Obamacare's Doom

[shrubnose]

Seems like this site needs an entire Obamacare Doom Predictions sub-forum. Below the Religious Discussions forum perhaps?

It would fit just fine in the partisan conspiracy theory section.

 

[shrubnose]

I know there are a good number of folks hoping that is the case. But I don't see it in the near future.

I think this case has daddy longlegs and will be headed to the Supremes soon.

That's your opinion which you are entitled to and I strongly disagree with.

 

[vesper]

I will believe it when I see. Correct me if I am wrong this was so long ago. The way I understand the Senate took a previous bill passed by the House and used its shell to write it own version of the ACA.

The Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for Obamacare - Jack M. Balkin - The Atlantic

here is a paragraph

The House passed a version of health care reform on November 7, 2009, and sent it to the Senate. Senators wanted to produce their own bill. The Origination Clause, however, requires that all bills for raising revenue must begin in the House, and health care reform included many new taxes, including the individual mandate. So the Senate amended another tax bill that the House had recently passed: H.R. 3590, which changed the taxation rules for servicemen and women buying new homes. It struck out the text of the existing bill, and inserted its new proposal as an amendment. This procedural maneuver is called using a "shell bill." This version of health care reform passed the Senate 60-39 on December 24, 2009.

Another paragraph:


In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. in 1911, the Senate took a House tariff bill with an inheritance tax, jettisoned the inheritance tax, and substituted the nation's first corporate income tax. The Court said that was perfectly fine: "The bill having properly originated in the House, we perceive no reason in the constitutional provision relied upon why it may not be amended in the Senate in the manner which it was in this case. The amendment was germane to the subject-matter of the bill, and not beyond the power of the Senate to propose." The Court didn't explain why the addition of a corporate income tax was germane to a tariff bill or to an inheritance tax, other than the fact that all three were provisions "for raising Revenue" under the meaning of the Constitution.

Although I am adamantly against the ACA for the way it was passed, using a shell to do it is just one of many reasons with the main reason is even in 2009/10 time frame the majority of all Americans were opposed to it as they are today. But I do not think the SCOTUS will rule the law unconstitutional for the reasons George Will says. I will hope and pray George is right, but I serious doubt it.

The ACA represents to me a triumph of party agenda over the will over the people, so I will never change being opposed to it. But as the old saying goes, I think George Will is peeing in the wind. Chances are his pants will end up being all wet.

Morning Perotista,

Thanks for your reply but we will have to disagree on Will's pants being wet.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You make a very good point and legislating from the bench is a real problem. But staying focused on what we are dealing with today and this latest challenge making its way to the Supremes is a constitutionally sound one.

The court has an easy out by declaring that the initiating party lacks standing.

 

[polgara]

I will believe it when I see. Correct me if I am wrong this was so long ago. The way I understand the Senate took a previous bill passed by the House and used its shell to write it own version of the ACA.

The Right Strikes Back: A New Legal Challenge for Obamacare - Jack M. Balkin - The Atlantic

here is a paragraph

The House passed a version of health care reform on November 7, 2009, and sent it to the Senate. Senators wanted to produce their own bill. The Origination Clause, however, requires that all bills for raising revenue must begin in the House, and health care reform included many new taxes, including the individual mandate. So the Senate amended another tax bill that the House had recently passed: H.R. 3590, which changed the taxation rules for servicemen and women buying new homes. It struck out the text of the existing bill, and inserted its new proposal as an amendment. This procedural maneuver is called using a "shell bill." This version of health care reform passed the Senate 60-39 on December 24, 2009.

Another paragraph:


In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. in 1911, the Senate took a House tariff bill with an inheritance tax, jettisoned the inheritance tax, and substituted the nation's first corporate income tax. The Court said that was perfectly fine: "The bill having properly originated in the House, we perceive no reason in the constitutional provision relied upon why it may not be amended in the Senate in the manner which it was in this case. The amendment was germane to the subject-matter of the bill, and not beyond the power of the Senate to propose." The Court didn't explain why the addition of a corporate income tax was germane to a tariff bill or to an inheritance tax, other than the fact that all three were provisions "for raising Revenue" under the meaning of the Constitution.

Although I am adamantly against the ACA for the way it was passed, using a shell to do it is just one of many reasons with the main reason is even in 2009/10 time frame the majority of all Americans were opposed to it as they are today. But I do not think the SCOTUS will rule the law unconstitutional for the reasons George Will says. I will hope and pray George is right, but I serious doubt it.

The ACA represents to me a triumph of party agenda over the will over the people, so I will never change being opposed to it. But as the old saying goes, I think George Will is peeing in the wind. Chances are his pants will end up being all wet.

Now we are seeing exactly how an "amendment" can work to one party's advantage! I never thought that the entire intent of the original could be changed, but apparently it can. In your example of Flint vs Stone Tracy Co, a house Tariff bill with an inheritance tax suddenly became a corporate income tax. How can a corporation ever leave an inheritance to anyone? Live and learn... :thumbdown:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

 

[Rainman05]

This is not going to happen.

Wait and see.

You know who benefits most from obamacare? the same people who benefit most from medicare and medicaid. Senior citizens.
What is a big proportion of the republican voting base? Senior citizens.

I can understand the outrage of small businesses who didn't offer healthcare coverage to employees because now they kinda have to. By law. So that's an issue indeed. But you know what pisses me off more, and what should piss off americans more? The fact that a lot of companies, the big ones that buy politicians, got write-offs or suspensions from having to comform to the law just like the small businesses who don't get special privileges coz they don't own congressmen. That would really piss me off.

If I were a republican, which I would probably be if I were american, I would have, right after the whole fiasco in november with the failed launch and all that, I would push for universal healthcare and call it as I said in the comment on the first page, "patriotic healthcare". I'd promote it as the healthcare plan that would protect our veterans who are not getting the benefits they need and deserve. I'd go and say it'd cut spending if we implement it because the USA is the country that spends the most on healthcare from the industrialized world and all the world really. Twice what France does. But ofc, I wouldn't bring France into the discussion I'd just hammer on how patriotic it would be.

I'd say it would give instant coverage to all people under 26 regardless of whether the parents work or not. A step up from the failure that is obamacare which allows parents to use their insurance to treat their kids because if the parents ain't working, they got no insurance.

I'd say it would bring costs down on life saving operations. Which it would because it would be a federal program. So every company that wants to sell drugs or medical equipment to the US market, would have to deal with the federal govt and they wouldn't have the same leverage as they do when they deal with hospitals as they do now or the state for state hospitals.

I'd say it's businessfriendly because aside from bringing the spending down, it would also allow companies to buy cheaper insurance for their employees than they have to do now. Coz they have to buy from the private insurance companies while the state could give them very generous offers, much better than they do now.
I work as a programmer and I pay 3% of my income to healthcare but my employer has to pay twice the amount I do for my healthcare. So lets say if that wouldn't happen, I'd have to pay 9%. It's still a lot less than what companies are paying now in america because you saw the figures. A lot of companies are saying they're dropping 20% of their workforce to make up for the rising costs. That's because they have to buy private insurance which can skin them alive. The govt has no interest in doing that. And a strong company lobby, like there are in the USA, could make even more favorable arrangements. Like tax breaks or such. So it works for the companies.

All in all, the republicans are letting it slip through their hands the chance to just crush the democrats in 2016 and 10 elections thereafter. All the individual items that are implemented in obamacare, the fact that people can make insurances despite previous conditions, the fact that parents can put their kids under their insurance for no extra cost, for the fact that women don't get higher insurance costs coz they're women, the cheaper drugs and better access to medical supervision and ALL that, all those items individually poll positive with the people. They all think it's a good idea. But the moment you say "obamacare" it's OMG, the boogeyman. Even democrats hate obamacare that's how much bad PR it got. But everyone likes whats in it. Well, everyone from the common people.

 

[vesper]

The court has an easy out by declaring that the initiating party lacks standing.

:lol: I guess that is always a possibility but considering it was two years ago the Supremes saved Obamacare by declaring its penalty to be a tax is what constitutionally doomed it by violating the origination clause. The one bringing the case is a small business man who is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigates for limited government. He neither has nor wants health insurance, preferring to invest his limited resources in his business. He objects to the Obamacare's mandate that requires him to purchase it or pay the penalty. I'd say his case has just as much standing as anyone else on the basis of the law being unconstitutional.

 

[shrubnose]

You know who benefits most from obamacare? the same people who benefit most from medicare and medicaid. Senior citizens.
What is a big proportion of the republican voting base? Senior citizens.

I can understand the outrage of small businesses who didn't offer healthcare coverage to employees because now they kinda have to. By law. So that's an issue indeed. But you know what pisses me off more, and what should piss off americans more? The fact that a lot of companies, the big ones that buy politicians, got write-offs or suspensions from having to comform to the law just like the small businesses who don't get special privileges coz they don't own congressmen. That would really piss me off.

If I were a republican, which I would probably be if I were american, I would have, right after the whole fiasco in november with the failed launch and all that, I would push for universal healthcare and call it as I said in the comment on the first page, "patriotic healthcare". I'd promote it as the healthcare plan that would protect our veterans who are not getting the benefits they need and deserve. I'd go and say it'd cut spending if we implement it because the USA is the country that spends the most on healthcare from the industrialized world and all the world really. Twice what France does. But ofc, I wouldn't bring France into the discussion I'd just hammer on how patriotic it would be.

I'd say it would give instant coverage to all people under 26 regardless of whether the parents work or not. A step up from the failure that is obamacare which allows parents to use their insurance to treat their kids because if the parents ain't working, they got no insurance.

I'd say it would bring costs down on life saving operations. Which it would because it would be a federal program. So every company that wants to sell drugs or medical equipment to the US market, would have to deal with the federal govt and they wouldn't have the same leverage as they do when they deal with hospitals as they do now or the state for state hospitals.

I'd say it's businessfriendly because aside from bringing the spending down, it would also allow companies to buy cheaper insurance for their employees than they have to do now. Coz they have to buy from the private insurance companies while the state could give them very generous offers, much better than they do now.
I work as a programmer and I pay 3% of my income to healthcare but my employer has to pay twice the amount I do for my healthcare. So lets say if that wouldn't happen, I'd have to pay 9%. It's still a lot less than what companies are paying now in america because you saw the figures. A lot of companies are saying they're dropping 20% of their workforce to make up for the rising costs. That's because they have to buy private insurance which can skin them alive. The govt has no interest in doing that. And a strong company lobby, like there are in the USA, could make even more favorable arrangements. Like tax breaks or such. So it works for the companies.

All in all, the republicans are letting it slip through their hands the chance to just crush the democrats in 2016 and 10 elections thereafter. All the individual items that are implemented in obamacare, the fact that people can make insurances despite previous conditions, the fact that parents can put their kids under their insurance for no extra cost, for the fact that women don't get higher insurance costs coz they're women, the cheaper drugs and better access to medical supervision and ALL that, all those items individually poll positive with the people. They all think it's a good idea.

But the moment you say "obamacare" it's OMG, the boogeyman.

Even democrats hate obamacare that's how much bad PR it got. But everyone likes whats in it. Well, everyone from the common people.

Correct.

If Obama made it rain cookies some people on the right would be complaining about a milk shortage.

Some people in the USA will never be happy no matter what Obama does or doesn't do.

I ignore most of those people.

 

[ttwtt78640]

:lol: I guess that is always a possibility but considering it was two years ago the Supremes saved Obamacare by declaring its penalty to be a tax is what constitutionally doomed it by violating the origination clause. The one bringing the case is a small business man who is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigates for limited government. He neither has nor wants health insurance, preferring to invest his limited resources in his business. He objects to the Obamacare's mandate that requires him to purchase it or pay the penalty. I'd say his case has just as much standing as anyone else on the basis of the law being unconstitutional.

The employer mandate has been "delayed" so what is the beef? Without having been fined (taxed?) what are his damages to give him standing? It seems impossible to sue based on principle.

 

[vesper]

The employer mandate has been "delayed" so what is the beef? Without having been fined (taxed?) what are his damages to give him standing? It seems impossible to sue based on principle.

Delayed by the Obama administration abusing powers to rewrite a law. Where were the principles on that one? Not to mention delayed only means in 2016 he will be forced to comply. Actually the actions of Obama to take it upon himself to abuse his powers to rewrite the law could actually play into the unconstitutionality of it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Delayed by the Obama administration abusing powers to rewrite a law. Where were the principles on that one? Not to mention delayed only means in 2016 he will be forced to comply. Actually the actions of Obama to take it upon himself to abuse his powers to rewrite the law could actually play into the unconstitutionality of it.

That is an apples to cinder blocks comparison; because Obama did X the congress is guilty of Y?

 

[Perotista]

Morning Perotista,

Thanks for your reply but we will have to disagree on Will's pants being wet.

Roger that, I hope you are right and I am wrong. But contrary to most here on DP, I tend to live in the world of reality. I have been disappointed way too many times by the rulings of the SCOTUS, I think this case will just be another in that long line of disappointments.

 

[vesper]

That is an apples to cinder blocks comparison; because Obama did X the congress is guilty of Y?

If you are going to use the argument that the guy has no standing because he has no proof of damages but would have if Obama had not unconstitutionally changed the law by allowing a delay, then it does play into it all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If you are going to use the argument that the guy has no standing because he has no proof of damages but would have if Obama had not unconstitutionally changed the law by allowing a delay, then it does play into it all.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what the DC court says about George Will's latest theory on the judicial repealing of ObamaCare.

 

[Perotista]

Now we are seeing exactly how an "amendment" can work to one party's advantage! I never thought that the entire intent of the original could be changed, but apparently it can. In your example of Flint vs Stone Tracy Co, a house Tariff bill with an inheritance tax suddenly became a corporate income tax. How can a corporation ever leave an inheritance to anyone? Live and learn... :thumbdown:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Legislative tricks of the trade. This also shows the real power of the senate. Why tabling some 200 house bills by Senate Majority Reid was so unnecessary and down right heinous in a very evil partisan way. He and the senate has all the power in the world to amend, change, add and delete, exactly as the Flint case showed. What Reid's tabling does is deprive the House of Representatives of any political voice on what ever legislation that Reid tabled. If Reid didn't want the bill, he has control and the numbers to defeat it outright.

This is what politics have come down to today. Denying those who disagree with you a voice, a debate and a vote. Thank You Senator Reid for showing your true colors.

 

[MMC]

Correct.

If Obama made it rain cookies some people on the right would be complaining about a milk shortage.

Some people in the USA will never be happy no matter what Obama does or doesn't do.

I ignore most of those people.

Cmon now SN :2wave: .....You can't be like that, you know one HAS to have Milk with Cereal.

Just sayin! :lol:

 

[Joe Steel]

Not at all. Each case is limited in scope. ...

Not when the credibility of the Court is in such jeopardy. If they bend to every wind, their opinions justifiably will be regarded as jokes.

 

[shrubnose]

Cmon now SN :2wave: ....

.You can't be like that, you know one HAS to have Milk with Cereal.

Just sayin! :lol:

I have to agree that a nice, cold, glass of milk is mighty good with cookies, but a cup of hot chocolate is also pretty good (Especially in the wintertime.).