Affordable Care Act: D-Day

EdsonNascimento

NewJPage wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

Unanimous? Its either going to be 5-4 against or for, or 6-3 for (very unlikely).

The vote to declare the primary piece unconstitutional will be unanimous. It almost always is for the SC.

The dissent will be 3 or 4 justices and it will surround throwing the whole thing out. I just want to be clear on the difference there.

(I do find it funny that you are part of the chorus saying the conservatives are partisan, yet you clearly beleive the libs will stick together no matter what. That is ironic).

SCOTUS blog just said it is a -118% chance it is unanimous

You are missing the nuance, so I will stop. Read the decision when it comes out. Yes, it will be reported 5-4 or whatever b/c that's the overall ruling on the law itself. BUt, if you read carefully, you will see that the provision being unconstitutional will be unanimous. (And there's no 118%)

Indifference

Conflicting reports - CNN said it went down and now changing story....

Jason P

Indifference wrote:

Conflicting reports - CNN said it went down and now changing story....

I'm seeing that it was upheld 6-3.

edit:

This is for the insurance mandate. I think there will be several rulings.

NewJPage

Jason P wrote:

Indifference wrote:

Conflicting reports - CNN said it went down and now changing story....

I'm seeing that it was upheld 6-3.

upheld.

Black Diamond

5-4 with Roberts being the swing vote :shock:

Jason P

Thoughts from any of the doom-and-gloom "no way the right wing judges will use there own opinion" people?

Jason P

It appears the Obama admin has finally found a way to tax the middle class.

EdsonNascimento

Jason P wrote:

Thoughts from any of the doom-and-gloom "no way the right wing judges will use there own opinion" people?

I'm not one of those, but I will be first to admit - my prediction was wrong.

Funny thing is, the folks you refer to will be back here pissed in 6 months when they realize what the law really did....

Jason P

Quote from the live blog:

The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Thoughts from any of the doom-and-gloom "no way the right wing judges will use there own opinion" people?

I'm not one of those, but I will be first to admit - my prediction was wrong.

Funny thing is, the folks you refer to will be back here pissed in 6 months when they realize what the law really did....

Which will be what?

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

Quote from the live blog:

The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

interesting, calling it a tax, as they should have simply done in the first place, was why it was upheld. So it wasn't a mandate of purchase it is a tax. I am glad they didn't expand the commerce clause.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Thoughts from any of the doom-and-gloom "no way the right wing judges will use there own opinion" people?

I'm not one of those, but I will be first to admit - my prediction was wrong.

Funny thing is, the folks you refer to will be back here pissed in 6 months when they realize what the law really did....

Which will be what?

More money for insurance companies, tax on the Middle/Lower Class (Upper already have coverage), increased health care spending, election of Mitt Romney (how can Obama run on his signature legislation when it was the direct cause of his losing Congressional seats mid-term?).

EDIT: Forgot to add...

Jason P

I'm see that the penalty for not being insured is 1% of your income. So most people making more then the poverty line ($14K) will most likely choose to pay the fine versus costly health insurance. Someone making $28K will now pay the government an extra $280 each year.

That is a tax. And it is a tax on the blue-collar middle class.

Edit:

This IS Obama's big-time backfire.

EdsonNascimento

Jason P wrote:

I'm see that the penalty for not being insured is 1% of your income. So most people making more then the poverty line ($14K) will most likely choose to pay the fine versus costly health insurance. Someone making $28K will now pay the government an extra $280 each year.

That is a tax. And it is a tax on the blue-collar middle class.

This may be one Obama's all big-time backfires.

It also destroys small businesses. If they have 50+ emps, they mus offer coverage or be taxed themselves. Hmmmmm. I have 60 employees - is it better I get into the health care business, pay a tax, or just find a way to get by on 49 employees? Hmmmm....

The law wasn't read. It wasn't well thought out. And in classic Shakespearean ending, this hubris will be the downfall of the smug, arrogant ruler.

NewJPage

NewJPage wrote:

As for today, I'm a bit unsure. I would not be surprised at all if it is overturned, but something in my gut says Roberts is too smart to do it. He does not want to go down in history as chief justice of the most insane supreme court in history

lucky guess. glad to see it. still not a fan of the mandate, but its better than before

mikepegg44

NewJPage wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

As for today, I'm a bit unsure. I would not be surprised at all if it is overturned, but something in my gut says Roberts is too smart to do it. He does not want to go down in history as chief justice of the most insane supreme court in history

lucky guess. glad to see it. still not a fan of the mandate, but its better than before

we can't call it a mandate...it is now a tax

NewJPage

mikepegg44 wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

As for today, I'm a bit unsure. I would not be surprised at all if it is overturned, but something in my gut says Roberts is too smart to do it. He does not want to go down in history as chief justice of the most insane supreme court in history

lucky guess. glad to see it. still not a fan of the mandate, but its better than before

we can't call it a mandate...it is now a tax

i'll stick with the founders. they called it a mandate when they did the same thing.

EdsonNascimento

mikepegg44 wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

As for today, I'm a bit unsure. I would not be surprised at all if it is overturned, but something in my gut says Roberts is too smart to do it. He does not want to go down in history as chief justice of the most insane supreme court in history

lucky guess. glad to see it. still not a fan of the mandate, but its better than before

we can't call it a mandate...it is now a tax

That's the interesting part. By upholding, they may have actually caused more problems for Obama. There is no doubt Romney picked up on that and it will be trumpted from here until November. I do wonder how Obama is going to spin that when the law itself wasn't wildly popular to begin with.

Go Beavers

Jason P wrote:

I'm see that the penalty for not being insured is 1% of your income. So most people making more then the poverty line ($14K) will most likely choose to pay the fine versus costly health insurance. Someone making $28K will now pay the government an extra $280 each year.

That is a tax. And it is a tax on the blue-collar middle class.

Edit:

This IS Obama's big-time backfire.

I haven't seen the cut-offs, but with more people qualifying for Medicaid, wont those in the $14k+ range qualify for Medicaid rather than having to buy in. I've the the number of people who will have to buy in or face the fine is 6%. Not really that large of a number.

Jason P

EdsonNascimento wrote:

That's the interesting part. By upholding, they may have actually caused more problems for Obama. There is no doubt Romney picked up on that and it will be trumpted from here until November. I do wonder how Obama is going to spin that when the law itself wasn't wildly popular to begin with.

I imagine that Romney's campaign team are high-fiving each other based on how the mandate was justified. This may be the magic bullet that will flip battleground midwest states towards them.