and that's if you go to another state to receive health care. Because health insurance is currently required to be bought in-state, it's unconstitutional. However, what about people in Plattsburgh NY that have to go to Fletcher Allen (Burlington VT) to be treated for a gunshot wound? Interstate commerce may be used in that case.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

People are missing the really important aspect of the story. CNN, Faux "News" and others mistakenly announced that the law was ruled unconstitutional. This led to much hilarity on Twitter.

#CNNHeadlines - Jesus Christ Convicted; Sentenced to Life in Prison

#CNNHeadlines - Tim Tebow is Latest Celebrity to Convert to Scientology

#CNNHeadlines - Vancouver Canucks Win Stanley Cup, City Celebrates with Style and Class

#CNNHeadlines - Video of Thoughtful Debate on Meaning of Life Replaces 'Kitten on Skateboard' at top of YouTube list

#CNNHeadlines Identity of Luke Skywalker's Father Remains Mystery.

#CNNHeadlines Two in the bush now valued more than a bird in the hand.

BREAKING: Journey Stop Believing. #CNNHeadlines

Michael Jackson's Estate Confirms Billie Jean Really Was His Lover #CNNHeadlines

And a favorite of Star Wars fans everywhere

#CNNHeadlines - Han Solo Acquitted; Proves Greedo Fired First

The downside of this is that by the time the Daily Show gets around to it, this will all seem like old news.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

One theory has it that Roberts is actually secretly conservative,

Not so secret. It was a conservative ruling: PPACA was found unconstitutional under the commerce clause, however if Congress did have the constitutional authority to pass the law under a different enumerated power, then the Court should defer to Congress by using that other power to allow the law to stand, and in this case he ruled that the mandate was a tax.

Also, note the comment in the fine print: "The Court does not rule on the wisdom nor the desireability of a law". in other words, Roberts said, subtly and with tact, "wake up you stupid people! you voted for the folks who then passed this mess, don't expect us to rescue you from your folly, you need to rise up and do it yourselves."

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

People are missing the really important aspect of the story. CNN, Faux "News" and others mistakenly announced that the law was ruled unconstitutional. This led to much hilarity on Twitter.

The best twitter reaction goes to Fake Bill Muckalt: "Will this health care decision have an effect on Potulney's vaginal rejuvenation procedure?" (long story)

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Also, note the comment in the fine print: "The Court does not rule on the wisdom nor the desireability of a law". in other words, Roberts said, subtly and with tact, "wake up you stupid people! you voted for the folks who then passed this mess, don't expect us to rescue you from your folly, you need to rise up and do it yourselves."

Why did eight of the justices rule on desirability?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

oops

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

For your viewing pleasure: CNN and Fox News screwing it up.

Aaaaaaand the AP is struggling (in vain) to prevent their staffers from gloating over their cable news counterprats about the fact that they actually pay attention to things before reporting them.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

There's another theory floating around that the dissent was originally written first as the majority opinion, but they couldn't get Roberts to sign on due to the tax issue. The dissent was written around the subject of the Commerce Clause and didn't delve into the issue that carried the day. Whether or not the Libs agreed with it, I think they saw an avenue for a favorable ruling and went with it IMHO.

Regarding Roberts commenting on this not being an endorsement of the law, as a lefty I'm not offended by that. I thought over such a contentious issue he's entitled to remind people the SCOTUS role is merely to decide whether or not the law is constitutional.

If you want a good laugh go out to The National Review website and read the spin. Pretty amusing.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

They don't read anything. Anyone who pays any attention to Congress would know this already. Pelosi's a dumbass for saying that out loud and giving away a free soundbite, but it's hardly news to intelligent people.

The PATRIOT Act was introduced into 8 House subcommittees October 23rd, 2001. It passed the House on the 24th, the Senate on the 25th and President Bush signed it into law October 26th, 2001. You really think anyone read that?

I'm well aware of all of this, but I have to hold out hope that such actions - especially voicing it aloud - will lead to changes due to an uproar from the electorate. I just don't know what it would take for We the People to start demanding thoughtful representation, not the pandering, reactionary representation we have today.

At the same token, I'm a whacko who'd like to see an amendment to overturn the 17th Amendment, which I think would lead to a more thoughtful body in the Senate than the purely political we have today.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'm well aware of all of this, but I have to hold out hope that such actions - especially voicing it aloud - will lead to changes due to an uproar from the electorate. I just don't know what it would take for We the People to start demanding thoughtful representation, not the pandering, reactionary representation we have today.

At the same token, I'm a whacko who'd like to see an amendment to overturn the 17th Amendment, which I think would lead to a more thoughtful body in the Senate than the purely political we have today.

You mean, state legislatures might actually have a say in the national government again? Hopefully it will go a long way towards bringing the drinking age down to 18.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Its a stretch to say that Ginsberg isn't radically far left.

I'll allow that. Let's call it 1-3-0-2-3.

As far as defining what the center point is (which is how I boil down your next coupla sentences, please correct me if I'm wrong), I choose the current political center. The Court is, at the moment, to the right of the fictitious public median.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Is this actually true in practice? Is there a specific mechanism (beyond special cases like Medicaid eligible-patients) where these bills get taken care of?

I don't believe so. I believe those costs are passed on to the rest of the customers of that hospital in higher fees. Except in the case of county or city hospitals, in which case, yes the other taxpayers pick-up the tab. I guess if the hospital pays taxes, they might get a write-off on the bad debt, so there may be some passed on to the rest of us that way (although the vast majority of hospitals are "not for profit" and not sure they pay much federal taxes).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

You mean, state legislatures might actually have a say in the national government again? Hopefully it will go a long way towards bringing the drinking age down to 18.

25 for guys, 15 for girls. Who's with me?

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I'm well aware of all of this, but I have to hold out hope that such actions - especially voicing it aloud - will lead to changes due to an uproar from the electorate. I just don't know what it would take for We the People to start demanding thoughtful representation, not the pandering, reactionary representation we have today.

At the same token, I'm a whacko who'd like to see an amendment to overturn the 17th Amendment, which I think would lead to a more thoughtful body in the Senate than the purely political we have today.

Leaving it alone would have slowed the Federal absorption of state powers, but I think it was probably inevitable from the moment Lincoln decided not to let the South leave.

 

[jmh]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Wonder when they'll mandate me to eat broccoli (or brussels sprouts, yeck!).

I suggest cooking brussels sprouts with a little bit of bacon, maple syrup, and red pepper.

I say this kills any chance Romney had of election. Now he has to propose a viable alternative, and Obama doesn't.

Not only that, he has to propose a viable alternative to the exact thing that he came up with when he was governor of Massachusetts.

[P]art of the perverseness of Obamacare is that it's a big wealth transfer from younger to older people.

How so? I'm not being a smart***, I honestly haven't seen it this way (I've also been avoiding reading too much about it because it can be all-encompassing), so can you elaborate?

The IRS will have to come to my gdam house and take my furniture before I buy some ****ty health insurance.

Nobody said you have to buy ****ty health insurance.

I really have mixed feelings about this. In a practical sense, I think it represents some progress toward sorting out the mire that is health care in the USA, but the consistent expansion of federal powers is not something I'm a huge fan of.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Leaving it alone would have slowed the Federal absorption of state powers, but I think it was probably inevitable from the moment Lincoln decided not to let the South leave.

Dumbest decision ever made by a President.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I don't believe so. I believe those costs are passed on to the rest of the customers of that hospital in higher fees. Except in the case of county or city hospitals, in which case, yes the other taxpayers pick-up the tab. I guess if the hospital pays taxes, they might get a write-off on the bad debt, so there may be some passed on to the rest of us that way (although the vast majority of hospitals are "not for profit" and not sure they pay much federal taxes).

That sounds right. As I understand it when our son was born needing surgeries and ran up a $250,000 bill at Childrens, it was covered by an endowment that came from private donations to Childrens. We only found out 6 or 8 years later that MI Medicaid had refused to pay the bills because we went to the Childrens hospital in St. Paul, out of state (and listen - there are good reasons not to park at the hospital during the Final 5 besides the ticket). They covered them without ever billing us, knowing we didn't have a prayer of paying them.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I honestly haven't seen it [how PPACA is a wealth transfer from young to old] this way (I've also been avoiding reading too much about it because it can be all-encompassing), so can you elaborate?

The way PPACA is written, the young generally are charged more than their morbidity risk profile would warrant so those in their late 40s through early 60s can be charged less than their morbidity risk profile would warrant.