Supreme Court: Affordable Care Act Is Constitutional 2416
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. The health insurance mandate, also known as "Obamacare" was found to be "permissible under Congress's taxing authority." The full ruling (PDF) is now available, and the court's opinion begins on page 7. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog summarized the ruling thus:
"The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."
Further coverage is available from CNN, the NY Times, and Fox.
First dissent (Score:5, Funny)
First dissent
Re:First dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll be subsidized if you can't afford it. Otherwise, it's pretty much like car insurance, so was the game already over decades ago?
Biggest piece of social legislation since FDR and it survives, which means we start moving people back into healtcare. Back when I started my first full-time job, the healtcare coverage was excellent and 60%+ americans had healthcare coverage though their employers. Then we dropped to about 30%, with ever increasing premiums and deductables, further, the grantors of coverage were weeding out the expensive applicants because of Pre-Existing conditions (and we now have technology available for them to spot people higher risk of certain conditions, that's stacking the deck against people if ever it were.) Now, with the full weight of law we return to First World Status, looking after our people (even if some don't think they want it, everyone really does benefit in one or more ways here.)
While I felt it was a Frankenstein bill, when going through the House and Senate, because one party chose to hold their breath until they turned blue rather than participate (even with provisions they once championed), we at least have something.
Re:First dissent (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and car insurance mandates are pretty worthless. You still have people ignoring the law. The mandated minimums are grossly inadequate while being a large financial burden for those that are high risk.
I still need to have my own coverage to insure that my own interests are looked after.
Based on the stated purpose of the mandate, it is a total failure.
That's not even getting into the basic separation of powers issue here and the fact that I can avoid cars and car insurance entirely if I so choose.
Re:First dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll be subsidized if you can't afford it. Otherwise, it's pretty much like car insurance, so was the game already over decades ago?
Seriously?
Please name me the US Federal Government Car Insurance Mandate. Oh wait, there isn't one... because the Federal Government mandating car insurance would be unconstitutional. A mandate for car or health care insurance is properly the right of States, not of the Federal government.
Even 5 Supreme Court justices said the US Federal Government Medical Insurance Mandate is unconstitutional. The only reason this slid by is because A) CJ Roberts wanted to use this as a platform to tell Congress to quit using the SC as an alternative to a vote to repeal, and B) magical hand-waving by which the practical implementation of a tax burden to cover health care was enough to not strike down the underlying theory behind the Affordable Care Act.
Obama and the Democrats were idiots for not implementing the "insurance individual mandate" as a tax break / monetary payout to buy health insurance anyways. They could have avoided this entire debate by doing so.
privatization of taxation (Score:5, Interesting)
What should concern everyone, and the reason John Roberts supported the mandate, is that it sets a precedent to allow privatization of taxation.
The "Left" supported it because the mandate was attached to health care, but this is a step towards corporatism much bigger than Citizens United.
Re:First dissent (Score:5, Informative)
The government is offering health insurance that I can buy? Since when?
There's Medicare, which I pay into despite not being eligible for and won't be for another 30+ years. There's the VA system, but I have to serve in the military to be eligible for that. I make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid. My tax money goes to pay for both of those, too.
So I'm being forced to pay for three services I can't even use. I would LOVE for there to be a government option, then I could actually get the services my taxes pay for.
(This is not a complaint about paying taxes, BTW - I'm happy that the relatively low amounts I pay help veterans, impoverished people and the elderly.)
=Smidge=
Re:First dissent (Score:5, Insightful)
Now to understand what it means (Score:5, Interesting)
Good question (Score:5, Informative)
The individual mandate was designed (by Republican think tanks) to avoid freeloaders, who we've all been paying for when they show up in the emergency room.
I also have insurance and the 2 big things it does for me are that it'll be tougher for an insurance company to deny benefits based on a pre-existing condition (which has been interpreted ludicrously loosely at times) and that if I (or someone close to me) ever does have huge medical bills, it will be less likely to bankrupt me.
Re:Now to understand what it means (Score:5, Insightful)
You were already doing that before, partly through your taxes, partly through effectively paying higher amounts to hospitals, in order to compensate hospitals for the all the ER visits they get from people without insurance (and thus likely never pay). You potentially could have ended up in the situation you were worried about if the Supreme Court struck down the individual mandate, but kept the rest of the law.
Re:Now to understand what it means (Score:5, Informative)
In Texas the state created a socialist program in which everyone who drives a car has to have insurance. The argument that having a car is a choice was hogwash, you have to have a car in texas. The government basically decided the insurance companies were to profit, but did crate a pool that one could use for insurance of last resort. The result is a new $400 expense to owning a car. The other result is that uninsured motorist insurance is very cheap, and I am not paying for others people accidents. If it is good in TX, it is good everywhere.
Re:Now to understand what it means (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, are you likely to get an earful over this. Here's my perspective (not a neutral one):
The "individual mandate" part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires you to carry health care insurance. However, supporters claim that because the risk associated to insurers is now spread out over a much larger segment of the population (those who would normally decline health insurance are obviously less likely to need it), the cost to individuals in terms of premiums is likely to decline. In other words, they're betting that the cost of your insurance is likely to decline. Personally, I think that's likely... for insurers, anyway. Whether insurers pass these cost savings to individuals is a craps shoot. When Massachusetts (under, ahem, Governor Romney) passed a law with an individual mandate, premiums fell something like 40% at the same time that it was rising nationally.
Another big part of the bill is the "pre-existing condition" clause: basically, an insurer cannot deny you coverage because you already have a medical condition that they don't want to cover. There was some worry among ACA boosters that the court might strike down the "individual mandate" part without the "pre-existing condition" part, which would have been catastrophic to the risk pools: seven states have tried passing pre-existing condition laws without the individual mandate, and it went very badly for all of them [americanprogress.org]. So if it turns out that you come down with some kind of chronic or severe condition, it can no longer be used as a reason for an insurer to deny you insurance.
Re:Now to understand what it means (Score:5, Informative)
Whether insurers pass these cost savings to individuals is a craps shoot.
One provision of the ACA is that insurance companies must spend at least 85% of the premiums they receive on actual health care, not overhead. A bunch of people have received rebate checks from their insurance companies this year because of that provision.
Re:Now to understand what it means (Score:5, Informative)
So, will this actually change anything for people like me?
Like anything else complicated, it depends. Some things it does that could affect you:
* If you have any kids ages 18-26 you have the option of putting them on your group insurance plan, which you couldn't always do before this was passed.
* If you work full-time for a company that has more than 25 employees, they have to offer you health insurance benefits. If you don't work for that kind of company, they're setting up an insurance exchange where you can easily compare and buy insurance.
* If it does what the people who designed it think it will do, it will reduce the number of people who show up at ERs without insurance, and significantly increase the chance of poorer people getting preventative care.
* It prevents your insurance company from refusing to cover something by claiming it's a pre-existing condition, and from cutting you off because you got sick.
* The part that people are up in arms about is that if you don't somehow acquire health insurance, you pay a tax penalty.
* If you were poor, the government would pay for your health insurance. I doubt this is relevant to you.
This is more-or-less identical to the plan passed in Massachusetts several years ago, and signed into law by one Mitt Romney. The studies vary as to how useful it was (mostly depending on the political slant of those doing the study).
Re:Now to understand what it means (Score:5, Informative)
Odds are your taxes will go up to support enforcing this program, as will your health insurance costs as they struggle to compete with it.
Insurance rates will likely go up LESS fast since those WITH health insurance have ALWAYS been paying for those WITHOUT. Now we will no longer have to do that in many cases. Of course, healthcare and insurance being what they are, insurance will still go up, just not as fast.
At this point most of the law has already been priced in insurance anyway.
Re:Now to understand what it means (Score:5, Insightful)
"Obamacare" has a provision that forces insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their premiums on providing health care and limiting overhead to 15%. So even if the companies raise their premiums they're still stuck with spending it instead of just increasing profits. So any increase in premiums is probably related to increases in the underlying cost of health care. That may go down some or at least stop increasing so fast since there will be less unpaid for care in the first place. Did you know that about 60% of personal bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills? Hopefully that will drop too.
Public option (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Medical insurance is not only incredibly frustrating to deal with, but a huge unnecessary expense in the system.
Re:Public option (Score:5, Informative)
It took a lot of political capital to even get this passed. The public option was removed to make it passable.
Re:Public option (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Public option (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, the right's opposition is purely an ideological objection to "Obamacare". Opposition is 56% to 44% BUT if you ask about the different pieces (Reuters-Ipsos poll), 80% of Rebublicans favor creating "insurance pools", 52% favor letting kids stay on their parent's healthcare until age 26, 78% favor banning insurance from denying coverage for "pre-existing" conditions and 82% favor banning insurance companies from dropping sick people. The numbers are, of course, much higher amongst independents/democrats.
So, the right wing objects to Obamacare while favoring all the major provisions.
Re:Public option (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the sort of thing that comes out of a for-profit system -- the health insurance companies turn their greatest profits when they are not paying for treatment, and so they do everything they can to avoid paying.
No, the public option is not perfect -- it invites fraud of various kinds, it is an open target for politicians who think a government should not be in the position of keeping its citizens alive and healthy, and it would likely replace the current bureaucracy with another. It is still better than a system where banks, investment companies, and disconnected investors become wealthier when sick people are denied medical care.
Re:Public option (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to the public option? You know, cutting the profit motive out of funding health care, so that people do not have to fight with their insurance companies or with hospitals just to get the treatment they need?
Because half the country is convinced that allowing giant corporations to profit off the sick is the only non-"socialist" option.
Re:Public option (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Public option (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm no fan of our social-democrat party, but I do agree with an idea they floated the other day: as insurance is mandatory, the insurers add no value whatsoever. They do add a considerable amount of overhead and a staggering amount of red tape and bureaucracy in health care. Cut them out of the deal, let the government handle health care payments and collect premiums (as they already do for part of the basic package).
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the SCOTUS had become a political body. (Score:5, Insightful)
Health Care NOT Health Insurance (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole problem with this is the insurance angle. This becomes a guaranteed income stream for private insurance companies. They have so many ways to hide their finances, people will pay ever higher costs for reduced care. There are a thousand studies saying health care costs will increase in the future, not including inflation. There are many ways the government could improve health care and reduce the cost of it, but this is not it. If the government was the insurance company that would be different, all they would have to do is add .5 % to the current medicare deduction. Simple. Let anyone that wants join a government health plan (with no existing condition clause). Simple.
It's not a mandate (Score:5, Informative)
You can get a tax break for having your own insurance, as proof that you won't be costing taxpayers anything when you end up defaulting on $200k of hospital bills after an accident.
I don't know why the democrats couldn't shape the message that way. That's really what it is, and sounds better than "pay up or pay up".
Justice Roberts Gem (Score:5, Interesting)
Justice Roberts had this little gem hidden in his commentary.
"The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.
But in the odious 1942 Wickard V Filburn [wikipedia.org] case the Court ruled exactly the opposite. The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
In essence, they ruled that he can't grow wheat for his own use he MUST BUY IT IN THE MARKET.
I wonder if this ruling can be used as precedent to challenge Wickard v Filburn?
The USA is too socialist! I'm moving to Canada. (Score:5, Funny)
Health Insurance Downward Spiral (Score:5, Interesting)
I am surprised and disappointed by this ruling. But not for the reasons you might expect.
I want the US to have universal health care, but I think the mandate was a back-asswards way of getting it and I dont think it will be successful.
It would have been far better to just make it a tax. This mandate only helps the health insurance industry slow its inevitable downward spiral.
Accoding to a 2007 study by Kaiser Permanente, http://www.kff.org/insurance/7692.cfm [kff.org]
Healthcare spending has risen steadily and has outpaced wages. This means that less and less people can afford healthcare, and in turn less people will be purchasing insurance. Of course this is cyclical, since with less people buying insurance, the insurance sompanies will ahve to increase their premiums.
And so the health insurance industry is already in a downward spiral that will eventually collapse.
I fear that the health insurance mandate will not stop this downward spiral, since it will be less expensive for healthy people to just pay the fine than to buy insurance. Eventually, the US government will have to intervene.
Taxpayers already pay for a large percentage of the populations medical services. If you count Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, and Local governments, that makes up over 100 million users, or 30% of the population. As less people can afford healthcare, the government will be shouldering a higher percentage.
Dont fool yourself. You are paying for this one way or another. Either by taxes, or by rising insurance costs. If your company is paying the premiums, you may want to ask them why you did not get a raise this year and they will tell you it was eaten up by premiums. insurance is after all a 'tax' that you pay in order for 'services' to be available when you need them. The healthy people end up paying for the sick people with chronic problems caused by obesity, diabetes, heart disease, lung and liver diseases, all could be prevented by good diet, exercise, and staying away from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, fat, and sugar. How does that make you feel when your hard earned dollars are going to pay for someones lung cancer treatment who has chain-smoked for 20 years?
Not that I am bitter or anything. i paid more for health care in the last 5 years than I did in taxes. The last 2 years I paid more in health care than I did for my mortgage. And that is with an employer sponsored plan and a healthy family. But the good news is that this will HAVE to change. We know it and there is a clear path to where we need to go. In the next 5-10 years we will have universal healthcare whether we vote for it or not.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is counterpoint to granting tax breaks to get people to do something.
Carrot or Stick, you have your choice.
Don't like it? Blame those broad powers granted through phrases like "provide for the general welfare" in the Constitution.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
carrot for the top 1%, stick for the rest.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Funny)
carrot for the top 1%, stick for the rest.
The 1% can have carrot top.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well giving a the Carrot in terms of Tax Breaks for the poor isn't that useful.
1. A lot of them pay small amount of tax, so the carrot would be small. For the Rich, it is a sizable increase, perhaps worth a changing a behavior.
2. Poor in general (yes they are exceptions) don't tend to focus on long term planning, or how taxable their habits are.
3. The poor will tend (yes they are exceptions) to get more support federally then the rich (Per dollar payed in taxes)
However giving them the stick, Would encourage a behavior change, because it is money that will go away vs money you will get back.
Myself included, When I get my paycheck I see 1/3 (Federal and State Taxes) go away, That in my mind is money I never had, so I don't think about it, if I get some back at tax time, it is just a bonus to me.
However If I am told that I don't do X then I will need to pay later, (Say out of my pocket) that is money that was given to me that I have to pay back.
If $3000 is the societal cost to you not (Score:5, Insightful)
doing those things, then why shouldn't you have to pay it?
Or do you think the rest of us should have to subsidize your desire to save a few bucks by destroying the earth and not pay a cent for your health care? Because I guarantee that when you have some devasting health problem you will show up at an ER and demand quality care.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress can draft you, and send you to the front.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Inadvertent my ass. CJ Roberts is playing the long game. He's playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers, to bastardize a quote from Erick Erickson. This is exactly what he wanted; he keeps the Supremes out of the political arena and galvanizes people to do what they should've done in the first place; repeal the freaking thing. Don't make the Court do the dirty work.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
that's awesome
so when you break your arm, and you have no insurance, and you go to the hospital, and avoid the bill because you don't have a $50,000 healthcare fund in your checking account and you live paycheck to paycheck like most americans, the rest of us will have to pay that $3,000 to fix your arm
to people like you, freedom means freedom from responsibility
you're a freeloader
go ahead, vote for romney. and if enough vote for romney for the same reason, that they don't want to take responsibility for financing their own healthcare, then this country is doomed to ever increasing healthcare costs
i however have faith that most americans are more intelligent and responsible than you are, and with single payer, we will eventually bring our healthcare costs in line with most other modern countries in this world, who have unviersal healthcare, and spend far less per capita than the usa does. because how they finance their healthcare system is predicated on common sense and economies of scale, and not predicated on satisfying corporate rent seeking parasites like healthcare corporations, whose talking points you apparently swallow hook line and sinker like a good little faithful propagandized moron
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
+5, Insightful? Sigh.
I'm as critical of income inequality as anyone (the core rhetoric of the "99%" talk), but the Affordable Care Act offers subsidies to those who can't afford insurance or have difficulty affording it. The tax penalty is specifically designed not to punish the poor, and yet you are here to portray it as though it is. Your brand of intellectual dishonesty does no one any good.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about taxes. "General welfare" or "regulation of interstate commerce" (which was rejected) don't apply. If congress wants to tax people who don't enter into a business agreement with a third party, they can (and, did).
This specific part is about fixing the pre-existing loophole that someone who decides not to pay for insurance but piggy backs on the healthcare system by using the ER (which is more expensive than regular visits and pushes the burden on the rest of us through higher medical and insurance costs). As costs got higher, more and more people made this decision (or it was made for them). This isn't the primary reason for health care costs going up, but it's contributing to it.
At some point in time, this gap was going to need to be filled in some way (otherwise you and I will continue to pay for their insurance). I would have preferred a carrot rather than a stick (or a stick disguised as a carrot), but I personally can't think of a better solution. Can you?
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
(quoting from memory) - "There is nothing more natural than to start with a general phrase and then limit it with a list of specifics. The "general welfare" is qualified and limited by the list of powers immediately following it. To ignore this enumeration would be to create a central government of unlimited power, minus a few peculiar exceptions (Bill of Rights), and there is a whole host of proofs that was never intended by the framers or myself.
"The Congress is one of limited powers while the bulk are reserved to the States and the People, respectively (10th amend.)." - James Madison, author of the Constitution.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just got an email from corporate HR stating that my cost for health insurance is going up over the next two years because of this ruling.
1. Government makes decision.
2. Money leaves my pocket.
How is this not a tax? We can nit pick the details about what level it comes out of, but a tax is a tax is a tax. Nothing's free!
As opposed to going up every year for no particular reason, like it has been...
Somehow I think your insurance rates would continue to climb no matter what, now they just have a convenient excuse. "Not our fault, blame Obama!"
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. Health care has gone up in cost every year, well over the cost of inflation. The only difference is that this year your insurer has a convenient scapegoat.
--Jeremy
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that not having health insurance is really risky and dumb, taxing someone for not buying / wanting something goes against freedom.
It's only freedom if no-one else has to pay when you get sick or are in an accident. Otherwise you are just saving yourself some cash at other people's expense, taking away their freedom.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
What about those who would like to have insurance but still can't fucking afford it? That's the question I would like answered as it pertains directly to me and yet I can find no discussion of it.
Maybe you misunderstand why insurance is being offered to those who can't afford it. It is a cost savings plan.
Every state already has laws to the effect that you must treat an emergency prior to ascertaining ability to pay. The poor know this, so when they get sick, they cannot sechedule a doctor's appointment (because the doctor will ascertain ability to pay prior to treatment). Instead they go to the local emergency room.
The hospitals then get stuck with a bill that cannot be paid by the individual. Laws to prevent individuals from being forced to file bankrupcy can also limit the rate at which the cost can be recovered to less than the person's disposable income. Many large bills are being paid back at a rate fo $10 a month (or less).
Hospitals cannot operate with such legally mandataed losses, so they bill the state governments, which in turn designate "charity" hospitals which cannot turn away the indigent but are paid by the state for treatment.
In effect, you were already paying for the poor, just you were guaranteeing payment instead of providing insurance. With the "insurance plan" dressing on the previously guaranteed support, at least now the poor can go to clinics, reducing the bill significantly. This means that cheaper treatement plans are at least now possible, and two radically different billing systems (bill the state / bill insurance) can be reduce to one system (bill insurance), with a single new insurance provider.
The main problems in perception revolve around the populace not realizing that they had already been paying for free healthcare to the indigent. They think the new plan offers more to the poor, and in a way it does (clinic visits, etc); but, it only does so by forcing them to abandon the use of the most expensive medical treatement plan possible (go the ER for all healh issues).
Of course the bill is laden with other items, like requiring insurance providers to not drop the insured after they are discovered to require an expensive treatment; but, don't let that get in the way of a good rant that your money might actually keep someone else alive (which is probably the most noble thing your tax dollars could go to.).
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you don't. If you're in a low enough income bracket, you don't have to pay the penalty, and in fact get a subsidy to purchase insurance.
These aren't mysterious hidden details, unless you spend all of your time watching Fox News. They've been right up front about this the whole time. It amazes me how much general ignorance there is about the Affordable Care Act. There are legitimate gripes about the bill, but usually the people griping about it are just spewing complete bullshit like Grishnakh and sycodon here.
--Jeremy
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you don't. If you're in a low enough income bracket, you don't have to pay the penalty, and in fact get a subsidy to purchase insurance.
a subsidy for the poor? where does the subsidy come from, taxes?
where do taxes come from? everybody else.
so... everybody else is paying more money because some people can't afford health care. That sounds familiar... awfully familar... wait, I know where I've seen that phrase before!
Please explain how that isn't EXACTLY the same problem that the individual mandate was supposed to fix? the only difference I see is that the money goes to the government, then to the poor, then to the health care industry, whereas before it went directly to the health care industry. also please explain how it could possibly be less expensive in the long run now that there is at least one extra level of beuracracy (that must be paid for) in the middle.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You notice how much of the criticism of the law comes from sheer ignorance about what it actually does? Even on Slashdot.
Dear Parasite (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume to know who will get 'taxed' on this? There are swaths of exemptions, eg if you already have your own insurance you won't to pay the monthly $286 per family tax, military is exempt, VA exempt, religious organizations who oppose are exempt, the poor are exempt etc. The people who the tax is targeted at are those who can pay but refuse because they'd rather be parasites on the rest of us who do pay, such as yourself I can only assume.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have health insurance. It is not a tax on me. It is a tax on the irresponsible Americans who decide to leech off of the system instead of getting health insurance. If you get sick (or in an accident) and do not have health insurance then I have to pay for it (the hospital will still treat you, and the costs will be passed on to me as higher premiums when you cannot pay and file for bankruptcy). So yes, it is a tax on dumb/irresponsible people.
When put that way, this starts to sound like a really good idea. Maybe we can find a way to expand it to other areas.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You will note that in his Ruling, Roberts said that the conservative wing made the same argument as you did, namely, that the law was labeled incorrectly.
And as Roberts wisely stated, it's pretty silly to argue that you should strike down a law because of it being mislabeled, rather than for the effect of the law.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
It's cheaper for my employer to drop my insurance *now* and pay *zero* tax, but they haven't because they use it as an incentive to keep me around. Your argument is a completely moot point.
--Jeremy
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
It was disconnected until 1973 (or so) when the government required large businesses to offer it.
Actually, that wasn't the first step-it really came from wage controls during WW2. You couldn't give someone a raise past X dollars, but you could offer them extra benefits, such as health care.
Now it's morphed into a horrible mess which has unintended consequences such as what you mentioned above. But there are too many moneyed interests being enriched by the current system to pass any real change.
Single-payer Canadian style healthcare would be better for doctors and employers...a huge pool of healthy people would drop health care costs significantly, and employers would no longer have to offer a health care benefit. But of course the drug companies and health insurance companies would lose out, so they'll fight tooth and nail to keep their broken system.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The popular sentiment these days is that everyone should just fend for themselves, compete with each other as vigorously as possible, and those who are unable to compete do not deserve to live in our society. The entire outlook can be summarized in just three words: greed is good.
Welcome to America!
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
1. Congress has the right to force citizens to enter into commerce, under the commerce clause -- the mandate penalty was just that, a penalty.
2. Congress has the right to tax any behavior it sees fit -- the mandate penalty was, for this purpose, a tax.
SCOTUS rejected the first claim (proving that they do see limits to the commerce clause sometimes), and accepted the second claim. SCOTUS did not create the idea that it was the mandate was a new tax -- the government did.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Obama's lawyers told the Court that, firstly, it was not a tax but a valid use of the government's Commerce-Clause powers. Then they outlined two alternative arguments:
Alternative A: Even if the Court finds it was not within the scope of the Commerce Clause, the ACA is nonetheless Constitutional under the Necessary and Proper clause, because the insurance mandate is both necessary and proper to enacting Congress's reform scheme.
Alternative B: Even if the Court finds it is neither within the scope of the CC or the N&P clause, the ACA should nonetheless be upheld because it is functionally equivalent to a tax, and if treated as a tax, is within Congress's powers under the Tax Clause.
The Court rejected Obama's lawyers' primary and Alternative A arguments, but accepted Alternative B. This is fairly common in legal cases. You first say what you think is true, but then you go through several alternatives that argue that, even if the Court disagrees with you in some way, you should nonetheless win for several backup reasons.
Actually no. (Score:5, Informative)
Obama's lawyers said that it is independently authorized under both the commerce clause and the taxing authority, and then made the case [with precedent] that in cases where a law would be constitutional under one clause of federal authority but unconstitutional when read under another clause of federal authority then the Supreme Court is obligated to interpret under the clause which renders the law constitutional, regardless of the language within the law or political verbage utilized when debating the law outside the courtroom.
The majority opinion said that it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but clearly constitutional under the taxing authority, regardless of the labels used.
That argument makes a lot of sense to me as an engineer who is far more concerned with mechanics than with labels.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't do what the government wants, you will find a new "tax" will appear to make you do it.
Yes, especially when the government (AKA "we the people") wants you to stop freeloading on the health insurance system we're paying for.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay for my health insurance. I choose a high deductible plan.My costs are low.
Now, they will probably triple because I'll have to pay for coverage for things I don't use such as OBGYN.
So, thanks for raising my costs with no benefit to me.
How do you know? Did it ever cross your mind that more people in the pool will lower your premiums? Why don't you wait for them to actually triple before griping about it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of the country didn't want this legislation.
Yeah, funny thing about that.
When people were polled about specific parts OF the bill, with the exception of the mandate, everything had a solid majority of support.
Of course, the mandate is the keystone that pays for the rest of the parts people like.
So, all that really proves is people want the great taste WITH less filling, which isn't how economics works.
It's more of a pudding after meat situation.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
typical americans. like everything about it except the bill. I'm in favor of everything about it except that "I have to pay for it" part....
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, everyone ignored the actual universal healthcare bill [wikipedia.org] that would have paid for itself, not with a fundamental, constitutionally questionable mandate / giveaway to insurance companies, but, shock and appall, a tax. Can't have that! Let's just force people to pay for it directly, except that they have to buy it from private insurance companies who can still dictate their care or lack thereof. It's not a tax if the forced payment of money doesn't go to the government!
But I'm not bitter. Not at all.
When this blows up in everyone's faces in a couple of presidencies (you know, after insurance premiums shoot through the roof and price fixing is commonplace), don't say I didn't say I told you so.
The really annoying thing to me is that this is still probably the closest Obama could have got to universal care in the current political climate. I don't even really blame him.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be surprised by the large number of "younger, poorer, healthier people" that find their way to an emergency room simply because they can't afford a doctor.
Also while statistically younger people do not have chronic illness, they make up for it in emergency care resulting from accidents. It's the overnight stay in the hospital from an emergency that bankrupts most young people. More so when combined with their inability to work and the lack of short term disability benefits.
I could also mention that in addition to accidents, younger people are prone to pregnancies, assaults, and sickness due to acute substance abuse.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of the country, however, wanted every single major provision of the legislation. The hate is more of a result of a concerted PR campaign. Many Americans, like myself, wanted something better, more efficient, and more forward-thinking in scope, but that was "double socialism" or some such.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't know what's in the ACA.
Most people like what's in the ACA.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of the country didn't want this legislation. It was voted down in congress and they had to resort to some trick to pass it.
Uhhhh...
1) The majority of the country has no idea what's even in the bill. Vast majorities of America (even conservatives) support its provisions, however. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/poll-republicans-hate-obamacare-but-like-most-of-what-it-does/
2) Congress passed the law with a majority vote. And now it's been proven constitutional. Do you have a suggestion how to make laws more democratically?
you already are taxed for this (Score:5, Informative)
have been for decades
when someone uninsured shows up at the hospital with a broken arm, then avoids the bill or declares bankrupcty, we bail out the hospital from bankrupcty and you pay the bill
the only thing that has changed is that irresponsible people, people who think freedom means not to taking responsible for their healthcare, now have to do that, and stop freeloading off of us
the only reason they do that (Score:5, Insightful)
is they can't get cheap preventive care
now they can
so they get $100 worth of care and stay healthy and stay working, rather than $100,000 worth of care later when they are already sick, because they don't have the financial resources to attend to their healthcare
sanity prevails
thank you justice roberts, you have a human conscience
we'll talk about the citizens united thing later
Re:you already are taxed for this (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly. it's a religion based on myths that depends upon human beings behaving in ways they never have and never will. there is no such thing as a self-regulating marketplace. to be truly free and fair, a marketplace must be regulated. if it is not, the biggest players abuse the smaller ones. always have, always will. in societies with strong governments and regulated marketplaces where the largest players still get away with murder, this is a corruption of our government by those large players that is an argument for curing the sick patient, our government, rather than removing it and handing over the car keys to the sickness that is our enemy: entrenched rent seeking parasitical financial interests
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, this is a loser for all Americans. The majority of the country didn't want this legislation. It was voted down in congress and they had to resort to some trick to pass it. The entire time the Obama Administration kept saying that this was NOT A TAX ... that it was a Mandate. Now the SCOTUS says that it is unconstitutional as a Mandate, but it's ok at a TAX. So the bill that was passed was not only against the wishes of the majority of the people, it doesn't even work the way the minority said it would when it was voted upon.
Not really factually correct. A majority of Americans like a majority of the acts of this law. The 'no preexisting condition' portion is particularly popular as is the 'no lifetime maximum' and the 'no copay for preventative care' portions. The one part that more unpopular with most people is the 'must buy insurance part'. But the rest of it doesn't work without that.
Re:So from here on out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of Americans did not want civil rights, social security, or interracial marriage.
All Americans win when everyone has health care coverage. The lower income people win because they will be healthier and more productive. Everyone else wins because the lower income people are not getting their primary care via emergency rooms and pass the cost on to the government and people with health insurance.
The only people I hear complaining about this are people with health insurance paid for by someone else (their employer, medicare/medicaid, and the VA). Try paying the full cost of insuring yourself and your family.
Re:Odd reasoning (Score:5, Informative)
I find it interesting that it was found Constitutional under taxing power. I don't recall anyone pushing that angle to support the law in the court of public opinion.
There, FTFY.
Re:Odd reasoning (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Odd reasoning (Score:5, Informative)
It was argued as a side argument at SCOTUS. basically the argument was that 'this is permissible under the Commerce Clause, but oh, even if it isn't then it is a tax and is permissible as that'. Always smart to give the court multiple possible reasons something can be constitutional as this case clearly shows.
Re:Odd reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent decision (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm already taxed for not having a mortgage, not producing "clean" coal, not having children, and numerous other things that we as a culture have decided should be incentivized. The former two items in your list would be a clear violation of the first amendment, which this case did not rest on, whereas the third would be constitutional(but also kind of silly).
Re:Excellent decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably so--the individual mandate was a Republican idea to begin with.
I admire the Democrats for helping to tackle health care reform. There are some really good things in there--preventing insurance companies from rescinding coverage, allowing parents to insure kids up to 26, etc. But as a Democrat, I have mixed feelings about today's decision. I do not like the individual mandate, as like you, I feel that Congress shouldn't have the power to make you buy something from a private company.
I was actually hoping that the law would stand as-is, except for the individual mandate, which I was hoping would be overturned. At that point, insurance companies would be screwed--they'd still be forced to cover those that they traditionally worked so hard to drop off the rolls, but without money coming in from those who are statistically healthier and less likely to pay for insurance. At that point, one of two things would happen: either 1) the insurance companies would lower prices on their policies to reasonable levels to be more conducive for healthy people to buy, or 2) the insurance industry would basically petition government to expand Medicare to cover those that they don't want to. Either way, it would be win/win.
Ultimately, the only answer is a single-payer system. As long as you have private companies in the insurance business, there is a perverse incentive to screw their customers over. People whine and complain about government's incompetence, and I'd never say there's no waste or that government is perfect. However, I trust government a hell of a lot more than I trust the insurance industry, which has proven time and again that they're scum.
Re:Excellent decision (Score:5, Informative)
At least the ACA forces private health insurance companies to spend 85% of the premiums they receive on health care and limits overhead to 15%. A lot of people received rebates from their insurers this year because of that provision.
Re:If it's a tax then everyone should pay it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense.
There are all sorts of contingent taxes.
Re:Tax?? I Call Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. The tax is the PENALTY if you do not get insurance, not the insurance payment.
Re:Tax?? I Call Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
As the mandate is to give money to private insurers, and not the government itself.
No, there is a fine if you don't don't have insurance, which does go to the government. This is the tax in question and the Supreme Court held it to be valid. Given the all the millions of other special cases that our tax code includes, all of which penalize people for not doing what the government wants, this isn't surprising. If the bill made it a crime with criminal penalties for not holding insurance, then the Supreme Court may have ruled otherwise, but it didn't. You still have the full right to not hold insurance, you will just be taxed up the wazoo for it.
Re:SCREW EVERYONE ELSE (Score:5, Informative)
I got MY healthcare.
You and your family can take a FLYING LEAP.
The most selfish American generation says SCREW YOU!!
Thanks for sharing the GOP platform on this.