OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

This is for people who dont get insurance thought an employer, correct?

It doesn't matter where the insurance comes from. If you have a qualifying health insurance plan, you receive that rebate. if your employer somehow purchases an insurance plan which does not meet the minimum standards, then I believe you would still be subject to the tax (although it would be really stupid of your employer to do that, especially given the fact that the bill helps employers out with buying qualifying plans).

[StrangeSox]

Lyle: In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

 

The minority would have struck down the entire thing.

[Balta1701]

Lyle: In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

 

The minority would have struck down the entire thing.

Literally the only thing that doesn't stun me from this decision.

[StrangeSox]

Amy Howe: In Plain English: 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.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

[NorthSideSox72]

My first post in the Buster in months...

 

I've said all along, the nomination of Roberts has never bothered me as much as Alito. I don't agree with all of Roberts' decisions (Citizens United in particular), but Roberts has always been methodical and disciplined in his interperetations (unlike Scalia who is an unabashed partisan, and Alito who has always been a windsock and just takes the Republican view on things). So while this is a surprise, it isn't as big of one for me as it appears to be for others. I was 50/50 on Kennedy and Roberts on this.

 

I still don't agree with the overall wisdom of the law and the way it was engineered - I think there were better ways to handle this and do some good. And I've said all along if this was simply paid for as a tax, it would stand up just fine - as it did. I just wasn't sure the court would see it as a tax, because it sort of is and sort of isn't. That is what made the whole thing a question.

 

I'm glad the parts of PPACA that are positive are upheld, but skeptical of what doors may have been opened for required purchase of a private product. It will be interesting to see if Congress ever tries to push the door open further on that, and how far the court will stretch the limits of what a tax really is, versus required commerce.

 

As for the Presidential election, I think this helps Obama, but only a little. The economy at large is still far and away issue number 1, particularly in the area of jobs (or lack thereof). Obama is in the poll position at this point, but if the economy's growth stops or regresses as the summer and fall go on, I can still see Romney pulling off a victory.

 

[Balta1701]

Lyle: In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

 

The minority would have struck down the entire thing.

After some reading...it's worth wondering whether the thing that pushed Roberts into the "uphold" side was the fact that the other 4 wanted to overturn the entire act and not just the Mandate section.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Forgive me, I am neither a legal or health care expert: could this ruling pave the way to a potential single payer system in the future?

[StrangeSox]

Lyle: The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

[Balta1701]

Lyle: The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

This is only true as long as the current court remains as it is constructed, which likely won't be the case no matter who winds up as the next President.

[StrangeSox]

Forgive me, I am neither a legal or health care expert: could this ruling pave the way to a potential single payer system in the future?

 

Not really. An expansion of Medicaid to all would have been pretty unquestionably Constitutional, not counting the fringes who think Social Security and Medicaid themselves are unconstitutional.

 

If anything, this actually makes it less likely in my opinion. We've "reformed" health care now, so no one is going to be picking up the banners for a major fight to get single-payer. Had it been struck down, you'd have a renewed push to do something about it. I don't think that would have happened any time soon, though.

[Balta1701]

Forgive me, I am neither a legal or health care expert: could this ruling pave the way to a potential single payer system in the future?

A state could choose to use the funds from the PPACA to enact a single payer system on their own. In fact, Vermont is already experimenting with th at. However, this law is written specifically because a single payer system was judged to be politically impossible. There's no obvious reason why Medicare for all couldn't have passed constitutional muster 20 years ago, but there's no political will for that.

 

Given how hard fought this step was, I'd be surprised if you saw a major advance in coverage expansion in the next decade or more.

[StrangeSox]

My first post in the Buster in months...

 

I've said all along, the nomination of Roberts has never bothered me as much as Alito. I don't agree with all of Roberts' decisions (Citizens United in particular), but Roberts has always been methodical and disciplined in his interperetations (unlike Scalia who is an unabashed partisan, and Alito who has always been a windsock and just takes the Republican view on things). So while this is a surprise, it isn't as big of one for me as it appears to be for others. I was 50/50 on Kennedy and Roberts on this.

 

I still don't agree with the overall wisdom of the law and the way it was engineered - I think there were better ways to handle this and do some good. And I've said all along if this was simply paid for as a tax, it would stand up just fine - as it did. I just wasn't sure the court would see it as a tax, because it sort of is and sort of isn't. That is what made the whole thing a question.

 

I'm glad the parts of PPACA that are positive are upheld, but skeptical of what doors may have been opened for required purchase of a private product. It will be interesting to see if Congress ever tries to push the door open further on that, and how far the court will stretch the limits of what a tax really is, versus required commerce.

 

As for the Presidential election, I think this helps Obama, but only a little. The economy at large is still far and away issue number 1, particularly in the area of jobs (or lack thereof). Obama is in the poll position at this point, but if the economy's growth stops or regresses as the summer and fall go on, I can still see Romney pulling off a victory.

Great post.

[StrangeSox]

Tom: Here is the money quote on the fifth vote to hold that the mandate is not justified under the Commerce Clause (recognizing that doesn't matter because there were five votes under the Tax Power): "The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated." That will not affect a lot of statutes going forward.

[Y2HH]

Not an unexpected outcome, with Robert's upholding as a tax, which is pretty much what I said in my previous post that they'd have to do.

 

Insurance companies can now breathe a sigh of relief, as none of them were looking for this to be struck down, contrary to what a lot of misinformed people thought they wanted. I can't tell you how much money we've spent in the past 2 years making drastic internal changes to make the new ACA work...and if it was struck down, all that money would have been completely wasted.

[Balta1701]

My first post in the Buster in months...

 

I've said all along, the nomination of Roberts has never bothered me as much as Alito. I don't agree with all of Roberts' decisions (Citizens United in particular), but Roberts has always been methodical and disciplined in his interperetations (unlike Scalia who is an unabashed partisan, and Alito who has always been a windsock and just takes the Republican view on things). So while this is a surprise, it isn't as big of one for me as it appears to be for others. I was 50/50 on Kennedy and Roberts on this.

 

I still don't agree with the overall wisdom of the law and the way it was engineered - I think there were better ways to handle this and do some good. And I've said all along if this was simply paid for as a tax, it would stand up just fine - as it did. I just wasn't sure the court would see it as a tax, because it sort of is and sort of isn't. That is what made the whole thing a question.

 

I'm glad the parts of PPACA that are positive are upheld, but skeptical of what doors may have been opened for required purchase of a private product. It will be interesting to see if Congress ever tries to push the door open further on that, and how far the court will stretch the limits of what a tax really is, versus required commerce.

 

As for the Presidential election, I think this helps Obama, but only a little. The economy at large is still far and away issue number 1, particularly in the area of jobs (or lack thereof). Obama is in the poll position at this point, but if the economy's growth stops or regresses as the summer and fall go on, I can still see Romney pulling off a victory.

Just to add for completeness, I still disagree with the concept that this bill opens the doors to "required purchase of a private product", on the grounds that any tax credit can be described as that based on the standard applied in this law.

[Y2HH]

Just to add for completeness, I still disagree with the concept that this bill opens the doors to "required purchase of a private product", on the grounds that any tax credit can be described as that based on the standard applied in this law.

 

It's one thing if they call it a tax...it's another entirely if they call it a mandate, which is what they originally attempted to do...which was wrong, and IMO, illegal. If it's a tax, that's fine...but using the word mandate is where they went wrong.

 

Edit: Some will say this is semantics...but it's not. Just call a tax a tax instead of playing word games to skirt around the fact you are taxing people for a service.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

It's one thing if they call it a tax...it's another entirely if they call it a mandate, which is what they originally attempted to do...which was wrong, and IMO, illegal. If it's a tax, that's fine...but using the word mandate is where they went wrong.

 

Edit: Some will say this is semantics...but it's not. Just call a tax a tax instead of playing word games to skirt around the fact you are taxing people for a service.

 

"Mandate" doesn't appear in the text of the bill.

[Balta1701]

It's one thing if they call it a tax...it's another entirely if they call it a mandate, which is what they originally attempted to do...which was wrong, and IMO, illegal. If it's a tax, that's fine...but using the word mandate is where they went wrong.

 

Edit: Some will say this is semantics...but it's not. Just call a tax a tax instead of playing word games to skirt around the fact you are taxing people for a service.

Amazingly, I can now say that by some bleeping miracle, both I and a narrow 5-4 majority disagree with this interpretation.

[Y2HH]

"Mandate" doesn't appear in the text of the bill.

 

Just stop. Seriously.

[Y2HH]

Amazingly, I can now say that by some bleeping miracle, both I and a narrow 5-4 majority disagree with this interpretation.

 

Roberts didn't agree with you. And he was the vote that mattered.

[StrangeSox]

Roberts didn't agree with you. And he was the vote that mattered.

 

Roberts agreed that it wasn't a Commerce Clause "mandate" but a tax.

[Y2HH]

Roberts agreed that it wasn't a Commerce Clause "mandate" but a tax.

 

Yes I know this.

[Soxbadger]

It's one thing if they call it a tax...it's another entirely if they call it a mandate, which is what they originally attempted to do...which was wrong, and IMO, illegal. If it's a tax, that's fine...but using the word mandate is where they went wrong.

 

Edit: Some will say this is semantics...but it's not. Just call a tax a tax instead of playing word games to skirt around the fact you are taxing people for a service.

 

I agree they tried to get to clever with it and didnt want to use the ugly "tax" word.

 

And another ruling for the Federal Govt.

 

I think most people would agree Roberts is not the problem, it is some of the other Justices who would entirely rewrite history to somehow make a ruling that they support.

 

I think what is best for everyone is that it is over. Certainty is always better than uncertainty.

[farmteam]

I think what is best for everyone is that it is over. Certainty is always better than uncertainty.

 

I would agree...but sadly it's still an election year so we'll hear about it in some form. Instead of "OBAMA'S LAW FAILED" it'll be "OBAMA RAISED YOUR TAXES UNLESS YOU BUY HIS INSURANCE."

 

EDIT: but in terms of knowing which way the law's going, I agree with you.

Edited June 28, 2012 by farmteam