BREAKING: Parts of healthcare law ruled unconstitutional

[theeedude]

When they cause injury or death because of poorly written regulations, yes.

Given a choice to save a life or follow a rule you would endorse letting the person die. That's an evil choice, yet you complain about people not receiving care. Why? Because only the government has the right to expect people to die because of technicalities.

Pretty fuck up dude.

These are laws passed by the American people's democratically elected representatives. Respect for the law is at the very core of our democracy, whether you think they are technicalities or not. When you break the law, you accept the consequences. If you want to engage in civil disobedience and not obey laws you think are evil, you can do that, but it does not grant you immunity from those laws.

 

[werepossum]

How about the more rational "taxes pay for cops that keep both muggers and junkies off your block" argument? But since that one is actually rational it's probably asking too much of you.

I have no problem with taxes. What I have a problem with is the liberal attitude that all wealth, or at least all income, legitimately belongs first to government for its hopefully benign distribution - and therefore anything NOT taken by government is a gift. That was the analogy I struck, evidently either too complicated an analogy or beyond anything to which you can relate. I'll try again.

You are alone in a room. You have a toy. I enter the room. I do NOT take your toy. I have NOT given you a toy.

Let's expand it a bit. You are in a room with two other children. You have five toys. The other children each have three toys. I enter the room with three other children, none of whom has a toy. I take one toy from each of you, for the children with no toys of their own. You now have four toys. Each of the first two children now has two toys each. Each of the children who had no toys, now has one toy. I have NOT given you a toy, even though you now have more toys than any other child in the room. Even though, through some monstrous injustice, you now have two times as many toys as your first two playmates and a whopping, evil four times as many toys as the new children in the room, no one has given you a toy.

Now your version. You are in a room with two other children. You have seven toys. The other children each have one toy. I enter the room. I take two of your toys and give one to each of the other children. You now have five toys. Each of the other children now has two toys. I have NOT given you a toy, even though I have left you with twice as many toys as the other children. Even though I could have taken two more of your toys and redistributed them so that all three children would have an equal number of toys, the fact that I did not do so does NOT mean that I gave you the two toys I could have taken, or the five toys I left with you. Even though I am an adult and could have taken ALL your toys for being a greedy little capitalist bastard, I have NOT given you a toy.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd like to see the expansive survey you refer to. I'm sure there's thousands at least which make a "majority".

Link?

Don't act dumb. Go check out published opinions on the health care law by acknowledged experts, they trend heavily towards the side of the law being upheld.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I have no problem with taxes. What I have a problem with is the liberal attitude that all wealth, or at least all income, legitimately belongs first to government for its hopefully benign distribution - and therefore anything NOT taken by government is a gift. That was the analogy I struck, evidently either too complicated an analogy or beyond anything to which you can relate. I'll try again.

You are alone in a room. You have a toy. I enter the room. I do NOT take your toy. I have NOT given you a toy.

Let's expand it a bit. You are in a room with two other children. You have five toys. The other children each have three toys. I enter the room with three other children, none of whom has a toy. I take one toy from each of you, for the children with no toys of their own. You now have four toys. Each of the first two children now has two toys each. Each of the children who had no toys, now has one toy. I have NOT given you a toy, even though you now have more toys than any other child in the room. Even though, through some monstrous injustice, you now have two times as many toys as your first two playmates and a whopping, evil four times as many toys as the new children in the room, no one has given you a toy.

Now your version. You are in a room with two other children. You have seven toys. The other children each have one toy. I enter the room. I take two of your toys and give one to each of the other children. You now have five toys. Each of the other children now has two toys. I have NOT given you a toy, even though I have left you with twice as many toys as the other children. Even though I could have taken two more of your toys and redistributed them so that all three children would have an equal number of toys, the fact that I did not do so does NOT mean that I gave you the two toys I could have taken, or the five toys I left with you. Even though I am an adult and could have taken ALL your toys for being a greedy little capitalist bastard, I have NOT given you a toy.

You're deranged.

 

[Fern]

If you're denied a deduction given to others, the reality is you are being PENALIZED. One coin, two sides. It's that damn simple.

'Words' are extremely important in law, and particularly so in tax law.

I believe you are mis-applying the term "penalty" in the context of tax law.

All penalties applying in the context of tax law are specifically defined in the Internal Revenue code (tax law as written by Congress). And in tax law, a penalty != a tax.

For example:

A tax can often be credited (foreign income tax) or deducted (state income tax, sales tax, employer SS etc.)

Penalties, as defined by tax law, can never be credited or deducted.
--------------------

Also, penalties only arise when you are legally obligated to perform some action. Failure to perform the legally mandated action results in a penalty.

You are not legally obligated to purchase a home with a mortgage.

Therefore, you cannot, by definition, be penalized for not doing so.
--------------------
Re: 'Fairness'

Our tax law is absolutely loaded with various provisions that attempt to motivate people to one or another action.

In this case, they reward those buying a home with a deduction to motivate them to do so. Unlike some special provisions (e.g., muni interest being tax free), Congress is under no compulsion to provide this deduction, they do so only to encourage home ownership (and the business it brings, including additional revenue for the US Treasury).

Now, you may be questioning whether this is 'fair'. Are you having to pay in additional tax because others bought a house? Does this mean you are paying more than your 'fair share'?

Well, you certainly cannot point to any direct burden upon yourself as a result of this deduction.

Now, you may claim that any incremental increase in national debt burdens you. But you are conventiently forgetting that those buying homes are generating all kinds of other revenue streams for the government. E.g., the banks pay income taxes on the mortgage interest they receive, the mortgage employees pay taxes on their wages, the builders pay taxes, the building supply stores pay tax etc.

You contribute to none of that, yet it goes in to the gov and reduces debt, some attributable to you incrementally just like for the deduction (only the opposite). The two sides of the same coin -thingy you mention.

So, it may not even be 'unfair'.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

Uhmm, governments have been forcing people to spend money on things from the first moment government was invented. Attempting to say that people must buy health insurance leads to the destruction of the first amendment requires such an incredible leap of either insanity or stupidity that I don't even know what to make fun of first.

I also hope you noticed the irony in your desire to imprison judges for making decisions you disagreed with all while talking about how freedom was under attack. If you think only 'fucking morons' think this is constitutional, then the majority of legal experts in the United States are 'fucking morons' to you. Something tells me that if you actually tried to discuss this topic with those 'fucking morons', they would embarrass you.

So where in the constitution does the Government get the right to force us to purchase things from private entities? Pretty sure I don't remember ever reading that shit, but I'll have to dig out my pocket constitution when I get home and go through it again. Don't even bring up the interstate commerce shit. My health is not a commerce, regardless of the fact if things pertaining to my health care involving commerce, should have no hold over it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

These are laws passed by the American people's democratically elected representatives. Respect for the law is at the very core of our democracy, whether you think they are technicalities or not. When you break the law, you accept the consequences. If you want to engage in civil disobedience and not obey laws you think are evil, you can do that, but it does not grant you immunity from those laws.

Where there is power to oppress there is no immunity. That does not mean those who oppose evil should be punished, rather those who support it ought to be removed. They have violated the trust of the people who elected them.

Let's see what you supported if you had been born in other times in this nation, and yes promoting law and regulation over all else is supporting.

There's the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, where you would have turned in people who aided slaves escaping.

Then there were the Jim Crows you would have to throw your weight behind. Damn those "euphemism for black people" who don't want to sit in the back of the bus. It's the law made by democratically elected representatives.

You would have supported the death penalty for gays. Hey they knew they were breaking the law. That's all on them.

You support the imprisonment of people who smoke marijuana.

You think MLK should have been thrown in jail.

The US is an invalid country because we broke laws to form it. What we did was not legal when we were under British rule. The Founders should have been hanged. That was the penalty for treason.

Dred Scott should have been returned to his master. He wasn't human, merely property.


Of course you could take the complete opposite view. It depends on what your elected officials tell you to think by the regulations they write.

All evils excused.

 

[MotF Bane]

Laws passed by democratically elected representatives of the American people are authoritarian evil? Whatever you say, buddy.

Elected largely by blind partisan hacks such as yourself. Elected by people who live in ignorance and fear such as yourself. Laws passed by people who wipe their asses with the Constitution.

 

[MotF Bane]

Where there is power to oppress there is no immunity. That does not mean those who oppose evil should be punished, rather those who support it ought to be removed. They have violated the trust of the people who elected them.

Let's see what you supported if you had been born in other times in this nation, and yes promoting law and regulation over all else is supporting.

There's the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, where you would have turned in people who aided slaves escaping.

Then there were the Jim Crows you would have to throw your weight behind. Damn those "euphemism for black people" who don't want to sit in the back of the bus. It's the law made by democratically elected representatives.

You would have supported the death penalty for gays. Hey they knew they were breaking the law. That's all on them.

You support the imprisonment of people who smoke marijuana.

You think MLK should have been thrown in jail.

The US is an invalid country because we broke laws to form it. What we did was not legal when we were under British rule. The Founders should have been hanged. That was the penalty for treason.

Dred Scott should have been returned to his master. He wasn't human, merely property.


Of course you could take the complete opposite view. It depends on what your elected officials tell you to think by the regulations they write.

All evils excused.

You, sir, win this thread. :awe:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Don't act dumb. Go check out published opinions on the health care law by acknowledged experts, they trend heavily towards the side of the law being upheld.

I know people who have dogs in a fight can also be experts. What I'd like is a random sample of experts to weigh in on this. You are prepared to demonstrate that the sample isn't biased?

Show me an unbiased randomly selected of experts of numbers to be statistically valid, then make the claim.

That's what would be need to back your contention. You could always say your are right because that's what you read without knowing what was done and how.

I'm not dumb. I know the tricks, and I'll wager so do you.

 

[theeedude]

Elected largely by blind partisan hacks such as yourself. Elected by people who live in ignorance and fear such as yourself. Laws passed by people who wipe their asses with the Constitution.

That is your OPINION. We aren't going to throw away our legal system because of it, sorry.

 

[theeedude]

Where there is power to oppress there is no immunity. That does not mean those who oppose evil should be punished, rather those who support it ought to be removed. They have violated the trust of the people who elected them.

Let's see what you supported if you had been born in other times in this nation, and yes promoting law and regulation over all else is supporting.

There's the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, where you would have turned in people who aided slaves escaping.

Then there were the Jim Crows you would have to throw your weight behind. Damn those "euphemism for black people" who don't want to sit in the back of the bus. It's the law made by democratically elected representatives.

You would have supported the death penalty for gays. Hey they knew they were breaking the law. That's all on them.

You support the imprisonment of people who smoke marijuana.

You think MLK should have been thrown in jail.

The US is an invalid country because we broke laws to form it. What we did was not legal when we were under British rule. The Founders should have been hanged. That was the penalty for treason.

Dred Scott should have been returned to his master. He wasn't human, merely property.


Of course you could take the complete opposite view. It depends on what your elected officials tell you to think by the regulations they write.

All evils excused.

You are simply an idiot. All the people who disobeyed these laws accepted the consequences of doing so as they fought to change them. They did not have an expectation that the laws they disagreed with didn't apply to them. What you are asking for is that instead of fighting to change laws we don't like, we simply start ignoring them when we feel like it with impunity. That is going to lead to a lawless anarchy, in which a lot more people are going to die and suffer.

 

[fskimospy]

I know people who have dogs in a fight can also be experts. What I'd like is a random sample of experts to weigh in on this. You are prepared to demonstrate that the sample isn't biased?

Show me an unbiased randomly selected of experts of numbers to be statistically valid, then make the claim.

That's what would be need to back your contention. You could always say your are right because that's what you read without knowing what was done and how.

I'm not dumb. I know the tricks, and I'll wager so do you.

So in other words you would like me to commission a study that doesn't exist in order to prove something to you on the internet? How about I just do what any rational person would do in this situation, and use the best available evidence to draw my conclusions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So in other words you would like me to commission a study that doesn't exist in order to prove something to you on the internet? How about I just do what any rational person would do in this situation, and use the best available evidence to draw my conclusions.

I don't really care if you look at what's going on or not. What I wonder about isn't any concern to you, and that's fine by me. I'll still play skeptic with such a charged subject as this.

 

[bfdd]

These are laws passed by the American people's democratically elected representatives. Respect for the law is at the very core of our democracy, whether you think they are technicalities or not. When you break the law, you accept the consequences. If you want to engage in civil disobedience and not obey laws you think are evil, you can do that, but it does not grant you immunity from those laws.

Respect for the law might be very core of our democracy, but giving the big middle finger to the "ruling class" is in our blood.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are simply an idiot. All the people who disobeyed these laws accepted the consequences of doing so as they fought to change them. They did not have an expectation that the laws they disagreed with didn't apply to them. What you are asking for is that instead of fighting to change laws we don't like, we simply start ignoring them when we feel like it with impunity. That is going to lead to a lawless anarchy, in which a lot more people are going to die and suffer.

So maybe now you can provide a direct answer.

If a physician is faced with a situation of having to pick between a patients well being or even saving his life or following a regulation, which is the right choice?

 

[manimal]

He had inspiration to rule as he did, but it didn't come from the constitution.

This hack should have recused himself, but didn't:

Thx for posting this perk! I was reading this thread wondering how none mentioned this.


Ken Cuchinelli is also someone of note who hours after this ruling posting it as a victory and messaged it out to his fundraising...

Bob McDonald is also a person of interest. I refuse to play let me google that for you so if your unaware why the "Cuch" and old mcdonald have questionable motives then get to work...


My inner Frank Lunz asks one question of the rest of you..


"Why are you so willfully ignoring the will of the people on health care since most polls say that a majority of Americans think they pay too much for health-care....



This smells the same as the Arizona papers please law.....some big money private interest group with tentacles in the local legislature getting something done via money...



I still find it funny whenever I read "ram down our throats" or "death panels" being parroted like its a fact.....




Have you ever heard the phrase "follow the money?" Follow the "Cuch's" money trail....

 

[theeedude]

So maybe now you can provide a direct answer.

If a physician is faced with a situation of having to pick between a patients well being or even saving his life or following a regulation, which is the right choice?

That is subjective, but if he really feels the "right" thing to do is to break the regulation, he should be prepared for the legal consequences of it. You can't just allow doctors to claim they are looking out for patient well being as an excuse to break the law, because then they would all start doing it and we'd go back to the dark ages of medicine.

 

[fskimospy]

Also interesting to see that this legal opinion is being shredded left and right. I haven't been able to find a single source that thinks it will be upheld on appeal.

 

[boomerang]

Two other federal district judges both of which are Democratic appointees previously ruled that the insurance mandate was constitutional. Now a third, a Republican appointee rules that it's not.

This thread is dominated by whiners who evidently can't deal with anything other than total victory. Newsflash guys, you're winning. Quit acting like children that haven't had their naps.

 

[jackstar7]

If a physician is faced with a situation of having to pick between a patients well being or even saving his life or following a regulation, which is the right choice?

Heavy metal poisoning.


Wait... you're not talking about an episode of House?

 

[boomerang]

From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama,

To: The american people

Dear Citizens,

As you are probably aware by now, today a rogue federal judge in Virginia erroneously found My Great Health Care Initiative and Mandate to be unconstitutional. Not only did this rogue judge legislate from the bench in ruling against Me, he also issued an injunction against putting this Great Leap Forward into place while My administration appeals his ridiculous ruling. This action by Judge Henry Hudson has left me no choice but to move to Plan B for the implementation of my Health Care Initiative.

I have consulted with Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timmy Geithner. Both of these experts have assured me that we can move forward regardless of the judge's ruling. A.G. Holder has assured me that I am in fact in charge of the executive branch, and it is therefore my privilege to enforce a law whether some judge likes it or not. Secretary Geithner has likewise informed me that the IRS is standing by to enforce the law as written by Congress, and that they are perfectly willing to do so no matter what some right-wing kook appointed by a Republican has to say about the matter.

I realize that some individuals have suggested that this will bring about a "constitutional crisis", but I assure you nothing of the sort will happen. Quite frankly, there has been too much talk of late about the constitution, and not enough consideration given to the needs of the people. When you get right down to it, what is the constitution but a bunch of laws written over two-hundred years ago by a bunch of white men who owned slaves? Why are we still letting them tell us what to do? We need My Great Health Care Initiative, and we need it now! This is not the time to let some racist, antiquated set of law books stop our great five-year plan!

So, I have decided the following: First of all, the IRS will still be enforcing the Great Health Care Initiative, regardless of what some court says about it. Secondly, no U.S. Marshal or other Federal Agent will enforce any court order contrary to the implementation of this Great Initiative. Furthermore, any individual or group suggesting that I should do otherwise will be subject to immediate prosecution under the Sedition Act of 2010, which I am putting into place via Executive Order.

In a related note, should any of my loyal followers out there like to get in touch with this power-grabbing judge and let him know what you think about his radical ruling, I think I can arrange for the U.S. Marshals who normally guard his courthouse to be busy somewhere else. Just let my people know the time and day, know what I mean? Sometimes the Chicago Way is the only way. Yeah, I'm giving you a shout out there Bill Ayers.

All right, that pretty much wraps it up. Remember, do right and pay that mandate fee now, and you won't have anything to worry about when you get sick.

Your President for Life,

B. Hussein Obama

 

[jackstar7]

From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama,

[Hilarious satire]

Wait... his middle name is Hussein?


Ho. Lee. Shit.



Game-changer, boys.

 

[fskimospy]

From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama,

To: The american people

Dear Citizens,

As you are probably aware by now, today a rogue federal judge in Virginia erroneously found My Great Health Care Initiative and Mandate to be unconstitutional. Not only did this rogue judge legislate from the bench in ruling against Me, he also issued an injunction against putting this Great Leap Forward into place while My administration appeals his ridiculous ruling. This action by Judge Henry Hudson has left me no choice but to move to Plan B for the implementation of my Health Care Initiative.

I have consulted with Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timmy Geithner. Both of these experts have assured me that we can move forward regardless of the judge's ruling. A.G. Holder has assured me that I am in fact in charge of the executive branch, and it is therefore my privilege to enforce a law whether some judge likes it or not. Secretary Geithner has likewise informed me that the IRS is standing by to enforce the law as written by Congress, and that they are perfectly willing to do so no matter what some right-wing kook appointed by a Republican has to say about the matter.

I realize that some individuals have suggested that this will bring about a "constitutional crisis", but I assure you nothing of the sort will happen. Quite frankly, there has been too much talk of late about the constitution, and not enough consideration given to the needs of the people. When you get right down to it, what is the constitution but a bunch of laws written over two-hundred years ago by a bunch of white men who owned slaves? Why are we still letting them tell us what to do? We need My Great Health Care Initiative, and we need it now! This is not the time to let some racist, antiquated set of law books stop our great five-year plan!

So, I have decided the following: First of all, the IRS will still be enforcing the Great Health Care Initiative, regardless of what some court says about it. Secondly, no U.S. Marshal or other Federal Agent will enforce any court order contrary to the implementation of this Great Initiative. Furthermore, any individual or group suggesting that I should do otherwise will be subject to immediate prosecution under the Sedition Act of 2010, which I am putting into place via Executive Order.

In a related note, should any of my loyal followers out there like to get in touch with this power-grabbing judge and let him know what you think about his radical ruling, I think I can arrange for the U.S. Marshals who normally guard his courthouse to be busy somewhere else. Just let my people know the time and day, know what I mean? Sometimes the Chicago Way is the only way. Yeah, I'm giving you a shout out there Bill Ayers.

All right, that pretty much wraps it up. Remember, do right and pay that mandate fee now, and you won't have anything to worry about when you get sick.

Your President for Life,

B. Hussein Obama

/facepalm

 

[manimal]

Wait... his middle name is Hussein?


Ho. Lee. Shit.



Game-changer, boys.

lol




I also heard he started the potato famine in Ireland all those years ago...