The Constitutional legality of the mandate and the Medicaid expansion/requirements is debatable for many and many law minds will differ and seems to essentially come down to ones interpretation of the tax and spend clause. (Edited after Sinatra noted the typo, originally stated Commerce Clause) But again, that's not my issue. My issue is how it was passed. It was way too important of a bill with way too large a scope to be considered for reconciliation. Reconciliation has been stretched way past its intent by Congress by both parties. I think I'm entitled to that opinion and my mental capacity or reality doesn't need to be put into question by you. In addition, I would have thought preceding posts would have revealed my issue, so perhaps if you weren't so quick to breathlessly get into rant mode, you would have acquired this information and saved yourself the effort.
Last edited by playmakr; January 5th, 2013 at 05:54 AM.
Careful guys, green sooner will threaten you if you his Messiah
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Alleged sarcasm? That's rich.Apologies for all of my alleged "hostility and sarcasm."
First of all, that's a statement of fact, I'm not sure it's meant to be or any way appears offensive. I imagine you have forgotten more about your professional specialty than I'll ever know. Secondly, as has already been noted, you are the one who came with the reality comments before that post. Lastly, I wasn't offended. C'mon, get real here, you're anonymous. How could you offend?Apologies for all of my alleged "hostility and sarcasm." Maybe if I had replied with something along the lines of the following, you would not have been offended and felt that it is not unbecoming:
Originally Posted by playmakr
I've forgotten more than you will ever know about the bill and its effect on the Heathcare industry, particularly for hospitals.
Thanks for clarifying the momentary loss of brain function. Indeed, the tax and spend clause. Edit: interpretation of tax and spend clause in the bill's contextNot sure why you think the constitutionality of the ACA "comes down to one's interpretation of the commerce clause" when the majority held that the ACA is constitutional under the taxing clause of the Constitution.
Wait, you're not suggesting since the SCOTUS ruled, all debate/discussion is over are you? Damn, why the hell are all those people still trying to ban handguns? Didn't they read the Heller ruling?
Why do we even have minority opinions written?
But again, you're still getting away from the actual passage of the bill. The SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising or as egregious as the passage.
A bill of this magnitude was never intended for reconciliation. They tried to pass it using traditional rules. It didn't. Not the first Congress to do it, won't be the last. I'm serious as a heart attack.When you make statements indicating that the ACA "didn't actually pass", do you expect to be taken seriously?
Allegedly.Hey! That's sarcastic!
False.You must not have paid any attention whatsoever to the oral argument at the Court or all of the press coverage afterwards.
I don't consider expectations and surprise as being the same thing. Surprise is an emotion. After Verrilli got grilled in the arguments by Kennedy and Roberts, I expected the mandate to be struck down. But I wasn't surprised Roberts found a way to side with the more liberal judges to rule it constitutional, while also including restrictions for the future. Roberts has always struck me as a guy very interested in his legacy as Chief. So again, I expected it to be ruled down, but wasn't surprised it was upheld. Just like I expected OU's defense to perform well last night, but wasn't surprised when they got humiliated.What then took so many by surprise once the Court issued its opinion were the facts that (i) the majority held that the ACA is constitutional in the first place (for any reason); (ii) the majority found the ACA to be constitutional by relying upon the "taxing authority" provision and (iii) Justice Roberts sided with the majority. To say that the "SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising", as you did above, is factually incorrect.
The Byrd Rule.Can you provide some proof of that? A link to legislative intent of any statute, perhaps? A preamble to a proposed, temporary or final regulation? Anything of an authoritative legal nature at all?
You have to ask yourself why if Obama had a big majority in the House, 60/59 Democrats/caucusing Independents in the Senate, could they not pass a final bill with a majority in the House and a supermajority (avoiding filibuster) in the Senate. Maybe more debate should have been had?
They can more easily make themselves heard in a primary election. In an election pitting a "RINO" and a liberal Democrat, what choice do they have?If they vote GOP regardless then what makes them different from the other people who vote GOP regardless whom they seem to despise?
I'm wondering who the victims are in this scenario? I simply said it's easier to make your voice heard in a primary than it is an actual election, because the primary way to make your voice heard in say a national election is to not vote, which can end up with the consequence of someone far away from your political beliefs winning. That's true of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, whoever. I remember in 2004 a lot of my friends were very anti-bush but weren't happy with Kerry as a choice, lamenting the fact they didn't exercise their right to vote in the primary to keep the nominee from being Kerry. I guess you could mean they are the victims of the political system? I don't know. I don't know what victims you are pointing out or even what the point of your response is. Thusly, I asked you to expand on your response.
In addition, did you mean aww instead of, ah?
I think your problem, well one of them, is you see every post as being radically partisan and formulate a rapid response on that basis. But I could be off base.
Can an Obama voter be upset he hasn't closed GITMO? Has Janet N working in his administration, shredding liberties? I know many that are and grew up with them in Obama's hometown. Who did they vote for in November?
Until there is a viable third party candidate in a national election, you're A) essentially voting for the status quo and B) cringing while you select your candidate