Obamacare

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
living_stradivarius
Posts: 6721
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Minnesnowta
Contact:

Obamacare

Post by living_stradivarius » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:01 am

The core logic:

Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal- ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay- ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un- lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur- ance.

Link to full SCOTUS opinions: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 ... 93c3a2.pdf
Image

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6721
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Minnesnowta
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by living_stradivarius » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:05 am

Now as for Roberts' opinion, he does not uphold it based on the Commerce Clause! (Sorry John F :D)

"The individ- ual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activi- ty. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Con- gress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the prin- ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sus- tained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27."

So what it really comes down to is how the "tax" is interpreted, defined/limited.


"In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub- stance and application.”

A pragmatic decision.
Image

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6721
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Minnesnowta
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by living_stradivarius » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:13 am

It is strange to me that Roberts would argue this: "A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It there- fore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population."

Yet also argue that "The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance".

How do you determine the latter without measuring the former?
Image

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:28 am

I wonder if the Chief Justice didn't decide that the Supreme Court's reputation required a break in the string of polarized partisan decisions, with only one justice (Kennedy) not voting the party line. The right-wingers in particular have been becoming more openly political, with Justice Scalia's gratuitous rant from the bench in the Arizona decision going so far as to violate judicial propriety. It was time for at least a gesture in the direction of judicial impartiality, and only the Chief Justice could make such a gesture and have it mean anything, or seem to.

It would have been too much to expect him to base his decision on the commerce clause, though that was clearly the basis of Congress's and the Administration's expectation that the law would be found constitutional. Instead, he finessed the issue by asserting that despite the wording of the law, the penalty for not buying insurance wasn't a penalty but a tax. To me this is sophistry, but who am I to say? It will surely be discussed extensively in print and on the air.

Still, I'm relieved that Chief Justice Roberts found a way to talk himself into doing the right thing, even if perhaps not for the right reason.

No, I haven't read the opinion yet, but I'm certainly going to.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:42 am

John F wrote:I wonder if the Chief Justice didn't decide that the Supreme Court's reputation required a break in the string of polarized partisan decisions, with only one justice (Kennedy) not voting the party line. The right-wingers in particular have been becoming more openly political, with Justice Scalia's gratuitous rant from the bench in the Arizona decision going so far as to violate judicial propriety. It was time for at least a gesture in the direction of judicial impartiality, and only the Chief Justice could make such a gesture and have it mean anything, or seem to.
I also had a passing thought that he voted against his own judgment (such as it is) for an ulterior motive, but what I was thinking was that the ladies on the court ganged up on him so severely that he realized he had to throw them a bone if he is to continue to work with them for a number of years (or perhaps he wrung some concession out of them in return). Pure speculation, of course, but it is interesting how we both allow the possibility that Roberts is capable of putting those kinds of considerations before substance and merit, or, alternatively, that he does not consider this case important enough for him to stand fast on principle. We're probably both wrong, and I the more cynical of the two of us, but it is a thought.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:18 am

If that was Justice Roberts's intention, the long separate opinion by Justice Ginsberg suggests he failed. Again and again it uses adjectives and adverbs sharply critical of Roberts's argument and thinking. The opinion, or opinions, are inordinately long and I'm not going to read them all closely, but every now and then I find stuff I want to quote. Here's a sample:
Justice Ginsberg wrote:When contemplated in its extreme, almost any power looks dangerous. The commerce power, hypothetically, would enable Congress to prohibit the purchase and home production of all meat, fish, and dairy goods, effectively compelling Americans to eat only vegetables. Cf. Raich, 545 U. S., at 9; Wickard, 317 U. S., at 127–129. Yet no one would offer the “hypothetical and unreal possibilit[y],” Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U. S. 23, 26 (1914), of a vegetarian state as a credible reason to deny Congress the authority ever to ban the possession and sale of goods. THE CHIEF JUSTICE accepts just such specious logic when he cites the broccoli horrible as a reason to deny Congress the power to pass the individual mandate. Cf. R. Bork, The Tempting of America 169 (1990) (“Judges and lawyers live on the slippery slope of analogies; they are not supposed to ski it to the bottom.”). But see, e.g., post, at 3 (joint opinion of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ.) (asserting, outlandishly, that if the minimum coverage provision is sustained, then Congress could make “breathing in and out the basis for federal prescription”).
Your observation, that Justice Roberts might have voted as he did to improve his relations with his sister justices, clearly failed, then. And win or lose, it would have been arguably unethical; such personal horse trading is the stuff of politics in making laws but not of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing them. My observation, that he may have had the court's declining reputation in the nation at large in mind, is an entirely different matter. Not that his decision will be popular in itself, since the law it preserves is unpopular, but at least it breaks the string of lockstep partisanship in the court's decisions, and that's the opposite of unethical.

By the way, the four dissenting justices including Kennedy wanted to strike down the entire law, not just the mandate.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:30 am

John F wrote:Your observation, that Justice Roberts might have voted as he did to improve his relations with his sister justices, clearly failed, then. And win or lose, it would have been arguably unethical; such personal horse trading is the stuff of politics in making laws but not of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing them. My observation, that he may have had the court's declining reputation in the nation at large in mind, is an entirely different matter. Not that his decision will be popular in itself, since the law it preserves is unpopular, but at least it breaks the string of lockstep partisanship in the court's decisions, and that's the opposite of unethical.
Congratulations. :roll:

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Dennis Spath
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:59 pm
Location: Tyler, Texas

Re: Obamacare

Post by Dennis Spath » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:58 am

My personal opinion is that the current U.S. "system" of delivering health care to its citizens is woefully inadequate, except for those who are able to afford its exorbinant cost. It's rediculous to claim that we have "The Best Health Care System in the World", when we rank so low in many measures of healthcare when compared to other industrialized economies....all of which provide some form of "Nationalized" or Universal Health Insurance for ALL the people, and at a much lower overall cost per capita than ours.
It's good to be back among friends from the past.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:54 pm

OK, here's another interpretation of Roberts' "defection": He thinks that keeping the law alive will ultimately be good for the Republicans. Obama will lose because of their campaign points on it, and then they'll repeal it anyway, so no harm done keeping it around for another few months--desirable even.

Well, it's not because he thinks it's a good law! :mrgreen:

Edit: Seriously, John F, it seems that Robert Reich for one agrees with you:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... h-care/?hp

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:34 pm

Well, of course it's all speculation. And no, I hadn't read Robert Reich's comments before saying much the same thing. :) In the end, Justice Roberts's reasons don't really matter, only his vote.

Interesting, that Justice Roberts wrote the lead opinion even though not one of the other eight justices agreed with it in full. Four thought the reasoning and the decision were wholly wrong; three thought the decision was partly wrong and the reasoning wholly wrong. In effect, then, he's being as arbitrary as ever, but this time he's really gone out on a limb. The sharp language of the dissents from the other eight justices suggests that collegial feelings among them must be very low indeed. But of course you never know about the Supremes.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:44 pm

John F wrote:Well, of course it's all speculation. And no, I hadn't read Robert Reich's comments before saying much the same thing. :) In the end, Justice Roberts's reasons don't really matter, only his vote.
I wish that were true, but so much depends on maintaining a precedent of a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that in the long run he may have done harm as well as good.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:23 pm

The Supreme Court doesn't seriously bother itself about precedent nowadays, except to dress up the arbitrary decisions it makes with the appearance of a continuity which in fact it breaks. Presently it's busy overturning all kinds of settled law, and when eventually the balance shifts to the left - as it will, given time, maybe lots of time - many of the current court's decisions will themselves be overturned. That's my guess, anyway.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:53 pm

John F wrote:The Supreme Court doesn't seriously bother itself about precedent nowadays, except to dress up the arbitrary decisions it makes with the appearance of a continuity which in fact it breaks. Presently it's busy overturning all kinds of settled law, and when eventually the balance shifts to the left - as it will, given time, maybe lots of time - many of the current court's decisions will themselves be overturned. That's my guess, anyway.
There's also the side of the argument that the doctrine of corporate personhood, on which the Citizens United largely rests, has a long if morally undistinguished history of pecedents.

(I wonder how much mileage the Obama campaign could get out of just re-running Romney in one of his careless revelatory moments saying "Corporations are persons." But they'll probably find some self-defeating sophisticated reason to avoid the gut-level impact of repeating such a sound bite, or maybe they all just missed the news clip where I heard it.)

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:56 pm

I suppose, in two hundred years, in hundreds of courts at all levels, there have been precedents of some kind for anything you care to name, many of them contradictory. Mix and match.
John Francis

Teresa B
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:04 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

Re: Obamacare

Post by Teresa B » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:32 pm

I was pleasantly surprised about the decision! Although I have no great love for this health care plan (I would have gone for a single payer), it certainly would have little chance of working without the individual mandate. Perhaps now we can at least see whether it will result in more covered Americans and some savings in cost. Unless of course Romney wins the Presidency, since he pledges to repeal the plan based on his own plan!

Teresa
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." ~ The Cheshire Cat

Author of the novel "Creating Will"

lennygoran
Posts: 14120
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Obamacare

Post by lennygoran » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:31 am

jbuck919 wrote:
John F wrote:"Corporations are persons."
Can they eat buy Scalia's broccoli? Regards, Len :)

lennygoran
Posts: 14120
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Obamacare

Post by lennygoran » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:34 am

Teresa B wrote: Unless of course Romney wins the Presidency, since he pledges to repeal the plan based on his own plan!
Teresa
Now the Republicans are more energized than ever--we'll be hearing about this until Nov! Regards, Len :(

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9801
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by karlhenning » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:43 am

Oh, has something happened? Romney has an actual plan, now? ; )

Cheers,
~Karl
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6721
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Minnesnowta
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by living_stradivarius » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:46 am

Image
Pathetic
Image

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:10 am

living_stradivarius wrote:Image
Pathetic
OK, I'll risk a stupid question: What are they doing?

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:45 am

lennygoran wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
John F wrote:"Corporations are persons."
Can they eat buy Scalia's broccoli? Regards, Len :)
You've done it again, Lenny - I didn't say that.
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:17 am

John F wrote:
lennygoran wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
John F wrote:"Corporations are persons."
Can they eat buy Scalia's broccoli? Regards, Len :)
You've done it again, Lenny - I didn't say that.
How does he do that, anyway? :? :) BTW, I didn't say it either; Mitt Romney said it (most recently and quotably, anyway).

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:34 am

To avoid confusion, however - Lenny was quoting from one of your messages, not from mine, right?
John Francis

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:34 am

John F wrote:To avoid confusion, however - Lenny was quoting from one of your messages, not from mine, right?
Oh yes. Wouldn't want anyone to think you quoted Romney saying that. :wink: :)

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Teresa B
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:04 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

Re: Obamacare

Post by Teresa B » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:15 pm

karlhenning wrote:Oh, has something happened? Romney has an actual plan, now? ; )

Cheers,
~Karl
Oh no, I mean his Massachusetts plan that the Obama plan is essentially based on, that somehow works quite well for the people of Massachusetts, but couldn't possibly work for the country!

Teresa
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." ~ The Cheshire Cat

Author of the novel "Creating Will"

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:22 pm

Teresa B wrote:
karlhenning wrote:Oh, has something happened? Romney has an actual plan, now? ; )

Cheers,
~Karl
Oh no, I mean his Massachusetts plan that the Obama plan is essentially based on, that somehow works quite well for the people of Massachusetts, but couldn't possibly work for the country!

Teresa
I wonder if it occurred to anyone that if the Supreme Court have overturned the law, the Massachusetts plan would have been in jeopardy as well. If the US can't make people buy insurance, then neither can any state. Even though the people of Massachusetts are largely happy with the program, all it would have taken was one ornery cuss to file a lawsuit.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:08 pm

Except that the conservative judges on the Supreme Court are all excited about federalism and states' rights - that's why Justice Roberts killed a key provision of the Medicaid expansion - and would probably keep their mitts (ahem) off of Massachussetts.
John Francis

living_stradivarius
Posts: 6721
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm
Location: Minnesnowta
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by living_stradivarius » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:18 pm

jbuck919 wrote:
living_stradivarius wrote:Image
Pathetic
OK, I'll risk a stupid question: What are they doing?
Praying against ACA on the day of SCOTUS decision
Image

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:22 pm

living_stradivarius wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:OK, I'll risk a stupid question: What are they doing?
Praying against ACA on the day of SCOTUS decision
They'll need the ACA for their prostrate problems.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Re: Obamacare

Post by Agnes Selby » Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:14 am

I hope your Health System works for your as well as ours does
and has now for good many years.

Donald Isler
Posts: 2988
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:01 am
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by Donald Isler » Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:54 am

Thank you, Agnes. As we are the only allegedly first-world nation that has, till now, left something like 15% of our people without the health coverage that is thought to be a right in most advanced nations, I hope it will work out well.
Donald Isler

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Re: Obamacare

Post by Agnes Selby » Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:22 pm

Dear Donald,

The Health System in Australia undergoes changes at times
to suit the prevailing conditions. It has worked well both for the
sick and medical practioners. We wouldn't be without it.

Regards,
Agnes.

John F
Posts: 19966
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Obamacare

Post by John F » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:02 pm

Here's a novel view of the separation of powers, from a U.S. Senator:
Charles M. Blow wrote:Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky and the son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, issued a statement that seemed to suggest that the court doesn’t even have the authority to make the ruling. It read in part: “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/opini ... e-win.html

A lot of people on the right are furious. Probably not furious enough to impeach the Chief Justice, though.
Jake Sherman wrote:In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present.

He immediately apologized. "My remarks at the Republican Conference following the Supreme Court decision were thoughtless. I certainly did not intend to minimize any tragedy our nation has faced and I apologize," Pence said in a statement to POLITICO.

Pence is a former member of Republican leadership who is considered the frontrunner to become governor of Indiana.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congre ... 27628.html

As for Justice Roberts himself:
Brad Knickerbocker wrote:Roberts offers a bemused “no comment” while displaying the equanimity of a man not given to second-guessing himself. Speaking at a judicial conference Friday, Roberts noted that he’s about to spend two weeks teaching a class on the island nation of Malta. "Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... are-ruling

:lol:
John Francis

RebLem
Posts: 9093
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Re: Obamacare

Post by RebLem » Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:36 am

The 10 Most Hilariously Unhinged Right-Wing Reactions to the Obamacare Ruling

Over-the-top? You betcha!

ByJoshua Holland | AlterNet | June 28, 2012

When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker beat back a recall effort, we learned that conservatives aren't exactly gracious in victory. On Thursday, when Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's moderate bloc to uphold ObamaCare, we discovered that the Right is nothing less than unhinged in defeat.

The remarkable thing about the heated debates about the law over the last three years is just how modest these reforms really are, especially when one considers how screwed up our healthcare system was to begin with.

The reality is that there is no "government takeover" underway. Some lower-middle-class families are going to get some subsidies to buy insurance, maybe ten million or so more poor people will be eligible for Medicaid. Insurers will get some new regulations that are popular even among Republicans.

And with Thursday's ruling, the government can no longer mandate that you carry insurance, it can only levy a small tax on those who don't. The real-world impact of that? Only an estimated 1 percent of the population will face the tax – a tax that maxes out at 1 percent -- and it may not even be enforceable!

But for the Right, a moderate expansion of health coverage and some new insurance regulations are, simply put, the worst things that ever happened. How bad is it? Well imagine that in the midst of the Holocaust, a meteor crashed to earth, destroying the entire planet. And as planet Earth exploded, it opened up a tear in the space-time continuum that swallowed up the entire galaxy. Thursday's ruling was, apparently, almost that bad.

For your reading pleasure, we've collected some of the most hilariously over-the-top freakouts we've seen. Enjoy!

1. Totally Not Exaggerating!

Baby-faced Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro offers a coolly dispassionate analysis of yesterday's ruling...

benshapiro@benshapiro

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.


2. Wait Until They Discover That They Use the Metric System

BuzzFeed found a bunch of conservatives so freaked out by this tyranny that they're throwing in the towel and heading north to that right-wing paradise known as Canada – a place that has both universal healthcare and gay marriage...

Jacqua Flocka @JacquaFlocka

God literally f**k this. I'm moving to Canada. Jump off a cliff @obama.


3. Health Insurance Is So Much Worse Than the Murder of 3,000 People

It's a good thing Mike Pence is a reasonable conservative.

In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present.

He immediately apologized.

4. Grab Your Musket and Tri-Corner Hat!

Did you know that the Founding Fathers fought a revolution to keep people uninsured? It's true!

Wonkette:

Now that poors can get health insurance because the demon Supreme Court sided with that commie muslim NOBAMA fella, the only way to defend our freedom is armed insurrection! Mount up and ride to the sound of the gun, says former Michigan Republican Party spokesman Matthew Davis.

Matthew Davis, an attorney in Lansing, sent the email moments after the Supreme Court ruling to numerous new media outlets and limited government activists with the headline: “Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?”

Davis added his own personal note saying, “… here’s my response. And yes, I mean it.”

“There are times government has to do things to get what it wants and holds a gun to your head,” Davis said. “I’m saying at some point, we have to ask the question when do we turn that gun around and say no and resist."


5. Revolution Is in the Air

Davis wasn't alone. Here's Matthew Vadum, author of Zombie Acorn Is Coming to Eat Your Face!

Matthew Vadum@vadum

We don't just need a new president. We need a revolution. #tcot


6. A Constitutional Scholar He Is Not...

Rand Paul really needs to peruse Article 3...

Politico:

Sen. Rand Paul doesn’t think the Supreme Court gets the last word on what’s constitutional.

The Kentucky Republican belittled the high court’s health care decision as the flawed opinion of just a “couple people.”

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,” the freshman lawmaker said in a statement.


7. Health Insurance Is Exactly Like Slavery

It's not just Ben Shapiro – Richard Viguerie, a stalwart of the conservative movement since the Goldwater days, also reminisced about Dred Scott.

Today, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court of the United States – the body the Framers of the Constitution created to protect the citizenry from tyranny – has chosen to join infamous courts of the past, such as the Taney Court that made the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision finding that slaves had no rights and the Fuller Court that ruled to institutionalize Jim Crow discrimination in Plessy v. Ferguson in stripping Americans of their freedom.

8. You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry

An unspoken virtue of Obamacare is that it might just make Glenn Beck's head explode. From his site, The Blaze:

Needless to say, the news [of the ruling] went over like a lead balloon with Glenn Beck and his radio co-hosts Pat and Stu — so much so that they nearly violated FCC language requirements.

When Beck and his team found out that it was in fact Roberts’ decision that pushed the bill through, they were visibly and audibly stunned. Beck surmised that the reason for Roberts’ decision likely hinges on the pervasive nature of progressivism.

“Progressivism is a disease and it is in both parties” Beck said.

“Progressives are fascists.”


Beck, looking on the one positive he feels to have come from this decision, said that the “Lord works in mysterious ways.”

OK, Glenn Beck.

9. John Roberts: Traitor!

Every fundamentalist religion abhors apostates, and American conservatism is no exception. As Alex Seitz-Wald detailed in Salon, the Chief Justice was treated to an abundance of bile.

“It’s patently absurd,” seethed Seton Motley, a conservative activist with LessGovernment.org. “This is the umpire calling the game for the first five innings, and then putting on a cap and glove and play first base...

“I have a message for Chief Justice Roberts,” Dean Clancy of the Tea Party group Freedomworks declared over the loudspeaker after the ruling came down. “The power to tax is the power to destroy”...

Bryan Fischer, the prominent Christian-right activist, toldBuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray that Roberts “is going down in history as the justice that shredded the Constitution and turned it into a worthless piece of parchment.”

10. Or Is He?

Unlike most constitutional experts, some conservative bloggers thought that the law was so obviously unconstitutional that something fishy must be going on...

Someone got to Roberts. I bet they got to him and told him he has to vote this way or members of his family – kids, wife, parents, whoever – were going to be killed.

Later this afternoon, it’s going to come out that Roberts was coerced. ... the whole story will come out, Roberts will issue his REAL opinion, and Obama and Axelrod will be taken away in handcuffs.


Hey, one can always hope!

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy: And Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America. Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

http://www.alternet.org/story/156090/th ... age=entire
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Obamacare

Post by jbuck919 » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:20 pm

1. Totally Not Exaggerating!

Baby-faced Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro offers a coolly dispassionate analysis of yesterday's ruling...

benshapiro@benshapiro

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.
If he and those other yahoos had been alive at the time, they would have approved of Dred Scott. If he wanted to be consistent, he should have cited Brown v. the Board, which more commensurately deprived people of the pseudo-liberty not to have black students in their children's schools.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests