Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.

#326
#326
bamawriter said:
And I'm sure Obama's campaign will trot that out at every opportunity, as they should.

You still don't seem to understand that the decision for opponents of Obamacare isn't whether or not they believe Romney when he says he'll get it repealed. Romneycare will not be a factor for those who don't like Obamacare, because there is no other choice than Romney.
Click to expand...


Well, we are back to square one then on whether Romney's nomination was the wisest course for the GOP. On health care reform, at least, it certainly isn't making it easy.
 
#327
#327
lawgator1 said:
Well, we are back to square one then on whether Romney's nomination was the wisest course for the GOP. On health care reform, at least, it certainly isn't making it easy.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you there.

I've said from early in the primary battle that Romney's best move would be to say "Obamacare is no different than Romneycare. We tried it in MA, and it was a mistake. Implementing it at the national level would be a disaster." Instead, he's tried to draw a distinction between the two that doesn't exist.

Had he done what I laid out above, paired with yesterday's SC decision, Romney would not only be guaranteed to win, he'd win quite comfortably. He and his campaign have made this more difficult than it should have been.

But like I said, he's still running against an unpopular law. It really makes no difference whether anyone believes him or not, because there isn't a second option. This is one of those situations where a legitimate third party could make hay, but said party doesn't exist.
 
#328
#328
bamawriter said:
I don't disagree with you there.

I've said from early in the primary battle that Romney's best move would be to say "Obamacare is no different than Romneycare. We tried it in MA, and it was a mistake. Implementing it at the national level would be a disaster." Instead, he's tried to draw a distinction between the two that doesn't exist.

Had he done what I laid out above, paired with yesterday's SC decision, Romney would not only be guaranteed to win, he'd win quite comfortably. He and his campaign have made this more difficult than it should have been.

But like I said, he's still running against an unpopular law. It really makes no difference whether anyone believes him or not, because there isn't a second option. This is one of those situations where a legitimate third party could make hay, but said party doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I'm also not convinced that rebutting an Obamacare attack with "yeah, but you did it in MA" is going to be convincing to anyone beyond those already voting for Obama.

SCOTUS's decision was probably the absolute worst outcome for the Obama campaign. He "won," but by touting the ruling as a victory for his signature achievement, he also has to explain how the largest tax hike in modern history is good for the middle class.

Yesterday, CNN had a chart on one of the midday shows showing the tax liability if you opt not to purchase insurance. The chart projected the liability to be over $2k in the next 5 years.

I'm betting the Obama campaign tries to steer the spotlight away from Obamacare.
 
#329
#329
dreVol said:
I'm also not convinced that rebutting an Obamacare attack with "yeah, but you did it in MA" is going to be convincing to anyone beyond those already voting for Obama.

SCOTUS's decision was probably the absolute worst outcome for the Obama campaign. He "won," but by touting the ruling as a victory for his signature achievement, he also has to explain how the largest tax hike in modern history is good for the middle class.

Yesterday, CNN had a chart on one of the midday shows showing the tax liability if you opt not to purchase insurance. The chart projected the liability to be over $2k in the next 5 years.

I'm betting the Obama campaign tries to steer the spotlight away from Obamacare.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a victory in giving him an advantage, but it took away Romney's ability to say that Obama had acted unconstitutionally. That was clearly the game plan for the GOP had it been struck down.

This issue just isn't that great for Romney because of his prior comments and any effort to "yeah, but" his way out of it will just come across as insincere. Remember some if his "yeah, but" moments in the primaries and the crowd reactions ?

Painful.
 
#332
#332
Maybe this deserves its own thread, but .... Assuming the political will is there for the Rs (big assumption), what would be the lead-pipe lock way to drop the hammer on Obamacare? Is it as simple as repealing it? Would there be constitutional challenges to that?
 
#334
#334
bamawriter said:
And I'm sure Obama's campaign will trot that out at every opportunity, as they should.

You still don't seem to understand that the decision for opponents of Obamacare isn't whether or not they believe Romney when he says he'll get it repealed. Romneycare will not be a factor for those who don't like Obamacare, because there is no other choice than Romney.
Click to expand...

I'm not as concerned whether Romney wins or not as I concerned with him being sincere in his complete repeal of Obamacare.
 
#335
#335
I'll believe Romney and the House/Senate leadership repealing it when I see it. I really hope his sincerity translates to action. Not holding my breath.
 
#338
#338
vols-1 said:
I'm not as concerned whether Romney wins or not as I concerned with him being sincere in his complete repeal of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

So if the repeal of Obamacare is a major issue for you in November, do you vote for the guy who says he'll repeal it but you don't fully trust him, or do you vote for the guy who will never even think about repealing it?

Again, I'm not saying that Romney doesn't have a credibility issue. But there is no Plan B.
 
#339
#339
It is all bs, the gop love expansion of govt and the erosion of liberties as much as democrats.

Time to sit back and enjoy a nanny state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#344
#344
lawgator1 said:
Well, we are back to square one then on whether Romney's nomination was the wisest course for the GOP. On health care reform, at least, it certainly isn't making it easy.
Click to expand...

he was the best option of the three we had with an actual chance.

A younger Ron Paul would have won it all but he is just too damn old.

But this is going t end up falling heavily on the middle class and up. It will end up being an entitlement for the lower classes and the liberals will use this as a way to squeeze in "fair share."

This is also going t cost business a ton of money.

It is going to put pressure on businesses who 1099 because the IRS will clearly be looking at them harder now and businesses who use part time workers are going t be hit hard because it will be judged on a 120 hour period. So if you have two people working 15 hours each you will add up t 120 and either offer them both insurance or pay $2,000.

This means a business with 30 employees who work 20 hours each will still be hit with $40,000 in fees.

This is going to raise prices across the board fast.
 
#346
#346
180215_389235227802130_854352186_n.jpg
 
#347
#347
tkemo said:
I work in health care and see how medicare tries their damndest to keep from paying for a service a patient needs. I can't imagine how bad its gonna be when this kicks in and we add millions of new people. I just wish Palin's crazy ass didn't call it death panels. Sounds too extreme for anyone to believe even though that's what it will be for some. It would be awesome if everybody was covered, there just won't be enough money to pay for it all.
Click to expand...

A rose by any other name is still a rose.
 
#348
#348
OK, haven't read all posts but have a few questions.

1. It is my understanding that the SC can only judge the legality of laws and are not able to rewrite them.

2. It is also my understanding that all tax legislation has to originate in the house, I think Obamacare originated in the senate.

3. I don't understand how you can tax a non-action. I thought a tax was for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. and not a penalty for non-action.

Can an attorney tell me where I'm off-base?
 
#350
#350
Interesting article:

“(T)he government’s tax power theory is far more radical than the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clause theory precisely because the Supreme Court has generally deferred to any invocation of the tax power to raise revenue to spend for the general welfare. This normal deference is why the mandate’s defenders shifted the argument from the Commerce Clause to the tax power. Yet if its theory is accepted, Congress would be able to penalize or mandate any activity by anyone in the country, provided it limited the sanction to a fine enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.

This is a congressional power unknown and unheard of before 2010. It would effectively grant Congress a general police power. And we know what existing doctrine says about such a power: ‘The Constitution . . . withhold from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation.’ Such has been the Supreme Court’s position from the Founding until today.”

...

I asked him whether a future Congress could just repeat what we saw in this instance – call a mandate a penalty for the purposes of passing the bill, then switch around and call it a tax in court.

“That is never going to happen again,” he insisted. “No one is ever going to fall for that again…The findings in the (health care) bill were Commerce Clause. The findings in the next bill will have to be taxing power.”

In other words, future Congresses would have to explicitly use taxing power justifications for any future economic mandates.
Click to expand...


Randy Barnett says Roberts
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top