SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[RandFan]

LOL

A VERY good point!!!! The problem there is that we would need to get more people from that side to move here to really balance things out. Sending our worst to them just pee's in their pool and we get nothing in return.

Point taken.

 

[leftysergeant]

Ultimately, this will do more harm than good. We need true UHC, not another Big Business ripoff of the public.

We now have a leash on the rof-profit companies. We now have expanded access to health care.

Now the Democrats, if they get their acts togeter and re-take the House, can add a public option and tax breaks for non-profits.

Incremental, but it does not give the right-wing nut jobs as good a target.

 

[Muldur]

Single-payer UHC is also the purest implementation of the "spread the risk" philosophy behind the very concept of insurance. What bigger risk pool can there be than one pool encompassing all of a nation's citizens?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I just voted that they'll uphold all of it. Call me an optimist.

Woohoo!!!

 

[Muldur]

We now have a leash on the rof-profit companies. We now have expanded access to health care.

Now the Democrats, if they get their acts togeter and re-take the House, can add a public option and tax breaks for non-profits.

Incremental, but it does not give the right-wing nut jobs as good a target.

I've heard that argument, and it's one sounds good. I just don't have faith that it is going to turn out that way.

We're busy fighting like Hades to take "baby steps" ("incremental" progress) while crossing the track that could be cleared in a single adult stride (UHC) with an oncoming freight train bearing down on us (medical care cost induced national fiscal crisis).

 

[Juniversal]

I like this one

"#SCOTUS holds up free healthcare for everyone?! Screw this commie country, I'm moving to #Canada"

I think that's a joke.

I sure hope so lol..

 

[DrBaltar]

It seems pretty clear to me that it is exactly what it is. That's what I have been arguing for many months. I think the argument that it's not in effect a tax is political strategy due to irrational opinions about taxes. Thank you George H.W. Bush, Grover *** **** Norquist, et al.

Yes, it is in effect a tax. Yes it was levied by Congress. No, taxes are not per se evil or proof of the impending apocalypse (pardon my fallacious rhetoric). Everyone take a deep breath and stifle yourselves. It's going to be okay. I promise.

It's like a tax, but as the bill is written, it is NOT a tax. There is an important distinction, one being constitutional, and one not being constitutional.

 

[JamesDillon]

It's like a tax, but as the bill is written, it is NOT a tax. There is an important distinction, one being constitutional, and one not being constitutional.

From page 33 of the Court's opinion:

The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many re- spects. The “hared responsibility payment,” as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “tax- payer” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the pay- ment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n. 4 (1953). Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017. Congressional Budget Office, Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Pro- tection and Affordable Care Act (Apr. 30, 2010), in Selected CBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation, 2009–2010, p. 71 (rev. 2010).

So how, exactly, is the "bill as written" clearly not a tax?

 

[RandFan]

It's like a tax, but as the bill is written, it is NOT a tax. There is an important distinction, one being constitutional, and one not being constitutional.

Oh, I agree that a technical argument in the law can be made. But to paraphrase the dear Mr. Bumble, sometimes the law is an ass. The remedy of throwing out the single most important element of the law knowing that a technical distinction would otherwise correct it is unwarranted given the compelling nature of the issue. No one argues that we couldn't constitutionally have the same net effect with a tax. So, if it helps you to sleep at night just think of it as a tax. If that bothers you then think of it as a mandate. And if you are worried about a slippery slope, the only exception carved out here is for issues of a compelling interest nature that would otherwise be satisfied with a tax.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I think this is a reasonable argument. Auto insurance exploded in California when it was mandated that a person must purchase private insurance. A public option would have been nice. I think we will eventually get "true" UHC (the kind without out the milk on the porridge )

It's not a reasonable argument, and here's why: there is no requirement to purchase private insuranxe. Being enrolled in Medicare satisfies the requirement of the ACA. Enrolling with a non-profit also satisfies the requirement because it's only mandatory that you are covered, nby who you are covered.

 

[IchabodPlain]

At first I couldn't understand the basis of the decision, given that there are so many mandates (no pre-existing conditions exclusion, etc) on Big Insurance. The fact is, SCOTUS has been all about reducing gov't regulation and requirements on big business in general.

Then I remembered why I didn't like the bill as formulated: it mandates that individuals buy private insurance from for-profit insurance companies, guaranteeing them a huge new captive market to extract premiums from.

The situation is like the Kelo decision: big business using government to force individuals to line it's pockets.

So this center-left person isn't celebrating. We still don't have price controls on Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc. And now with the subsidy provisions, not only do they get to exploit a brand new captive market, but they get to pick the pocket of the taxpayers to do it.

Ultimately, this will do more harm than good. We need true UHC, not another Big Business ripoff of the public.

Please provide proof that this bill require individuals to purchase private insurance. Also, do you think it would havebeenruled unconstitutional if it was a single payer system? If so, why?

 

[RandFan]

It's not a reasonable argument, and here's why: there is no requirement to purchase private insuranxe. Being enrolled in Medicare satisfies the requirement of the ACA. Enrolling with a non-profit also satisfies the requirement because it's only mandatory that you are covered, nby who you are covered.

I don't personally find the Medicare premise compelling as that is not an option for many if not most. As for the non-profits, I'm not sure they've reached critical mass so as to make a difference? I think you have a point, I'm just not sure how good it is at the moment.

 

[jj]

***whew*** I am somewhat startled by Roberts' position, but not totally upset.

What I find interesting is that "Obamacare" is exactly "Romneycare" in Taxachusettts, and Romney has announced already "WE WILL REPEAL THIS ACT IMMEDIATELY". Gosh, own the rich guys much, Mittens>?

 

[Brown]

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Canada has a disproportionate number of reasonable people. How exactly is that fair?

Canada won't take many of those who say they'd go. The paperwork is burdensome, you may have to show language proficiency and you have to be fingerprinted and cleared by your home country's law enforcement. In my case, I'm waiting for my clearance from the FBI.

Also, USA-style bigots aren't all that welcome here. Bigotry in Canada exists, but it is of a different kind than in the States, so you may have to adopt a different set of prejudices. Also, Canada doesn't like free-loaders. You better have a job lined up. You'll need a work permit, and that ain't free.

And if you have an anti-tax stick up your butt, well, Canada will really crank your colon. Taxes are higher here than they are in most States, many typical goods are more expensive than they are in the States, and choice of consumer goods is usually poorer. On the plus side, the taxes are far more transparent and you usually do see where your tax money is going. The most blatant thing is that you can seek medical care without worrying for a single second whether you can afford it. (But you have to be in Canada for a while in order to qualify.)

If you like Cherry Coke, tough beans, 'cause they don't sell it in Canada.

If you like cheese, Canada is the place for you! The cheese selection here is usually outstanding ... and I came from a "Dairy State" in the USA!

If you like hockey, they play it year-round here. Some of the best sales of hockey equipment are going on now. You can also learn curling and five-pin bowling. When there's a major soccer tournament (like there is now), people decorate their cars with the flag of their favorite nation's team.

Politicians don't evoke the Almighty as a matter of course in their speeches. Although Canada has branches of government, the USA concept of "checks and balances" does not apply. It's complicated.

Canadians are mostly nice, but they don't tolerate stupidity or narrow-mindedness. Police are generally more educated in Canada than they are in the States, and Canadians enjoy quite a few liberties that US citizens do not. Canadians recognized that George W. Bush was an idiot, and they admire Barack Obama in part because he is smart, even if they disagree with his politics.

 

[RandFan]

Canada won't take many of those who say they'd go. The paperwork is burdensome, you may have to show language proficiency and you have to be fingerprinted and cleared by your home country's law enforcement. In my case, I'm waiting for my clearance from the FBI.

Also, USA-style bigots aren't all that welcome here. Bigotry in Canada exists, but it is of a different kind than in the States, so you may have to adopt a different set of prejudices. Also, Canada doesn't like free-loaders. You better have a job lined up. You'll need a work permit, and that ain't free.

And if you have an anti-tax stick up your butt, well, Canada will really crank your colon. Taxes are higher here than they are in most States, many typical goods are more expensive than they are in the States, and choice of consumer goods is usually poorer. On the plus side, the taxes are far more transparent and you usually do see where your tax money is going. The most blatant thing is that you can seek medical care without worrying for a single second whether you can afford it. (But you have to be in Canada for a while in order to qualify.)

If you like Cherry Coke, tough beans, 'cause they don't sell it in Canada.

If you like cheese, Canada is the place for you! The cheese selection here is usually outstanding ... and I came from a "Dairy State" in the USA!

If you like hockey, they play it year-round here. Some of the best sales of hockey equipment are going on now. You can also learn curling and five-pin bowling. When there's a major soccer tournament (like there is now), people decorate their cars with the flag of their favorite nation's team.

Politicians don't evoke the Almighty as a matter of course in their speeches. Although Canada has branches of government, the USA concept of "checks and balances" does not apply. It's complicated.

Canadians are mostly nice, but they don't tolerate stupidity or narrow-mindedness. Police are generally more educated in Canada than they are in the States, and Canadians enjoy quite a few liberties that US citizens do not. Canadians recognized that George W. Bush was an idiot, and they admire Barack Obama in part because he is smart, even if they disagree with his politics.

I can't fault your logic. Fine, don't take them. At least they provide a market for American made assault weapons, Bibles, chewing tobacco, wife beater shirts and house trailers.

 

[Brown]

I can't fault your logic. Fine, don't take them. At least they provide a market for American made assault weapons, Bibles, chewing tobacco, wife beater shirts and house trailers.

I've got a suspicion that Canada doesn't implement US-printed Bibles anymore. I suspected this when I saw one of the commandments as, "Don't murder anybody, eh?"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think Rush Limbaugh said he'd go to Costa Rica, another country with UHC.

I expect Costa Rica will suddenly move to make its immigration laws more restrictive!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From page 33 of the Court's opinion:

So how, exactly, is the "bill as written" clearly not a tax?

Very good question! That's what I was asking in response to the oral arguments. I still don't know why the government wanted to argue that something which clearly is a tax wasn't one.

 

[Olowkow]

I think Rush Limbaugh said he'd go to Costa Rica, another country with UHC.

I expect Costa Rica will suddenly move to make its immigration laws more restrictive!Argentina

.

fify

I didn't vote for fear of jinxing the outcome, but I am glad to see one of my heros here was spot on, while another was a little too pessimistic....as I would have been had I voted.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Very good question! That's what I was asking in response to the oral arguments. I still don't know why the government wanted to argue that something which clearly is a tax wasn't one.

Because "tax" has become such a nasty word of late.