So it's a tax.

[Ducbutter]

SCOTUS has decided it to be a tax. So now what about all the exemptions that were carved out for the unions and friends of the administration, Pelosi, et al? Are those legal? Is it constitutionaly permissible? I'm asking seriously. It certainly doesn't seem fair.

[gnadfly]

Good question. What happened to all those Obamacare waivers to those small businesses like McDonalds that Obama and Pelosi were handing out?

Did any of the SCOTUS judges read the law to find out what was in it?

[CuteOldGuy]

Four of them did.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

SCOTUS has decided it to be a tax.

If one judge out of nine calls it a tax, i think it's a bit of a reach to say SCOTUS decided it was a tax.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

If one judge out of nine calls it a tax, i think it's a bit of a reach to say SCOTUS decided it was a tax.

Point of fact, Doofus -- it wouldn't be the "law of the land" without that singular distinction by that one justice; so once again, what you "think" means nothing.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Point of fact, Doofus -- it wouldn't be the "law of the land" without that singular distinction by that one justice;

I understand that. And i also understand that the 4 justices who COG thinks got it right said it wasn't a tax. Correct?

So are they wrong, or is Roberts?

Can't wait to hear your answer to that one.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Doove

If one judge out of nine calls it a tax, i think it's a bit of a reach to say SCOTUS decided it was a tax.

Ok, so enlighten us as to how 1 judge comprises a majority out of 9 and under what constitutional provision the fed has the authority to exact said moneys from the citizenry.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Ok, so enlighten us as to how 1 judge comprises a majority out of 9 and under what constitutional provision the fed has the authority to exact said moneys from the citizenry.

It can be found to be constitutional under entirely differing clauses. Four found it to be constitutional based on the commerce clause, and one found it constitutional based on the feds ability to tax.

So only one called it a tax.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

I understand that. And i also understand that the 4 justices who COG thinks got it right said it wasn't a tax. Correct?

So are they wrong, or is Roberts?

Can't wait to hear your answer to that one.

Already answered it, Doofus: it wouldn't be the "law of the land" without that singular distinction by that one justice!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Already answered it, Doofus: it wouldn't be the "law of the land" without that singular distinction by that one justice!

You say nothing here that contradicts anything i've said.

In fact, you confirm it.

[Solemate62]

Too bad the whole Insurance Plan could not have been disguised as another War costing us trillions of dollars a year and benefitting no one. That way the Republicans would jump on board and back it without question!

[CJ7]

call it a tax or a penalty

if you have existing or buy insurance it doesnt apply to you

only the people who refuse to partake pay whatever you want to call it.


nobody knows how many people that will be but the estimate is around 1%

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Doove

You say nothing here that contradicts anything i've said.

In fact, you confirm it.

Five justices concluded that the mandate, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain minimum health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, falls within Congress' power under the Constitution to "lay and collect taxes."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1585131.html


Lyle:
Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/li...bloomberg-law/

At scotusblog.com look at the entry at 10:26 on the live feed replay.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

You say nothing here that contradicts anything i've said.

In fact, you confirm it.

You are hallucinating again, Doofus. You've been contradicted, and that contradiction has been confirmed.

[Jackie S]

I thought the "majority opinion," which was read by the CJ, was the view of the other four in the Majority.

If not, should not one of the other Justices have written, and read, another Majority Opinion.

I agree with CJ-7. The only people who will be affected by this "tax" are those who have never had nor were planning on getting coverage.

I don't know how this is going to affect people who live in the "underground economy". Hookers, (not all), are a good example. If a Lady gets sick or hurt, and has to go to the Doctor, and is told she must have Health Coverage, what will she do? Surely they will ask what she does for a living, and any other personal information that the IRS deems neccessary to aquire.