quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As to what I think the constitutional question in this instance is:

The supreme court takes a dim view of one branch of government abrogating the prerogatives of the other branch, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

While the executive branch may certainly set incidental fees, it is the prerogative of congress to set taxes. Congress may not, even voluntarily, give to the executive the power to set taxes.

It has been established .that congress has the right to set what the taxes should be under obamacare.
However, Congress does not have the right to cede that discretion to the executive branch.

In other words, Congress may act to change the tax rate in Obamacare; the secretary of health and human services may not.

Now, to be fair, it could be that the courts will rule that this is incidental. The court may rule that this does not rise to the level of requiring redress. So, yes, while I feel that this is clearly not constitutional, I would think that this challenge would only have a 20% chance of prevailing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I agree with Ken, that there are many instances of this. May it be a wake up call to you to report on the things you have found to your friends and family. May it guide your voting and your discussions.
I don't agree that its constitutional. I believe it will be challenged. But it can only fundamentally be fixed if you and those you care about wake up and spread the word.

It is legal,has been challenged over forty times and was deemed constitutional by the folks who decide what is and what is not constitutional....the SCOTUS.
Btw,you don`t get to agree or disagree with what is constitutional.
It either is or it is not, as decided by the SCOTUS.

Try not to be so patently absurd.
Of course I get to agree whether or not its constitutional or not. Its called an opinion.
As for its constitutionality being decided more than 40 times - I'm curious what in the hell you are talking about.
You seem to lack understanding of how the supreme court works.
Two aspects of the law were brought to the court. The part of whether the congress could enact a tax, under the guise of calling it a penalty, was ruled constitutional. The naked expropriation of Medicare was ruled unconstitutional.
It looks as if one more aspect will make it to the supreme court in the near future. The constitutionality of that aspect is uncertain.
Regardless of how any one aspect is decided, it does not prevent further suits from being brought, on the same or different points. And while stare desis is supposed to prevail the court has reversed itself on many occasions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Oh the "government takeover" argument......
Let`s let 30 million Americans go uninsured to salve their paranoia.

There's still 30 million Americans who will go uninsured after the ACA goes into effect. The big difference now is that we all have a new tax. [;)]

I feel there should be an amend item to the ACA. That when someone who doesn't get a health plan and instead the fine but later needs the plan due to a sudden health problem. That the can still get access to a health plan to help cover expenses (as they will increase rapidly without health care cover), BUT, they also get a tattoo across their forehead in big letters that says "MORON". That way we'll know how was really against it before they were for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Oh the "government takeover" argument......
Let`s let 30 million Americans go uninsured to salve their paranoia.

There's still 30 million Americans who will go uninsured after the ACA goes into effect. The big difference now is that we all have a new tax. [;)]

I feel there should be an amend item to the ACA. That when someone who doesn't get a health plan and instead the fine but later needs the plan due to a sudden health problem. That the can still get access to a health plan to help cover expenses (as they will increase rapidly without health care cover), BUT, they also get a tattoo across their forehead in big letters that says "MORON". That way we'll know how was really against it before they were for it.

The fine is prorated as to how many months you went without. If you were without insurance for 3 months or less, the fine is waived.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Oh the "government takeover" argument......
Let`s let 30 million Americans go uninsured to salve their paranoia.

There's still 30 million Americans who will go uninsured after the ACA goes into effect. The big difference now is that we all have a new tax. [;)]

I feel there should be an amend item to the ACA. That when someone who doesn't get a health plan and instead the fine but later needs the plan due to a sudden health problem. That the can still get access to a health plan to help cover expenses (as they will increase rapidly without health care cover), BUT, they also get a tattoo across their forehead in big letters that says "MORON". That way we'll know how was really against it before they were for it.

The fine is prorated as to how many months you went without. If you were without insurance for 3 months or less, the fine is waived.

Realize that unlike the other 92% of the population of the nation, I read the Affordable Care Act from cover to cover. A boring, dull, 'put you to sleep' read. Neverless, I felt it was needed to understand the law rather than have someone do the thinking for me. From time to time, I have re-read parts as they came up here and other places to make sure I was understanding the law correctly. I may have just forgotten that sub-section while writing the above post. Sorry! An thank you for the update.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I agree with Ken, that there are many instances of this. May it be a wake up call to you to report on the things you have found to your friends and family. May it guide your voting and your discussions.
I don't agree that its constitutional. I believe it will be challenged. But it can only fundamentally be fixed if you and those you care about wake up and spread the word.

It is legal,has been challenged over forty times and was deemed constitutional by the folks who decide what is and what is not constitutional....the SCOTUS.
Btw,you don`t get to agree or disagree with what is constitutional.
It either is or it is not, as decided by the SCOTUS.

Try not to be so patently absurd.
Of course I get to agree whether or not its constitutional or not. Its called an opinion.
As for its constitutionality being decided more than 40 times - I'm curious what in the hell you are talking about.
You seem to lack understanding of how the supreme court works.
Two aspects of the law were brought to the court. The part of whether the congress could enact a tax, under the guise of calling it a penalty, was ruled constitutional. The naked expropriation of Medicare was ruled unconstitutional.
It looks as if one more aspect will make it to the supreme court in the near future. The constitutionality of that aspect is uncertain.
Regardless of how any one aspect is decided, it does not prevent further suits from being brought, on the same or different points. And while stare desis is supposed to prevail the court has reversed itself on many occasions.

Minor point of order, Phydeaux. The second decision by the SCOTUS, declared unConstitutional, was removing all MedicAID funding if a State refused to expand Medicaid. The ruling was that current funding had to be maintained and that the only funding that could be removed was that funding that was to be used for expansion of the State program.

Medicaid, not Medicare. Minor point.