Obama Care, You`ll Drop Out. Denninger;

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Len Cranford

To: apopeeso@comcast.net ; pyrigenes ; Chris D.

Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 8:51 AM

Subject: Obama Care, You`ll Drop Out. Denninger;

 

 

 

Stupidity Abounds At the NY Times On Obamacare  http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229932

 

Who is this jackass?

If the administration loses in King, it can announce that it is complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment — but only with respect to the four plaintiffs who brought the suit.

What the writer is talking about is the possibility that Obama may lose at the Supreme Court with regard to the legality of subsidies in non-state exchange states.  He goes on to claim that this position would not "defy" a Supreme Court order, since those who are receiving subsidies are unlikely to sue over it and thus won't complain.

In other words:

But the King litigation is different, because almost everybody who is eligible for the tax credits is more than happy to get them. Most people who receive tax credits will never sue to challenge them. Lawsuits can be brought only by those with a personal stake, so in most cases the tax credits will never come before a court. The administration is therefore free to follow its own honest judgment about what the law requires.

Ah, if it were only so simple.

You see, the subsidies and the penalty -- that is, the mandate -- are inextricably tied together.

While those who are poor and sick will certainly not sue over the subsidy they do not wish to lose, and some who are poor and healthy will not sue because the cost (with the subsidy) is deemed reasonable by them the law collapses anyway because those who are healthy and not poor, and thus don't qualify for a subsidy, will definitely sue because they do not wish to pay for something they have no intention of using!

That's the entire premise of the law -- to force those to make an uneconomic choice who are otherwise healthy, or who don't wish to buy various thing to have them, thereby stealing their money and giving it to people with so-called "pre-existing conditions."

All of the people who are screwed in that fashion will sue.  Or, more likely, they'll just drop their (very expensive and unwanted) insurance and say this to the IRS, Obama and the government:



That will in turn force the IRS to try to collect and if and when they do attempt to the collect the fines those people will sue for not only the fine but fees, costs and maybe even punitive damages, since the court has ruled the practice unconstitutionaland as such there is no defense available that the IRS believed the law is legitimate; they know it is not.  In addition there will likely be multiple 42 USC 1983 suits filed as well against everyone involved in that attempted enforcement since those engaging in such attempts know they are violating the citizen's rights by doing so.  

I note that 42 USC 1983 (and it's criminal friend in 18 USC 242) carry personalliability for said government actors.

You have a purdy house and an even purdier pension, sir.

But here's the real problem with this nozzle-face:

William Baude, a contributing opinion writer, is an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago.

And this sort of crap that he has espoused, my friends, is why that "school" and the so-called "law" in this country deserve a healthy application of Shakespeare.

(Incidentally, before someone claims this is a mis-cite of Sir William, in that he was referring to lawyers and judges upholding the law, I will note that when the law becomes a mockery of justice by intentional distortion and glad-handing, and all involved in it, including attorneys, law professors, judges and police refuse to do the right thing, perhaps our dear late author was simply waxing a bit nostalgic for a principle that has long since died.... )

H/t: Robin