1. Changelog 1.161

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.161 will take place on Wed, Sept 18, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Let's Talk Obamacare

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Dark Lotus, Aug 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius

    "The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax.

    As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer.[47]

    ...

    The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A [of the Internal Revenue Code] would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.[48]"

    Chief Justice Roberts had to rewrite the law in order to save it.

    Democrats argued that the 'fine' the ACA forced those who chose not to purchase health insurance was a "penalty" in order to get around the Constitution's stipulation that all bills which raised revenue- taxation bills included- must originate in the House of Representatives. The ACA originated in the Senate.

    Roberts ruled- entirely correctly- that the individual mandate which forced individuals to engage in commerce- in this case, the purchase of health insurance- was unconstitutional. Had he left well enough alone, ACA would have died the merciful death it so richly deserves. Instead, Roberts decided to save the ACA (for the first but not the last time) by redefining the 'penalty' as a 'tax', which Congress- quite obviously- has the power to do. To paraphrase the Army's maxim...the government might not be able to force you to buy health insurance, but it can make you wish you had.
     
  2. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    I addressed this already in a prior post, the contents may have been written in the Senate but is was a House Bill that was used as a "Shell" so legally it originated in the House.
     
  3. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
  4. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    I suppose you can either believe that hack or me and the SCOTUS. Personally I don't really care anymore since you seem adamant to argue against facts.
     
  5. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    You do not understand that Chief Justice Roberts had to re-write the law in order for it to pass Constitutional muster? In fact, he did that TWICE.

    Now maybe I'm just a 'hack' as well, but I do seem to remember that legislation originates in the Legislative branch, not the courts. Or is that concept passe as well?
     
  6. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    He did not actuality rewrite anything, the law remained exactly as passed in Congress and signed by the President. If you believe he actually changed the wording of the bill then a hack you may be. Layman say he rewrote the bill but in reality he interpreted the bill. Nowhere have I said I agreed with the ruling however it is useless and incorrect to say it is unconstitutional as SCOTUS has the final say on that and the ruling has been made.
     
  7. jaelis

    jaelis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Seems pretty irrelevant now anyway.
     
  8. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    You must have been living under a rock during the debate that led up to the passage of Obamacare.

    The Constitutional arguments against the Obamacare bill were sound. The bill, which did affect revenue, originated in the Senate, which is unconstitutional if the means by which the revenue is affected is considered a "tax". So Democrats argued that it was not a "tax" but a "penalty".

    Chief Justice Roberts, in his decision, had to redefine the revenue affecting measure as a "tax" because nowhere in the Constitution does the Federal government have the ability to compel you to participate in interstate commerce or be forced to pay a "penalty". Read up on the "interstate commerce clause" of the Constitution and educate yourself.

    Further, SCOTUS has over-ruled its own precedent on more than one occasion, so your belief that any one ruling is "final" is also in error.

    You might not think the Constitution matters. From your words, I think you do not unless it suits your purposes. I would say that such hypocrisy makes describing you as a "hack" much more accurate than it does to someone with consistent views of that document.
     
  9. jaelis

    jaelis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Mustapha, the ACA bill originated in the house as HR 3590, as Jenny says. There is no constitutional reason it cannot include a tax or other revenue measures.
     
  10. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    YOU suggesting I read up on the US Constitution is hilarious. I clearly showed no law was "rewritten" as you stated so you change your direction while ignoring all the mistakes you have been making in this thread which I have corrected. It is indeed final unless it is brought before the court again and as Jaelis suggested that is more unlikely than ever. In addition all SCOTUS decisions are legally defined as "Final" until they are overturned if ever so please stop trying to be cute and play word games that are irrelevant to the point at hand. If the constitutional arguments against had been as sound as you say it would have been declared unconstitutional now wouldn't it? How you came to the conclusion that I don't think the Constitution matters when it is you who are saying the law was/is unconstitutional when the Constitution gives the final say to the courts and they decided it was is amusing. You also ignored my stating that I disagreed with the decision but just like you (whether you like it or not) my disagreement is not relevant to the end result of it being declared constitutional.

    In summary your view on the Constitution really doesn't matter at all compared to SCOTUS.
     
  11. Mustapha00

    Mustapha00 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    First, I owe you an apology for my "living under a rock" comment. While I meant it as saying that perhaps you were unaware of at least some of the debate over the issue ongoing at that time, I can see where it comes across as outright dismissive. I am sorry for my statement.

    You have corrected no mistakes of mine because I have made none. I clearly pointed out where Chief Justice Roberts had to redefine the "penalty" as a "tax" in order to negate the challenge to the law based on the Interstate Commerce clause. I also pointed out that Democrats had to refer to the "tax" as a "penalty" due to the fact that the bill affected revenue and, Constitutionally, all such bills must originate in the House, while the ACA originated in the Senate.

    Perhaps you dismiss Constitutional issues as "play(ing) word games", but some of us take such a bit more seriously.

    As for Jaelis' comment, while it is open to interpretation what he meant, I took it to mean that President Trump will ask that the Republican Congress revoke Obamacare and remove it's onerous burdens from businesses and individuals, thus making further SCOTUS rulings unnecessary. The next step should be for Trump to do nothing because, as I've said, there is nothing anywhere in the Constitution giving the Federal government any authority to regulate health care insurance in any way.

    Lastly, I was educated to understand that words mean things. "Final" is just that: the last word on an issue, there being no additional words to come. There can be no question that no SCOTUS ruling is ever truly "final". While the concept of stare decisis is often given quite a bit of weight when it comes to courts, particularly SCOTUS, which is loathe to reverse itself, even if the law indicates they should, overturning prior rulings. Were you correct, Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson would still be the rules of the land.
     
  12. jaelis

    jaelis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    [​IMG]
     
  13. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Oh where to start! You did not say redefine, you said rewrote (more word games and this time closer to outright lies). I explained how the word final is used in SCOTUS decisions and yet again you wish to play semantics. You do not take constitutionally seriously or you would understand that currently any and all definitions of that word as it applies to the ACA is accurate as SCOTUS says that it is, no one else matters, period, end of discussion on this portion of the matter.

    As for your "final" how about several hundred sports examples where it means final for now. Final play of the game, final round in boxing..... You surely can complete the list so instead of claiming what you were taught how about learning a new phrase? In context for example! How can you keep beating the dead horse that the bill originated in the Senate when all facts and evidence point to the contrary? This is indeed baffling, instead of learning law on the internet try earning top honors from a prestigious Law School them passing the bar exam on the first attempt.
    How about the comment above where he reiterated the bill otherwise called the ACA was HR 3590 (that is a bill that originated in the House.

    As for you comment about living under a rock I understood it perfectly and saying I might not have understood it is more insulting than the statement in the first place. I am doing my best to educate you but yet you seem set in your ways, good luck with that. Just one more time in case you missed it the last three times your opinion is irrelevant as is mine because (ALL CAPS COMING SO HOLD YOUR EARS) SCOTUS DECLARED IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL!
     
  14. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Are you suggesting that ERISA is unconstitutional? To badly paraphrase a famous football coach, a law is unconstitutional if and only if the supreme court says it is.
     
  15. jaelis

    jaelis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Or medicare, even more aptly?
     
  16. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Medicare isn't insurance.
     
  17. jaelis

    jaelis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    That's interesting, I'd have said it was but I wouldn't know how to properly address the question.* But regardless, if the government has no constitutional authority to regulate health insurance, it seems hard to imagine it has a constitutional authority to provide medicare, whatever it may be.

    * Well, on it's face you could look at the social security title XVIII bill that enacts it, which is entitled "Health insurance for the aged and disabled." But I'm willing to accept that the title might be misleading.
     
  18. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    It is insurance.Even Medicare.gov states it is insurance.
     
  19. Konrad the mediocre

    Konrad the mediocre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Insurance, in the sense that it's regulated, is a contract. Medicare is not and is more accurately referred to as "social insurance" (kind of like a social contract). I don't know about you but I didn't sign any contract to pay FICA taxes.
     
  20. JennyButler

    JennyButler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    So the Government agency in charge of administering it says it is Insurance, the bill creating it says it is insurance but you know better? This thread is becoming like bizarro world. Contracts needn't be signed to be real and enforceable. So believe it or not you agreed to pay FICA taxes so technically you have agreed to such which the courts may construe to be a contract, not sure if it has ever been litigated in that manner.
     

Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.