Obamacare Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court
-
fan_from_texas
^^^This.BoatShoes;1214094 wrote:Congress had very broad powers to tax and spend way before this case. The founding fathers thought it a bright idea to tax whiskey and it led to a rebellion. If it would have been ruled a tax in lower courts there never would have been any doubt. The tax code is already riddled with special tax preferences.
The government already encourages some behaviors and discourages others based on its taxing power. That's nothing new. Whether it's a good idea or not is a policy question, not really a legal question.
I don't have strong feelings on the opinion, as I didn't care much either way about ObamaCare. But this opinion, by itself, does not mean the sky is falling. If anything, I read it as opening up doors for Commerce Clause challenges against numerous other laws--sort of a "lose the battle, win the war" type of decision. It'll take awhile for the full impact to shake out. -
IggyPride00Roberts has another 25-30 years to serve as Chief Justice of the court.
I think he felt tremendous pressure to find a way not to strike down the law because the court was starting to become dangerously close to being viewed strictly as a political body, and that is not good. Public opinion of the court has dropped tremendously in the past decade with many of the most contentious cases (Bush v. Gore, Citizens United) being split 5-4 down partisan lines.
A 5-4 decision on partisan lines to toss Obamacare would have likely politicized the court even more (and stigmatized Roberts reputation), and from what I have read that is something he was very concerned about.
By siding with the liberals 5-4 (his first time ever doing so on the court) he now appears publicly to be a more moderate/pragmatic force on the court and that will undoubtedly help the court in terms of public opinion. It is important that as a society we at least believe that cases will be determined on their merits and not by political leanings of the justices. Today went a long way towards leveling the public's perception of the Roberts court.
I don't like Obamacare, and think if it were not for the beating Roberts has taken over Citizens United that he would have flipped his vote and tossed it out. I think when push came to shove though he didn't want to take the beating that was coming if his court authored another highly contentious 5-4 decision to toss Obamacare so close on the heels of the Citizens United case.
Siding with the liberals has now given him the benefit of the doubt back in the court of public opinion, and it will offer him more latitude going forward to side with the Conservatives again on most things because he can always point to this case as proof he was not a Republican hack more interested in pushing their agenda than "calling balls and strikes" as he famously said in his confirmation hearing. Rightly or wrongly, that had become the perception of him, and it was not good for the courts legitimacy. -
QuakerOats
Please, tell me, when was I ever a champion of those exploding the welfare/entitlement state?BoatShoes;1214103 wrote:We can know for sure that quakeroats was not concerned about eroding liberty when republicans were exploding the welfare/entitlement state and the police state. -
Hammerin'HankI think that this vote is gonna put major dollars into the Romney campaign coffers and get him elected....Perhaps that is the reason behind the deciding vote.
-
cruiser_96Did someone above mention prohibition?
I've been around for a while, but not THAT long, and too much time has passed since my high school POD class to remember if it was the supreme court that voted for prohibition or not. If not, how is it relavent to this case? If so, oes it not give evidence that the SC can be wrong? -
IggyPride00It just figures that with all teh rage about the mandate that the Republicans nominated a guy whose mandate based health insurance plan was the blue print for Obamacare.
I think messaging wise it is so much more complicated with Willard as the nominee than if it were any other living breathing human because of what he did in Massachusettes.
He can't go nuts against the mandate without looking like a major hipocrite and flip flopper, and it just makes things more complicated as far as lashing out against Obamacare as Conservatives are right now. -
O-TrapIggyPride00;1214113 wrote:It is important that as a society we at least believe that cases will be determined on their merits and not by political leanings of the justices.
My problem with this is, assuming your theory for why Roberts voted that way is true, if he voted to preserve public opinion, then he didn't help determine the case on its merits, but instead on the public perception of him as a justice.
Hammerin'Hank;1214120 wrote:I think that this vote is gonna put major dollars into the Romney campaign coffers and get him elected....Perhaps that is the reason behind the deciding vote.
I think I heard that Romney's campaign has raised over $1,000,000 since this ruling came out.
This ship has already sailed. As it is now, I believe he's trying to pass it off as drastically different because he did it at the state level. Fact is, however, that he apparently thought it was a good idea, because he supported it even at the state level.IggyPride00;1214124 wrote:He can't go nuts against the mandate without looking like a major hipocrite and flip flopper ...
Moreover, he's been documented as mentioning Obama's use of his own as a blueprint with pride. It just does seem odd.
But the guy flip-flops like a pair of thongs, so I suppose if anyone has set a precedent to oppose it on principle after supporting it on principle, it's him. -
fan_from_texas
Prohibition was enacted by an amendment to the Constitution. It was unenacted by repealing that amendment. Amending the Constitution directly is one way to skirt the constitutional challenges.cruiser_96;1214121 wrote:Did someone above mention prohibition?
I've been around for a while, but not THAT long, and too much time has passed since my high school POD class to remember if it was the supreme court that voted for prohibition or not. If not, how is it relavent to this case? If so, oes it not give evidence that the SC can be wrong?
It's interesting to note, of course, that no one would think that prohibition today would require an amendment--the feds already regulate all sorts of substances through under the Commerce Clause. -
RedRider1
$1 million + in the 3 hours since the law was upheld...per a Romney spokesperson.Hammerin'Hank;1214120 wrote:I think that this vote is gonna put major dollars into the Romney campaign coffers and get him elected....Perhaps that is the reason behind the deciding vote.
https://twitter.com/andreamsaul/status/218412390948155394?tw_p=twt
Not bad scratch for Mitt. -
Bigdogg
I know that for a family of 4, the combined household income has to be over 66,500 for you to have to pay the 95 or 1% penalty.tk421;1213962 wrote:So, by 2014 people who don't have healthcare will be taxed $95 or 1%, whichever is greater, than by 2016 it swells to $695 or 2%, whichever is greater. Sounds fair to me. :rolleyes: Has anyone seen the cutoff for the poor yet, or has that part not been dug out of the giant 2700 page report yet? This thing is going to be a giant piece of crap and will swell the government massively. Anyone who thinks a 2700 page bill is the solution to any problem is mentally deficient.
Let's see, healthcare in this country is a giant bureaucracy and doesn't cover everyone, I know let's make the bureaucracy even more of a mess and expand the government when we can least afford it.
I imagine a lot of people are just going to go ahead and pay the tax, no way you're getting coverage for less than $695 a year. -
jhay78
And private insurance will be required to cover those people's pre-existing conditions, which will break their backs and move us on to single payer.tk421;1213962 wrote:I imagine a lot of people are just going to go ahead and pay the tax, no way you're getting coverage for less than $695 a year.
Sitting on the fence, splitting the middle of every argument, talking out of both sides of your mouth, standing up for nothing- now that'll get us somewhere! After all, that's how the founders did it.ptown_trojans_1;1214069 wrote:Dude, listen to yourself.
Over the top language does nothing but drown out reasonable dialogue for actual solutions.
Assault on liberty? Jesus man. You sound like that crazy caller on AM Sports radio that just talks in over the top language and black and white.
For someone like you, who stands on his head and tells us all the world is upside down more than anyone, this is way over the top. The intellectuall property of a few so-called conservatives does not equal the entirety of conservatism. But nice try.BoatShoes;1214103 wrote:It is important to remember that you would have said no such things if a republican passed this bill. This bill was the intellectual property of conservatism for decades and its a reasonable market oriented approach.
We can know for sure that quakeroats was not concerned about eroding liberty when republicans were exploding the welfare/entitlement state and the police state.
Sorry I have no sympathy for Roberts worrying about the public's perception of the Court. The one body in our entire system supposedly immune from political pressure is now supposed to have favorable public opinion to do its job? So does the SC now take a poll before each vote?IggyPride00;1214113 wrote:Roberts has another 25-30 years to serve as Chief Justice of the court.
I think he felt tremendous pressure to find a way not to strike down the law because the court was starting to become dangerously close to being viewed strictly as a political body, and that is not good. Public opinion of the court has dropped tremendously in the past decade with many of the most contentious cases (Bush v. Gore, Citizens United) being split 5-4 down partisan lines.
A 5-4 decision on partisan lines to toss Obamacare would have likely politicized the court even more (and stigmatized Roberts reputation), and from what I have read that is something he was very concerned about.
By siding with the liberals 5-4 (his first time ever doing so on the court) he now appears publicly to be a more moderate/pragmatic force on the court and that will undoubtedly help the court in terms of public opinion. It is important that as a society we at least believe that cases will be determined on their merits and not by political leanings of the justices. Today went a long way towards leveling the public's perception of the Roberts court.
I don't like Obamacare, and think if it were not for the beating Roberts has taken over Citizens United that he would have flipped his vote and tossed it out. I think when push came to shove though he didn't want to take the beating that was coming if his court authored another highly contentious 5-4 decision to toss Obamacare so close on the heels of the Citizens United case.
Siding with the liberals has now given him the benefit of the doubt back in the court of public opinion, and it will offer him more latitude going forward to side with the Conservatives again on most things because he can always point to this case as proof he was not a Republican hack more interested in pushing their agenda than "calling balls and strikes" as he famously said in his confirmation hearing. Rightly or wrongly, that had become the perception of him, and it was not good for the courts legitimacy.
Why wouldn't a 5-4 vote against Obamacare hurt the public's perception of the 4 liberals on the Court? Why does our guy have to break ranks in order to help avoid politicization? When was the last big case that the likes of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, etc. sided with the Constitution? -
Bigdogg
Hospitals can not turn down anyone for services regardless of ability to pay. That's been the law for a long time now for every hospital that excepts public dollars. It comes down to is basic healthcare a right or a privilege for Americans. Those of us that believe healthcare is a right but everone's responsibility to help pay for will be happy with the ruling.cruiser_96;1213956 wrote:Would we not already have "personal responsibility" for our health care by a) accepting the fact that our health is our's to take care of and b) purchasing any necessary level of adequate coverage should we so choose?
Also, you state "making everyone"... I'm not sold that the US government "making" anyone do anything is protecting and preserving freedom and liberty. It seems to me that it would be encroaching on - and dangerously close to trampling on - said freedoms when it begins "making" me do anything.
But, as someone else eluded to... if we the people elect those who voted for the measure, then our complaints are more about our own shortcomings. (Or, it could be note, that those who were elected have changed since they were elected.)
ps: When conservatives vote the way liberals want, the conservatives are growing more enlightened, growing in character, etc. If a liberal sides with the conservatives, the "evil" conservatives did it again, bought some off, etc.
Whatevs.
This all could have been avoided if both party's would have worked together long ago and came up with a better solution. Unfortunally, when you bring politics into it, you get bad pieces of legislation. I think AHCA can be tweaked and made better. -
O-Trap
The issue is ACTUALLY not about healthcare being a right, but about one person's right to healthcare giving them the right to other people's property to ensure they get it.Bigdogg;1214184 wrote:Those of us that believe healthcare is a right but everone's responsibility to help pay for will be happy with the ruling. -
fan_from_texasLeading libertarian scholar weighs in:
I suspect a lot of conservative readers are pretty upset with Chief Justice Roberts right now. The position that the mandate is unconstitutional had become the official GOP party line, echoed by nearly every prominent conservative whether or not they know anything about constitutional law. So there will be a lot of folks on the right who see Roberts as some kind of traitor, or at least not a real conservative. Roberts took a liberal position, the argument will run, so he must be a liberal.
I don’t think that’s right. Reading over the Roberts opinion, the opinion strikes me as quite conservative. The opinion starts from the premise that the federal government is a government of limited powers. The opinion goes on to reject the federal government’s power to regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. It then goes on to reject a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The opinion also imposes new limits on the federal government’s ability to force the states to adopt federal programs, striking down the condition that Congress can withdraw all medicaid funding if a state refuses to go along with the medicaid expansion. These sections of the opinion are all about about the need to narrow Congress’s power, and they impose new limits on federal power that have not been seen before.
Of course, Roberts ultimately concludes that the mandate is constitutional on the ground that the mandate can be read to work like a tax — and that so read, the law is constitutional. But methodologically, I don’t think there is anything “liberal” about that approach. The ultimate question on the taxing power was whether to read the a particular law formally or functionally: Do you look at whether the law says that it is tax, or do you look at whether it acts like a tax? There are pros and cons to each approach. But there’s nothing jurisprudentially liberal about taking the functional approach; it’s just the alternative way to assess the scope of the tax power.
Some will argue that the tax power argument comes off as a technicality, and the fact that the case hinges on a technicality suggests that Roberts was really just looking for a way to uphold the mandate. But it’s important to remember that the entire challenge to the Affordable Care Act was premised on a technicality. Everyone challenging the Affordable Care Act agreed that Congress could enact a single-payer system. Everyone challenging the Affordable Care Act agreed that Congress could enact the same law as it did if it only chose the formal label of a tax. So the nature of the challenge to the mandate was a bit of a gotcha argument: The major legislative achievement of the Obama Administration should be struck down because of the technical way it was done, even though Congress could have passed the same legislation with a few changes if only the Court had announced those changes beforehand rather than after. In part, that was the strategy behind the challenge: Make the challenge so narrow that the challenge really just applied to this one law. The thinking was that this would make it more likely that the Court would strike down the Act. But that also meant that the Court had an easy way to uphold the law: Just read the technicalities accordingly.
The result is an opinion that happens to please today’s liberals and annoy today’s conservatives, because the liberal law that was passed and that conservatives hate remains on the books. But the key opinion that leads to that result is not a liberal opinion; rather, it strikes me as a largely conservative opinion that just happens to get to a liberal result. -
BoatShoesJhay,
1. Insurance companies will not fail because healthy people are required to be in the risk pool. Your scenario only happens if the mandate is struck down.
2. Yes, the reaction to the ACA exemplifies the rightward shift as tried and true "real" conservatives used to support it. It is a guarantee that 26I republican attorneys general would not have sued in federal court if W passed the same bill. No tea party was declaring the end of freedom when he expanded actual socialist programs in 2003. -
Bigdogg
I am not going to address every point because it's not worth wasting my time. I have a business between 50 and 100 employees. 42 employees take the company insurance policy. I have averaged 15% increase in premiums over the last 15 years. The best policy I can get currently has 10,000 family and 6,000 individual out of pocket. I contribute 125 monthly to their HSA. I will gladly pay the $2,000 penalty for what will be a better insurance policy. 95% of my employees will not have to pay the $95. I did the math, along with my HR consultant who is one of the best in Ohio. We both feel that the downside will be lots of extra reporting work for my CFO and a lot less out of pocket expense for the company. My employees will no longer contrubute 15% of their paycheck for insurance, will have a better policy and will be exempt from the 95 dollars. You draw the conclusions for my situation.O-Trap;1213943 wrote:So why grow your business beyond "small business?" If you can hire either part-timers, contractors (foreign or domestic, foreign being the more affordable option), why grow your employee base?
Plan on being able to hire more based on what?
Everyone already is personally responsible. If you have insurance, you are responsible for keeping it and going through the process to claim when necessary. If you do not have insurance, you are responsible for your medical costs (or you can rely on the benevolence of others).
This isn't mandating responsibility. It is mandating HOW you are responsible: through the purchase of a "service" (moreso than a product).
Then why are we doing this again? It's apparent that nobody is being turned away, and that we don't have people dying in the streets that would otherwise be saved by some sort of insurance plan that we, as a nation, can't particularly afford.
I actually have a fundamental problem with privately owned property, services, business, company, etc. being forced to provide for free. But hey, isn't that the American dream? -
Bigdogg
If you think so. The Supreme Court did not.O-Trap;1214191 wrote:The issue is ACTUALLY not about healthcare being a right, but about one person's right to healthcare giving them the right to other people's property to ensure they get it. -
IggyPride00[video=youtube;d_hnaPmspiM][/video]
Liberals are already posting campaign videos mocking Willard's hipocrisy and feigned outrage at today's decision.
This is really the guy we entrusted to run Obama out of town? Unreal. I still can't wrap my head around it. -
BoatShoesIn the long run I think this is a win for conservatives.
1. A healthcare law that is socialist only in imaginationland is upheld as a tax that doesn't expand federal power beyond what it already was.
2. Commerce clause is limited
3. States are given more power
4. Conservatives get a market based health reform while destroying liberal political capital -
tk421Not to mention Barry is on record as saying this is specifically NOT a tax, and now he is counting it as a win that it has been ruled a tax. I'm sure some Republican somewhere can splice together a video of him saying it's not a tax.
-
O-Trap
Fair enough. I find it odd that such a lengthy document, and a new one at that, will provide for less time spent, but if you honestly think that to be the case, it is indeed your own business to run as you see fit.Bigdogg;1214202 wrote:I am not going to address every point because it's not worth wasting my time. I have a business between 50 and 100 employees. 42 employees take the company insurance policy. I have averaged 15% increase in premiums over the last 15 years. The best policy I can get currently has 10,000 family and 6,000 individual out of pocket. I contribute 125 monthly to their HSA. I will gladly pay the $2,000 penalty for what will be a better insurance policy. 95% of my employees will not have to pay the $95. I did the math, along with my HR consultant who is one of the best in Ohio. We both feel that the downside will be lots of extra reporting work for my CFO and a lot less out of pocket expense for the company. My employees will no longer contrubute 15% of their paycheck for insurance, will have a better policy and will be exempt from the 95 dollars. You draw the conclusions for my situation.
Apparently not, but that is a basic contingency to the new policy, no? In order for some to exercise their right to healthcare, the rights of others to what they've earned is inhibited.Bigdogg;1214204 wrote:If you think so. The Supreme Court did not.
It's the idea of swinging a fist at my nose. Apparently, the Supreme Court has decided that your right to swing your fist at my face supersedes my right to not get hit in the nose. I'll survive, of course, just as most people in this country will, but don't expect me to not be upset or feel as though my rights have been infringed. -
Con_Alma
Sep 20, 2009tk421;1214239 wrote:Not to mention Barry is on record as saying this is specifically NOT a tax, and now he is counting it as a win that it has been ruled a tax. I'm sure some Republican somewhere can splice together a video of him saying it's not a tax.
Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax
ABC News Interview
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]
GEORGE 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.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy ...
OBAMA: No, but - but, George, you - you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the ...
OBAMA: What - what - if I - if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I - I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax - "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but ...
OBAMA: ... what you're saying is ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
[LEFT]
[/LEFT] -
stlouiedipalmaDo any of you figure to be actually paying this tax? It is my understanding that only those who don't get coverage are subject to the penalty/tax. Are there really that many of you who have no health insurance coverage at all?
-
O-Trap
In a nutshell, will I be affected? Nominally, if so.stlouiedipalma;1214286 wrote:Do any of you figure to be actually paying this tax? It is my understanding that only those who don't get coverage are subject to the penalty/tax. Are there really that many of you who have no health insurance coverage at all?
However, apply this argument to the same-sex marriage discussion. Whether or not gay couples have the right to marry will change little about my own life, but that doesn't mean that the right they are being denied should be ignored or that I should be apathetic on the issue. -
Con_Alma
There must be plenty of people. Wasn't that the whole point of putting this legislation in?stlouiedipalma;1214286 wrote:Do any of you figure to be actually paying this tax? It is my understanding that only those who don't get coverage are subject to the penalty/tax. Are there really that many of you who have no health insurance coverage at all?