"Obamacare found Constitutional"

This was written in December, but makes for an interesting read from a guy who thinks single-payer system is on its way:

The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/

  Quote

That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

  On 7/2/2012 at 8:31 PM, goDel said:

 

 

@gmanyo: because Taiwan, through the eyes of the US, is a communist "country".

Um no it's not.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/28/dont-buy-the-gop-narrative-that-obamacare-is-a-tax-on-middle-class-its-a-lie-designed-to-mislead/

Don't Buy The GOP Narrative That Obamacare Is A Tax On Middle Class-It's A Lie Designed To Mislead

  Quote

“Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time getting to the floor of the Senate to argue that today’s Supreme Court ruling clarifies that Obamacare is nothing more than a tax on the middle class which—according to McConnell—is precisely what the Administration and Congressional Democrats promised it was not.

Leader McConnell, and his fellow Republicans, should read the Majority ruling before they embarrass themselves further.

In the opening paragraphs of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, he clarifies that the law specificallydoes not involve a tax. If it did, Roberts clarifies, the Court would have had no choice but to reject the case for lack of jurisdiction as a tax case cannot be brought until someone is actually forced to pay the tax. This is, as we know, not the case.

 

The fact that the Court found that the mandate was constitutional under the taxing authority granted Congress by the Constitution is an entirely different matter. This finding does not reduce the individual mandate to the status of a tax—it merely says that as the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance will fall to the Internal Revenue Service for collection, it was something Congress could provide for under its Constitutional authority.

(...more from Rick Ungar...)

Wow and that was in Forbes.

Ironically, the best information I could find about the content of the Act is in the wiki. I don't expect any information coming from the media/washington other than confusion, contradiction and hearsay.

It's all here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Since we're pasting Forbes articles.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

  Quote

 

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

 

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

 

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

Damn, that piece is over a year old. And it already mentions that it's a TAX. Justice Roberts reads Forbes perhaps?

the funny thing is the republicans are only against obamacare because it has "obama" in front of it. they have taken mindless contrarianism to the next level in the past few years. since the 70s the republican party has been moving further and further to the right, and the democrats have been shifting to the right as well so as not to appear liberal. lately though it's gotten to the point that the republican party has moved so far to the right that I don't think even most of them like where they are. they've got fox news to act as the gop propaganda channel, and cnn and the rest of the "liberal" media to keep the myth of centrism alive. people think that the truth lies somewhere between the two parties' rhetoric, and that both sides are just as bad, but that's not the case. we've got one essentially centrist party (the democrats) and one batshit bugnut insane party.

Azatoth, which constitution is better than the American one?

As Bill Maher put it, if Obama complimented the face of a Republican they would shoot it off.

  On 7/3/2012 at 11:05 AM, chunky said:

Azatoth, which constitution is better than the American one?

I don't know, I am not that well versed in the worlds constitutions. As I repeatedly said I am not saying the US constitution is bad, just the over the top worship of it that I find odd. Pretty sure the constitutions of most modern democracies are pretty on par with the US constitution, but you don't see us harping on about it, do you?

another point I wanted to make is that the media, led by fox news, set the stage for the supreme court to overrule obamacare. if not for them, there was no way the conservative justices would have had the balls to declare it unconstitutional. scalia spouted fox news talking points from the fucking bench. they started with the desired outcome, then used whatever tortured logic necessary to justify it. what a joke.

I like that conservatives whine about activist judges when they are against their opinions, but stay quiet when Scalia and has lapdog Thomas are as good as GOP shills. But I guess hypocrisy is part of the politics.

  On 7/3/2012 at 11:18 AM, azatoth said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 11:05 AM, chunky said:

Azatoth, which constitution is better than the American one?

 

I don't know, I am not that well versed in the worlds constitutions. As I repeatedly said I am not saying the US constitution is bad, just the over the top worship of it that I find odd. Pretty sure the constitutions of most modern democracies are pretty on par with the US constitution, but you don't see us harping on about it, do you?

Yeah, it can be slightly annoying to watch the masses praise something that they don't understand on an intellectual level. But, that doesn't mean it's exactly wrong for them to trust their instincts. America is a prosperous and independent country, it is strong and there is a strong sense of justice and freedom involved in its history. They're lucky that they don't share borders with any country that is stronger than them, sharing a border with the sea can be very useful. And their constitution has helped them along pretty well over a 200 year period which has mostly been peaceful and prosperous within their own borders. For a country that doesn't have a monarchy, there needs to be an alternative source of stability over a long period of time. A president can only serve two terms, which makes it easier to stop the government from acting in a tyrannical way. But there's a weakness in that people live long lives and pass things on down the generations, so they need a reference point to guide how they act in the future. In my opinion the American constitution is a pretty good second best to having a monarchy as it has stood the test of time and it has guaranteed freedom of speech to American people. The point I was trying to make about Nazis and Communism is that Russia and Germany had monarchies that guaranteed stability for their people, once those monarchies had fallen in 1917 and 1918, the people of these countries were lost in a mess of trying to invent new systems to guide them, and it didn't work very well. The test of the American constitution being great is the success and independence of America. If we judge the constitution of say, Malta, then we can see it was only written 50 years ago and it cannot really be tested, as Malta is a small island that depends on other regional powers for its sovereignty. Malta used to depend on the British empire, now it depends on the European Union (Germany), so its constitution is merely a piece of paper rather than a tried and tested defence against tyranny. The best way of putting it, is that people don't just love the constitution, they fear what their country would be like without it.

  On 7/3/2012 at 12:05 AM, Frankie5fingers said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 12:02 AM, gmanyo said:

I think the problem is in part the constitution. If anything the incorrect interpretations are the things saving America; if we interpreted it how it was meant to be interpreted then things wouldn't work out to well considering how much change everything has gone through.

like what for example?

Gun laws. People are trying to defend their right to own guns and frankly this right is very constitutional. The ability to get weapons and make a militia made sense when the constitution was written; people were very afraid of the government turning on them and going back to what they had in Britain, and back in that day the peoples' militias might have actually had a chance against a government turned sour. But now the military is so strong it wouldn't help; protecting the right to own guns just makes things really dangerous. People argue "It's in the constitution! I can have a gun!" but they don't realize that their reason for owning a gun has nothing to do with why that amendment was put in the Constitution. But it's in there, and it's messing things up.

  On 7/3/2012 at 12:03 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 12:02 AM, gmanyo said:

how it was meant to be interpreted

???

I mean the original intent of the authors, which is, in my opinion, what we should strive to understand.

  On 7/3/2012 at 12:00 PM, chunky said:

A president can only serve two terms, which makes it easier to stop the government from acting in a tyrannical way.

That statement doesnt even make sense. What the fuck kind of crack are you on?

Remember this?

This thread seems to be filled with nothing but empty rhetoric and desperate statements made for the sake of arguing. Regurgitated drivel under the guise of personal opinions. Typical college-age debate.

Yeah that's what I was thinking. I mean none of you guys make music and have phd's in political science?

What's the deal with that?

  On 7/3/2012 at 2:44 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 12:00 PM, chunky said:

A president can only serve two terms, which makes it easier to stop the government from acting in a tyrannical way.

 

That statement doesnt even make sense. What the fuck kind of crack are you on?

 

Remember this?

 

 

This thread seems to be filled with nothing but empty rhetoric and desperate statements made for the sake of arguing. Regurgitated drivel under the guise of personal opinions. Typical college-age debate.

So then add something smart.

  On 7/3/2012 at 2:52 PM, gmanyo said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 2:44 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 12:00 PM, chunky said:

A president can only serve two terms, which makes it easier to stop the government from acting in a tyrannical way.

 

That statement doesnt even make sense. What the fuck kind of crack are you on?

 

Remember this?

 

 

This thread seems to be filled with nothing but empty rhetoric and desperate statements made for the sake of arguing. Regurgitated drivel under the guise of personal opinions. Typical college-age debate.

 

So then add something smart.

My "smart" is everyone else's "conspiracy theory"

And just to add...I'm not saying anything about anyone in here not being smart.

Well I want to hear it! Conspiracy theories are badass anyway.

  On 7/3/2012 at 11:13 AM, azatoth said:

As Bill Maher put it, if Obama complimented the face of a Republican they would shoot it off.

LOL sometimes that guy is right on the money with his commentary.

  On 7/3/2012 at 2:44 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 7/3/2012 at 12:00 PM, chunky said:

A president can only serve two terms, which makes it easier to stop the government from acting in a tyrannical way.

 

That statement doesnt even make sense. What the fuck kind of crack are you on?

 

Remember this?

 

 

This thread seems to be filled with nothing but empty rhetoric and desperate statements made for the sake of arguing. Regurgitated drivel under the guise of personal opinions. Typical college-age debate.

What's that, Waco? I wrote "makes it easier" not that it's an absolute protection. The rest of your argument is a list of insults, and a good description of yourself

  On 7/3/2012 at 6:52 AM, The Overlook said:

http://www.forbes.co...ned-to-mislead/

 

 

Don't Buy The GOP Narrative That Obamacare Is A Tax On Middle Class-It's A Lie Designed To Mislead

 

 

  Quote

“Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time getting to the floor of the Senate to argue that today’s Supreme Court ruling clarifies that Obamacare is nothing more than a tax on the middle class which—according to McConnell—is precisely what the Administration and Congressional Democrats promised it was not.

 

Leader McConnell, and his fellow Republicans, should read the Majority ruling before they embarrass themselves further.

 

In the opening paragraphs of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, he clarifies that the law specificallydoes not involve a tax. If it did, Roberts clarifies, the Court would have had no choice but to reject the case for lack of jurisdiction as a tax case cannot be brought until someone is actually forced to pay the tax. This is, as we know, not the case.

 

 

The fact that the Court found that the mandate was constitutional under the taxing authority granted Congress by the Constitution is an entirely different matter. This finding does not reduce the individual mandate to the status of a tax—it merely says that as the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance will fall to the Internal Revenue Service for collection, it was something Congress could provide for under its Constitutional authority.

 

 

(...more from Rick Ungar...)

is it just me or is this person arguing pointless semantics and the bill is still, essentially, robbing the middle class?

i don't see why the government had to put in a penalty instead of a reward. maybe instead of fining people for not having insurance, they could give some extra tax return or something to people that do buy insurance?

its easy to say people are pandering ignorant idiots on an issue than to actually take the time and the wit to back it up.

If you want to talk about Obama war crimes or the Illuminati, start another thread. That isn't what this one is about. But my guess is that you didn't take the time to read the first post or most of the posts after it, and instead got your dick hard on posting some reactionary "down with the system" shit. I used to tolerate some of that in good nature because I happen to agree with some of it. But you are guilty of empty posturing far more than anyone else Ive seen post in here.

Hoodie: thats absolutely what I thought..call it a tax or a penalty, its still forcing middle-class citizens to pay for something.