This is bad.
(sigh)
Yeah.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Can I gather that the legislation has been upheld?
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
The quicker they get what they want, the quicker the system will collapse. I'm of the opinion that you should fight every encroachment on our liberty, but once it's passed and you pretty much lose all hope of fighting it, encourage it. In the end there's one thing that will always lead to the downfall of such policies: they don't work. So, hasten their natural course toward the inevitable crash and viola, no more problem. Eventually people will learn too after enough crashes. There are still plenty of people who feel government is a net positive. So make more victims of government. The more people who feel like they get nothing of value from the government, the more people who may be willing to forego it eventually.
a "bizzaro" decision...
Maybe this is what was needed to re-ignite the "Tea Party" flame. Wouldn't it be interesting if this causes another surge in the elections, and a law actually gets repealed?
Phi est aureum: Can I gather that the legislation has been upheld?
The current word is that the mandate has been upheld as a tax and that the provisions regarding Medicaid expansion have been struck down.
I will not be complying with this mandate anyway. I don't even know what to say.
....................../´¯/) ....................,/¯../ .................../..../ ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........''...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( ..............\.............\
It's kind of hard to get worked up over this. I mean, obviously its bad but despite the historic sort of significance its really not surprising or more egregious than you'd expect.
The current word is that the mandate has been upheld as a tax
*sigh*
Of course, another misinterpretation of the meaning of the "general welfare" clause, which really isn't an actual clause so much as it is an introduction to a clause, that leads to further usurpation of sovereignty from the individual.
However, I, too, agree that it can only lead to the fall. We know this won't work. The problem people see is relatively high costs in health care, which this legislation is supposed to make more affordable. We know just the opposite will happen. And it can ultimately only lead to... more cries for government intervention.
Maybe it's not so much how many interventions it will take for a collapse as it is the rate or acceleration of instances of interventions added (manifestation of the power of the state's monopoly on force) that will bring about its demise.
I'm not as angry that it got upheld as I am that it got upheld as a TAX. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? In that case the government can do WHATEVER it wants under the punishment of additional taxation.
There might have been some barriers to government power. They have been completely broken down.
Wheylous: I'm not as angry that it got upheld as I am that it got upheld as a TAX. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? In that case the government can do WHATEVER it wants under the punishment of additional taxation. There might have been some barriers to government power. They have been completely broken down.
Don't be angry. You were led to believe that there are or were "barriers" to government power. But there aren't any such barriers and there never were. Nothing broke down. The fact that you have a few selected group of people dressed in silly robes always deciding arbitrarily what government can or cannot do proves that there are and never were any barriers.
Phi est aureum:*sigh* Of course, another misinterpretation of the meaning of the "general welfare" clause, which really isn't an actual clause so much as it is an introduction to a clause, that leads to further usurpation of sovereignty from the individual.
Of course, another bullshit interpretation of a court ruling from some ignoramus who hasn't even looked at the decision.
Wheylous: I'm not as angry that it got upheld as I am that it got upheld as a TAX. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
I'm not as angry that it got upheld as I am that it got upheld as a TAX. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
This is the same manner in which Social Security was dealt with: polticians assure the people that it isn't a tax, when the lawyers get to court, the lawyers adamantly insist that it is a tax.
It's not about the lying. It's that if you label everything that government does as a tax and then you give it general power to tax, you not only unofficially, but OFFICIALLY have no more limits to government power.
John James: This is bad.
This is not bad. The last thing liberterians should want is a meaningless and arbitrary distinction between taxes and mandates. They are different only in the technical sense of the matter on how the State carries out its coericve action. In fact, equating the mandate to a tax is a very honest and correct thing to do.
Wheylous: you give it general power to tax, you not only unofficially, but OFFICIALLY have no more limits to government power.
you give it general power to tax, you not only unofficially, but OFFICIALLY have no more limits to government power.
Yeah. Establishing a firm with a territorial monopoly on aggression with the power to determine what powers it has is pretty uncool and one-sided.
For those interested,
Here's a post talking about the Supreme Court ruling on tax vs. penalty from 1995.
And here's a fun one:
FLASHBACK: Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax... VIDEO...
So, if it is not the commerce clause that can force people to contract, then what is it? "Congress has the right to lay and collect taxes..." hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. That idiotic CNN article touches on NOTHING relevant, but instead chooses to show three of four public opinion polls. I fucking hate democracy.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which said that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to require people to have health care, but that other parts of the Constitution did.
This is most unwelcome news.
We should just go burn the original copy of the Constitution...what the fuck is it good for? Polemics, it seems...
...an interpretation assuming that the idea of mandating the purchase of health care would be in the interest of the "general welfare," which is premise under which nearly all new taxes (that are not based on a form on income), which is then used as a justification of a new "tax." Of course, my assumption is silly seeing as how I haven't read the decision (since it hasn't been released yet). My statement should have been interpreted to be dissent to the speculated idea, as opposed to a declaration of truth without proof (assumption).
Looks like Obama wins 2012 and the USA has universal healthcare by the end of his second term.
Oh well, not surprised anyway. Saw this coming from a mile.
My apologies, the decision is now available. I could not find it at the time of my previous posts.
Helpful Links
Cases leading up to the Supreme Court decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx
Supreme Court Ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Cato Commentary
You Will Now Be Required to Pay for the New York Times
What’s Next After the Obamacare Ruling?
Wheylous:I'm not as angry that it got upheld as I am that it got upheld as a TAX. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? In that case the government can do WHATEVER it wants under the punishment of additional taxation. There might have been some barriers to government power. They have been completely broken down.
Of course, Wheylous. As I see it, that's the real point of all this. I don't think you should be surprised.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Phi est aureum: (since it hasn't been released yet).
(since it hasn't been released yet).
Take it back!
Phi est aureum:...an interpretation assuming that the idea of mandating the purchase of health care would be in the interest of the "general welfare," which is premise under which nearly all new taxes (that are not based on a form on income), which is then used as a justification of a new "tax."
Uh. No.
The part which the court is invoking is the so-called "Taxing and Spending Clause" which states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
More bullshit from an ignoramus who has no idea what he's talking about.
Of course, my assumption is silly seeing as how I haven't read the decision (since it hasn't been released yet).
Gee. That's funny. Because I started reading it from the government link provided to me on a major news website at least 20 minutes ago.
Will your bullshit never end?
Autolykos, get in here so I don't have to--
*Autolykos has already responded*
Good job.
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
The part which the court is invoking is the so-called "Taxing and Spending Clause" which states: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States More bullshit from an ignoramus who has no idea what he's talking about.
The "General Welfare" clause is part of the "Taxing and Spending" clause. The are calling it a tax justified under this clause which is used (and justified) because its spent on the "general welfare."
Gee. That's funny. Because I started reading it from the government link provided to me on a major news website at least 20 minutes ago. Will your bullshit never end?
I apologized in an above post. The news app I have mt not have updated as quickly as your sources did; I'm on my phone. But as soon as it updated and then saw it said it was posted more than a half hour earlier, I immediately posted my apologies. You would do well to simmer down a bit.
You would do well to simmer down a bit.
JJ is just projecting his anger at the SCOTUS onto you.
I, too, am displeased with the decision. I just feel like, generally, we are all on the same side and there is little reason to be rude. I greatly respect JJ. He is one of the most helpful, knowledgable, and well-versed posters here that I have so far observed. But I stand by my assertion that the "General Welfare" clause is invoked because it is part of the "Taxing and Spending" clause. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and for having a slow, poor Internet connection on my phone along with a shitty news app. Time to find a new one I suppose.
I find it amazing that this 'ruling' by the 'supreme' 'court' would be a surprise to anyone. Why would govt lawyers in black dresses, including the 'conservative' roberts - - - try to rule us any differently ? What a circus.
This was never about 'healthcare' but about govt power/control over the American people. Its about bankrupting the middle class & making them dependent on the fascist big corp insider/big govt state. Its also about their eugenics agenda.
Yeah, I know this sounds like a whacky rant. I would have thought so too a few years ago until researching these topics for myself.
Hmmm -- When will there be a law requiring all Americans to buy GM cars ? Or how long will it be till they make a law requiring all American citizens to wear electronic shock collars around their necks and that be ruled 'constitutional'.
Of course fools willl hope Romney will save them somehow. Theyre too stupid to see that RomneyCare was the basis of ObamaCare.
A people get the govt they deserve. A nation of cowards and fools deserve to be slaves. Their innocent children don't - but their parents have sold them into slavery.
With all due respect, I don't think I deserve any government.
I'm with you, my friend. That genius Murray Rothbard was right. Took me many years to get that through my thick head.
This discussion tells me most everything I needed to know about the Volokh Conspiracy. Seems like most of the conservatives are just fine with the ruling, or double-legalspeak it into such twisted fashion that it ends up making such rotten sense in the most neutered, lame "I've given the fuck up" logic, or justify it with something I already oppose
"well, you get taxed if you are single, but that doesn't mean Congress forces you to get married!!!! THIS RULING IS A-OKAY WITH ME A DOOP A DOOP DOOP DOOP"
I can't believe that site had a hand in making me more conservative when I read it back during the Bush years in 2002-03. If I read that link today and I still was a confused liberal, I'd still happily be assured of my confused liberalism.
I love this exchange:
A: I guess we have a tax on living! B: Yeah cause only living people get sick! *rolls eyes, rimshot, lololol so clever*
C:Yeah, we get taxed for dying, and selling things too. What's your point?
Yeah, he sure has no point, Mr. C. Everything is just fine. Everything is just going to be fine.
Well in my opinion - 'liberal' vs 'conservative', 'right' vs 'left' is just a diversion. A way to focus people's attention on the irrelevant.
I self identified with the 'conservative' team for many years. (I was extremely thick headed & slow on the up take). After deciding to look at everything with fresh eyes & investigate the actua data, I saw that it didn't matter which member of the Demo-Republicrat criminal gang was in office. Govt got bigger. More wars. And the people get robbed.
I used to worship at the idol image of Ronald Reagan, until I read Murray Rothbards articles pointing out how govt, taxes, and the deficit grew despite all the pretty rhetoric by the actor-in-chief. (I also corresponded with a man who knew Reagan personally going back for years.. Ronnie wasn't the image projected.) - - - All this is true of the national politicians in the Dem branch of the DemoRepublicrat gang also.
here's a conversation I've just had with my liberal-leaning friend on this:
Friend's logic: This is a good decision. Imagine somebody with no insurance going to the emergency room. The insurance companies raise prices for everyone in order to take care of this guy. It's not fair for everybody else! What Obama wants is for the insurance companies to stop screwing everybody and push everyone to have insurance so the prices drop!
"What if he's right?" /Devil's Advocate.
He isn't, so why bother?
"What if he's right?"
Wouldnt that mean that increasing demand didn't reduce supply? That is, wouldn't it refute the law of supply and demand?
That would probably be unlikely, though. Instead, the government can enact more inflation, but then these "reduced prices" would merely be temporary, like a reverse bubble. Maybe, although I am not sure.
Requiring nearly everyone to purchase health insurance by law will (ceteris paribus) raise the demand for the goods and services covered by health insurance. Assuming the supply doesn't change, then the prices of these goods and services will rise.
Health care costs have gone up stupendously since govt got involved with health care. No surprise. Is there anything govt does that is effective and cost efficient ? In the past, as recently as the 1950s people could paid for heatlh care out-of-pocket. Doctors could afford to give care to those who couldnt afford it; and it was expected that they do so. People were able to keep enough of their own earnings - - though in dollars worth less each year - - to also contribute to charities that would help people.
I think people have to really look at their idea that 'govt' and 'big connected corporate business' are different. They are one and the same, with the same criminals playing musical chairs from one branch of the gang to the other.
The insurance companies wrote this bill. It forces people to buy their product . . ultimately with the force of a gun pointed at them.
Do a search here on mises.org on 'health care economics' and you'll find much supporting evidence and argument. Your self identified 'lib' friends may go limp when presented with this. Many people aren't particularly skilled or interested in facts or logic (either self identified 'libs' or 'conservatives').
The moral argument - - - is it right to force people, at the point of a gun, to buy a product ?
Source:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html
"A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe explains the reasoning further. "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax."
I don't even know where to begin here. I am LIVID.