Individual Mandate Constitutional

[RangerM]

High court upholds key part of Obama health law

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul.

 

The decision means the huge overhaul, still only partly in effect, will proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care. The ruling also hands Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

 

I suppose they can now "tax" you for anything--including nothing--now.

 

Should make for some creative revenue measures in the future.

[Langston Hughes]

Wow, i mean like literally WOW! This is something that I never actually envisioned happening. There was never a doubt in my mind that despite precedent that the courts more conservative judges would strike the mandate down. I myself had doubts that it was constitutional but knew that the courts had allowed a few dubious examples of the commerce clause to stand in prior years so thought they might be bound to let this one stand. I do believe that conservatives will have some serious issues with Chief judge Roberts from here on in.

[RangerM]

If you read the ruling, it didn't stand on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

 

It stood on the basis of the power to tax.

 

Those are two different things.

 

And now with the blessing of the SCOTUS, they can tax you if you don't buy the car they want you to buy, the house they want you to buy, or anything else you don't want to do.

Edited June 28, 2012 by RangerM

[Langston Hughes]

Ranger, I was just offering my past views on it and the surprise I felt when i read the initial blurb. It is remarkably funny how many people on both sides scoured legal research for the answers on the Commerce Claus and out of left field comes Justice Roberts and makes it a moot point. You could well be right that this is a dawn of a new style of tax, but I don't know what will happen next. Surprisingly it doesn't feel like a victory for liberals to me, but just an end to this part of the saga. It's anti-climactic.

[FordBuyer]

Now today is good day to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity try to spin this decision into some sort of political gain like everyone in country wants to go back to where citizen with pre-existing conditon can't get insurance, college age kids are kicked off parents policy, and hospitals have to write off 25%+ of those they have to treat with no insurance and pass the costs onto us that are responsible enough to pay for health insurance. I agree with Roberts, it was a tax only if you refuse to be responsible and live your life without insurance and force us who do to pay for you. I resend uninsured motorists also and have been hit by them. Tax the shit out of the deadbeats.

[RangerM]

It's possible it's a double-edged sword.

 

Yes, many will be thrilled with the ruling (today), but once it's completely absorbed what it actually means (taken in conjunction with Kelo vs. New London), there will almost certainly be a backlash from both sides of the political spectrum.

 

There will be much joy from the left, however it's also now the "tax" that Obama promised he wouldn't enact/impose on the poor/middle class.

 

......and hospitals have to write off 25%+ of those they have to treat with no insurance and pass the costs onto us that are responsible enough to pay for health insurance.......

 

At this point, the question for many will be whether or not it's cheaper to buy insurance or pay the tax (and buy the insurance after you get sick).

Edited June 28, 2012 by RangerM

[Mark B. Morrow]

I'm looking forward to reading the entire opinion and the dissents. Call it a tax or a fine, it doesn't matter much. It is an avoidable tax.

 

Now it will be up to the Republicans to actually come up with a comprehensive plan of their own if they want to repeal and replace it.

 

The ironic part is that the whole individual mandate was a Conservative idea in the first place that was embraced as a market based solution to the costs of treating the uninsured. The mandate was supported by many Republicans for more than 20 years, dating back to the G.H.W.Bush administration, right up to the time Obama and the Dems accepted it.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[FordBuyer]

It's possible it's a double-edged sword.

 

Yes, many will be thrilled with the ruling (today), but once it's completely absorbed what it actually means (taken in conjunction with Kelo vs. New London), there will almost certainly be a backlash from both sides of the political spectrum.

 

There will be much joy from the left, however it's also now the "tax" that Obama promised he wouldn't enact/impose on the poor/middle class.

 

 

 

At this point, the question for many will be whether or not it's cheaper to buy insurance or pay the tax (and buy the insurance after you get sick).

 

Yeah, the good old deadbeats that don't believe in insurance and wouldn't pay for house insurance if mortgage company didn't force them to keep paying premium. Ditto for those with auto loans. Don't pay your premium and loan company will buy it for you and charge you even higher premium. One reason premium prices go up is because of deadbeats always trying to scam the system. Insurance is a necessary evil like it or not because it spreads the costs around and it's only effective if everyone buys into it.

[cal50]

With pending lawsuits from several states and the many businesses that received waivers or exemptions from the mandate its far from over.

Its a bad sign that the government can mandate a "tax" and require anyone to purchase anything at their will.

 

Its still unfunded and in the long run businesses will figure out a way around it like moving more operations out of the country with fewer domestic employees on the roles here. The divide between the government & the people just got wider on our dime.

 

The ante just got bigger for the up coming election and control of congress.

[grbeck]

The interesting part is that the law was initially sold as not being a tax.

[the_spaniard]

Interesting, I never thought this would go through. I lost interest in this bill after the single-payer option was removed, but there is already talk of possibly trying to bring that back. I honestly thought the whole thing would have been thrown out and it would cost Obama reelection.

 

Democrats will surely see this as a win and attempt to bolster support.

[twintornados]

Similar in scope to the "gas guzzler tax" on cars that don't get good enough MPG....as if having the car AND paying for fuel (and the related taxes that go with it) weren't enough....It will be an interesting Presidential election for sure....

[Langston Hughes]

The interesting part is that the law was initially sold as not being a tax.

 

I don't know that the White House presented it that way as much as Chief Justice Roberts saw it that way. My understanding of the court proceedings is that the Admin didn't limit the thought that it could be considered a tax but that they argued for the mandate based mostly on the commerce clause.

[RangerM]

I don't know that the White House presented it that way as much as Chief Justice Roberts saw it that way. My understanding of the court proceedings is that the Admin didn't limit the thought that it could be considered a tax but that they argued for the mandate based mostly on the commerce clause.

That will be the way they obfuscate the fact that it's a tax.

 

But like it or not, it's now a tax.

 

Portrayed as anything else, it's not constitutional.

[xr7g428]

First and for most, I am very pleased and proud to see our system of checks and balances work. I am not thrilled with the decision, but I am with the process of our system, while not perfect, it still beats all alternatives. The system worked.

 

Now the process of change will be back in the hands of the legislature. I believe this is the best solution. Almost anyone would agree that there are parts of this bill that are worth keeping, and parts that need improvement. Now lets see if we can elect a group of people that can fix this thing.

 

We have to be honest about one thing: The people who like this thing the most are the ones who stand to gain the most. They will pay $5K in premiums and receive $30K in benefits. This means that there will have to be at least 5 people that pay $5K in premiums and get nothing. The only group mathematically large enough and healthy enough to cover this is our children. Once again we are voting our selves benefits on the backs of our children. They will be paying more for coverage they probably don't need, to provide us with the coverage we want at the prices we want to pay.

[mikem12]

I don't know that the White House presented it that way as much as Chief Justice Roberts saw it that way. My understanding of the court proceedings is that the Admin didn't limit the thought that it could be considered a tax but that they argued for the mandate based mostly on the commerce clause.

 

they presented it to the people as a mandate via the commerce clause. However, when in front of the SCOTUS they argued it was a tax. Lies and damn lies. I think this decision just helped the Reps. as it did in 2010.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

[grbeck]

I don't know that the White House presented it that way as much as Chief Justice Roberts saw it that way. My understanding of the court proceedings is that the Admin didn't limit the thought that it could be considered a tax but that they argued for the mandate based mostly on the commerce clause.

 

When the law was before Congress, and for some time after its passage, its supporters and the President strenuously argued that it was NOT a tax or a tax increase. This is what the President said in September 2009:

 

But in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax:

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

 

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

 

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs. (emphasis added)

Edited June 28, 2012 by grbeck

[grbeck]

First and for most, I am very pleased and proud to see our system of checks and balances work. I am not thrilled with the decision, but I am with the process of our system, while not perfect, it still beats all alternatives. The system worked.

 

Now the process of change will be back in the hands of the legislature. I believe this is the best solution. Almost anyone would agree that there are parts of this bill that are worth keeping, and parts that need improvement. Now lets see if we can elect a group of people that can fix this thing.

 

We have to be honest about one thing: The people who like this thing the most are the ones who stand to gain the most. They will pay $5K in premiums and receive $30K in benefits. This means that there will have to be at least 5 people that pay $5K in premiums and get nothing. The only group mathematically large enough and healthy enough to cover this is our children. Once again we are voting our selves benefits on the backs of our children. They will be paying more for coverage they probably don't need, to provide us with the coverage we want at the prices we want to pay.

 

I think the goverment should take steps to cover the cost of treating catastrophic illnesses. No one should go bankrupt because of cancer, ALS or multiple sclerosis. On the other hand, I don't see why people can't pay for regular exams or treatment for minor illnesses such as the flu themselves. Or they can purchase the insurance coverage for those relatively minor problems.

 

We should treat health insurance as true INSURANCE. You buy car insurance, for example, to protect yourself against theft or an accident that seriously damages or demolishes the car. You don't buy car insurance to pay for oil changes or parking-lot door dings. Otherwise, car insurance costs would go through the roof.

Edited June 28, 2012 by grbeck

[FordBuyer]

Romney is a big time hypocrite and not much different than his father, "Brainwashed George :"

 

The "vast majority" of Americans will not be affected by the Court's ruling, says Dr. Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at MIT and director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research. "If you have health insurance you're unaffected. If you can't afford insurance you're unaffected. It's only for those who can afford healthcare and choose to free ride on the system instead; they will now have to pay a penalty."

Starting in 2014, Americans without health insurance will be required to get covered or pay a fine (1% of income in 2014 and increasing to 2.5% in 2016). Subsidies will be provided for those who can't afford it and businesses with over 50 employees will face fines if they don't offer their workers' coverage.

Gruber, who helped design both the Affordable Care Act and the Massachusetts health care reform Romney signed as Governor in 2006, agreed with President Obama's analysis of the Court's ruling.

"It's a victory because we essentially have a system in America where if you don't have healthcare from your employer or the government, you're pretty screwed," he says.

Once the Affordable Care Act is implemented, Americans can no longer be denied insurance because of preexisting conditions or have their insurance revoked or their premiums jump because they get sick. "This law will...end discrimination in the insurance market and we'll do that through the individual mandate, which will bring everyone into the health insurance market," Gruber says.

As for Romney, Gruber, said he is "disappointed" with his fierce opposition to Obama's Affordable Care Act.

Healthcare reform has been "an outstanding success in Massachusetts," he says, calling it a "template" for the nation. Since 2006, the ranks of the states' uninsured have fallen by two-thirds, private health insurance coverage has risen even as it's fallen nationwide, and premiums have fallen by 50% relative to the rest of the country.

"I'm disappointed both at [Romney] and his party," Gruber says. "Republicans have been completely nihilistic on this topic saying 'they don't like it, they don't like, they don't like it' and never offering an alternative that will help the 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance and the millions more who lose it every year."

[akirby]

So let me get this straight:

 

it's ok to force everyone to "pay their fair share" of health insurance premiums

it's not ok that some people pay nothing while others pay more than their fair share to cover the shortfall

 

If the solution to that problem is to force everyone to pay their fair share, then we should be doing the same thing with federal income tax. Let's force the 47% who don't pay taxes today to pay their fair share so that everyone else doesn't have to pay more to cover the shortfall.

[grbeck]

I would suggest that supporters of the law who are cheering may want to exercise some restraint. This decision has some not-so-immediately obvious thorns, at least from the perspective of the left. This is from Slate, which is hardly a right-wing rag:

 

The scholars expected to see the court gut existing Commerce Clause precedent and overturn the individual mandate in a partisan decision: Five Republican-appointed justices voting to rewrite doctrine and reject Obamacare; four Democratic-appointed justices dissenting.

 

Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):

 

 

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely

because

they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to

regulate

commerce, not to

compel

it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

 

The business about "new and potentially vast" authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress' regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts' nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as "whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce." Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do. (emphasis added)

 

Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade. (emphasis added)

 

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for....

Edited June 28, 2012 by grbeck

[FordBuyer]

So let me get this straight:

 

it's ok to force everyone to "pay their fair share" of health insurance premiums

it's not ok that some people pay nothing while others pay more than their fair share to cover the shortfall

 

If the solution to that problem is to force everyone to pay their fair share, then we should be doing the same thing with federal income tax. Let's force the 47% who don't pay taxes today to pay their fair share so that everyone else doesn't have to pay more to cover the shortfall.

 

Obamacare is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. If you want to be a deadbeat, then you will pay a 1% tax penalty instead and for a deadbeat, that is still better than paying $1,000/month for health insurance for family. It's $500 penalty in MI to drive without auto insurance, but sill about 20% of MI motorists drive without insurance and they are some of the most dangerous deadbeat drivers out there.

[grbeck]

Obamacare is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. If you want to be a deadbeat, then you will pay a 1% tax penalty instead and for a deadbeat, that is still better than paying $1,000/month for health insurance for family. It's $500 penalty in MI to drive without auto insurance, but sill about 20% of MI motorists drive without insurance and they are some of the most dangerous deadbeat drivers out there.

 

Unless paying that tax penalty is optional, then, yes, the law is forcing you to do something. In my book, requiring people to pay a penalty is forcing them to do something. Do people have the option of saying, "No thanks, I won't be paying that penalty" without any consequences?

Edited June 28, 2012 by grbeck

[akirby]

Obamacare is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. If you want to be a deadbeat, then you will pay a 1% tax penalty instead and for a deadbeat, that is still better than paying $1,000/month for health insurance for family. It's $500 penalty in MI to drive without auto insurance, but sill about 20% of MI motorists drive without insurance and they are some of the most dangerous deadbeat drivers out there.

 

It forces people who currently pay nothing for health care to pay something.

 

Healthcare: 16% of the population pays nothing for healthcare, so 84% of the population is left to pay for it.

Federal Income Tax: 47% of the population pays nothing for federal income taxes so 53% of the population is left to pay for it.

 

Sounds like exactly the same problem to me.

[FordBuyer]

Unless paying that tax penalty is optional, then, yes, the law is forcing you to do something. In my book, requiring people to pay a penalty is forcing them to do something. Do people have the option of saying, "No thanks, I won't be paying that penalty" without any consequences?

 

Again, it's not forcing anyone including family to fork over $1,000 premium payment/month for family that doesn't want to because he/she can't afford it or could care less about the health of his family and would ratther drive a nice new car. If he makes $25,000/year, a tax penalty of 1% is hardly a huge penalty that will FORCE him to buy a $12,000/year insurace package. There are lots of penalites for not buying auto insurance, and home isurance for that matter. Whay should health insurance be any different when arguably your health is more important than car or house.