dayman

I'm reading through the opinion slowly and talking here but you can find it in the other thread. The gist of it is the CMS will promulgate regulations regarding insurance companies closed enrollment periods that deal with that issue.

As written you are penalized by TAX collected by the IRS in the normal course of it's tax collection, there are no criminal penalties. So how does it function as written?

Except there are windows for enrollment. If you are hell bent on not being covered when you are sick, you will still **** yourself. What you suggest simply isn't true. We've covered this in the original ACA thread but of course conservative nutballs wouldn't pay attention to the actual text I presented.

1) Absolutely that has happened countless times 2) The only thing struck down regarding Medicaid expansion is that if a State refuses to expand the Medicaid as the ACA demands then they cannot lose the existing Medicaid funding as a penalty, they still don't get the additional funds etc...if states want to give the finger to their people under 133% of poverty line feel free at their own political peril. Millions of people now should have access to healthcare, poor people won a huge victory provided they don't live in a state with a suicidal governor...

He was not oblivious. He was hamstrung. They tried to make the argument they wanted to make politically, as opposed to the argument they needed to make Constitutionally. In the end it did nothing except make us all think "damn, that went terrible" for a few months.

The next thing is going to be States saying to people under 133% of poverty line "we won't expand medicaid to cover you to spite the Democrats we don't care if federal grants come in we'll reject them, get a life bums." Then the right will cheer this cutting off of the nose to spite the face.

It's a cannon of constitutional construction that you uphold a bill passed by congress if any reasonable construction would make it constitutional. This is not news. Now, whether the function over form was actually going to fly was questionable after the oral arguments b/c lets face it...the US Attorney got up there and would not hit the softball they tossed him...but eventually they just hit it for him and said "Taxing power covers this."

So even if states do not comply with teh medicaid expansion their penalty would be merely losing the additional funds necessary, the existing funds they have can not be yanked to compel compliance: the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage by 2014 to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal pov¬erty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children onlyif their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding tocover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage. §1396d(y)(1).But if a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage require¬ments, it may lose not only the federal funding for those require¬ments, but all of its federal Medicaid funds. ... (b) Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Ser¬vices the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate inthe Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid fund¬ing. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the Stateswith no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion. ... The legitimacy of SpendingClause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17. “[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 178. When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislationruns counter to this Nation’s system of Federalism ... c) The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaidfunds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. See §1303. The other provisions of the Affordable Care Act are not affected. Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whetherto participate in the Medicaid expansion. Pp. 55–58. 6. JUSTICE GINSBURG, joined by JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, [did not agree]

I thought it was 55 it would go down, 45 it would be upheld. Ultimately I predicted it would be upheld. Nobody knew.

Substance over form gentlemen, entirely predictable.

So all you guys think we would not benefit from being able to control some of the money in politics?

Obama, Krugman, Buffet would assemble and by their powers combined save the planet from certain peril. We would build highways until the Aliens just left.

Pretty sure Tilman's last words were: "men..just...vote...obama." Just me opining.

Facehugger from Alien missed him and they can't take it off or he'll die.

Donald Trump v. the richest alien on Nimbus will probably get monster ratings. Trump always pulls ratings that are out of this world.

The global water crisis has been solved and we've all seen all the animals so they've got nothing left to do but go history channel on us.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-better-choice-handle-alien-invasion-romney-poll-finds-article-1.1103399 Obama better choice to handle alien invasion than Romney, poll finds Forget the economy and immigration. The race for the White House may be decided on an issue that’s out of this world. Nearly 65 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama would do a better job handling an alien invasion than Mitt Romney, according to a new poll commissioned for National Geographic Channel reported in USA Today. Thirty-six percent of those who responded said they are convinced UFOs exist, while just 17 percent said they don’t believe in alien spacecraft. Nearly half, 48 percent, say they don’t know either way. Who should the president call to battle the invading aliens? Twenty-one percent of respondents said the Hulk would be the best choice to fight the extraterrestrials, while 12 percent would choose Batman and 8 percent would call Spider-Man. Only two percent of those polled said they would attack the aliens themselves. Twenty-two percent said they would try to befriend a Martian, 15 percent would run away and 13 percent would lock their doors. "We will not go quietly into the night!" We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day! - President Obama ...do people realize that Romney is in league w/ Kolob? He could broker a peace I'm sure...

Classic Issa http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/fast_and_furious_issa_holder_contempt_gunwalking.php A day ahead of a vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said his committee is no longer even strongly suspicious that highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country knew that guns “walked” during the botched ATF operation known as Fast and Furious. “During the inception and the participation through the death of Brian Terry, we have no evidence nor do we currently have strong suspicion” that Holder knew of the tactics, Issa said during testimony before the House Rules Committee on Wednesday. “We have just the opposite, have a number of people, including Lanny Breuer, who should have known who’s responsibility was to know, that as part of our ongoing responsibility to figure out who was responsible,” Issa continued. Issa also said he had no specific knowledge that the White House knew of the gunwalking tactics and said the committee wasn’t looking to the president. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), ranking member of the Oversight Committee, butted in as Issa was being questioned by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). “We are now about to find in contempt the attorney general of the United States of America after you just heard that,” Cummings said. “Sure,” replied Issa. “It’s not for what the attorney general knew about Fast and Furious, it’s about the attorney general’s refusal to provide the documents.” Issa’s position on Holder’s knowledge of the tactics used is a reversal of what he claimed when he began his investigation last year, when he said the tactics went “all the way to the very top.” The California Republican has admitted to exploring “blind alleys” over the course of the investigation. The House is set to vote on a resolution finding Holder in contempt tomorrow. The resolution focuses on DOJ’s opposition to disclosing internal Justice Department communications created after Feb. 4, 2011 unless Issa agrees to let that disclosure settle his subpoena.

lol sufficiently strange response, touche

What that operation was and what people were referring to as it are not the same thing. When you read the article there was nothing to cover up, so what was he covering up? Did he personally know of the surveillance operation? Did he know of Dodson's insubordination? Did he know the details that came across Hurley's desk? "Do you know about fast and furious" is a nonsensical question. The entire thing is a cluster !@#$ that honestly stems from weak gun laws in the first place. It's not wonder the extreme right and the gun lobby wanted to get out in front of this and make it a conspiracy that they let this happen to impose more gun restrictions...since it happened against the ATF's wishes as a direct result of weak gun laws.

It sheds light on why there was so much confusion. Basically seems to be on whole a long drawn out struggle w/ the ATF trying to arrest straw purchasers, the prosecutors said they couldn't over and over b/c their analysis was that under the current law they couldn't...then there was all kinds of internal strife within the ATF and even with one particular prosecutor. Seems like weak laws meets prosecutors who won't pull the trigger b/c they don't want to lose and the ATF is sitting there watching meth-addicts and 18 year old unemployed kids spend $100K on automatic weapons.

Is this your Ted Nugent moment?

It's a huge article but you should just read it. I shouldn't even paste anything the entire thing is complicated...it's too long and involved for any pasting to be anything but selective. It's worth noting in there you clearly see that the guns that killed Terry were not sold by the government. Meh I just was trying to delete the post below and the whole thing is gone now...anyway here's the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

The amendment would allow them to regulate campaign finance. In other words, regulate what you want as well if Congress so chooses. The specifics would be left to the future...point is they would be able to.

Stop holding back, tell us how you really feel.