Supreme Court ingame decision thread

[frogsrangers]

Any government which has the power to give you everything you need also has the power to take everything you have...

Thomas Jefferson said this

Smart man

I bet he is rolling over in his grave right now

[QuantumLeap]

Maybe an Obama representative can go into the poll booth with you come this fall.

I think that's a great idea! Since they don't think I'm smart enough to take care of my health needs they must think I'm not smart enough to make the right vote.

[DwightShrute]

[big0mar]

car insurance = 500/yr
health insurance = 7500/yr

most people cannot afford this

If you are poor you are not required to have insurance. The mandate only applies to people that make a certain amount of money.

[big0mar]

Four years ago when I quit my job. Got sent this COBRA bs where i could get heath insurance for a mere 650/month. Saw the 650 and krinkled it up and threw it in the garbage.

I hope one day the paramedics find you on the street dying, look at you, realize you have no insurance, and krinkle up your soon-to-be lifeless body.

[King Mayan]

Eric Holder will pay dearly for this supreme court decision.

[wikkidinsane]

Why are you moronic liberals comparing health insurance to car insurance?

I'm moving to Chicago in a month. I'm sure as hell not bringing my car so im canceling my car insurance. See how that works?

If I wanted to not be insured for the next 3 years, I should have that choice. Period. Just like I can choose to not drive a car and not need car insurance.

Thats not law abiding if you choose not get insurance while driving.

[d2bets]

Why are you moronic liberals comparing health insurance to car insurance?

I'm moving to Chicago in a month. I'm sure as hell not bringing my car so im canceling my car insurance. See how that works?

If I wanted to not be insured for the next 3 years, I should have that choice. Period. Just like I can choose to not drive a car and not need car insurance.

There is a critical difference. You can choose not to drive a car and you won't drive a car. Period. However, you can't cancel the fact that you are human and you could at any time require very costly medical care which will, and is required to, be provided to you no questions asked. So while you can clearly exclude yourself from the car driving market, you cannot so exclude yourself from the medical care market. I suppose you could stamp an advanced directive to your forehead saying "in case of emergency, don't provide medical care".

I know you're a smart dude. Do you see the difference?

[PickWinnerAllDay]

There is a critical difference. You can choose not to drive a car and you won't drive a car. Period. However, you can't cancel the fact that you are human and you could at any time require very costly medical care which will, and is required to, be provided to you no questions asked. So while you can clearly exclude yourself from the car driving market, you cannot so exclude yourself from the medical care market. I suppose you could stamp an advanced directive to your forehead saying "in case of emergency, don't provide medical care".

I know you're a smart dude. Do you see the difference?

This law deals with a lot more than emergency care though brother. Of course every sad soul deserves emergency care. The difference is what happens when that guy with no money is stabilized.

[wikkidinsane]

Exactly. Holy crap, somebody who 'gets it'

If it somehow save money i would be for it

[wikkidinsane]

lol look at dwight. SBR SUPER SPINSMAN

[d2bets]

This law deals with a lot more than emergency care though brother. Of course every sad soul deserves emergency care. The difference is what happens when that guy with no money is stabilized.

Fair enough. You could argue it's overbroad in that sense. But you do see how fundamentally those requirements are different, right? So would you agree that one should be required to purchase medical insurance that would cover treatment that medical care providers are required to provide by law without regard to ability to pay?

[Pluthero]

Who won?

China.

[KingJD31]

Eric Holder will pay dearly for this supreme court decision.

That is racist you neo cons are brainwashed from faux news, I only get my news from Al sharpton

[DwightShrute]

lol look at dwight. SBR SUPER SPINSMAN

lol where's the spin?

[Shaudius]

Funny, before he was President Obama Candidate Obama campaigned against health care reform.

Then he kept saying after he flip flopped, "this is not a tax, not a tax, not a tax.........."

Turns out it is a tax.

Trust me, this will be used against Obama.

It will be used against Obama, but its completely disingenuous if you actually read the ruling, posters like DwightScrute will seize upon this and post posters to that effect.

Here is what Justice Roberts actually said though. He said, even though Congress did not justify the mandate as a tax, and even if they don't think its a tax, all that matters is its effect. If it acts like a tax, its a tax, full stop, even if Congress and the President didn't want it to be.

So therefore Obama can be completely right in saying that he doesn't believe its a tax, and he can have not intended it as a tax, but instead as something entirely different, but as long as it operates as a tax, its constitutional.

This is further confirmed by the anti-injunction part of the ruling where Roberts stated that Congressional intent matters for purposes of anti-injunction. Anti-injunction rules do not apply in this case according to him because Congress did not label or intend the individual mandate to be a tax.

So again, the ruling stated, the individual mandate was not intended to be a tax, but acts like a tax and is therefore a proper exercise of the taxing power.

Its also pretty funny because the court's conservative wing does not believe the individual mandate is a tax, and therefore voted to strike it down. So on the one hand you have conservative elected officials who will now make the argument that individual mandate is a tax, and on the other you have conservative jurists who will make the argument that it is not. Conversely the courts liberal wing has made the argument that the individual mandate is a tax(+Roberts) and the liberal elected officials will make the argument that it is not.

What Dwight's poster should more accurately say is, "Obama: this is not a tax" Roberts + 2 justices nominated by him + 2 nominated by another Democrat, "it doesn't matter if you think its a tax, it operates like a tax so its covered under the taxing power". Or alternatively "Romney and other Republicans: this is a tax", Justices nominated by Republican Presidents: "this not a tax, therefore its unconstitutional".

[KingJD31]

Why don't you get off of your dads insurance and buy your own? They way your big mouth runs around like u are your own man you would think u wouldn't need this handout. Typical neo-con thinker. "hey i will take it if it is there, but others should pay for it" Priceless.

You sir are a racist neo con me and Al are marching

[d2bets]

It will be used against Obama, but its completely disingenuous if you actually read the ruling, posters like DwightScrute will seize upon this and post posters to that effect.

Here is what Justice Roberts actually said though. He said, even though Congress did not justify the mandate as a tax, and even if they don't think its a tax, all that matters is its effect. If it acts like a tax, its a tax, full stop, even if Congress and the President didn't want it to be.

So therefore Obama can be completely right in saying that he doesn't believe its a tax, and he can have not intended it as a tax, but instead as something entirely different, but as long as it operates as a tax, its constitutional.

This is further confirmed by the anti-injunction part of the ruling where Roberts stated that Congressional intent matters for purposes of anti-injunction. Anti-injunction rules do not apply in this case according to him because Congress did not label or intend the individual mandate to be a tax.

So again, the ruling stated, the individual mandate was not intended to be a tax, but acts like a tax and is therefore a proper exercise of the taxing power.

Its also pretty funny because the court's conservative wing does not believe the individual mandate is a tax, and therefore voted to strike it down. So on the one hand you have conservative elected officials who will now make the argument that individual mandate is a tax, and on the other you have conservative jurists who will make the argument that it is not. Conversely the courts liberal wing has made the argument that the individual mandate is a tax(+Roberts) and the liberal elected officials will make the argument that it is not.

What Dwight's poster should more accurately say is, "Obama: this is not a tax" Roberts + 2 justices nominated by him + 2 nominated by another Democrat, "it doesn't matter if you think its a tax, it operates like a tax so its covered under the taxing power".

Interesting observations, Shadius.

I haven't yet read the opinion, but just thinking about it, it is a tax. Those who say you are required to buy health insurance are wrong. You can instead choose to pay a tax. In reality, the 'mandate' is a tax. It is a tax you can avoid if you purchase health insurance (as most would), but from a legal standpoint ultimately it is a tax. It would be interesting to go back over the briefs and oral arguments as it relates to the 'is this a tax' question.

[KingJD31]

If anybody should be pissed off about it is a guy like me. I'm not working but i'm suppose to magically come up with 7500 to buy insurance. You get it free at your job and here you are crying about something that has zero effect on you.

Jeez

You said Syria would man handle us in a war so your opinion is irrelevant also maybe you should get off your transvestite ass and get a job

[newguy]

If anybody should be pissed off about it is a guy like me. I'm not working but i'm suppose to magically come up with 7500 to buy insurance. You get it free at your job and here you are crying about something that has zero effect on you.

Jeez

Its not free. Whether you see the portion you pay or not, the company pays a ton of money to insure their employees. Close to 35% per employee, although not all that is strictly health insurance - its other benefits - but benefits run most companies about 35% of payroll. Therefore, someone making $35k per year would actually (in theory) be getting paid over $47k if companies didn't have to pony up all that money to the insurance companies. So if you think its free - you are very very mistaken, that cost of insurance is already factored into your compensation!

I am a republican but I still like the majority of this law - sucks that you are told you "have" to buy it - but as I stated earlier in this thread - that is because there are too many free-loaders in our society. It was either that or allow hospitals to turn people away which isn't an option.........

[d2bets]

Just read an article about the dissent. The dissent basically says that while this could be a tax in substance, Congress wrote is as a penalty, the enacting section calls it a penalty, it's put in the section of the IRS Code that is a penalty and therefore it is a penalty and not a tax and we won't call it a tax.

I presume that the majority wrote that you can label a law whatever you want, but the substance controls. If it walks like a tax and acts like a tax, it's a tax. You can call it whatever you want, but a tax is a tax is a tax. Congress could label it a gift from god, but that doesn't make it so and doesn't change what it operates as legally - a tax.

If I'm reading that distinction correctly, I agree with the majority for sure. Headings and the like are typically just for descriptive purposes and don't legally change the actual terms of a legal document.

It really is interesting. If you get into an argument with a buddy who's against the law, ask him if the damn law is just another tax. If he says "yeah, of course, it's another damn tax", then say oh, then you agree with the Supreme Court's opinion that was handed down. Blow his mind.

[DwightShrute]

Tax or mandate ... it's still more government which always means waste. Explain all the obamacare waivers given out already just for starters? I love America and Americans (expect for a few here lol) and I want them to be a strong vibrant country. I also belive that you guys should have affordable healthcare. Having said that, I have also been consistent on the fact that government is too big and wastes too much tax payer money.

It's like a bucket with a hole in it. The bucket, when filled, represents all the taxes gathered by government and any excess once full is the amount that can be used for all sorts of things and services people need. Like healthcare. Right now the bucket has several holes in the bottom and the more they pour into it, the more falls through the holes. The holes gets bigger over time and more is wasted even faster. Just by adding more water to the bucket at a faster pace won't solve anything but isn't that what the government is doing? 16 trillion debt says to me they are. It's simple to me, fix the holes first , then I doubt that you would have too many complaining about higher taxes for things like healthcare, if they are even needed at all. Those that get it understand, those that don't will never understand.

[ChalkyDog]

LOL @ people trying to explain this.

LMFAO @ the people who are going to turn around and vote for a guy who was one of the first real supporters of state run health care.

LOLLMFAO @ the people who think Romney isn't about to make an ass out of himself over this issue and think the election wasn't just gift wraped to the incumbent.

Romney v. Obama = No Change.

[ChalkyDog]

Ok peeps, this is simple.

Roberts, basically put a penalty on the Mandate. Before this ruling, there was no penalty to the mandate.

Understand?

Now go rabble rabble rabble the day away.

[PickWinnerAllDay]

[PickWinnerAllDay]

http://i.imgur.com/N6mTf.jpg

If you can't see the picture.

[PickWinnerAllDay]

[QuantumLeap]

Just read an article about the dissent. The dissent basically says that while this could be a tax in substance, Congress wrote is as a penalty, the enacting section calls it a penalty, it's put in the section of the IRS Code that is a penalty and therefore it is a penalty and not a tax and we won't call it a tax.

I presume that the majority wrote that you can label a law whatever you want, but the substance controls. If it walks like a tax and acts like a tax, it's a tax. You can call it whatever you want, but a tax is a tax is a tax. Congress could label it a gift from god, but that doesn't make it so and doesn't change what it operates as legally - a tax.

If I'm reading that distinction correctly, I agree with the majority for sure. Headings and the like are typically just for descriptive purposes and don't legally change the actual terms of a legal document.

It really is interesting. If you get into an argument with a buddy who's against the law, ask him if the damn law is just another tax. If he says "yeah, of course, it's another damn tax", then say oh, then you agree with the Supreme Court's opinion that was handed down. Blow his mind.

I agree with you and the majority. It's not a mandate if it allows for exceptions. It's a tax since if you opt out you have to pay a penalty.

What concerns me the most about rulings like this is that they are mostly voted upon along idealogical lines instead of Rule of Law. I applaud Roberts for voting the way he did instead of voting with the other conservatives.

With that being said, I feel as has been said before, this will allow the government to spend more money and in a very large way.

[rkelly110]

Watching Fox. Fuking moron Repukes want to work night and day to repeal. You fcking lost, get over it!

[PickWinnerAllDay]

Watching Fox. Fuking moron Repukes want to work night and day to repeal. You fcking lost, get over it!

Why watch news you aren't interested in? Sounds like you're the moron, pal.

[DwightShrute]

Watching Fox. Fuking moron Repukes want to work night and day to repeal. You fcking lost, get over it!

they have been very consistent in that they were gonna appeal in already. Nothing new here.

[PAULYPOKER]

Watching Fox. Fuking moron Repukes want to work night and day to repeal. You fcking lost, get over it!

Why are you watching fox or any media for that matter?

I see they succeeded with their intentions, you are surely pissed off.......

[MonkeyF0cker]

Watching Fox. Fuking moron Repukes want to work night and day to repeal. You fcking lost, get over it!

Hypocrisy in politics. It's amazing. Weren't they saying the same thing about the Scott Walker recall just weeks ago?

Get rid of all of them.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Pretty funny tweet....

"Don't worry," former head Onion writer Joe Garden wrote on Twitter. "Despite the health care ruling, America will still find a way to crush its poor."

[DwightShrute]

this will allow the government to spend more money and in a very large way.

no doubt. It's easier to just take more money and spend it rather the be fiscally conservative isn't it? Wouldn't that be nice if everyone could do that?