The Cellar - Will the SCOTUS ruling on the health car law have any effect?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Will the SCOTUS ruling on the health car law have any effect? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=27586)

yeah.

but they have radio and internet in Costa Rica too.

Interestingly, they also have a (dont know the phrase) average age of of death than we do, and with only a tenth of the spending .

You watched the video - Very good

You damn well keep him! We don't want him!

Love,

The Rest of the World.

Isn't he of the same group of people who don't want to hear Spanish spoken everywhere? Cuz if so, he'll hear little else in Costa Rica.

Or is that okay because Costa Rica isn't the US?

Hey! I have VA. health care. Will I be taxed or finded for not putting my money in the pot???

Do you have insurance?
Yes?
Then you don't have to pay the penalty for not having insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 817606)

There IS a cap on the ratio of how much the insurance companies can retain as profit -- 20% -- and the other 80% must be spent on patient care.

Which pot do expenses come out of? If they put 100,000 brother-in-laws on the payroll, build dozens of palatial new office complexes, and pay top dollar to drug companies they are also on the board of, who puts the red dot on their forehead? :blunt:

Over the weekend I heard Republican TV pundits saying that small businesses could not afford Obamacare.
I did a quick Google search on tax credits and found this...

National Federation of Independent Businesses

2012 Health Insurance Reform Tax Credit Calculator for Small Business

Quote:

Does your business qualify for the healthcare law's new
small business tax credit on health insurance?
If so, how big is your credit?
Instructions: Fill in variables for rows A, B, C, & D and click "update."
B cannot be larger than A.

Attachment 39359

Somehow, such a employee expense, or total business expense of ~$3,700
does not convince me that the business would fail.

Five days after the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare was handed down,
tv pundits are spending more time on Chief Justice Roberts' decision than any other aspect.
But, there were 4 other Justices that voted to support Obamacare.
Robert's 1 vote did not carry any more weight than the other four.

The subsummed "hot topic" is, why Roberts voted with the "liberals".
Some pundits are saying that Roberts voted in favor, just
to protect the "public's perception of the Supreme Court".
That is, to show that Bush v. Gore, and Citizens United were not political decisions.
If you believe that, wait while I look for a bill-of-sale for this neat bridge in New York.
Ummmm... To cast a vote to protect the PR of the Court.
...can you think of anything worse you could be said about a Justice ?
That's like the "tail wagging the dog" accusations of a President.

Why isn't it the question about Kennedy's vote with the Conservatives ?
...maybe he got his nose out of joint during Obama's comments
about the "Citizens United decision" during the State of Union address.

There's also pundits talking about Scalia's behavior before the decision,
but that's just normal for Scalia when his view does not prevail.
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 818194)

Why isn't it the question about Kennedy's vote with the Conservatives ?

Because that was expected. Unexpected was Roberts decision. Includes speculation that Roberts changed his mind after the initial voting.

This has to be the ultimate chutzpah

NY Times
7/3/12

Supreme Court Memo
After Ruling, Roberts Makes a Getaway From the Scorn

Quote:

<snip>By Saturday, John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer, was suggesting
in The Wall Street Journal that there had been a catastrophic vetting failure in 2005
when the administration was considering Chief Justice Roberts’s nomination.

“If a Republican is elected president,” said Professor Yoo,
who teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley,
“he will have to be more careful than the last.”
<snip>

I can only say that Yoo :censored: and :censored: all Americans, and still is :censored: :censored:, :censored: dilettante.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 818380)

I can only say that Yoo :censored: and :censored: all Americans, and still is :censored: :censored:, :censored: dilettante.

I bet Woo wishes he could extend his torture opinion to the Supreme Court. If he had known Roberts was wavering, Woo could have brought his own waterboard.

Woo is a legitimate exception to Godwin's Law. He's our own living embodiment of the head creep in all of those WWII spy movies who walks into a room where a guy is surrounded by thugs and says something like "make sure he cooperates" or "do what you must", then walks away. He never actually says "beat the living shit out of him". It always that civilized, polite circumlocution that allows a fig leaf of deniability and the illusion of a clear conscience - a verbal handwashing that Pilate would approve of.

Quote:

After he left the Department of Justice, it was revealed that Yoo had authored memos, including co-authoring the Torture Memo of August 1, 2002, defining torture and American habeas corpus obligations narrowly.[34][35][36] In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.[37] Several top military lawyers, including Alberto J. Mora, reported that policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards. [38][39]
On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo, "If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with "Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...", to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." [40][41]

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 818457)

He's our own living embodiment of the head creep in all of those WWII spy movies who walks into a room where a guy is surrounded by thugs and says something like "make sure he cooperates" or "do what you must", then walks away.