zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 3, 2014 13:06:55 GMT -5
Someone needs a vacation.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 13:08:56 GMT -5
What do small children do when they pick up something hot, dondub?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 13:09:32 GMT -5
mmhmmm, Is the truth considered insulting? In some circles, spelling a poster's name wrong is considered insulting.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 3, 2014 13:09:38 GMT -5
I'm retired and just got back from a week golfing, drinking wine, and playing bridge in Bend so you must mean mmhmmm.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 3, 2014 13:11:42 GMT -5
Simmer down Jimmy.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 3, 2014 13:14:51 GMT -5
Meanwhile:
nypost.com/2014/07/03/insurers-seeking-double-digit-increase-in-obamacare-premiums-in-ny/
There's been a few reports like this from various states - the risk profile of the insured pool is, apparently, riskier than the insurers had hoped.
Lucky them, they still have risk corridors to fall back on...
Not so lucky for their insureds, facing steep premium increases. Especially if subsidies are invalidated by Halbig v Burwell in 34 states.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:28:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 20:35:54 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html
This is the case that I think will really put the cat among the pigeons.
You hear a number of Obamacare defenders cautiously getting their crowing voices limbered up now, because apparently the law "works" and "is popular" and so on...
... but of course much of that, to the extent it's true, is so because the law is not being applied. Chief culprit, arguably, is the subsidy scheme which disguises the true costs of the boondoggle for many of its victims. Halbig examines the legitimacy of the penalty-and-subsidy scheme as authorized by PPACA for states that chose not to set up exchanges, and I really think a plain reading of the statute makes an inarguable case for the prosecution on that one. But then, I thought there was no way that the individual mandate could be construed as a tax. Watch this space...
There isn't any way it can be construed as a tax... at least not by anyone that understands the concept of a Dictionary.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 3, 2014 22:09:46 GMT -5
Meanwhile:
nypost.com/2014/07/03/insurers-seeking-double-digit-increase-in-obamacare-premiums-in-ny/
There's been a few reports like this from various states - the risk profile of the insured pool is, apparently, riskier than the insurers had hoped.
Lucky them, they still have risk corridors to fall back on...
Not so lucky for their insureds, facing steep premium increases. Especially if subsidies are invalidated by Halbig v Burwell in 34 states. Hate to say it maybe this thing has to blow up. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned- next time the left wants to go for healthcare reform- GO FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM! Not this insurance company sellout bullshit that is being attacked from 80 directions. The public wants it- so have some balls and run on it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:28:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 22:19:18 GMT -5
Meanwhile:
nypost.com/2014/07/03/insurers-seeking-double-digit-increase-in-obamacare-premiums-in-ny/
There's been a few reports like this from various states - the risk profile of the insured pool is, apparently, riskier than the insurers had hoped.
Lucky them, they still have risk corridors to fall back on...
Not so lucky for their insureds, facing steep premium increases. Especially if subsidies are invalidated by Halbig v Burwell in 34 states. Hate to say it maybe this thing has to blow up. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned- next time the left wants to go for healthcare reform- GO FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM! Not this insurance company sellout bullshit that is being attacked from 80 directions. The public wants it- so have some balls and run on it. Stop that! You are making sense. This is a POLITICS board, you are not allowed to make sense.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 3, 2014 22:32:39 GMT -5
Hey man- I am with you- and I understand the mandate and the reasons for it-but what I failed to realize is that this law is forcing people to buy a bunch of overpriced bullshit that does not cover near what it should. The insurance companies are behind it- and Obama let them do it. No one should be forced to buy a fucking thing from these worthless organizations. The more I think about it the more I hate it- the only thing keeping me on board is not being able to discriminate and not being able to have caps on coverage- other than that it sucks- but still better than before when we just swept those folks under the rug and let them die.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,484
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2014 10:19:48 GMT -5
you gotta admit tho, this really did start the dialog, didn't it?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 7, 2014 9:18:55 GMT -5
Starting the dialogue by resolutely closing down dialogue, cutting backroom deals, and making a bad situation worse?
With dialogue like that, who needs technocratic high-handedness?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,484
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2014 10:12:39 GMT -5
Starting the dialogue by resolutely closing down dialogue, cutting backroom deals, and making a bad situation worse?
With dialogue like that, who needs technocratic high-handedness? that is not how i recall this went. in fact, i recall an entire YEAR of dialog that went nowhere before this was drafted and passed. the "dialog" consisted of one side offering suggestions and making concessions, and the other side saying, with one voice "no". in retrospect, the Democrats would have been better off passing this legislation "PATRIOT Act" style, since compromise was never going to happen, rather than begging for it for a year. Obama showed poor leadership begging for votes he was never going to get. and he has repeated that mistake many, many times. that is why he is not a top quartile president.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 7, 2014 10:29:26 GMT -5
Vote counting being essential to figuring out what will pass and what won't, all the Repos had to do was say 'no' across the board. They knew the Demos had the votes. Now they not only get to whine about the ACA but also the process where they allegedly were not included. In the meantime, all of them get that great taxpayer funded health insurance plan for life while 47,000 Americans were dying every year due to lack of access based on no insurance.
That must be one of their 'family values'. My family has it, who cares about you.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 7, 2014 11:18:33 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html
This is the case that I think will really put the cat among the pigeons.
You hear a number of Obamacare defenders cautiously getting their crowing voices limbered up now, because apparently the law "works" and "is popular" and so on...
... but of course much of that, to the extent it's true, is so because the law is not being applied. Chief culprit, arguably, is the subsidy scheme which disguises the true costs of the boondoggle for many of its victims. Halbig examines the legitimacy of the penalty-and-subsidy scheme as authorized by PPACA for states that chose not to set up exchanges, and I really think a plain reading of the statute makes an inarguable case for the prosecution on that one. But then, I thought there was no way that the individual mandate could be construed as a tax. Watch this space...
There isn't any way it can be construed as a tax... at least not by anyone that understands the concept of a Dictionary. Of course it's a tax. Who pays it, why, and who is it paid to? Is it voluntary, or involuntary?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 7, 2014 12:41:54 GMT -5
Everybody pays it if they fall foul of the law - that's why it's a penalty, not a tax, and described in the letter of the law as a penalty, and not a tax. It's why injured parties were granted standing to dispute it in the first place - had it actually BEEN a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act would have prevented any plaintiff from demonstrating standing until the tax had been paid (the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court dismissed NFIB v Sebelius on that ground, in fact). The effect of SCOTUS' convoluted ruling last year was to hold that the tax was a penalty for purposes of avoiding the AIA, and that the penalty was a tax for purposes of invoking authority under the Spending Clause rather than the Commerce Clause (under which the government had no authority, one of the several useful legal points Roberts got to include by authoring the majority opinion). The interpretation adopted by SCOTUS, and endorsed by the executive, is that this is an indirect capitation tax - the only indirect capitation tax on the books, and itself thereby subject to question if not outright challenge per Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 7, 2014 14:39:19 GMT -5
Everybody pays it if they fall foul of the law - that's why it's a penalty, not a tax, and described in the letter of the law as a penalty, and not a tax. It's why injured parties were granted standing to dispute it in the first place - had it actually BEEN a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act would have prevented any plaintiff from demonstrating standing until the tax had been paid (the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court dismissed NFIB v Sebelius on that ground, in fact). The effect of SCOTUS' convoluted ruling last year was to hold that the tax was a penalty for purposes of avoiding the AIA, and that the penalty was a tax for purposes of invoking authority under the Spending Clause rather than the Commerce Clause (under which the government had no authority, one of the several useful legal points Roberts got to include by authoring the majority opinion). The interpretation adopted by SCOTUS, and endorsed by the executive, is that this is an indirect capitation tax - the only indirect capitation tax on the books, and itself thereby subject to question if not outright challenge per Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution.
SCOTUS disagrees or else the individual mandate would have been overturned. They had to argue for it to be a tax because the federal government doesn't have the authority to impose the mandate otherwise. The way this convoluted law was passed is the politicians swore it wasn't a tax, then they argued it was in order to have it upheld.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 7, 2014 14:45:55 GMT -5
It's worse than that - in order for SCOTUS to even decide the question, they had to rule that the issue wasn't subject to the provisions of the Anti-Injunction Act. In other words, they had to rule that the mandate wasn't a tax in order to grant standing to the NFIB to even hear the case in the first place, and then turn around and assert it was a tax in order to preserve the act's legitimacy under the Spending Clause rather than the appropriate Commerce Clause.
As I say, the ruling leaves open challenge under the Direct Taxation Clause, even if the DC circuit court doesn't side with Halbig on the question of whether Congress means "an exchange established by the state" when it says so in plain language. Although lower courts decried the idea that the law intended to create a two-tier system, comments from Max Baucus during the Senate Committee hearings indicate that's precisely what was intended; and a SCOTUS increasingly sympathetic to Tenth Amendment proponents is unlikely to treat more favorably of the carrot in this case than it did the stick in striking down the Medicaid restrictions in PPACA previously.
The parade of legal challenges will go on, and on, and on, until there's enough will on Capitol Hill to actually reform healthcare and put PPACA out of its misery. This is what happens when you jerry-rig legislation on the fly despite having had over a year to craft it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 7, 2014 17:01:04 GMT -5
That's what happens when you're trying to force something the voters don't want down their throats-- a strict party-line vote on a POS bill, which, even if it becomes law, will end up being repealed-- in whole or in part, and/or collapsing under its own weight. We've already found a loophole which I shall refrain from discussing here- but we're OUT of ObamaCare.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 7, 2014 18:10:09 GMT -5
Oh go ahead and discuss it. Why not.
In the meantime our health insurance hasn't really changed at all and no one I know has had anything to say about any impact of the ACA on theirs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:28:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 20:33:44 GMT -5
Everybody pays it if they fall foul of the law - that's why it's a penalty, not a tax, and described in the letter of the law as a penalty, and not a tax. It's why injured parties were granted standing to dispute it in the first place - had it actually BEEN a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act would have prevented any plaintiff from demonstrating standing until the tax had been paid (the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court dismissed NFIB v Sebelius on that ground, in fact). The effect of SCOTUS' convoluted ruling last year was to hold that the tax was a penalty for purposes of avoiding the AIA, and that the penalty was a tax for purposes of invoking authority under the Spending Clause rather than the Commerce Clause (under which the government had no authority, one of the several useful legal points Roberts got to include by authoring the majority opinion). The interpretation adopted by SCOTUS, and endorsed by the executive, is that this is an indirect capitation tax - the only indirect capitation tax on the books, and itself thereby subject to question if not outright challenge per Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution.
Ummm... yeah. What he said.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:28:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 20:35:41 GMT -5
Everybody pays it if they fall foul of the law - that's why it's a penalty, not a tax, and described in the letter of the law as a penalty, and not a tax. It's why injured parties were granted standing to dispute it in the first place - had it actually BEEN a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act would have prevented any plaintiff from demonstrating standing until the tax had been paid (the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court dismissed NFIB v Sebelius on that ground, in fact). The effect of SCOTUS' convoluted ruling last year was to hold that the tax was a penalty for purposes of avoiding the AIA, and that the penalty was a tax for purposes of invoking authority under the Spending Clause rather than the Commerce Clause (under which the government had no authority, one of the several useful legal points Roberts got to include by authoring the majority opinion). The interpretation adopted by SCOTUS, and endorsed by the executive, is that this is an indirect capitation tax - the only indirect capitation tax on the books, and itself thereby subject to question if not outright challenge per Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution.
SCOTUS disagrees or else the individual mandate would have been overturned. They had to argue for it to be a tax because the federal government doesn't have the authority to impose the mandate otherwise. The way this convoluted law was passed is the politicians swore it wasn't a tax, then they argued it was in order to have it upheld. SCOTUS can disagree all they want. Doesn't change the absolute fact that it is a penalty... not a tax. They can call a rock a boat... won't make it float though.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 7, 2014 22:31:26 GMT -5
Oh go ahead and discuss it. Why not. In the meantime our health insurance hasn't really changed at all and no one I know has had anything to say about any impact of the ACA on theirs. Guess you haven't been waiting five hours in the ER in California?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:28:06 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 22:39:02 GMT -5
Are you suggesting no one waited in the ER before ACA?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,490
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 7, 2014 22:46:09 GMT -5
Are you suggesting no one waited in the ER before ACA? Five, ten, fifteen years ago, and depending upon why you were at the ER, you could wait far longer than five hours.
|
|
truthbound
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 1, 2014 6:01:51 GMT -5
Posts: 814
|
Post by truthbound on Jul 8, 2014 4:21:12 GMT -5
The issue is not about time. It is about whether you can afford to pay.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Jul 8, 2014 5:58:58 GMT -5
IMHO 10 to 20 years down the road this will be MAJORLY modified and like social security and medicare we will all come to want, depend on & love it. NO clue what the modifications might become (single payer, more regulation of insurance companies, limited coveage so need a supplement.......).
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,555
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 8, 2014 11:02:07 GMT -5
IMHO 10 to 20 years down the road this will be MAJORLY modified and like social security and medicare we will all come to want, depend on & love it. NO clue what the modifications might become (single payer, more regulation of insurance companies, limited coveage so need a supplement.......). I think we will go to a single payer system that is means tested - if you are able, you pay your own way or your employer pays it for you, while those unable to pay, children and retirees are covered by the government. Coverage will be adequate with uniform coverage for everyone, regardless.
The wealthy people who want to opt out can pay for a higher standard of care so they never have to wait their turn or share a room.
It's what happened in Britain, when they made the shift.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 8, 2014 15:58:23 GMT -5
Are you suggesting no one waited in the ER before ACA? Did I say that? No. I simply posted the news story which accurately reports that though proponents of ObamaCare stated that one of the benefits would be reduced wait times, that wait times are UP, and that the AVERAGE wait time is now five hours. Average. Not a one-off event. Average. Five. Hours. Five.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 8, 2014 16:01:22 GMT -5
|
|