• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

From scotusblog:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
Click to expand...
 
Guardian analysis:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/28/supreme-court-ruling-health-care-live

There's a big silver lining here for Obamacare opponents. Here's the majority opinion on the Medicaid expansion, as written by Roberts:

"Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."

That means that states that refuse to accept the federal government's expansion of Medicaid can't be penalised by the government – the status quo remains.

That's actually a tricky decision, and it can be read as a defeat for the Obama administration. It puts the ball back in the court of the states that – for whatever reason – want to reject the Medicaid expansion, which is a key part of the reform's attempt to expand healthcare coverage.

This blows a hole inside the Affordable Care Act. Hold off popping those champagne corks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
Without having read the opinion yet, I can't help but conclude at first glance that the court is full of six retards who can't read.

It cannot be a constitutional tax. It's not uniform as required for an excise, it's not a tax on income as required for an income tax, and it's not based on population as required for a direct tax.

FU, Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

The insurance mandate is an excise tax on irresponsibility.
 
commandlinegamer said:
Guardian analysis:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/28/supreme-court-ruling-health-care-live
Click to expand...

I think that's a gross exaggeration. States now have the option, but no obligation, to decline to participate in the Medicare expansion without losing their Medicare funding. How many states will do so is unclear, and in any case that's a relatively minor loss in comparison to the decision upholding the mandate under the tax power. Not unlike Arizona's argument that it "won" the immigration case because one of the four provisions at issue was upheld as constitutional.

ETA Link to the decision is up.
 
Last edited:
New Tax?

If you have healthcare nothing changes, there is no new 'tax". if you don't have healthcare, welcome to civilization where societal norms exist, change, and in this case, improve.

I imagine all the young invincibles who think they are immune to illness and catastrophic health issues, are going to be pissed that they have to contribute to the overall health of the society in which they live.

This is one small step for a better America and a kick in the nuts to selfish, self centered, anti-social political bias.
 
Neally said:
Jeez guys, this has been covered before. There are things that insurers are now required to include in policies, even if you don't need or want them. You think those additional coverages are free? You're telling me that you don't even know this fact? Appearantly your infatuation with Obamacare as blinded you to the downsides. 3.4 - 9 % increase.

[graph snipped]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums
Click to expand...
The WSJ is partisan. I'll take your link with a grain of salt.

Health insurance companies have been raising rates well above inflation for as long back as I've been paying premiums (a long time). Your premise is that more things will be covered, but you are leaving out the fact more people will be paying in.

Lots of people still don't get it. People who don't carry insurance are getting a lot of health care free because those of us who do pay cover the uncollected debt that the uninsured incur. That cost is already built into our insurance premiums.
 
Last edited:
I'm waiting to read the opinion, but I've been asking for some time now how the mandate would be different from a tax increase followed by a tax credit for buying insurance, just as we have for buying homes or having children. But the only response was that the Obama administration didn't call it a tax.

I found that argument silly, since if they called it a free pony, it would still be indistinguishable from a tax.

It seems that the court agreed.

And so I get to keep my health insurance!
 
ZirconBlue said:
Not that you're biased or anything.
Click to expand...
I'm biased in favor of literacy.

On further reflection, I have two more observations:

1: the law must still be able to be challenged in two years because if it's a tax, then the whole challenge was preempted under the Anti-Injunction Act. Because not even the Supreme Court is stupid enough to fall for the government's "today it's a tax, tomorrow it's not" BS, right? Right?

2: this ruling is even worse than an upholding based on the commerce clause. Such a ruling would almost certainly have been (at first, anyway) extremely narrow and apply only to health insurance. Now, the government is unlimited in the power it can wield to compel purchases because it's "just a tax." ******* MORONS.

"Limited and enumerated powers" means nothing anymore.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I'm biased in favor of literacy.

On further reflection, I have two more observations:

1: the law must still be able to be challenged in two years because if it's a tax, then the whole challenge was preempted under the Anti-Injunction Act. Because not even the Supreme Court is stupid enough to fall for the government's "today it's a tax, tomorrow it's not" BS, right? Right?

2: this ruling is even worse than an upholding based on the commerce clause. Such a ruling would almost certainly have been (at first, anyway) extremely narrow and apply only to health insurance. Now, the government is unlimited in the power it can wield to compel purchases because it's "just a tax." ******* MORONS.

"Limited and enumerated powers" means nothing anymore.
Click to expand...

What about the home mandate? You're being forced to buy a house! Socialism!
 
BenBurch said:
Radio here blew the call. Sorry. The guys I was listening to were SO HAPPY. Conservatives of course.
Click to expand...
Wow, talk about being "in the bubble!!" I had heard that certain folks who identified themselves as "conservative" had decided--before the decision came down--that there was no conceivable scenario under which they could be deemed to "lose," and that no matter how the case came out, Romney would be the "winner."
 
Unabogie said:
What about the home mandate? You're being forced to buy a house! Socialism!
Click to expand...
I've never been forced to buy a home. I don't know what you're blubbering about.

And if there was a mandate to purchase a home, I'd be against that too so I don't have any clue as to what your post was supposed to accomplish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom