individual mandate struck down

just heard it on the radio. -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons

I know you don't agree, but good. On Jun 28, 2012 10:11 AM, "Larry C. Lyons" <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Just went to SCOTUSblog.com So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court. 10:11 Amy Howe: The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated. 10:13 Tom: 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. Sorry I misread the original note. It looks like the court has treated the mandate like a tax saying it was legit. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM, LRS Scout <lrsscout@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Essentially the mandate has been upheld. It is a tax and Congress was within its power to set this up. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > Essentially the mandate has been upheld. It is a tax and Congress was > within its power to set this up. > A tax that actually goes towards something you need. Wow that's a change.

expect manic frothing at the mouth from the extreme end of the republican party in 5..4..3..2..1.. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions <casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

And fiscal and civil libertarians. Oh well, whatever, we've been headed in this direction for a while.  At least he can't claim its not a new tax anymore. On Jun 28, 2012 10:20 AM, "Larry C. Lyons" <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

from the scotusBlog 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. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:25 AM, LRS Scout <lrsscout@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

They would have saved a lot of time, energy and money if the Dems had just had the balls to call it a tax to begin with. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:25 AM, LRS Scout <lrsscout@gmail.com> wrote: > > And fiscal and civil libertarians. > > Oh well, whatever, we've been headed in this direction for a while.  At > least he can't claim its not a new tax anymore. > >

Link to the decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM, morgan lindley <greykher@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

"Repealing the Health Care Act is Romney's only campaign point. " Nah.  He's got more.  It's just the biggest point. Alas, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if it is overturned or not.  The precedent has been set the Federal government can make you buy anything they want you to buy and if you don't, you will be penalized via a tax. Welcome to Post-Constitutional America. J - The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. - Thomas Paine

Our Washington DC law blogger is tweeting about it today, and I am following her feed, rather than all of the teeth gnashing and horn honking of various other sites. https://twitter.com/DCDicta I am hoping she leaves out most of the rhetoric and hyperbole. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: > > expect manic frothing at the mouth from the extreme end of the > republican party in 5..4..3..2..1..

that's why I'm following the SCOTUSBlog - absolutely not partisan. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmiloj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Here's the most recent bit of analysis from SCOTUS Blog (http://www.scotusblog.com). 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.

"Only in America would so many overweight, diabetic people with heart disease be upset that they're gonna have healthcare." (Dave Rubin via Twitter) On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: > > expect manic frothing at the mouth from the extreme end of the > republican party in 5..4..3..2..1..

so many overweight, diabetic people with heart disease DNC: 'IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL. BITCHES'... DNC DELETED TWEET: 'TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!' I'm guessing lefties are haters . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Only in America would so many overweight, diabetic people with heart > disease be upset that they're gonna have healthcare." (Dave Rubin via > Twitter)

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm guessing lefties are haters And as for Mitt Romney? "What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States, and that is I will act to repeal Obamacare,"

Where's the hate in that? On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions <casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I guess he hates the bill. Course he's not alone in that. Why can't we give it a few years and see if it works, before we repeal it? Shit...what we were doing wasn't working, what's wrong with trying something new? If it turns out the republicans were right and it's not working, we'll repeal it then. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

We can't afford a few years. Almost four years of recession and the largest tax increase ever is not going to help us out of it. Agreed we need healthcare reform. This version is the worst possible scenario. Repeal it and start again in a bi-partisan way. . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Repeal it and start again in a bi-partisan way. Now THAT is funny. -Justin

Especially considering MOST of the pieces of the bill were written by either conservative think-tanks or from Republican written bills. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Justin Scott <leviathan@darktech.org> wrote: > >> Repeal it and start again in a bi-partisan way. > > Now THAT is funny.

u 2 funny 2 . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmiloj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I've got very mixed feelings about the ACA. My biggest feeling, at this point, is relief that the legal wrangling is largely done. I'm hopeful that some savings are seen as the various provisions come into play, but I don't think there will be much at the national level. I'm more excited about some of the opportunities for state-level reform included in the bill. Oregon has received a waiver and is pooling together money to establish accountable care organizations which, I think, have the potential to really change the way that chronic conditions are handled amongst some of our most vulnerable (and costly) groups. I'm not optimistic for this fall, but hopefully after the election we can turn our attention to seeing what is working and what isn't and gradually improving health care quality, outcomes and cost. A bit of a dream, but have to start somewhere. Judah On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmiloj@gmail.com> wrote: > > Especially considering MOST of the pieces of the bill were written by > either conservative think-tanks or from Republican written bills.

A waiver? I see. . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I hear a popping sound coming from K Street and Capitol Hill, it must be all those neo-con's head exploding. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmiloj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Gloat all you want, but your boys just bought the health care mess. You own it now. If this blows up, there won't be another democrat elected for awhile. I sure hope you guys are right, that this mumbo jumbo is actually gonna work. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

who are "you guys"? On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Anyone in favor of this. ANyone who was out there shouting about it. Anyone who demonized those who spoke out against it.  Mostly those were democrats. Not all. But as a party, they own this. Again, i hope it works. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmiloj@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

It can't work, we won't be able to borrow enough money for it to sustain itself . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: > > Anyone in favor of this. ANyone who was out there shouting about it. Anyone > who demonized those who spoke out against it.  Mostly those were democrats. > Not all. But as a party, they own this. > > Again, i hope it works.

But we can borrow enough to start a war with Syria and Iran, Right Sam? Eric Roberts Owner/Developer Three Ravens Consulting owner@threeravensconsulting.com http://www.threeravensconsulting.com tel: 630-881-1515 It can't work, we won't be able to borrow enough money for it to sustain itself . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: > > Anyone in favor of this. ANyone who was out there shouting about it. > Anyone who demonized those who spoke out against it.  Mostly those were democrats. > Not all. But as a party, they own this. > > Again, i hope it works.

I didn't ask for a war with Syria . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

"It can't work, we won't be able to borrow enough money for it to sustain itself" Taxes. J - The power to tax involves the power to destroy. - John Marshall

Obviously you are new here. This place around you is called "America". "The United States of America" when Canadians get uppity. There is not buy-in or ownership implied when either shouting for or against someone, and there is no penalty for demonizing anyone. Actually _voting_ for something, and wearing tshirts, indicate ownership. I don't see this as a Democratic party item yet, but as a Democratic Congress, and as an Democratic President item yes. but there are a lot of state and local Democratic people that are not owners of this in any way. And there are a good number of Republicans who voted for this (and therefore have ownership), and others who agree with the Constitutional ruling on the decision, that have no ownership of the actual issue. And as always, there are a lot of watcher with popcorn just enjoying the show, and throwing popcorn at anyone who seems too silly. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:06 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: > > Anyone in favor of this. ANyone who was out there shouting about it. Anyone > who demonized those who spoke out against it.  Mostly those were democrats. > Not all. But as a party, they own this. > > Again, i hope it works

0 is a good number ... to start an index. . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <jmiloj@gmail.com> wrote: > > And there are a good number of Republicans who voted for this (and > therefore have ownership), and others who agree with the > Constitutional ruling on the decision, that have no ownership of the > actual issue.

Funny thing is that this is only a half measure, originally designed by Mitt Romney when he was governor. If anything a single payer system is cheaper, more efficient and does allow for more freedom of choice for patients. But hey the welfare of the American people has to take back seat to ideology now doesn't it. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Romney didn't design Obamacare. Nobody designed it. It's a crap sandwich slapped together in the backroom in the middle of the night. They had to pass it to see what was in it. . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Repealing the Health Care Act is Romney's only campaign point.  He has raised over 10 million dollars since the SCOTUS announcement was made this money.  Expect him to harp on it long and hard over the next few weeks as he rakes in the gold.  Look for those individuals who are so mad today to totally ignore the real source of the opposition, and who stands to profit if Romney should actually get elected and repeal the law.  As usual, follow the money. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:44 AM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

u 2 funny . On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: > "Only in America would so many overweight, diabetic people with heart > disease be upset that they're gonna have healthcare." (Dave Rubin via > Twitter) Seriously, we Americans haven't even achieved Type 3 diabetes yet! (stolen from Stephen Colbert) -Cameron ...

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > just heard it on the radio. HufPo just said it wasn't struck down.

Yes I misheard what was on the radio. That said except for the feds being able to withdraw medicare from states, the ACA has been upheld. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions <casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

On 6/28/2012 10:11 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > just heard it on the radio. >   Today show says it was upheld based on the government's authority to tax