Even More Obamacare Follies

#1,627
#1,627
Does the Administration have the authority to arbitrarily suspend, alter a tax law? After all the SCOTUS ruled the personal mandate was a tax.

I see an enterprising barrister using this "honor system" and presatent of arbitrary enforcement to challenge any number of tax laws.
 
#1,628
#1,628
hog88 said:
Does the Administration have the authority to arbitrarily suspend, alter a tax law? After all the SCOTUS ruled the personal mandate was a tax.

I see an enterprising barrister using this "honor system" and presatent of arbitrary enforcement to challenge any number of tax laws.
Click to expand...






It's good to be king.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,629
#1,629
hog88 said:
Does the Administration have the authority to arbitrarily suspend, alter a tax law? After all the SCOTUS ruled the personal mandate was a tax.

I see an enterprising barrister using this "honor system" and presatent of arbitrary enforcement to challenge any number of tax laws.
Click to expand...

Who's stopping him?
 
#1,631
#1,631
just found out yesterday that my wifes insurance deductable went from $1500 to $3000 and emergency room visit went from $100 to $250.
 
#1,633
#1,633
Anyone else read the transcripts of yesterday's arguments in the Hobby Lobby case? Really interesting stuff from both ideological ends of the bench. I won't pretend to have a feel for which way it's going to go, but I think the government's case has several glaring problems.
 
#1,634
#1,634
Here are my big problems with the Hobby Lobby case

1) The elevation of FREE birth control to "right" status. Can anyone think of other healthcare or drugs that are mandated to be FREE? I take high blood pressure medication but it's not free - it is covered with co-pay but not free.

Why is this the one thing that is free in the HC law. Could it be political? Naw.

2) Hobby Lobby already pays for 16 different forms of birth control that do not violate their beliefs. It is 4 they are objecting to (assuming they are the morning after and other abortive drugs.

Why do we have to pay for all these options? Again, what other drug category do we do this for? None that I can think of.

3) Free BC advocates claim that BC is also a woman's health issue to regulate hormones - the abortives do not do that; they have a single purpose. I don't have a problem with that purpose but don't hide under the women's health argument for these drugs.
 
#1,635
#1,635
Kagan admits companies are dropping insurance and actually suggested that HL do the same

Kagan went on to say that other U.S. businesses are “voluntarily” dropping their health insurance coverage for employees.

“You know Hobby Lobby is paying something right now for the – for the coverage,” Kagan said. “It’s less than what Hobby Lobby is paying for the coverage. There are employers all over the United States that are doing this voluntarily.”
Click to expand...

Sotomayor chimes in with the same suggestion

“Well, if they want to do that, they can just pay a greater salary and let the employees go in on the exchange,” Sotomayor said.
Click to expand...
 
#1,637
#1,637
hog88 said:
And this is why we need to end lifetime appointments.
Click to expand...

or review the "every person gets a vote" rules. People need to wake up and realize elections have consequences. The USSC openings were talked about before the elections
 
#1,638
#1,638
volinbham said:
Here are my big problems with the Hobby Lobby case

1) The elevation of FREE birth control to "right" status. Can anyone think of other healthcare or drugs that are mandated to be FREE? I take high blood pressure medication but it's not free - it is covered with co-pay but not free.

Why is this the one thing that is free in the HC law. Could it be political? Naw.

2) Hobby Lobby already pays for 16 different forms of birth control that do not violate their beliefs. It is 4 they are objecting to (assuming they are the morning after and other abortive drugs.

Why do we have to pay for all these options? Again, what other drug category do we do this for? None that I can think of.

3) Free BC advocates claim that BC is also a woman's health issue to regulate hormones - the abortives do not do that; they have a single purpose. I don't have a problem with that purpose but don't hide under the women's health argument for these drugs.
Click to expand...

Decent points, all.

The interesting thing is, the purpose of those drugs was hardly argued yesterday. The necessity of those drugs wasn't argued at all.

The single biggest issue I have is this: the government has already acknowledged that there are legitimate religious objections to these drugs. It has granted exceptions to providing coverage for those drugs to a specific set of religious institutions. So there is no argument against the religious liberty position.

But the government is trying to argue that it has the power to determine who has the right to this specific religious liberty. Simply put, it is like saying "You can have it; you can't."
 
#1,639
#1,639
utvolpj said:
or review the "every person gets a vote" rules. People need to wake up and realize elections have consequences. The USSC openings were talked about before the elections
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer in the repeal of the 17th amendment and getting rid of the "during good behavior" language. Judges at all levels of the federal government should be limited to 10 year terms.

I don't think the founding fathers anticipated the increased life expectancy we have today.
 
#1,640
#1,640
bamawriter said:
Decent points, all.

The interesting thing is, the purpose of those drugs was hardly argued yesterday. The necessity of those drugs wasn't argued at all.

The single biggest issue I have is this: the government has already acknowledged that there are legitimate religious objections to these drugs. It has granted exceptions to providing coverage for those drugs to a specific set of religious institutions. So there is no argument against the religious liberty position.

But the government is trying to argue that it has the power to determine who has the right to this specific religious liberty. Simply put, it is like saying "You can have it; you can't."
Click to expand...

The government is arguing that for-profit corporations cannot have religious beliefs. However, as you've noted they've already granted exemptions to corporations so the "for-profit" distinction is really slicing hairs. Likewise, the justices pointed out that law has been upheld that for-profit corporations can sue for racial discrimination (thus have "race" standing) and the government agreed that corporations do have such standing. So now they are arguing for-profits have "race" based on owners but not "religious views".

Most analysis suggests the government lost yesterday but all thought that about the individual mandate.

Get ready for the next War on Women - the male justices vs the female justices...
 
#1,641
#1,641
volinbham said:
Get ready for the next War on Women - the male justices vs the female justices...
Click to expand...

That may be 100% correct. Even Breyer seemed to be having a tough time with the government's position. The ladies were the only ones who seemed completely on board the restrict religion train.
 
Last edited:
#1,642
#1,642
Kagan's argument was interesting (though not Constitutionally based). She suggested that various companies might exempt certain procedures from coverage based on religious views and that would result in a "lack of uniformity" of insurance.

Why is this a problem? More importantly, why is uniformity of insurance coverage of interest to a Supreme Court justice?
 
#1,643
#1,643
Presumably large partnerships and sole proprietorships can be exempt since they are not corporations.

What is it about incorporating (as a for-profit only) that says the owner's religious views are no longer relevant?
 
#1,644
#1,644
volinbham said:
Kagan's argument was interesting (though not Constitutionally based). She suggested that various companies might exempt certain procedures from coverage based on religious views and that would result in a "lack of uniformity" of insurance.

Why is this a problem? More importantly, why is uniformity of insurance coverage of interest to a Supreme Court justice?
Click to expand...

I think Kagan may have a point regarding various procedures, treatments, etc that could be objected to on religious grounds. There is certainly a slippery slope argument to be made there. But the appellant handled it well, saying that it would be up to the courts to decide in each of those instances whether or not the government had a prevailing interest in compelling those coverages just like they are doing now with Hobby Lobby.

Kennedy presented the other side of the slippery slope. He got the Solicitor General to acknowledge the fact that the government's stance could be used to compell a corporation to pay for abortions if such a law were passed by Congress. And unlike the scenerio posed above, were the Court to rule for the government, there would be no limiting principle as corporations would not be able to argue on religious grounds.

volinbham said:
Presumably large partnerships and sole proprietorships can be exempt since they are not corporations.

What is it about incorporating (as a for-profit only) that says the owner's religious views are no longer relevant?
Click to expand...

The government seemed to make it a question of sincerity. But that is rather absurd since the courts deal with issues of sincerity all the time. And even Sotomayor seemed to acknowledge that corporations are capable of having interests beyond simply making money.
 
#1,645
#1,645
So the Supreme Court is now using the argument that a corporation cannot represent a human being if health care is involved, but it can when it comes to lobbying and making donations? Ok.....

These people are a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,646
#1,646
bamawriter said:
I think Kagan may have a point regarding various procedures, treatments, etc that could be objected to on religious grounds. There is certainly a slippery slope argument to be made there. But the appellant handled it well, saying that it would be up to the courts to decide in each of those instances whether or not the government had a prevailing interest in compelling those coverages just like they are doing now with Hobby Lobby.
Click to expand...

I get the slippery slope argument but my point is she concluded that was a problem because if it's effect on uniformity.

What is the value of uniformity that outweighs the value of religious freedom? One is explicitly written into the Constitution and the other is not.

Hanging the argument on uniformity is weak IMHO. Uniformity has strengths and weaknesses - it is not inherently desirable.
 
#1,647
#1,647
volinbham said:
I get the slippery slope argument but my point is she concluded that was a problem because if it's effect on uniformity.

What is the value of uniformity that outweighs the value of religious freedom? One is explicitly written into the Constitution and the other is not.

Hanging the argument on uniformity is weak IMHO. Uniformity has strengths and weaknesses - it is not inherently desirable.
Click to expand...

And the uniformity argument is already blown up because the government has issued exemptions and "grandfathering" all over the place. There is no uniformity in the mandated coverages, and there is no indication that there ever will be.
 
#1,648
#1,648
Harry's always good for a funny

“We have hundreds of thousands of people who tried to sign up who didn’t get through,” he said. “There are some people who are not like my grandchildren who can handle everything so easily on the Internet, and these people need a little extra time. It’s not — the example they gave us is a 63-year-old woman came into the store and said, ‘I almost got it. Every time I just about got there, it would cut me off.’ We have a lot of people just like this through no fault of the Internet, but because people are not educated on how to use the Internet.”
Click to expand...

the site doesn't work and could never work for anyone right now but it's the user's fault
 
#1,649
#1,649
utvolpj said:
Harry's always good for a funny



the site doesn't work and could never work for anyone right now but it's the user's fault
Click to expand...

If user error were the sole problem, it should have been solved by the millions we are spending on "navigators".

But we all know that the real reason for this delay is that the Democrats don't want someone walking into a polling place in November knowing that he'll be paying a penalty five months later.
 
#1,650
#1,650
volinbham said:
Here are my big problems with the Hobby Lobby case

1) The elevation of FREE birth control to "right" status. Can anyone think of other healthcare or drugs that are mandated to be FREE? I take high blood pressure medication but it's not free - it is covered with co-pay but not free.

Why is this the one thing that is free in the HC law. Could it be political? Naw.

2) Hobby Lobby already pays for 16 different forms of birth control that do not violate their beliefs. It is 4 they are objecting to (assuming they are the morning after and other abortive drugs.

Why do we have to pay for all these options? Again, what other drug category do we do this for? None that I can think of.

3) Free BC advocates claim that BC is also a woman's health issue to regulate hormones - the abortives do not do that; they have a single purpose. I don't have a problem with that purpose but don't hide under the women's health argument for these drugs.
Click to expand...

Good post. I agree the hypocrisy on this is stupid.

However, if anything is going to be "free" with the HC law, I'm fine with greater access to BC. I have a sense, however naive, it may help with responsibility more and less government cost down the line.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top