Here we are looking to very large moments in political history. Most important to remember in all of this, is the demand the voters have made on both issues, this is not the “fault” of the republican party… this is the will of the people. Neither Fast & Furious Contempt issue nor the Affordable Care Act, are in the position they are today without the encouragement, and demands of the voting public, don’t forget that and don’t let those damned politicians forget it either. Pundits will tell you not to “spike” the football regardless of what side you are on, hell for ACA I am on the side of my wallet, and liberty, thank-you very much and I will take the news whatever way I choose to, shove it D.C.~Second, we are making a list and checking it twice to see who has a set on them big enough to move forward on the contempt vote against Holder~ do what is correct legally is what the public is looking for. Americans generally and historically have always had a sense of fair play; and not by the NAACP/Sharpton standards…to them I say “suck it”!
Affordable Care Act, hahahahahhah. Sorry the name still seems like an oxymoron to me. Let’s recap the beast, shall we?
The beast is informally referred to as Obamacare, a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. PPACA requires individuals not covered by employer- or government-sponsored insurance plans to maintain minimal essential health insurance coverage or pay a penalty unless exempted for religious beliefs or financial hardship, a provision commonly referred to as the individual mandate. The Act also reforms certain aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, increases insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions, expands access to insurance to 30 million Americans, and increases projected national medical spending while lowering projected Medicare spending.
PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against. It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.
What the Supreme Court is deciding on Today:
Once the Court does turn to health care, there are four questions before it. Three of those questions revolve around the “minimum coverage” provision, popularly known as the “individual mandate.” Of course, the question keeping the White House, Congress, and everyone else in the country on pins and needles is whether the mandate – which would require virtually all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty – is constitutional: can Congress, using its power under the Constitution to regulate commerce between the states, make people buy health insurance? (More detailed Plain English discussions of the substantive issues in the case, including the individual mandate.
The potential obstacle to the Court’s review of the mandate is the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), an 1867 law that prohibits lawsuits to challenge a tax until the tax has actually gone into effect and needs to be paid. At least one lower court has concluded (and the federal government once even argued) that the “penalty” which would be imposed on someone who doesn’t buy health insurance under the mandate is a “tax”; therefore, this line of reasoning goes, someone who believes that the mandate is unconstitutional cannot bring a lawsuit making that argument until after the mandate actually goes into effect in 2014.
If the AIA applies to the lawsuit over the mandate, then the Court cannot consider the challenge to the mandate even if both the federal government and the states challenging the law want the Supreme Court to decide the case. So if at least five of the nine members of the Court were to conclude that the AIA does apply to the mandate, that would be the end of the matter. The Court would not discuss, much less rule on, whether the mandate is constitutional, nor would there be any reason for the Court to weigh in on what parts of the law, if any, can survive if the law is unconstitutional – the “severability” question. Instead, the Court would skip straight to the fourth and final question, dealing with the constitutionality of a provision that expands eligibility for Medicaid, the state-federal partnership that provides health care to the poor.
, Here we are waiting for 10 a.m. to get here so we can know the fate of our liberty over our bodies, our money and control of our own healthcare. We are also going to see some major circus acts today in the realm of political theater regarding the Holder contempt vote. Either way, feel free to discuss, pull up a chair, enjoy come popcorn, beer, and on my porch you can spike the football all you want. Here we go Katz!