ObamaCare

[CanadaSue]

Good point - based on the ruling, do those companies & entities who were exempted stll get exempted? If so, on what grounds?

As messy as this has been so far - I think the mess is just beginning.

Never mind the answers - the questions are still being determined.

[Grassy Gnoll]

An interesting argument I just saw...

The SCOTUS declared the Individual Mandate as a tax, but the original act originated in the Senate.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”

Can that argument go anywhere is somebody simply refuses to pay the tax and take it to court?

[veggiecanner]

He made the law ilegle.
Obama knowingly signed a ileagle law into law.
They had congressional hearings on this and the head of HHS lied on the stand.
The law started in the Senate, A tax can not start in the senate. It has to start in the House.

The dems are going down.

[Grassy Gnoll]

Never mind:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/2...-in-the-house/

As you were.

[Edit] Roberts did not address this... post fixed...

[MDINMT]

You Tube

[Grassy Gnoll]

Of course the other argument is that taxes aren't supposed to originate from the Supreme Court either...

[dyrt]

Originally Posted by Twoolf

All revenue legislation must be originated in the house through appropriate legislation, and applied to appropriate sections of the US Code, and accounted for by the OMB in an appropriate budgetary slot. None of the applies to this if treated as a tax

So, is another lawsuit being made declaring Obamacare to be illegal because the Senate did it?

[NowVoyager]

Originally Posted by Ross

Frankly I have never clearly understood why medical care
is so expensive in the US . I assume it must be because
a combination of taxation and the legal framework have
grossly distorted free market competition .


.

Malpractice insurance is out of this world.

In some cases the annual cost reaches mid 6 figures (based on what I've had doctors tell me) and in some filed the cost of carrying the required level of malpractice insurance has lead to doctors in more 'high risk' fields such as OB/GYN, to close up shop, if they had a practice in an area with a lot of 'high risk' / low reimbursement rate' patients. I.E. : Welfare recipients / drug or alcohol abusers, etc.

Different specialties carry different risks and require different amounts of malpractice.

And sadly there's a segment of our US population that will sue at the drop of hat. And lawyers who will take on the most asinine of IMO, frivolous suits. Yes, mistakes can happen and yes, some doctors are not as qualified as they should be; however, frivolous malpractice suits are a serious threat to all doctors and healthcare professionals. Many times they'll settle out of court simply because it's less costly and easier.

As it is now, again, based on what I've had doctors tell me, some who are either nearing the end of their 'professional career', will likely retire sooner than planned, rather than deal with the influx of high risk / low pay patients, combined with all the additional paperwork they've already had dumped on them in recent years.

In some areas there are already doctor shortages; increasing the patient load is not going to make that situation better.

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Grassy Gnoll

An interesting argument I just saw...

The SCOTUS declared the Individual Mandate as a tax, but the original act originated in the Senate.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”

Can that argument go anywhere is somebody simply refuses to pay the tax and take it to court?

And that's why in the original health care bill, it had provisions for hiring a couple thousand (IIRC) new IRS agents.

Anyone else recall this?

At that time folks wondered what in the heck IRS agents had to do with health care.

[MDINMT]

Originally Posted by Grassy Gnoll

Of course the other argument is that taxes aren't supposed to originate from the Supreme Court either...

So the SC submitted a bill to raise taxes?

Originally Posted by NowVoyager

Malpractice insurance is out of this world.

In some cases the annual cost reaches mid 6 figures (based on what I've had doctors tell me) and in some filed the cost of carrying the required level of malpractice insurance has lead to doctors in more 'high risk' fields such as OB/GYN, to close up shop, if they had a practice in an area with a lot of 'high risk' / low reimbursement rate' patients. I.E. : Welfare recipients / drug or alcohol abusers, etc.

Different specialties carry different risks and require different amounts of malpractice.

And sadly there's a segment of our US population that will sue at the drop of hat. And lawyers who will take on the most asinine of IMO, frivolous suits. Yes, mistakes can happen and yes, some doctors are not as qualified as they should be; however, frivolous malpractice suits are a serious threat to all doctors and healthcare professionals. Many times they'll settle out of court simply because it's less costly and easier.

As it is now, again, based on what I've had doctors tell me, some who are either nearing the end of their 'professional career', will likely retire sooner than planned, rather than deal with the influx of high risk / low pay patients, combined with all the additional paperwork they've already had dumped on them in recent years.

In some areas there are already doctor shortages; increasing the patient load is not going to make that situation better.

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------




And that's why in the original health care bill, it had provisions for hiring a couple thousand (IIRC) new IRS agents.

Anyone else recall this?

At that time folks wondered what in the heck IRS agents had to do with health care.

It's 5000 agents of which 4000 are armed. I'm sure for no particular reason.

[NowVoyager]

Originally Posted by MDINMT

So the SC submitted a bill to raise taxes?



It's 5000 agents of which 4000 are armed. I'm sure for no particular reason.

.......and didn't the current POTUS also campaign for a 'domestic force' or some such wording ........ and at that time, it was bantered that o was setting up the framework for his own 'defense force' under the guise of something akin to AmeriCorps, only armed?