Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

[Freddy]

So a question for the legal minds here: is the holding on the CC authority dictum since it wasn't necessary to dispose of the controversy before the court? If not, does it change anything wrt CC authority jurisprudence?

I don't think it's dictum, but I'm not entirely sure. I think Roberts crafted the opinion in such a way that the commerce clause section is necessary to the holding. The majority opinion construes the mandate as a tax, even though that is admittedly a stretch (according to the opinion; I'm not editorializing here).

Because the mandate clearly was not written or intended as a tax, the question of whether the mandate is constitutional under the taxing power is raised only because the commerce power does not justify it. Were it not for the holding that the commerce clause does not justify the mandate, such a reworking of the statute (turning the mandate into a tax when it was not written or intended as one) would clearly be improper. However, when it is the only way to construe the law as constitutional, and the re-interpretation is at least reasonably plausible, the court can (and has in the past) change a law to make it constitutional, as long as Congress's intent is sufficiently clear. An example would be the case where the Federal Sentencing guidelines were changed by the court to make them advisory rather than mandatory, because they would be unconstitutional if mandatory. Whether the conditions necessary to justify judicial reworking of the statute are met is debatable, but the fact that Roberts relied on that principle of statutory interpretation seems to make the Commerce Clause analysis a necessary part of the holding.

As to whether it changes CC jurisprudence, I'd have to say it does, assuming a future Supreme Court does not overrule it. It is the clearest limitation of the commerce power that the Court has ever articulated, although I think those who say that the Court has "gutted" the commerce clause with this ruling are greatly exaggerating.

That's my take, anyway. I'm curious what others have to say on the matter.

EDIT: Also, as has been mentioned already, whether it is holding or dictum is of little practical consequence. Lower courts are not going to ignore it just because they think it's dictum, and a future Supreme Court can overrule it even if it's part of the holding.

 

[triforcharity]

You directly benefit just as much from that ED being in your town.


It's interesting to me how you are conceptualizing these things in your head.

You have roads you don't use, but you could use them, police and fire you don't use but you could use them, and hospitals you don't use but you could use them, yet all these things seem different to you.


Same strange parsing here. I pay for people who don't pay. It's not the government causing me to pay that cost, it is the uninsured person who used care he/she didn't pay for.

There are two ways to deal with this. Either the burden for this unpaid care is unevenly put on the people who do pay, or it is more fairly distributed through public funding.

The government requires insurance when someone costs other people money by driving and crashing. The government requires everyone to pay for police, fire and military services.

You seem to be saying it's OK that those uninsured people cost me money but it is not OK the government protects me by making them pay.


Not taking anything personally, I take it as strange but true: human brains experience reality differently.

We'll have to agree to let it go. I see some of their side, and it has some legitimate points, but it is FAR outweighed by the benefits of all.

Cheers!

 

[triforcharity]

Just Google "13 million rebates".

Nearly 13 Million Expected To Get Insurance Rebate

Cool! Another part I did not know about......$151 bucks!! Nice! I can take the family out on the boat!!

By repeating the right wing narrative, we are contributing to those idiots' beliefs. Fighting talking points with talking points is a problem Progressives just haven't gotten a handle on.

Again, I don't really follow politics, so you'll have to dumb this down for me. Republicans and democrats are about the gist of my political knowledge...

 

[triforcharity]

That's not what I was referring to. Here's your full quote:
Perhaps I didn't read that right but the bolding is what my comment referred to.

Gotcha, we were talking past each other. See, this is why I stay FAR away from the politics section. I don't speak politics..... Cheers ma'am!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Again, I don't really follow politics, so you'll have to dumb this down for me. Republicans and democrats are about the gist of my political knowledge...

Back in the 80s the Republicans began adopting the campaign technique of doing focus groups (Google Frank Luntz) and finding single, emotionally triggering talking points that swayed voters. Using the best marketing techniques Madison Avenue researchers had to offer, (they put Goebbals to shame), Karl Rove and Frank Luntz teamed up. Rove developed the "Play Book" using Luntz's focus group data. The result was an extremely powerful method of manipulating beliefs via how issues are framed.

A narrative is essentially a way of framing an issue so that the images called up influence what people believe about the facts.

So, for a related-to-the-thread example, the AHCA is either an important piece of legislation moving the country forward, or it is a socialist milestone marking the government takeover of your health care, complete with death panels and new heavily burdensome taxes.

The Republican playbook of framing issues has been so successful they regularly influence the mainstream media's narrative: The Latest Proof that the Karl Rove Playbook Has Become the MSM's Bible

The more Progressives buy into these narratives instead of countering them, the more the right wing ideology invades our lives.

 

[gnome]

Karl Rove may have been very good at it, but I don't think he invented it, and I don't think he inspired everyone that does it.

 

[triforcharity]

Gotcha. Let's not get TOO far into the political realm, as it may end up split, and some shiny yellow cards given.....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Karl Rove may have been very good at it, but I don't think he invented it, and I don't think he inspired everyone that does it.

I was discussing recent history, not who invented what or who was first. To keep it thread topic, the point is there are many narrative lies about the AHCA and it is unfortunate that such propaganda is so effective.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My father may have a letter in Monday's Wall Street Journal on this issue.

~~ Paul

 

[AlBell]

By partisan hacks and ill informed mouth breathers.

Daredelvis

If not a tax, what is it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If not a tax, what is it?

A choice. And only deadbeat health care system users need make it.

 

[AlBell]

Anyone know of an analysis that predicts what will happen to married man-wife, primary for both Medicare excluding Part D drugs, plus a ex-employer supplied supplemental that includes drug coverage ($300 deductible) and major medical ($3000 deductible).

Cost for all currently exceeds $5000/yr.

 

[triforcharity]

A choice. And only deadbeat health care system users need make it.

No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law.

The government is leveling a tax on anyone who doesn't carry their own heath insurance. To call it anything else, is painting a pile of **** red, and calling it a rose.

It's a tax. And me personally, I am ok with it.

If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance, they will be taxed. No if ands or buts about it. (With a few exceptions of course....) What other choice do they have?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law.

The choice is, buy the insurance you can afford, OR, pay the tax. You really are looking through some pretty narrow glasses there. You can't seem to see any bigger part of the picture than the Republic narrative.

Given that choice, buy insurance or pay the tax, how does this differ from forcing you to buy fire or EM services? You don't have a choice. You have to pay the tax whether you like it or not, whether you choose to use the service or not. You don't hear a lot of grumbling about that mandate.

 

[Unabogie]

No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law.

The government is leveling a tax on anyone who doesn't carry their own heath insurance. To call it anything else, is painting a pile of **** red, and calling it a rose.

It's a tax. And me personally, I am ok with it.

If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance, they will be taxed. No if ands or buts about it. (With a few exceptions of course....) What other choice do they have?

I think you actually have it backwards. The vast, vast majority will not be faced with this situation as they will have medicare, medicaid, subsidies, and employer based plans. The tiny fraction left will face this choice. I believe in Massachusettes the percentage is around 2% of the population who are affected by the penalty.

 

[triforcharity]

The choice is, buy the insurance you can afford, OR, pay the tax. You really are looking through some pretty narrow glasses there. You can't seem to see any bigger part of the picture than the Republic narrative.

Republic narrative? Really? Come on SG, I've already stated 100%, without question, I am for the AHCA. While I still have my doubts on how this will really work. If it works, awesome! Now, on to step two of a national healthcare system. If not, we go back, retool it, rewire it, and give that a shot.

Exactly. There IS no choice. Either you give the money to the insurance companies, or you give money to the government to cover your fair share. I understand that. Believe me, I do. I'm all for it. But, I am parting ways with some of my hard earned money, one way or another. It's a tax.

I personally think it would have been easier to just implement a national tax, that everyone pays, no matter who you are, through an increase in sales tax, and cut out the insurance companies. It most likely wouldn't have taken 900 pages to explain either. I don't mind a little extra tax, really. Now, 20% extra......no. 1-2% on everything (excluding food) and all that money goes to UHC. Simple. Nobody can skirt the law, people working under the table pay it, criminals pay it, everyone pays it. No matter what. (Homeless of course....)

Given that choice, buy insurance or pay the tax, how does this differ from forcing you to buy fire or EM services?

Because everyone that owns a property pays it. People are not allowed to self insure, or bill upon service. It's a tax that everyone pays, no matter what. Every business, school, private club, residence, daycare, and fast food joint, pays a property tax. People can't buy their own insurance that says that their own personal fire department will show up....

You don't have a choice. You have to pay the tax whether you like it or not, whether you choose to use the service or not. You don't hear a lot of grumbling about that mandate.

Correct. because EVERYONE pays the tax. Some aren't exempt, because they have their own personal fire department. Even Disney World, (Who actually has their own fire department {Reedy Creek Fire District}) pays their property tax.

Everyone pays it, there's no way around it. Even unimproved land pays the property tax. I have 5 acres out in Holopaw Florida that I bought, and use as a hunting camp. I pay, every year, $433 to Osceola County for fire protection. In the 15 years that I have owned it, i've never had a fire. Not even a small one. But I couldn't tell Osceola County that I am not paying it, because I will take care of it myself.

 

[triforcharity]

I think you actually have it backwards. The vast, vast majority will not be faced with this situation as they will have medicare, medicaid, subsidies, and employer based plans. The tiny fraction left will face this choice. I believe in Massachusettes the percentage is around 2% of the population who are affected by the penalty.

No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014.

Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work....

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart...health-care-law?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Republic narrative? Really? Come on SG, I've already stated 100%, without question, I am for the AHCA.

Why would your position negate the Republic narrative? Why would your position make you immune from buying said narrative or repeating it?

....Exactly. There IS no choice. Either you give the money to the insurance companies, or you give money to the government to cover your fair share.

Either-or is not a choice?

Limited choices are not the same as no choices. This whole semantic argument resulted from you not recognizing the choice I referred to. If you want to debate the merits of limited choice vs no choice, that is a different discussion.

So let's discuss that. If you chose not to carry health care, that forces a tax on me that I have no choice over. I cannot chose to let you die on the ED steps. I am therefore forced to pay the tax/penalty/cost (it all comes out to the same dollar amount no matter what you call it) because you get care you don't pay for.

I am parting ways with some of my hard earned money, one way or another. It's a tax.

If I part ways with some of my hard earned money because the law says I can't chose to let you die on the ED steps, how does that differ from your tax? Keep in mind the law says the hospital cannot turn you away even if it knows you will not pay.

I personally think it would have been easier to just implement a national tax, that everyone pays, no matter who you are, through an increase in sales tax, and cut out the insurance companies. It most likely wouldn't have taken 900 pages to explain either. I don't mind a little extra tax, really. Now, 20% extra......no. 1-2% on everything (excluding food) and all that money goes to UHC. Simple. Nobody can skirt the law, people working under the table pay it, criminals pay it, everyone pays it. No matter what. (Homeless of course....)

When you say, "easier", what do you base that on? The Republics in Congress absolutely refused to vote for anything called a tax.

Because everyone that owns a property pays it. People are not allowed to self insure, or bill upon service. It's a tax that everyone pays, no matter what. Every business, school, private club, residence, daycare, and fast food joint, pays a property tax. People can't buy their own insurance that says that their own personal fire department will show up ....

And?

Correct. because EVERYONE pays the tax. Some aren't exempt, because they have their own personal fire department. Even Disney World, (Who actually has their own fire department {Reedy Creek Fire District}) pays their property tax.

And?

Everyone pays it, there's no way around it. Even unimproved land pays the property tax. I have 5 acres out in Holopaw Florida that I bought, and use as a hunting camp. I pay, every year, $433 to Osceola County for fire protection. In the 15 years that I have owned it, i've never had a fire. Not even a small one. But I couldn't tell Osceola County that I am not paying it, because I will take care of it myself.

And?


How is that relevant to grumbling about one tax and ignoring another equivalent tax?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014.

Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work....

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart...health-care-law?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

No, you had it wrong because 98% of the population is not going to pay the penalty/tax and that is many many exceptions.

 

[Unabogie]

No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014.

Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work....

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/20120630/NEWS01/120630002/Gov-Rick-Scott-Florida-won-t-comply-health-care-law?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

No there are lots of exceptions:

Religious exemptions.
People incarcerated.
Americans living abroad.
Hardship.

Then there are people who won't qualify for the penalty even though they aren't buying coverage for themselves:

Medicare patients
Medicaid patients
Employer plans

People who don't make enough money will get subsidies. The number of people who will likely pay the penalty (which is $95 in 2014) will be <5%, and those will be 100% made up of people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it.

Not to mention that having insurance is a huge exception to the tax, which is of course the whole point of having it.