Hey guys!
Another Saturday has rolled around which means: Kids Talk Politics Show!
You can listen to the show by clicking here at 2PM Eastern time. For instructions on how to listen and chat, click here.
The Election Results and What They Mean.
Hope you can join us!
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Who to blame for the ACA? The Church.
This article shows how degrading churches degrades America.
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
Saturday, June 30, 2012
The Roberts Dilemma
Oh man, where to start.
Just so we are clear, I did read Robert's entire opinion top to bottom, and took notes, for the entire fifty nine pages of some of the most meaningful and very frightening arguments of this millennium.
I was watching the SCOTUS Blog (scotusblog.com) live when the Supreme Court issued the opinions.
My first reaction, as many of you saw, was to send down the email chain my heartfelt (and noisy) regrets of Robert's decision. However, as I sat thinking once I had recovered from the primary shock, if one ever does, I decided that I should at least look at what Roberts had to say for himself.
Well, that's just what I've been doing the last few days: analyzing his complicated yet understandable opinions. It's taken days, but I believe I have enough to form a conclusion.
Roberts starts out reminding us that his job, and the jobs of the 8 people next to him, is not to decipher bad policy from good policy, but constitutionality from unconstitutionality. Some of course, may say that they would rather be unfaithful to their job in order to save America and strike it down without considering the matter, but I wonder how we would like it if liberal ideologs started acting like that.
No, Roberts thought it through long and hard. And in doing so, he destroyed an amazing potent possibility for government tyranny.
Roberts must have had a lot of fun with the first part of his report. He must have felt like a tornado in a trailer park, crashing and smashing every aspect of the commerce clause argument. Seriously, that was pretty fun to read. And I've never seen someone reference the federalist papers so much. When he was done and began his second part, the commerce clause argument and the Necessary and Proper Clause looked pretty pathetic. This is of course a substantial victory for conservatives because, it being a precedent, his statements make sure that never again can congress use the Commerce Clause in this way.
So what was up with the second part? How could he suddenly go liberal on us? He didn't.
In fact, I believe that we can thank Roberts for his decision. I do not only say this because dubbing Obama's prize pig as a tax will get Obama out of office, but because it gives us an important wake up call.
Isn't it stunning that the individual mandate is constitutional? Isn't it stunning that Congress can force you to do whatever you want? Well, fortunately, they can't, but they can tax you for doing what they said not to, or for not doing what they say. For instance, if Congress passed a bill today that says that everyone who does not own a Chevy Volt has to get their income tax increased to seventy-five percent, it would be constitutional. Roberts has shown us this major flaw in our tax code.
The solution? Flat tax for every citizen. That way, the government cannot tax certain groups of people just because. How would we feel if Congress just passed a bill with an extra tax on African American females. It would be constitutional, but I wonder how America would react.
Of course, I found other issues that I didn't respect Roberts very much for in his 59 pages opinions paper, such as saying it's not a tax for the Anti-Injuction Act, but is a tax for constitutionality (post a comment if you want an article on this), and labelling ObamaTax as a sales tax (a tax on what? Post a comment if you want an article on this).
Then there's the whole thing about a tax having to originate in the House not the Senate, so it looks like the whole thing is going back to court.
Any way, you hate him for it, but after a while, when the tax reforms are in place, Romney's in office, and America is on it's way to being back on track, you'll thank him.
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
Just so we are clear, I did read Robert's entire opinion top to bottom, and took notes, for the entire fifty nine pages of some of the most meaningful and very frightening arguments of this millennium.
I was watching the SCOTUS Blog (scotusblog.com) live when the Supreme Court issued the opinions.
My first reaction, as many of you saw, was to send down the email chain my heartfelt (and noisy) regrets of Robert's decision. However, as I sat thinking once I had recovered from the primary shock, if one ever does, I decided that I should at least look at what Roberts had to say for himself.
Well, that's just what I've been doing the last few days: analyzing his complicated yet understandable opinions. It's taken days, but I believe I have enough to form a conclusion.
Roberts starts out reminding us that his job, and the jobs of the 8 people next to him, is not to decipher bad policy from good policy, but constitutionality from unconstitutionality. Some of course, may say that they would rather be unfaithful to their job in order to save America and strike it down without considering the matter, but I wonder how we would like it if liberal ideologs started acting like that.
No, Roberts thought it through long and hard. And in doing so, he destroyed an amazing potent possibility for government tyranny.
Roberts must have had a lot of fun with the first part of his report. He must have felt like a tornado in a trailer park, crashing and smashing every aspect of the commerce clause argument. Seriously, that was pretty fun to read. And I've never seen someone reference the federalist papers so much. When he was done and began his second part, the commerce clause argument and the Necessary and Proper Clause looked pretty pathetic. This is of course a substantial victory for conservatives because, it being a precedent, his statements make sure that never again can congress use the Commerce Clause in this way.
So what was up with the second part? How could he suddenly go liberal on us? He didn't.
In fact, I believe that we can thank Roberts for his decision. I do not only say this because dubbing Obama's prize pig as a tax will get Obama out of office, but because it gives us an important wake up call.
Isn't it stunning that the individual mandate is constitutional? Isn't it stunning that Congress can force you to do whatever you want? Well, fortunately, they can't, but they can tax you for doing what they said not to, or for not doing what they say. For instance, if Congress passed a bill today that says that everyone who does not own a Chevy Volt has to get their income tax increased to seventy-five percent, it would be constitutional. Roberts has shown us this major flaw in our tax code.
The solution? Flat tax for every citizen. That way, the government cannot tax certain groups of people just because. How would we feel if Congress just passed a bill with an extra tax on African American females. It would be constitutional, but I wonder how America would react.
Of course, I found other issues that I didn't respect Roberts very much for in his 59 pages opinions paper, such as saying it's not a tax for the Anti-Injuction Act, but is a tax for constitutionality (post a comment if you want an article on this), and labelling ObamaTax as a sales tax (a tax on what? Post a comment if you want an article on this).
Then there's the whole thing about a tax having to originate in the House not the Senate, so it looks like the whole thing is going back to court.
Any way, you hate him for it, but after a while, when the tax reforms are in place, Romney's in office, and America is on it's way to being back on track, you'll thank him.
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
Thursday, June 28, 2012
ACA Update
Recap from SCOTUSBlog:
"Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won."
"The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition. "
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
"Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won."
"The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition. "
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
ACA descision
The official descision is now online: Here is the opinion in the health care cases: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Since this paper is 193 pages long, people will be creating summaries in the next few days (including me)
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
Since this paper is 193 pages long, people will be creating summaries in the next few days (including me)
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
ACA
So here's what's up: Roberts, for some strange reason, went democrat all the sudden and voted with the bill. Everything is upheld except for the government's right to take away medicare from uncomplying states. Here are some exerps from on scene analyzers at http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/:
"The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read."
"Chief Justice Roberts' vote saved the ACA. "
"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."
"On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions. "
"The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55) "
"Another way to think about Medicaid: the Constitution requires that states have a choice about whether to participate in the expansion of eligibility; if they decide not to, they can continue to receive funds for the rest of the program. "
"The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power."
"In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."
And now for the whole Shazam in English:
"In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."
I will post more as it comes in!
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
"The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read."
"Chief Justice Roberts' vote saved the ACA. "
"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."
"On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions. "
"The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55) "
"Another way to think about Medicaid: the Constitution requires that states have a choice about whether to participate in the expansion of eligibility; if they decide not to, they can continue to receive funds for the rest of the program. "
"The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power."
"In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."
And now for the whole Shazam in English:
"In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."
I will post more as it comes in!
"Aren't you a little young to being doing this?"
"Yes, yes I am"
-Phineas and Ferb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)