Nearly two years to the day after it was first passed by the then-Democratic held Congress, the Supreme Court is hearing the case of 26 states against the Affordable Health Care Act, aka Obamacare.... It is an almost unprecedented hearing, lasting three days and over 7 hours of time devoted to attorneys for both sides. That's a part of all this that a lot of people didn't realize about SCOTUS hearings. Most cases are only about an hour or two at most...
Today's issue was short and less exciting than Tues or Weds might be.... One the plate this AM was whether the states can sue for injury (mainly financial) for being forced to pay fines for not buying health insurance, when no one has had to pay it yet. It's like a good martini: very dry, and you get a little heartburn when it's done.. The real fun starts tomorrow, but of course, we will not get a verdict until late June at the earliest..
Now, how will all of this go? We really have no idea, because it all is a bit more complicated than our field of expertise goes. Law is all precedent and interpretation, which can often be viewed differently by two people - hence, that is why the appellate divisions conflicted each other. The key seems to focus on the Commerce Clause, which has in the past given a lot of leeway for Federal agencies. Now, I have heard people equate this issue like mandatory car insurance. But, people who don't own a car have to have insurance...
From what we see, the mandatory inclusion will likely be upheld. We don't see it that way because of the Commerce Clause, but to more relevant cases - namely, every other Federal program preceeding Health Care. Social Security and Medicare are both mandatory, and neither has been challenged in the Supreme Court. Knocking down the mandate puts all other mandatory programs up for challenge by the states, and we're not sure the Court will open that can of worms..
Most observers are seeing this as a 5-4 case, with most of the justices being pretty well entrenched on one side or the other.. The swing vote - and the hopes of both sides - seems to be on the shoulders of Justice Anthony Kennedy. A Reagan appointee, Kennedy has been very much a moderate who is used to these close decisions falling on him. There's a lot in the balance....
Of course, everyone would like to have Health Care... Most of us do, although I'm not one of them. In fact, the majority of the past ten years, I haven't had Health Insurance more than I have... We could pass a reasonable basic plan for all Americans if we wanted. Look at Canada... All 30 million citizens have coverage, and their top tax rate is 15%. The United States just seems more pressed to waste their tax dollars on bullshit, rather than the simpler things for the voters. Perhaps overturning Obamacare would be a good thing. It would almost force both parties to negotiate a bipartisan Health Care bill. Most Americans think universal coverage is a good thing, but that Obamacare goes around to it in the wrong way. We'll get an idea of what SCOTUS is basing their decisions on by the questions they ask, but..... it's gonna be a long, hot Summer til then!
.
1 comment:
YOu are right to be against the Fairtax, just on it's face, it's got monumental "problems".
But dig a little --see what's in the fine print. As a former Fairtax sucker, I now offer, and Im serious, 50,000 dollars if anyone can show any Fairtax research. (See details).
I can show you all the fraud, in the various fine print tricks, by that I mean the slick words in the legislation, coupled with their "supporting documents". Things like massive wage expenditure taxes --they tax all wage, pension and operational expenditures of all city county and states. Yes, they do. It's in the fine print, and then cleverly mentioned in the "supporting documents".
But forget all that for now -- if these LB claimed 22 million dollars in research, but can't show any, then they are frauds.
In the Fairtax Book Neal Boortz made it SEEM like Harvard's Dale JOrgenson pretty much invented the whole concept of Fairtax, and that all his amazing highly details "facts" were from such "extensive research".
But strange thing happened, CNN talked to Jorgenson. Not only did he not do whatever research Boortz was yapping about, Jorgenson is not for Fairtax or anything like it!
So what research does Neal mean?
He won't say, other than huffing and puffing like the big bad wolf when called on it. He can donate 50K to charity - any charity - just show one page of that research, why cant he?
Beacon Hill is Fairtax public relations company, it is no more research than my god is a veterinarian. But those documents by Beacon Hill are NOT, repeat NOT about a simple retail sales tax, like Boortz described.
Beacon Hill documents are where the fine print tricks go into hyperdrive. President BUsh Tax Advisory Panel busted them on it, they read the slick documents, and had no trouble reporting on these huge "other" taxes Fairtax needs for the math to add up, Those wage expenditure taxes, for example, the fairtax on capital expenditure taxes, for another.
Here is my blog on it, yes a blog, you can read the fine print yourself, carefully, or get President Bush Tax Advisory Panel report, but my blog, I really believe, shows the nitty gritty in best way,
Of course, the Bush Tax Panel are experts and they flushed Fairtax out very academically, and without insults. In private, however, the head of BTP said "they lie a lot" meaning Fairtax hustlers.
And by lie -- I mean the fine print tricks are massive different than what they tell the suckers in public.
Post a Comment