I proved you wrong. He found it legal as a tax. It's in black and white, I even quoted the part. And you're still trying to deny it. That takes a special level of obtuseness, I'm actually kind of impressed.
No, because I have better things to spend my money on. I have a device that tells time on me at all times. Why pay for a second? And why pay hundreds or thousands for a "good" one when you can get one that tells time just as well for $20?
I also don't want a BMW. I have a 12 year old Ford that still runs great (40K miles on it). I plan on keeping it for another decade unless it starts breaking down. If I had to replace it I'd be looking for reliability and cost, which aren't BMWs strong points.
Your proof is invalid. Roberts found it isn't valid under the commerce clause. He found that it WAS constitutional under Congress's authority to tax. That means it's Constitutional. See page 4 of your own link, section 4: "CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part IIIâ"C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congressâ(TM)s power under the Taxing Clause" Therefor it's constitutional.
Thanks for playing. Seeing as you can't even read your own sources, I'm going to stop arguing with you- you'll obviously accept any excuse to continue to believe what you want to believe.
Hell, one of the advantages of even a dumb phone was that it had a clock on it. I threw out my watch the day I brought home my first cell phone. Why would I want a fragile piece of electronics on my wrist where it will just get bumped, damaged, and catch the hair on my wrists when I can keep something in my pocket? Watches are dead and good riddance.
Once again, no proof. Please point me out where in the majority opinion it states that. You can't, because you're completely wrong.
As for being silly- your entire argument supports me. You say that throwing out a part of a law is counter to the will of Congress. Throwing out a whole law is even more so. If the part of the law found unconstitutional is a minor part of it, it's closer to the will of Congress to toss out that part than the whole thing. That's what the SCOTUS has to balance. The idea that they should throw out months of Congress's work because of a problem with a minor part of it is utterly asinine, and has NEVER been a constraint on SCOTUS. If your view is that SCOTUS should attempt to not overrule the will of Congress, then the ability to strike parts of a law is absolutely necessary. This is hardly the first time they've done so, and won't be the last.
Because you're 100% wrong. Show me where in the majority opinion it says that. You can't, because it doesn't. And it's the majority opinion that states what is and isn't constitutional. There is no such thing as the supreme court ruling that something is unconstitutional but allowed- its either constitutional or it is overturned. No third path.
As for your opinions on the power of the court- sorry. If you want to argue that they don't have the ability to strike down part of the law because it isn't in the Constitution, then you have to argue they don't have the ability at all. If they can strike down all of it, then there's no reason they can't strike down part. Either you're going to play strict constructionist or not.
Sure it is. When did you ever get to choose who was covered by your insurance company or not? You just don't give a fuck if people live or die, so long as you get to keep a few extra bucks, and you're willing to keep making up bullshit to rationalize it to yourself. Go fuck off and die.
First off, I didn't cite low rates as evidence Obamacare reduced costs. I didn't talk about it reducing costs at all. Strawman much?
Here's the facts:
1)The insurance companies choose to enter or not enter the exchange. 2)If they enter it, they think they can make money on it (averaged over the pool, of course) 3)They get to set their own rates, even for the exchange. So if they set a rate of X, that means they think they can make money on a rate of X. 4)The rates they're setting are the same as they charge for group plans elsewhere. So they've been making money at this rate.
So that means there is no subsidization, just the normal risk sharing that comes with insurance. So take your completely idiotic talking points elsewhere.
Again, they did not. They upheld it despite finding it unconstitutional.
No such thing. They found it constitutional. Sorry if you dislike that, but they did.
Funnily enough, its not even the first time its done so. In 1798 Congress required all active sailors to purchase private health insurance. That too was found constitutional.
Nope. Remember that insurance companies had to choose to put their plans in here. If they chose to do so, that means they were making a profit on doing so (and trust me, the insurance company has done the math- they are making a profit).
What's happening is I'm getting a group rate. This is the same rate my employer would be paying for me if I was getting employer based coverage. Nobody is subsidizing this- it's a rate that the insurance company profits at. They just aren't profiting as obscenely. Less profit != subsidizing.
No, it happens for the whole House every 2 years. It happens for 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years (plus or minus a few, depending on deaths/retirements of sitting senators). So of 532 congressmen, all but 67 are up every cycle. The real problem is gerrymandering- many are in such safe districts that not only can the other party not beat them, but that their only risk is from people even more extreme, forcing them to act more extreme than their actual beliefs.
No, the supreme court found the Individual Mandate constitutional. They also found the Medicaid expansion constitutional, what they found unconstitutional was the part that penalized states who didn't implement it. That was the part stripped. Which is why some states chose not to implement it, even though the federal government was paying for it.
Funny thing about the supreme court- they may have no authority to cancel part of a law, but they also have no authority to say a law is constitutional or not. They took that authority onto themselves, as part of Marbury v Madison. If they hadn't done so, there would be no power capable of determining that and Congress would be able to pass and the president enforce any law, Constitutional or not (for a great example, see the Alien and Sedition acts of the early 1800s). The right to cancel part of a law is pretty much necessary to do that job- if a bill has a tiny portion that's illegal, it's much closer to what Congress wanted to cancel part of it than all of it. If Congress then wants to tweak or get rid of the law in response they have that power. Two flaws in the Constitution that we've patched without official amendment.
Half the current congress does want to fund it. So does the executive branch. Sorry, you do not get to whine and throw tantrums every time you don't get everything you want.
If things were reversed and the Democrats decided... say not to send any funds to any state that votes for a Republican in the next election would that be ok with you? Or maybe decided not to pass a budget or CR unless gay marriage is made legal nationwide?
By the way, polls show that 72% of Americans say this is the wrong way to go about things. That includes 49% of Republicans, with only 48% approving. So not even the people you claim to represent go along with you.
The IT community tends to go to both extremes. There's a libertarian faction that's larger than in the general population. There's a liberal faction that's much larger than that, and again larger than the population. The rest seems to fall more or less in the middle. The tea party and neo-con factions tend to be smaller than normal.
The thing is that the IT libertarians are vocal, and used to be numerous on slashdot. But go into any IT department and poll and you'll see more liberals than anything else.
I have a 6 figure income, I'm not being subsidized. In fact, I checked the box that said not to apply for a tax credit (because I don't qualify, and shouldn't qualify). Although I was off slightly, it started at $120 for the cheapest insurance plan.
I wouldn't want to live there long term, but for a company that hires as many new college grads and relocations as they do- it may be cheaper long term than renting them rooms for a transition period- corporate hosuing is expensive.
Actually they start at $100, which would be cheaper than any insurance copay I've ever had working at a corporation. I can get really nice insurance for $250ish.
There is, it doesn't seem to be working- it tries to tell me to read some update page and won't go past that step. Quite possibly they just won't switch that part on til morning when their IT staff comes in. Oh well, I'll just have to sign up then.
Ask me in 3-5 years. It hasn't even been fully implemented yet. The majority of it comes into law on Jan 1. How can it be bringing down costs when only a tiny portion of it is running, and the most important part (exchanges) aren't on yet.
Seeing as the US is the only nation in the world with this problem, yes we can afford it. Seeing as we're also the richest nation on earth, yes we can afford it. If need be then we spend less on luxuries. Life isn't a luxury. The ability to live without pain isn't a luxury.
This is a good system because it means everyone can afford insurance more easily and nobody should be going bankrupt for lack of insurance. There's better systems out there- just see Canada or anywhere in Europe. But damn near anything is better than what we had. And unless we vote a liberal supermajority into Congress we won't get better (note: not democratic.The democratic party includes liberals, but also includes too many moderates, especially in more conservative states, who would not vote for a complete overhaul).
Yup, because that raise in premiums was really the effect of the ACA. Newsflash: health insurance premiums rose an average of 13% every year from 1999-2009. Source: http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2009/7937.pdf
So yeah, I HIGHLY doubt that the ACA caused even a penny of that increase. If it did, it was because some exec there said "Hey, we can claim the ACA is causing us to raise rates and raise them even more than usual."
Slashdot Mirror
I proved you wrong. He found it legal as a tax. It's in black and white, I even quoted the part. And you're still trying to deny it. That takes a special level of obtuseness, I'm actually kind of impressed.
TV product? You mean the already existing (and nobody much buying) AppleTV?
No, because I have better things to spend my money on. I have a device that tells time on me at all times. Why pay for a second? And why pay hundreds or thousands for a "good" one when you can get one that tells time just as well for $20?
I also don't want a BMW. I have a 12 year old Ford that still runs great (40K miles on it). I plan on keeping it for another decade unless it starts breaking down. If I had to replace it I'd be looking for reliability and cost, which aren't BMWs strong points.
Your proof is invalid. Roberts found it isn't valid under the commerce clause. He found that it WAS constitutional under Congress's authority to tax. That means it's Constitutional. See page 4 of your own link, section 4: "CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part IIIâ"C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congressâ(TM)s power under the Taxing Clause" Therefor it's constitutional.
Thanks for playing. Seeing as you can't even read your own sources, I'm going to stop arguing with you- you'll obviously accept any excuse to continue to believe what you want to believe.
Hell, one of the advantages of even a dumb phone was that it had a clock on it. I threw out my watch the day I brought home my first cell phone. Why would I want a fragile piece of electronics on my wrist where it will just get bumped, damaged, and catch the hair on my wrists when I can keep something in my pocket? Watches are dead and good riddance.
Once again, no proof. Please point me out where in the majority opinion it states that. You can't, because you're completely wrong.
As for being silly- your entire argument supports me. You say that throwing out a part of a law is counter to the will of Congress. Throwing out a whole law is even more so. If the part of the law found unconstitutional is a minor part of it, it's closer to the will of Congress to toss out that part than the whole thing. That's what the SCOTUS has to balance. The idea that they should throw out months of Congress's work because of a problem with a minor part of it is utterly asinine, and has NEVER been a constraint on SCOTUS. If your view is that SCOTUS should attempt to not overrule the will of Congress, then the ability to strike parts of a law is absolutely necessary. This is hardly the first time they've done so, and won't be the last.
Because you're 100% wrong. Show me where in the majority opinion it says that. You can't, because it doesn't. And it's the majority opinion that states what is and isn't constitutional. There is no such thing as the supreme court ruling that something is unconstitutional but allowed- its either constitutional or it is overturned. No third path.
As for your opinions on the power of the court- sorry. If you want to argue that they don't have the ability to strike down part of the law because it isn't in the Constitution, then you have to argue they don't have the ability at all. If they can strike down all of it, then there's no reason they can't strike down part. Either you're going to play strict constructionist or not.
Sure it is. When did you ever get to choose who was covered by your insurance company or not? You just don't give a fuck if people live or die, so long as you get to keep a few extra bucks, and you're willing to keep making up bullshit to rationalize it to yourself. Go fuck off and die.
First off, I didn't cite low rates as evidence Obamacare reduced costs. I didn't talk about it reducing costs at all. Strawman much?
Here's the facts:
1)The insurance companies choose to enter or not enter the exchange.
2)If they enter it, they think they can make money on it (averaged over the pool, of course)
3)They get to set their own rates, even for the exchange. So if they set a rate of X, that means they think they can make money on a rate of X.
4)The rates they're setting are the same as they charge for group plans elsewhere. So they've been making money at this rate.
So that means there is no subsidization, just the normal risk sharing that comes with insurance. So take your completely idiotic talking points elsewhere.
No such thing. They found it constitutional. Sorry if you dislike that, but they did.
Funnily enough, its not even the first time its done so. In 1798 Congress required all active sailors to purchase private health insurance. That too was found constitutional.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/
So is overriding only a small part of a large law as unconstitutional. Finding they have 1 power without the other is ridiculous.
Nope. Remember that insurance companies had to choose to put their plans in here. If they chose to do so, that means they were making a profit on doing so (and trust me, the insurance company has done the math- they are making a profit).
What's happening is I'm getting a group rate. This is the same rate my employer would be paying for me if I was getting employer based coverage. Nobody is subsidizing this- it's a rate that the insurance company profits at. They just aren't profiting as obscenely. Less profit != subsidizing.
No, it happens for the whole House every 2 years. It happens for 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years (plus or minus a few, depending on deaths/retirements of sitting senators). So of 532 congressmen, all but 67 are up every cycle. The real problem is gerrymandering- many are in such safe districts that not only can the other party not beat them, but that their only risk is from people even more extreme, forcing them to act more extreme than their actual beliefs.
There actually are ways to try and get around Boehner. See http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/breaking-democrats-to-discharge-gop-bill-to-end-shutdown/?pos=ebn
It's going to require about 20 republicans to break off the horde, but that's actually a possibility at this time.
No, the supreme court found the Individual Mandate constitutional. They also found the Medicaid expansion constitutional, what they found unconstitutional was the part that penalized states who didn't implement it. That was the part stripped. Which is why some states chose not to implement it, even though the federal government was paying for it.
Funny thing about the supreme court- they may have no authority to cancel part of a law, but they also have no authority to say a law is constitutional or not. They took that authority onto themselves, as part of Marbury v Madison. If they hadn't done so, there would be no power capable of determining that and Congress would be able to pass and the president enforce any law, Constitutional or not (for a great example, see the Alien and Sedition acts of the early 1800s). The right to cancel part of a law is pretty much necessary to do that job- if a bill has a tiny portion that's illegal, it's much closer to what Congress wanted to cancel part of it than all of it. If Congress then wants to tweak or get rid of the law in response they have that power. Two flaws in the Constitution that we've patched without official amendment.
Half the current congress does want to fund it. So does the executive branch. Sorry, you do not get to whine and throw tantrums every time you don't get everything you want.
If things were reversed and the Democrats decided... say not to send any funds to any state that votes for a Republican in the next election would that be ok with you? Or maybe decided not to pass a budget or CR unless gay marriage is made legal nationwide?
By the way, polls show that 72% of Americans say this is the wrong way to go about things. That includes 49% of Republicans, with only 48% approving. So not even the people you claim to represent go along with you.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605822/poll-americans-not-happy-about-shutdown-more-blame-gop/
The IT community tends to go to both extremes. There's a libertarian faction that's larger than in the general population. There's a liberal faction that's much larger than that, and again larger than the population. The rest seems to fall more or less in the middle. The tea party and neo-con factions tend to be smaller than normal.
The thing is that the IT libertarians are vocal, and used to be numerous on slashdot. But go into any IT department and poll and you'll see more liberals than anything else.
I have a 6 figure income, I'm not being subsidized. In fact, I checked the box that said not to apply for a tax credit (because I don't qualify, and shouldn't qualify). Although I was off slightly, it started at $120 for the cheapest insurance plan.
I wouldn't want to live there long term, but for a company that hires as many new college grads and relocations as they do- it may be cheaper long term than renting them rooms for a transition period- corporate hosuing is expensive.
And come away very disappointed. I tried that in my 20s, I found a bunch of 50 year old women, and 1 or 2 15 year olds. Nothing in between.
Actually they start at $100, which would be cheaper than any insurance copay I've ever had working at a corporation. I can get really nice insurance for $250ish.
There is, it doesn't seem to be working- it tries to tell me to read some update page and won't go past that step. Quite possibly they just won't switch that part on til morning when their IT staff comes in. Oh well, I'll just have to sign up then.
You're on the wrong site anyway. Exchanges are state by state, you should be on the state's website.
Ask me in 3-5 years. It hasn't even been fully implemented yet. The majority of it comes into law on Jan 1. How can it be bringing down costs when only a tiny portion of it is running, and the most important part (exchanges) aren't on yet.
Seeing as the US is the only nation in the world with this problem, yes we can afford it. Seeing as we're also the richest nation on earth, yes we can afford it. If need be then we spend less on luxuries. Life isn't a luxury. The ability to live without pain isn't a luxury.
This is a good system because it means everyone can afford insurance more easily and nobody should be going bankrupt for lack of insurance. There's better systems out there- just see Canada or anywhere in Europe. But damn near anything is better than what we had. And unless we vote a liberal supermajority into Congress we won't get better (note: not democratic.The democratic party includes liberals, but also includes too many moderates, especially in more conservative states, who would not vote for a complete overhaul).
Yup, because that raise in premiums was really the effect of the ACA. Newsflash: health insurance premiums rose an average of 13% every year from 1999-2009. Source: http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2009/7937.pdf
Also out of pocket costs were increasing 5% a year on top of that. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62O1DJ20100325
So yeah, I HIGHLY doubt that the ACA caused even a penny of that increase. If it did, it was because some exec there said "Hey, we can claim the ACA is causing us to raise rates and raise them even more than usual."