OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[StrangeSox]

I think you are pushing the envelope a bit with the conspiracy thing, I don't think they made it big and complex for that reason. It was big and complex because it is f***ing Congress.

 

You are certainly right that the Dems will say that - that the GOP now "owns" health care, that they actively worked to reinstate lifetime limits and pre-existing condition requirements. And they will be right, sort of. Both parties COULD have come to a way of eliminating those, without the mandate, if they wanted to. Congress is just too much a clusterf*** to pull it off.

 

I don't know how you do that without the mandate or without a significantly more progressive bill than what was passed.

[StrangeSox]

Mark Tushnet with a not-so-kind review of Scalia's actions during the ACA hearings:

 

Now, to Justice Scalia’s performance in the ACA arguments: For my money, the “Jack Benny” exchange in the Medicaid expansion argument is simply embarrassing, another example of Justice Scalia losing control of his own cleverness – to the point where the Chief Justice had to step in and say, “That’s enough frivolity for a while,” but only after Justice Scalia realized that he had gotten completely off track with his own intervention (he was playing around with “your life” and “your wife,” but at the very end, after the Chief Justice tried to get him to stop with, “Let’s leave the wife out of this,” Justice Scalia said, “I’m talking about my life,” which completely undermines the point, such as it was, that he was trying to make).

 

In the severability argument, I was struck by where the “clever” Eighth Amendment argument went. Justice Scalia asked, “What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? [Laughter] Or do you expect us to – to give this function to our law clerks?” A bit later Justice Kagan picked up on the “law clerk” reference: “For some people, we look only at the text. It should be easy for Justice Scalia’s clerks.” The transcript notes “Laughter” here as well. What’s interesting to me is Justice Scalia’s offended response: “I don’t care whether it’s easy for my clerks. I care whether it’s easy for me. [Laughter.]” A person in greater control would have let the sting pass.

 

The final notable feature of Justice Scalia’s interventions in the argument – again, I’m not saying that these were pervasive, only that they occurred often enough to be noteworthy – is that he repeatedly went for sound-bites reproducing common conservative talk-radio lines. In the mandate argument, after the Chief Justice and Justice Alito had formulated serious questions about the reach of the government’s arguments (for Roberts the cell-phone question, for Alito the burial insurance one, each of which gets in different ways at the “moral hazard/adverse selection” issue at the heart of the government’s argument), Justice Scalia lowered the level of the discussion by asking the “broccoli” question, which was at that point quite silly (and then reverted to the point, no better when repeated, asking about mandatory car purchases). In the severability argument Justice Scalia felt compelled to introduce a serious question by invoking “the corn husker kickback,” a provision not included in the statute (and, to make the question coherent, he had to introduce a nonexistent “constitutional proscription of venality”). Again, it’s trivially easy to come up with an example from the statute that raises the same question (Justice Breyer did it at, as usual, great length). And, finally, he went for “The President said it wasn’t a tax” line – to which the Solicitor General had the good sense not to invoke Abraham Lincoln on how many legs a horse has.

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Mark Tushnet with a not-so-kind review of Scalia's actions during the ACA hearings:

It seems like, in the last few years, Scalia has just plain stopped trying. Its sad, and another good reason for SCOTUS justices to serve one term, maybe like 10 years, and be done. No re-nomination or re-election, just one and done.

 

[Rex Kickass]

It seems like, in the last few years, Scalia has just plain stopped trying. Its sad, and another good reason for SCOTUS justices to serve one term, maybe like 10 years, and be done. No re-nomination or re-election, just one and done.

Justice Thomas, in contrast, I don't believe has asked a question from the bench in six years.

[farmteam]

Justice Thomas, in contrast, I don't believe has asked a question from the bench in six years.

 

Something like that. One of my professors were at oral arguments last week (not sure which case), and he said that within two minutes of starting, Thomas was leaning back in his chair and looked asleep.

[Balta1701]

Something like that. One of my professors were at oral arguments last week (not sure which case), and he said that within two minutes of starting, Thomas was leaning back in his chair and looked asleep.

And before that there was a long period also.

[Balta1701]

It seems like, in the last few years, Scalia has just plain stopped trying. Its sad, and another good reason for SCOTUS justices to serve one term, maybe like 10 years, and be done. No re-nomination or re-election, just one and done.

What really bugs me is...I can't blame him for not having read the entire bill or thought through all of the details of it, even with staff to help...but I can blame him for having Fox News/talk radio complaints about it that are 2 years out of date. I'm not paid to do this, I'm not given free government health care to learn about bills, but knowing that the "Cornhusker Kickback" was removed during reconciliation after everyone else hated it was not difficult.

[StrangeSox]

Justice Thomas, in contrast, I don't believe has asked a question from the bench in six years.

 

He doesn't ask questions during oral arguments hardly ever. But his written opinions, while I disagree with them strongly, show that he understands the issues at hand and has a pretty consistent philosophy.

[mr_genius]

Really, without the Court having written this new standard by which they're interpreting Congress can't do that, you'd have written a completely different law. No part of it would have been constructed that way. The author isn't kidding...the mandate is essential to that bill. The bill doesn't exist without that premise.

 

plenty of 'free' government stuff does not require you to purchase insurance. they are paid for with taxes. you can't force people to buy corporate products IMO. we will see if the wise supreme court justices agree with me.

Edited March 29, 2012 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

plenty of 'free' government stuff does not require you to purchase insurance. they are paid for with taxes. you can't force people to buy corporate products IMO. we will see if the wise supreme court justices agree with me.

Of course, we've been over this many times, but hey, it's morning, and I'm up for a rant so I'll repeat myself.

 

The government is not forcing you to buy a corporate product. The government is raising your taxes and offering you an equivalent tax credit if you purchase a corporate product. Effectively, the government is saying you will pay a higher tax rate if you choose not to purchase that product. You will not go to jail if you fail to purchase health insurance.

 

The government of course does this all the bloody time. For example, I am currently not a homeowner. I do not have a mortgage, and thus i am not paying interest on that mortgage. If I were to purchase a mortgage, it would be originally a corporate product. Thus, I am paying a tax penalty for failing to purchase a corporate product. In the exact same way that you're saying the government is "Forcing" me to buy health insurance, it is "forcing" me to buy a mortgage. You have every right to not purchase either of these products, but if you choose not to do so, you pay a higher tax rate.

 

I would love to purchase a Chevy Volt, but I have not done so. Thus, I have not cashed in the tax credit for purchasing a Chevy Volt. By the exact same standard, I am being "Forced" to buy a chevy volt; the government has a tax credit that kicks in if I buy a corporate product. BS doesn't eat meat, thus he's being inactive in terms of cashing in on all the subsidies that go to meat production. I have not given significant funds to charitiy this year, and thus I have failed to cash in on the enormous tax credits for giving to charities. I have not had a business lunch this year. I have not made energy efficiency upgrades to a home that I own this year.

 

The "Mandate" is a mandate in the exact same sense that any of these are "mandates", you pay a higher tax rate if you aren't economically active by giving your money to that private group. It is different in a few ways:

 

1. The increased tax rate and the tax credit are in the same bill and are the same amount

2. It is not called a "Tax", it is called a "Mandate", because the word "Tax" is hard to get through Congress and the word "Mandate" actually produces a stronger reaction in people making them more likely to make the purchase.

3. It was passed by Democrats, and Democrats are evil.

 

The final majority opinion is likely to have Scalia-written BS about "Economic inactivity" in it. Personally, I would love to challenge the mortgage interest deduction on the same standard. The only ways it differs from the "Mandate" in the PPACA are those 3 points. Of course, the real reason why it would be unconstitutional is #3, but hey, that's the world we live in.

[StrangeSox]

They're going to strike down a constitutional goal with constitutional means because of drafting language.

[Balta1701]

They're going to strike down a constitutional goal with constitutional means because of drafting language.

Really, that's not "Why". That might be an excuse, and it's a convenient way for people writing about the bill to pretend it is something otherwise. All the "Mandate" should be in a legal sense is a tax increase combined with a tax credit for purchasing a product that meets a certain standard, both of which are fully constitutional.

 

The real reason, and we all know it, is that there were 5 Republican appointees and 4 Democratic appointees.

[StrangeSox]

But they didn't call it a tax!!!! Therefore unconstitutional!

 

Scalia tipped his hand by relying on tea party talking points. And negotiating points that didn't even make it into the final bill.

Edited March 30, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

But they didn't call it a tax!!!! Therefore unconstitutional!

 

Scalia tipped his hand by relying on tea party talking points. And negotiating points that didn't even make it into the final bill.

The sad thing is, I think what I just wrote is a pretty simple case to make, but it wasn't made by the lawyer arguing for the bill.

 

When Scalia asked if there was any economic purchase the government couldn't regulate, the appropriate response should be that the court has yet to establish any standard to that effect, where the government has no right to offer a tax credit in exchange for purchasing a certain product, and in fact the court has said that the government can do the opposite, heavily regulate and outright ban certain products even if they're produced with no interest in selling them (the Scalia-written Raich decision).

[Y2HH]

Of course, we've been over this many times, but hey, it's morning, and I'm up for a rant so I'll repeat myself.

 

The government is not forcing you to buy a corporate product. The government is raising your taxes and offering you an equivalent tax credit if you purchase a corporate product. Effectively, the government is saying you will pay a higher tax rate if you choose not to purchase that product. You will not go to jail if you fail to purchase health insurance.

 

The government of course does this all the bloody time. For example, I am currently not a homeowner. I do not have a mortgage, and thus i am not paying interest on that mortgage. If I were to purchase a mortgage, it would be originally a corporate product. Thus, I am paying a tax penalty for failing to purchase a corporate product. In the exact same way that you're saying the government is "Forcing" me to buy health insurance, it is "forcing" me to buy a mortgage. You have every right to not purchase either of these products, but if you choose not to do so, you pay a higher tax rate.

 

I would love to purchase a Chevy Volt, but I have not done so. Thus, I have not cashed in the tax credit for purchasing a Chevy Volt. By the exact same standard, I am being "Forced" to buy a chevy volt; the government has a tax credit that kicks in if I buy a corporate product. BS doesn't eat meat, thus he's being inactive in terms of cashing in on all the subsidies that go to meat production. I have not given significant funds to charitiy this year, and thus I have failed to cash in on the enormous tax credits for giving to charities. I have not had a business lunch this year. I have not made energy efficiency upgrades to a home that I own this year.

 

The "Mandate" is a mandate in the exact same sense that any of these are "mandates", you pay a higher tax rate if you aren't economically active by giving your money to that private group. It is different in a few ways:

 

1. The increased tax rate and the tax credit are in the same bill and are the same amount

2. It is not called a "Tax", it is called a "Mandate", because the word "Tax" is hard to get through Congress and the word "Mandate" actually produces a stronger reaction in people making them more likely to make the purchase.

3. It was passed by Democrats, and Democrats are evil.

 

The final majority opinion is likely to have Scalia-written BS about "Economic inactivity" in it. Personally, I would love to challenge the mortgage interest deduction on the same standard. The only ways it differs from the "Mandate" in the PPACA are those 3 points. Of course, the real reason why it would be unconstitutional is #3, but hey, that's the world we live in.

 

You are purposefully ignoring the difference between choice to buy and forced to buy in every last one of the examples you listed above, which skirts around the entire conversation, but you designed your argument to do just that.

 

You don't HAVE to buy a Chevy Volt, a house, a high efficiency furnace, or A/C unit for the tax credit(s)/incentives offered for such purchases. It's a choice coupled with an incentive to "take part". What they did with this was remove the choice...you must buy said product from private business, or you get penalized. Nobody I know is being penalized for not buying a house/car/furnace...that reasoning is absolutely ridiculous.

 

You're entire bolded section makes zero sense. You aren't paying ANY tax for not taking part in purchasing a volt or a house...because you don't "have" to buy either, nor do you have to buy alternatives that are taxed at a non-incentive higher rate. I know people that 1) don't own a car, and 2) don't own a house...and 3) aren't looking to own either. Therefore they pay ZERO taxes on either.

 

That's how easily they'd knock down your argument if you attempted it in court, by the way.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

You are purposefully ignoring the difference between choice to buy and forced to buy in every last one of the examples you listed above, which skirts around the entire conversation.

 

You don't HAVE to buy a Chevy Volt, a house, a high efficiency furnace, or A/C unit for the tax credit(s)/incentives offered for such purchases. It's a choice coupled with an incentive to "take part". What they did with this was remove the choice...you must buy said product from private business, or you get penalized for not.

 

These examples you cited are nothing close to the same thing.

No, they did not. You do not have to buy health insurance under the mandate. You flat out do not. They have not removed the choice in any sense. You do not go to jail, you can still pass go if you fail to purchase health insurance. You simply have to pay an $800 or so tax if you choose to do not, assuming you do not have other income levels.

 

You have every right to choose not to purchase a product that will cost a family of 4 on average $20k this year and pay the tax penalty, just like I have every right to choose not to purchase a mortgage and pay several hundred dollars in higher taxes for the exact same reason.

 

I am paying higher taxes than a person with a privately purchased mortgage who has the exact same income as me and otherwise has the exact same other purchases. That is the exact same issue.

[Balta1701]

You're entire bolded section makes zero sense. You aren't paying ANY higher amount of tax for not taking part in purchasing a volt or a house...because you don't "have" to buy either.

 

That's how easily they'd knock down your argument if you attempted it in court, by the way.

Does the government have the right to raise taxes?

[StrangeSox]

You are purposefully ignoring the difference between choice to buy and forced to buy in every last one of the examples you listed above, which skirts around the entire conversation.

 

You don't HAVE to buy a Chevy Volt, a house, a high efficiency furnace, or A/C unit for the tax credit(s)/incentives offered for such purchases. It's a choice coupled with an incentive to "take part". What they did with this was remove the choice...you must buy said product from private business, or you get penalized for not.

 

These examples you cited are nothing close to the same thing.

 

You're entire bolded section makes zero sense. You aren't paying ANY higher amount of tax for not taking part in purchasing a volt or a house...because you don't "have" to buy either.

 

That's how easily they'd knock down your argument if you attempted it in court, by the way.

 

So this still comes back to a drafting issue, not a legitimate Constitutional argument.

 

They could have chosen to raise everyone's taxes and offered health insurance credits instead. The end result would have been identical. But now it's some egregious assault on liberty and freedom and the Constitution.

[Balta1701]

So this still comes back to a drafting issue, not a legitimate Constitutional argument.

 

They could have chosen to raise everyone's taxes and offered health insurance credits instead. The end result would have been identical. But now it's some egregious assault on liberty and freedom and the Constitution.

And in fact, that is the exact structure of the law. The only difference is that it is not written involving the word tax. It is a tax with a matching credit for purchasing insurance, but it was written using the word "Mandate" instead of the word tax.

[southsider2k5]

It is amazing to see the progression at chipping away at individual rights one piece at a time being used to justify this law. Our forefathers had a clue. Slippery slope indeed. Its why our country hasn't had an income tax for more of its history than it has. It is to the point where we have no economic freedoms left. That is just sad.

[Y2HH]

No, they did not. You do not have to buy health insurance under the mandate. You flat out do not. They have not removed the choice in any sense. You do not go to jail, you can still pass go if you fail to purchase health insurance. You simply have to pay an $800 or so tax if you choose to do not, assuming you do not have other income levels.

 

You have every right to choose not to purchase a product that will cost a family of 4 on average $20k this year and pay the tax penalty, just like I have every right to choose not to purchase a mortgage and pay several hundred dollars in higher taxes for the exact same reason.

 

I am paying higher taxes than a person with a privately purchased mortgage who has the exact same income as me and otherwise has the exact same other purchases. That is the exact same issue.

 

Again, you ignore the reality in an attempt to make a point.

 

You're right, you don't HAVE to buy insurance...but if you don't you get taxed/penalized.

 

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

 

You don't get taxed/penalized for not buying a Volt, a H/E furnace or a house.

[Balta1701]

Again, you ignore the reality in an attempt to make a point.

 

You're right, you don't HAVE to buy insurance...but if you don't you get taxed/penalized.

 

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

 

You don't get taxed/penalized for not buying a Volt, a H/E furnace or a house.

Yes or no question.

 

If I had a mortgage right now, would I pay a lower tax rate?

 

Am I paying more in taxes than I would if I were paying interest on a privately purchased mortgage?

[Y2HH]

Yes or no question.

 

If I had a mortgage right now, would I pay a lower tax rate?

 

Am I paying more in taxes than I would if I were paying interest on a privately purchased mortgage?

 

You're forcing me to answer a framed/loaded question, but it's not a yes or no question as you're attempting to pose it as. As Brad Pitt told Matt Damon in Ocean's Eleven, "It's slightly more complicated than that..."

 

No, you don't pay a lower tax rate. You're tax rate is the same. You simply get a deduction...which is no where near the same as getting a lower tax rate.

 

Yes, my interest is a *partial* deduction, but it's more complicated than a simple "yes" coupled with a tax deduction. I pay 3,800$ a year on my property tax...a tax you have to pay at ALL.

[Y2HH]

Yes or no question.

 

If I had a mortgage right now, would I pay a lower tax rate?

 

Am I paying more in taxes than I would if I were paying interest on a privately purchased mortgage?

 

No. Not even close.

[Balta1701]

You're forcing me to answer a framed/loaded question, but it's not a yes or no question as you're attempting to pose it as. As Brad Pitt told Matt Damon in Ocean's Eleven, "It's slightly more complicated than that..."

 

No, you don't pay a lower tax rate. You're tax rate is the same. You simply get a deduction...which is no where near the same as getting a lower tax rate.

 

Yes, my interest is a *partial* deduction, but it's more complicated than a simple "yes" coupled with a tax deduction. I pay 3,800$ a year on my property tax...a tax you have to pay at ALL.

Then in that case, does the government have the right to raise income taxes? Thus making you correct, that passing the bill would increase the tax rate.

 

Because either the government has no right to raise everyone's income tax, or the government has no right to give a tax credit.

 

If 2 things are constitutional, then doing them together in the same bill cannot make them suddenly unconstitutional.