Individual Mandate Constitutional

[fmccap]

That seems to be precisely the Republican answer as revealed during one of the debates where Ron Paul was asked what should happen to someone who refuses to buy insurance and then suddenly needs care.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrQHcMucLVU

If you seen the whole thing that is not what he said at all.

[Mark B. Morrow]

I wonder how long before good employer funded health insurance goes the way of employer provided pensions.

 

Prepare for the 401k of Health Insurance.

 

That may not be a bad thing. The coverage would be portable. People would not be tied to their jobs just to keep their coverage. Employers freed from providing health coverage can be more competitive. The money employers spend on health benefits can go to wages. A market for competing health plans should bring down the cost.

[RangerM]

They will need the coverage eventually - most all of them. Think of it as putting something away for a rainy day. Or think of it as insurance. (For the record, I'm a bit surprised the court didn't strike it down.)

 

Of course, if we consider that the SS Trust Fund is supposed to be for a "rainy day" we realize how well that works.

 

It should be interesting to see to see how things are twisted to avoid calling it a tax (or defending it as such) even though that's the sole basis for its affirmation.

[RangerM]

That may not be a bad thing. The coverage would be portable. People would not be tied to their jobs just to keep their coverage. Employers freed from providing health coverage can be more competitive. The money employers spend on health benefits can go to wages. A market for competing health plans should bring down the cost.

The problem is your basing that assumption on a free market; not one where the government sets the minimum standard. The cost of those health plans is proportionally less flexible as the level of coverage mandated by the government rises.

 

The issue of portability or keeping coverage is less important when an individual cannot be refused coverage under any circumstance. It boils down to whether or not the "tax" penalty is cheaper than the actual cost of coverage; which it largely is. When the price is lower than the cost, the supply invariably goes down.

[napfirst]

That may not be a bad thing. The coverage would be portable. People would not be tied to their jobs just to keep their coverage. Employers freed from providing health coverage can be more competitive. The money employers spend on health benefits can go to wages. A market for competing health plans should bring down the cost.

who pays for it?

[sullynd]

That may not be a bad thing.

 

How many people, given the choice, would choose a 401k over a pension?

[FordBuyer]

How many people, given the choice, would choose a 401k over a pension?

 

Quick...figure out how much you would have to save to obtain dividends/interest that average about 4% to live decent retirement lifestyle of let's say $40,000/year? Not many people capable of saving that kind of money over a lifetime and live in nice house, drive nice car, and put kids through college.

[Ron W.]

That may not be a bad thing

 

Situations vary.

 

The coverage would be portable. People would not be tied to their jobs just to keep their coverage

 

I pay for my insurance, not my employer.

 

. Employers freed from providing health coverage can be more competitive.

 

Most of the employers I've worked for would change your "competitive" to profitable

 

The money employers spend on health benefits can go to wages.

 

See above

 

A market for competing health plans should bring down the cost.

 

This I agree with, but should makes me wonder.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Ron W.

[Happy Gilmore]

is because of deadbeats always trying to scam the system.

 

Hasn't that been Obama's base?

 

Speaking of

 

 

 

Here are some sources:

 

http://thinkprogress...cord/?mobile=nc

 

http://jerrykhachoya...lly-been-solid/

 

Plenty more where these came from.

 

Nothing like an idiot Liberal quoting idiot Liberal sites.

 

Hey dummie, do you know where the guy who started think progress is now working? And maybe you should try reading links before you post them. The second one was debunked in the comments section

 

You're just an all round failure

Edited June 29, 2012 by Happy Gilmore

[RangerM]

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....

 

Another issue I heard brought up is by making it Constitutionally (exclusively) a tax, repeal only requires 51 Senators in the budget reconciliation process. (ie. no filibuster)

 

Roberts may be smarter than people give him credit. He takes the politization of Obamacare out of the SCOTUS, but hands the right the gift of a much lower threshold for repeal.

Edited June 29, 2012 by RangerM

[Langston Hughes]

Now you are using talking points......he has a net of -4 million jobs in the private sector...you know the private sector where things are produced...no government jobs .....where his growth has occured.....remember his promise...employment below 8%......he said himself that he should not be re elected if he could'nt turn it around in his first term.....time to pay the fiddler.....send his dumb-ass back to Chicago

 

I think your statistics are incorrect as he has an overall net loss of under 2 million if you count the entire first year. Overall 3.13 million jobs have come back since 2010.

[akirby]

I pay for my insurance, not my employer.

 

Most large companies still subsidize health care (unless you're a contractor). It's just part of the compensation package and if you take that out of the package then wages would go up to stay market competitive.

 

Most of the employers I've worked for would change your "competitive" to profitable

 

If it only affected one company or that company was a monopoly then they could probably get away with pocketing the savings. But any time a company in a competitive market gets cost savings they use that as a competitive advantage. You don't grow market share by charging more for your products.

[Mark B. Morrow]

How many people, given the choice, would choose a 401k over a pension?

 

With a 401k it's your money in your account. How many pensions have gone broke in the last 20 years?

[Mark B. Morrow]

Hasn't that been Obama's base?

 

Speaking of

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing like an idiot Liberal quoting idiot Liberal sites.

 

Hey dummie, do you know where the guy who started think progress is now working? And maybe you should try reading links before you post them. The second one was debunked in the comments section

 

You're just an all round failure

 

Perhaps you missed the citations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in those posts. You should read things before you accuse someone of being a "dummie" or "all round failure".

 

Of course, you haven't cited ANY evidence to support your positions.

[Langston Hughes]

Another issue I heard brought up is by making it Constitutionally (exclusively) a tax, repeal only requires 51 Senators in the budget reconciliation process. (ie. no filibuster)

 

Roberts may be smarter than people give him credit. He takes the politization of Obamacare out of the SCOTUS, but hands the right the gift of a much lower threshold for repeal.

 

That is an interesting take on the situation, one that I doubt many would have expected. Whether your a liberal or a conservative the court has expanded the commerce clause to an insane level and it needs to be rolled back some. The individual mandate wasn't the worst offense, those happen to be mostly individual medical marijuana cases. Situations where the drug was grown directly for the patient by a caregiver or by themselves for personal use and not sold nor crossing state lines. Yet, the conservative wing of the court found that it was still covered under the commerce clause.

[Langston Hughes]

This just happens to be the funniest take on the Supreme Court ruling i have heard yet.

 

http://gawker.com/5922085/everyone-stop-blowing-john-roberts-including-the-right-wing

 

It's easy to like Roberts. Unlike other members of the conservative wing of the court, he doesn't look like his ideology is consuming his flesh from the inside out. The rest of the court ghouls embody the old Orwell quote that by age 50 every man has the face he deserves. Thomas—sullen, glowering, damned—digs his chin further into his neck with every session, his jowls subsiding like a California landslide in agonizing slow motion. Alito sits like a rubberized effacement of humanity, with his doll's-eyed cipher expression taking turns with a simpering smile only a cruel person would teach somebody. Then there's Scalia, America's prick uncle who farts at Easter dinner and doesn't even need to overhear all of your conversation before interrupting you to tell you you're wrong.

[mikem12]

hers the list of new taxes under Obama and or Obama care. one that stands out is now they can tax your insurance ans income.

 

 

 

 

Taxes that took effect in 2010:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

Taxes that took effect in 2011:

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

Tax that took effect in 2012:

9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

Taxes that take effect in 2013:

10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

Capital Gains

Dividends

Other*

2012

15%

15%

35%

2013+

23.8%

43.4%

43.4%

 

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000

($250,000 Married)

Employer/Employee

All Remaining Wages

Employer/Employee

Current Law

1.45%/1.45%

2.9% self-employed

1.45%/1.45%

2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike

1.45%/1.45%

2.9% self-employed

1.45%/2.35%

3.8% self-employed

 

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (

National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

Taxes that take effect in 2014:

17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

1 Adult

2 Adults

3+ Adults

2014

1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285

2015

2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975

2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085

 

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

Taxes that take effect in 2018:

20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

 

 

Read more:

http://atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericansForTaxReformRssFULL+%28Americans+for+Tax+Reform+FULL+CONTENT+RSS%29#ixzz1zC4zpjYK

[grbeck]

With your way of thinking, I would agree if the hospital could refuse treatment because you have no health insurance

 

I'm pointing out that there is a penalty for not complying, contrary to the assertions of others. And hospitals may not be able to refuse treatment, but they will go after you for unpaid bills. I've seen that happen before.

Edited June 29, 2012 by grbeck

[grbeck]

I defer to Supreme Justice Roberts on this individual mandate. He knows a lot more about its constitutionality than I or your do, and he has spoken after months of thought and deliberation. Get over it and move on, especially if you have govermment/private sector insurance already as it doesn't concern us. And if Romney should win, I don't think the majority of American people want to go back to the old days of health care and have Rommey spend most of his days in White House trying to repeal Obamacare while most of America is concerned about jobs and thought this was behind us. My only complaint about Obamacare is it's too light on cost constraints even though Romney says it will CUT Medicare too much as I go in about a year from now and it doesn't bother me. Ah, politics.

 

Roberts ruled on the constitutionality of the act; he didn't rule on whether a person is penalized for not complying.

 

The simple fact is that a person is penalized for not complying (i.e., by not having insurance). There is no dispute about this. The amount of the penalty versus the cost of insurance premiums is irrelevant.

Edited June 29, 2012 by grbeck

[FordBuyer]

That is an interesting take on the situation, one that I doubt many would have expected. Whether your a liberal or a conservative the court has expanded the commerce clause to an insane level and it needs to be rolled back some. The individual mandate wasn't the worst offense, those happen to be mostly individual medical marijuana cases. Situations where the drug was grown directly for the patient by a caregiver or by themselves for personal use and not sold nor crossing state lines. Yet, the conservative wing of the court found that it was still covered under the commerce clause.

 

I'm still waiting for Americans to wake up and DEMAND to know why so many of us are incarcerated into prison, more than any other country on earth. Not a Demo or Repub argument, just a FACT. God knows how much it costs us if we want to bitch about too much government. New prisons isn't the answer. One short answer I have is that we have completely lost the war on drugs campaign and need to rethink it in its totality.

[grbeck]

That seems to be precisely the Republican answer as revealed during one of the debates where Ron Paul was asked what should happen to someone who refuses to buy insurance and then suddenly needs care.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrQHcMucLVU

 

That's not what he said, if you view the entire discussion. At any rate, if a person does refuse to buy insurance and then gets sick, I'm not so sure as to why it would be terrible to let him or her suffer the consequences. That's not the fault of Ron Paul or the Republicans.

 

If someone refuses to buy car insurance, and then demolishes his or her car, and has to walk everywhere, are we supposed to blame Ron Paul or the Republicans for that, too?

[grbeck]

I'm still waiting for Americans to wake up and DEMAND to know why so many of us are incarcerated into prison, more than any other country on earth. Not a Demo or Repub argument, just a FACT. God knows how much it costs us if we want to bitch about too much government. New prisons isn't the answer. One short answer I have is that we have completely lost the war on drugs campaign and need to rethink it in its totality.

 

Those people are in prison because they have committed crimes.

 

Talk to a district attorney sometime. The simple fact is that the people in jail deserve to be there, and most DAs will work to keep the person OUT of prison, if possible. But, as someone once said, you can't fix stupid, especially when it comes to repeat offenders.

 

And the old canard about drug offenders being in prison ignores that fact that most of them pled guilty to the drug offense to avoid charges on more serious offenses. By and large, these "drug offenders" aren't Doogie Howser or Beaver Cleaver just trying to sell a baggie of marijuana. Most of them are pretty bad actors...drug offenses are the LEAST of their bad actions.

 

At any rate, as we've cracked down on offenders, the crime rate has fallen by 50 percent since 1991, and the murder rate is now at 1964 levels. It was MUCH worse in the 1970s and 1980s.

Edited June 29, 2012 by grbeck

[RangerM]

That is an interesting take on the situation, one that I doubt many would have expected. Whether your a liberal or a conservative the court has expanded the commerce clause to an insane level and it needs to be rolled back some. The individual mandate wasn't the worst offense, those happen to be mostly individual medical marijuana cases. Situations where the drug was grown directly for the patient by a caregiver or by themselves for personal use and not sold nor crossing state lines. Yet, the conservative wing of the court found that it was still covered under the commerce clause.

Roberts was explicit when he said the mandate was NOT Constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

 

If anything, he suggested that (homegrown) drug laws are also not covered by the Commerce Clause. (ie. to refrain from commerce is not subject to Congressional regulation under the Constitution)

Edited June 29, 2012 by RangerM

[akirby]

If someone refuses to buy car insurance, and then demolishes his or her car, and has to walk everywhere, are we supposed to blame Ron Paul or the Republicans for that, too?

 

Absolutely. It wasn't their fault that they didn't have car insurance. It was somebody else's fault. I'm not sure who, exactly, but there must be somebody to blame because there's no way it was their own fault. Not possible. It's either the fault of some Republican politician (Democrats are never at fault) or some evil greedy corporation.

[napfirst]

Absolutely. It wasn't their fault that they didn't have car insurance. It was somebody else's fault. I'm not sure who, exactly, but there must be somebody to blame because there's no way it was their own fault. Not possible. It's either the fault of some Republican politician (Democrats are never at fault) or some evil greedy corporation.

My vote would be that it's the fault of Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh or Beck.