What you did today

[Gfted1]

Eh, that battle was lost a long time ago and this court action was just a dog and pony show to end the litigation. Its better to be the piglet than the teat so just be sure to sigh up for every conceivable benefit.

[Gorgon]

Democracy; dictation by majority. Not that I think becoming a properly governed country with health care for everybody, not just the rich, is that terrible. Give it a generation or two and you won't be looking back. Progress is often painful.

[Gfted1]

Not that I think becoming a properly governed country with health care for everybody, not just the rich...

 

Weve been down this road 100 times, if you dont understand by now then you never will.

 

Im racking my brain to try to figure out how I can benefit from this. Id get my wife a boob job but she already has huge ones. Maybe a set of double D's for myself? Would that be weird?

[Guard Dog]

I don't want to turn this into a political thread so this will be my last comment on it. But you're wrong Gorgon, it does not give healthcare to everybody, or anybody. It requires everyone to BUY it. But more than that is grants the Federal Government the ability to compel a citizen under penalty of legal punishment to enter into a private contract with a third party, possibly of the governments choosing. This is huge. It's heavy handed. It is absolutely un-American because it is a crime to do nothing now. Over the past few years the government has taken the right to sieze you home and give it to someone else who will pay more taxes for it, use warrentless wiretaps to read your e-mail and listen to your phone calls, cameras are on every street corner now, drones are flying over US cities watching us. And now they can force me to buy something they deem I should have from a company of their choosing.

 

I don't even recognize the country I live in any more. I suddenly feel the need to buy more ammunition, gold, and canned food.

[Raithe]

Democracy; dictation by majority. Not that I think becoming a properly governed country with health care for everybody, not just the rich, is that terrible. Give it a generation or two and you won't be looking back. Progress is often painful.

 

Wait until the political correctness actually slides into Democracy being the rule by the minorities - because if you don't automatically let them have the say, you're repressing them and not being fair..

[Calax]

... mine was more pissed off at coworker

 

And now depressed because I cannot walk without pain.

[Guard Dog]

What did the co-worker do?

[Enoch]

I don't want to turn this into a political thread so this will be my last comment on it. But you're wrong Gorgon, it does not give healthcare to everybody, or anybody. It requires everyone to BUY it. But more than that is grants the Federal Government the ability to compel a citizen under penalty of legal punishment to enter into a private contract with a third party, possibly of the governments choosing. This is huge. It's heavy handed. It is absolutely un-American because it is a crime to do nothing now. Over the past few years the government has taken the right to sieze you home and give it to someone else who will pay more taxes for it, use warrentless wiretaps to read your e-mail and listen to your phone calls, cameras are on every street corner now, drones are flying over US cities watching us. And now they can force me to buy something they deem I should have from a company of their choosing.

 

I don't even recognize the country I live in any more. I suddenly feel the need to buy more ammunition, gold, and canned food.

The language of the opinion is an interesting balance. The mandate was rejected by a majority of Justices on the grounds of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause (the 4 more liberal Justices would've upheld on these points). It was upheld-- with the Chief joining the Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan-- only as an exercise of Congress' power to levy taxes, which was essentially the Administration's 3rd argument in defense of the law. That is, as they read PPACA, it establishes a condition of "Lacking qualifying health insurance" which subjects a citizen to a larger tax liability. Sort of like "not being blind" in present law.

 

And the secondary question where the Court did invalidate a portion of the law might end up being significant, too. It held that Congress couldn't withhold a State's entire Medicaid funding if that State didn't go along with the expansion of Medicaid that was in the Law. Not sure how that one is going to play out.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Enoch

[Calax]

He's just a monumental idiot. I've been riding him pretty hard because he does stuff like "Oh, my starter is dead on my car, and my ride also works here, so I'm going to use his schedule as my own!" and take off 4 hrs early (without asking) and shows up 4 hrs late. And it's NEVER EVER his fault when **** happens. Yesterday I yelled at him because he was supposed to be in grill, but was in back talking it up with his buddy, and he automatically assumed I was putting him in a new position (when I was moving the other guy) and then I heard him bitching about the entire thing to another co-worker.

 

I was just pissed off in general at that point and he provided an easy focus.

[Enoch]

http://www.tumblr.co.../oliver-swanick

 

I don't know if I should be frightened or flattered

I think "Frightened" has just taken over

 

He's dressed as a powder ganger and running straigth at you. How could you not put one in his head. Didnt everyone do that.

I actually shoot him afterwards. I don't know why, I guess he just rubbed me the wrong way.

I shot him because I took the "Four Eyes" trait, and he was wearing the first pair of glasses I saw on a character who I could get away with murdering.

 

Sorry, Calax, but I need that +2 PE.

[Gfted1]

And why are you having trouble walking? Did he kick your nads?

[Calax]

No, The constant standing and having terrible shoes has led to me wrecking my ankles. It can get better or worse depending on how long I've been off it, but either way, walking and feeling like I've got razors being jammed into my ankles isn't a pleasant feeling.

[entrerix]

It requires everyone to BUY it. But more than that is grants the Federal Government the ability to compel a citizen under penalty of legal punishment to enter into a private contract with a third party, possibly of the governments choosing.

 

just fyi, the opinion is difficult to read, but it appears that the court actually struck down this argument of the government requiring a person to enter the stream of commerce and instead supported the law under the alternative argument, that congress has merely enacted a new tax, BUT if you happen to already have or buy health insurance, you are exempt from the new tax. which of course, is not new, there are other taxes or tax rebates you can exempt/earn by engaging in certain activities.

 

thats not a new power for congress, nor does it, by itself, set any new precedents. the opinion is 65 pages long though, and i didnt read all of it. maybe one of the other lawyers on this board will?

 

the problem is the way the argument was framed from the beginning by both lawmakers and the media. i'm guessing it was phrased this way by the government to get the law to pass, because most people would not have supported passing new taxes, but calling it a "mandate" for some reason was less terrifying for voters? i dont really know, i havent any particular insight into the minds of congress.

 

tldr: under the supreme court ruling, you are NOT required to buy insurance (because it would be unconstitutional to make you), but if you do buy insurance, then you get a tax exemption.

Edited June 28, 2012 by entrerix

[Calax]

I think it's more that the Republicans have all signed that delightful deal that they won't EVER raise taxes (only lower them). And so calling this a tax, that they voted for, would be them raising taxes and breaking that promise.

[entrerix]

ahh yeah i could see that too. i think no matter how you slice it, a lot of people, democrats and republicans, have promised not to add new taxes, so this way they were still able to pretend they didnt, they "passed a mandate" which of course, was unconstitutional.

 

but when has congress been shy about wasting tax payer money on obviously unconstitutional laws that get struck down almost immediately...

[Enoch]

It requires everyone to BUY it. But more than that is grants the Federal Government the ability to compel a citizen under penalty of legal punishment to enter into a private contract with a third party, possibly of the governments choosing.

 

just fyi, the opinion is difficult to read, but it appears that the court actually struck down this argument of the government requiring a person to enter the stream of commerce and instead supported the law under the alternative argument, that congress has merely enacted a new tax, BUT if you happen to already have or buy health insurance, you are exempt from the new tax. which of course, is not new, there are other taxes or tax rebates you can exempt/earn by engaging in certain activities.

 

thats not a new power for congress, nor does it, by itself, set any new precedents. the opinion is 65 pages long though, and i didnt read all of it. maybe one of the other lawyers on this board will?

 

the problem is the way the argument was framed from the beginning by both lawmakers and the media. i'm guessing it was phrased this way by the government to get the law to pass, because most people would not have supported passing new taxes, but calling it a "mandate" for some reason was less terrifying for voters? i dont really know, i havent any particular insight into the minds of congress.

 

tldr: under the supreme court ruling, you are NOT required to buy insurance (because it would be unconstitutional to make you), but if you do buy insurance, then you get a tax exemption.

I think the consequences of not complying with the mandate were put into the tax code for precisely this reason-- to ensure that the Act rested on as many Constitutional powers as possible.

 

Interestingly, for the purposes of this litigation, the parties also had to argue that it was not a tax. The Anti-Injunction Act bars suits challenging tax provisions until the tax has been actually assessed. So, if the "penalty" is a "tax" for these purposes, the portion of this case that dealt with the mandate gets dismissed, and we all wait until 2014 to see whether it's constitutional or not. The Chief Justice did some legal sleight-of-hand here, arguing that the official label in PPACA of "not a tax" governs for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but has no bearing on the question of whether the mandate was a permissible use of Congress's constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes. It's a somewhat glib hand-wave, but it's credible enough, and nobody involved wanted the uncertainty about the law's underlying legality prolonged until 2014 when the penalty provision comes into effect.

[Monte Carlo]

Mitt Romney must be quietly pleased, at last something to unite the fractious American centre right.

[Calax]

At work, part of me is eyeing the box cutters her, another part is wondering why, and the first is just responding that it's better to feel nothing than to hurt every time you take a step

[entrerix]

you must have a really terrible job

 

 

 

i got to 50,027 words last night. i'm now directly shooting for 75k. if i dont reach that point by the end of my first draft, i may have to go back and add in some new chapters or something. I could probably find some areas of the story that need a bit more fleshing out

[Nepenthe]

the opinion is 65 pages long though, and i didnt read all of it. maybe one of the other lawyers on this board will?

I considered it, but then I decided I'd do something that I care more about, like watch Italy kick Germany's butt.

[Malcador]

Well that was disappointing, wonder why the team was so flat. Probably better to give Gotze, Reus and Klose a start instead. Ah well, another day will dawn and all that, and Arsenal will fill in the disappointment until 2014.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Malcador

[Monte Carlo]

Go Italia, go!

[Enoch]

the opinion is 65 pages long though, and i didnt read all of it. maybe one of the other lawyers on this board will?

I considered it, but then I decided I'd do something that I care more about, like watch Italy kick Germany's butt.

I don't want to imagine a world where I would enjoy watching soccer more than I would enjoy analysis of a complex, high-profile legal opinion.

[entrerix]

im slowly coming to terms with the fact that the last 3rd of my novel consists almost entirely of fighting in tunnels

[Enoch]

im slowly coming to terms with the fact that the last 3rd of my novel consists almost entirely of fighting in tunnels

Clearly, you've been taking Monte's advice to heart, then.