ARJ, what is the actual effect if Roberts does lose credibility. Can he be sacked?

rickyp wrote:

Nice. Good to have you on board. So, you'll agree with me that Jack Lew is denying reality

?

Not according to Romneys top advisor.

Um, what does Romney's top adviser have to do with Jack Lew?

And, what does it have to do with this simple fact: if it's not a tax, it is not constitutional?

I think this position is because then the penalty that Romney put in place in Massachussetts would have to be called a tax too. And that would upset Grover Norquist.

Nah, because Romney is going to repeal several taxes when Obamacare is removed.

danivon wrote:ARJ, what is the actual effect if Roberts does lose credibility. Can he be sacked?

No. The appointments are for life.

I think he can be removed for criminality, but probably not much else.

Besides that, he has a lot of credibility with liberal journalists right now--and George Will.

fate

And, what does it have to do with this simple fact: if it's not a tax, it is not constitutional?

Whatever it is, its constitutional. And thats settled.

rickyp wrote:fate

And, what does it have to do with this simple fact: if it's not a tax, it is not constitutional?

Whatever it is, its constitutional. And thats settled.

And, it's constitutional because . . . Roberts says it's a tax . . . therefore, it's a tax. The largest tax in American history.

Shall we count how many times Obama and Co will lie about that in the next few months?

danivon wrote:ARJ, what is the actual effect if Roberts does lose credibility. Can he be sacked?

His appointment is technically termed as that he shall hold office during good behavior. Therefore, he can be impeached but that is easier said then done. The last Supreme Court Justice to be impeached was Samuel Chase in 1804/05.

rickyp wrote:Whatever it is, its constitutional. And thats settled.

Not necessarily ricky. There is great discussion going on right now about the holding in regards to commerce clause and necessary and proper. According to Part III of Roberts decision, the mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause (Part IIIA) and necessary and proper clause (Part IIIB). It is only constitutional as a tax under Part IIIC. However, the key part is where Roberts says specifically in Part IIIC that it is unconstitutional under both Commerce and N&P and can only be upheld as a tax. Five Justices joined that part of the decision. Therefore, an argument can be made that the Mandate without the fine is unconstitutional. That would mean if a bill to repeal the fine were to become law, the mandate is unenforcible.

The fact that it was deemed only constitutional as a tax may have major implications as well. While the Federal Gov't has broad taxing power, there are limitations on it. This means it could become difficult increase the amount of the fine for not having the insurance. For example, it is my understanding (and I could be wrong about this) that the amount if the fine is less then the actual cost of the insurance. Therefore, it would be more cost effective to just pay the fine until you actually need the insurance. It could become hard to increase the amount of the fine as it may come up against one of the limitations.

Archduke Russell John wrote:The fact that it was deemed only constitutional as a tax may have major implications as well. While the Federal Gov't has broad taxing power, there are limitations on it. This means it could become difficult increase the amount of the fine for not having the insurance. For example, it is my understanding (and I could be wrong about this) that the amount if the fine is less then the actual cost of the insurance. Therefore, it would be more cost effective to just pay the fine until you actually need the insurance. It could become hard to increase the amount of the fine as it may come up against one of the limitations.

This is spot on. Now, the government estimates that few will do this. I think they might be surprised. If you're young, healthy, and know you can't be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, why not?

At the end of the day, this is a Rube Goldberg monstrosity.

archduke

Not necessarily ricky. There is great discussion going on right now about the holding in regards to commerce clause and necessary and proper. According to Part III of Roberts decision, the mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause (Part IIIA) and necessary and proper clause (Part IIIB). It is only constitutional as a tax under Part IIIC. However, the key part is where Roberts says specifically in Part IIIC that it is unconstitutional under both Commerce and N&P and can only be upheld as a tax. Five Justices joined that part of the decision. Therefore, an argument can be made that the Mandate without the fine is unconstitutional. That would mean if a bill to repeal the fine were to become law, the mandate is unenforcible.

In Massachussetts, less than 1% pay the tax, and that goes down each year...
The reality is that the issue of the tax penalty effects very few people. As an election issue, as people become more and more familiar with the issue..... it will become terribly unimportant. When the discourse over Obama care obfuscated a lot of the facts, and misinformed a lot of people it was unpopular.Even though its constituent parts were and are popular.
Simply winning this ruling will make the whole package more popular. (I've seen early polls from CNN that reinforce that supposition.)
There is also a fatigue factor. Arguing like revisionist historians over the causes of the civil war, isn't going to attract new support.....
The issue is past legal wrangling amongst the electorate. The issue is now, if you repeal what will we have? And thats also reasonably good for Obama since the constituent parts of Obama care are popular....Romney named most for his goals.
Another reason that the legal arguement isn't likely to have legs... Romney has agreed that the tax penalty is fair. SInce its exactly what he called the Massachussetts mandate, there won't be a focus on this by his campaign.


By the way, regarding tbis:

Therefore, an argument can be made that the Mandate without the fine is unconstitutional. That would mean if a bill to repeal the fine were to become law, the mandate is unenforcible

.
Wouldn't the law repealing the tax penalty be unconstitutional? You have a gordonian knot... Congress cannot enact laws that are unconstitutional, and if by passsing a law it makes a previously consittuional law unconstitutional..... Just asking.

fate

This is spot on. Now, the government estimates that few will do this. I think they might be surprised. If you're young, healthy, and know you can't be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, why not?

really? They have the almost exact experience in Massachussetts to go by.... There, less than 1% of take the gamble and the number declines every year. Because its a lousy gamble. And the whole number has declined every year.
Why would it be significantly different in other states?

rickyp wrote:fate

This is spot on. Now, the government estimates that few will do this. I think they might be surprised. If you're young, healthy, and know you can't be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, why not?

really? They have the almost exact experience in Massachussetts to go by.... There, less than 1% of take the gamble and the number declines every year. Because its a lousy gamble. And the whole number has declined every year.
Why would it be significantly different in other states?

The law has impacted me in Mass ... my health insurance plan was not sufficient, so I had to switch policies to a more comprehensive plan or have the penalty. I don't pay the penalty, but it certainly has impacted me because I have had to increase my expenses by about $8,000 per year to avoid the penalty. I do know people who pay the penalty knowing that they can switch in a minute if they are diagnosed with a serious illness.

The federal penalty structure is very different (and much more complicated), and doesn't fully kick in till 2016.

rickyp wrote:By the way, regarding tbis:

Therefore, an argument can be made that the Mandate without the fine is unconstitutional. That would mean if a bill to repeal the fine were to become law, the mandate is unenforcible

.
Wouldn't the law repealing the tax penalty be unconstitutional? You have a gordonian knot... Congress cannot enact laws that are unconstitutional, and if by passsing a law it makes a previously consittuional law unconstitutional..... Just asking.

Well, I do not seeit as a Gordian knot. I do not believe there is anything about repealing a tax that is unconstitutional. Repeal the fine, sell it as a tax cut and don't enforce the mandate. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. I mean there are laws on the books all over the place that are no longer enforced.

And Congress passes laws all the time that they might think/know to be unconstitutional and then hope to get a sympathetic Judge to side with them.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the commentators I have read are saying Roberts interpretation of the tax clause is new and unique. There is a strong belief that this interpretation will not stand up in future cases.

You mean like DOMA, Arch?

rickyp wrote:In Massachussetts, less than 1% pay the tax, and that goes down each year...

Is this what we have to look forward to?

A new poll of 838 Massachusetts doctors finds patients are still waiting weeks -- in some cases as long as a month and a half -- for non-urgent appointments with primary care physicians and certain specialists.

Surveyors for the Massachusetts Medical Society called doctors' offices in February and March and asked when they could come in for routine care. They requested a new patient appointment with internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians; an appointment for heartburn with gastroenterologists; a heart check-up with cardiologists; an appointment for knee pain with orthopedic surgeons; and a routine exam with obstetrician/gynecologists.

The average wait ranged from 24 days for an appointment with a pediatrician to 48 days to see an internist. The wait for an internist was actually down slightly, from 53 days in a similar 2010 survey, but the waits for family doctors, gastroenterologists, orthopedists, and ob/gyns increased.

The medical society, which represents physicians, broke down the results by county, but in some cases the sample is small.

Surveyors also asked doctors whether they are accepting new patients: It was most difficult to find a new adult primary care doctor -- more than half of those practices were full. This year's results were close to the findings in the society's 2010 survey.

President Obama likes to say, "Romney did it too."

Let's see--the economy? "Bush's fault."

So, if Romneycare is bad and Obamacare is modeled after that, then we can suppose the same results will come about. Will that be "Romney's fault?"

On the other hand, while he's not had the courage to say so, Romney knows what has happened in MA. It's less than ideal. So, he wants to repeal it--and that's a bad thing?

The reality is that the issue of the tax penalty effects very few people. As an election issue, as people become more and more familiar with the issue..... it will become terribly unimportant.

Right you are! Scoffers will scoff (not buy insurance, taking the sweet deal of the low penalty).

On the other hand, when people understand the vast majority of Americans are either getting nothing OR getting penalized with taxes (most are indirect), I don't see any reason to think the law will gain in popularity.

Further, as the economy continues to flounder, Obamacare will mean less to the mushy middle. The President has to convince people that Romney knows less about economics than his proven failed record demonstrates. That's going to be a tough sell.

When the discourse over Obama care obfuscated a lot of the facts, and misinformed a lot of people it was unpopular.Even though its constituent parts were and are popular.

So what? A law isn't simply a few parts--it's the whole. People don't like the whole law.

Furthermore, the Federal government has spent millions promoting it. It's still not popular.

Simply winning this ruling will make the whole package more popular. (I've seen early polls from CNN that reinforce that supposition.)

I've seen polls showing the opposite. Let me know when anything approaching a substantial majority like Obamacare.