StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Medicare provision is limited but not invalidated. States were suing over new Medicare expansion that is part of ACA as undue coercion because there's a bunch of rules states have to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:11 AM) CNN just reported the mandate was unconstitutional lol@CNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:10 AM) Mandate is found to be a tax, which is a power of Congress Roberts joins the liberals of the Court. Wait, so all those times I said it was a tax...I wound up right?!?!?!? I'm almost more excited about that. The Chief Justice agreed with me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) lol@CNN CNN.com's homepage right now says in bold print "Mandate struck down" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER! REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 So it's unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insurance, but it's constitutional to levy a tax on people who choose to not do so? Sounds like a loophole, albeit a legal one. Kinda like how congress couldn't force states to have a 55mph speed limit, but could withhold highway funding to those who didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) Wait, so all those times I said it was a tax...I wound up right?!?!?!? I'm almost more excited about that. The Chief Justice agreed with me! I remember both of us arguing against that, which is also what people challenging Randy Barnett's legal objections have said all along. A rose by any other name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:15 AM) So it's unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insurance, but it's constitutional to levy a tax on people who choose to not do so? Sounds like a loophole, albeit a legal one. Kinda like how congress couldn't force states to have a 55mph speed limit, but could withhold highway funding to those who didn't. I'd say yes. Because "Buying health care" is an economic activity, you can put a tax on everyone and give a tax rebate to people who purchase a product that meets a standard that the feds decide upon. I don't see it as any different than tax credits for any other purchase except in the choice of language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Amy Howe: The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:11 AM) I'm shocked. Legitimately shocked. I'm not at all. Individual rights have been getting demolished for generations now. I'm shocked so many people bought the talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) So it's unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insurance, but it's constitutional to levy a tax on people who choose to not do so? Right, it's a tax incentive. However: Amy Howe: The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate. Sounds like a loophole, albeit a legal one. Kinda like how congress couldn't force states to have a 55mph speed limit, but could withhold highway funding to those who didn't. That's what the whole Medicaid challenge was about, more or less. Not speed limits, but other restrictions tied to the funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) CORRECTION: THE SUPREME COURT BACKS ALL PARTS OF OBAMA'S SIGNATURE HEALTH CARE LAW they will not live that down soon. Edited June 28, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) CORRECTION: THE SUPREME COURT BACKS ALL PARTS OF OBAMA'S SIGNATURE HEALTH CARE LAW they will not live that down soon. I only realized to get that screenshot thanks to you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Lyle: The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Ok, so let me get this clear. People are not REQUIRED to buy insurance, but if you do not, you'll be taxed and you still wont have insurance, correct? Just understanding the semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) Ok, so let me get this clear. People are not REQUIRED to buy insurance, but if you do not, you'll be taxed and you still wont have insurance, correct? Just understanding the semantics. Yes, that's what the law's always been. It was a huge semantic quibble over whether it was a "fine" or a "tax." The word "mandate" is not anywhere in the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 That's how I understand it, though I can't say that all my years of undergraduate and graduate math courses adequately prepared me to interpret SC decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:23 AM) Ok, so let me get this clear. People are not REQUIRED to buy insurance, but if you do not, you'll be taxed and you still wont have insurance, correct? Just understanding the semantics. Think of it as: 1. A tax of $700 or so applied to everyone. 2. Minimum requirements applied to insurance plans 3. A tax rebate of $700 or so given to anyone who purchases an insurance plan that meets the standards in 2. You can still choose not to purchase insurance, but you will pay a small additional tax that reflects the mandate penalty/fact that you're able to receive health care anyway/fact that if you get sick you can go and buy insurance at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) Yes, that's what the law's always been. It was a huge semantic quibble over whether it was a "fine" or a "tax." The word "mandate" is not anywhere in the bill. ok, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Lyle: Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) I'm not at all. Individual rights have been getting demolished for generations now. I'm shocked so many people bought the talking points. I'm shocked it's 5-4 completely upholding, with Roberts voting to uphold as a tax. I thought that if it was going to be upheld, it'd be 6-3 for sure with Roberts joining Kennedy so that he got to write the opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) Think of it as: 1. A tax of $700 or so applied to everyone. 2. Minimum requirements applied to insurance plans 3. A tax rebate of $700 or so given to anyone who purchases an insurance plan that meets the standards in 2. You can still choose not to purchase insurance, but you will pay a small additional tax that reflects the mandate penalty/fact that you're able to receive health care anyway/fact that if you get sick you can go and buy insurance at that time. This is for people who dont get insurance thought an employer, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It doesn't matter how you get insurance, just that you get insurance. Employer-provided coverage is ok, as is Medicare/Medicaid or individual plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts