ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[dank69]

More info (SCOTUSblog):

Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won.

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.

 

[lopri]

The dissent wasn't authored by Kennedy alone as posted in Update 5, but the four justices co-authored it which is an unusual thing. I suppose none wanted to be singled out in the history. (As they did in Bush v. Gore with an unsigned opinion)

 

[zsdersw]

Yep exactly. Republican's may not be able to outlaw abortion, but it seems pretty clear that can put a tax on it.

... proving that Republicans are no better than Democrats.

 

[ichy]

The obamacare ruling today means nothing. It was simply to rule if it met requirements to be considered a tax (as it was illegal as a commerce). The legality of that tax is yet to be decided, and will be ruled in 2014. It is still very possible that it would be illegal as a tax (and a tax cannot be implemented until its ruled legal).

As far as I can tell the court is not punting that decision down the road.

edit: From SCOTUSblog: "Interesting, at least to scholars, that while the mandate and its attached penalty are a tax for purposes of its constitutionality, but not for the Anti-Injunction Act. If it were a tax for AIA purposes, this case would not have been decided re the mandate. "

BTW, SCOTUSblog says this: "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 decision may actually restrict future usage of the Commerce Clause. So much for the slippery slope, gov't forcing us to buy broccoli argument.

 

[cybrsage]

Penalty in 2014 for not getting insurance is $285 or 1% of income.

Jumps up to just under $1000 or 2% of income in 2015, and then I think about $2000 or 2.5% of income in 2016.

Is it "whichever is higher" or "whichever is lower"?

 

[sportage]

I have to say it again...
This sets the path for expanded medicare AND government healthcare "option" creation so that the poor can take advantage of healthcare.
IT WILL HAPPEN!!!!

Now... to Romney...
Romney can take credit (if he is smart enough) in that Obamacare has always been based on Romneycare.
If Romney has even a ounce of brain matter not owned and operated by the tea party, Mitt should stand up and take some well deserved credit.
Then... go with THAT. Come on Mitt... don't fight it.
This can or could be your winning hand.
Question, will you Mitt be smart enough to grasp the moment?

BTW... fox news has already moved on to "other" news. lol

 

[sactoking]

I believe the penalty is $2500.. is this going to be adjusted for inflation? In 20 years it will make much more sense to not pay and get insurance only when you're sick. And votes will never be there to raise it.

It caps at 2.5% of your income in 2016, I believe.

Illustrative scenario:
For me, being relatively young and healthy, 2.5% of my income is much lower than what I pay in premiums. I anticipate my premiums going up since the ACA uses young, healthy people to subsidize the old and infirm. My wife is self-employed so we pay quarterly taxes and can easily ensure we don't get a refund.

Given that, I have to seriously consider dropping my coverage and buying coverage "on my way to the hospital". If I decide to pay the penalty I'll save money and if I really want to be evil I can just refuse the penalty and there's not a damn thing the .gov can do. I won't do that, because I understand risk.

I'm sure that many free-riders will actually choose to drop insurance now due to ACA.

 

[CombatChuk]

Here's my contribution

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/CombatChuk/cnnfail.JPG

 

[IronWing]

Congratulations to the private insurance industry on your historic victory!

As for the rest of us, sucks to be us.

 

[QuantumPion]

So, there's goes Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on those earning <$250,000...

/sarcasm

Obama has done a 180 on pretty much every single campaign pledge to the letter. No one will remember or care.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You cannot realistically force insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions without mandating that everyone buy insurance. Without the individual mandate people would wait until they got sick and then buy coverage.

There are ways around that (the bolded part).

At any rate, I understand the economics of covering people with pre-existing conditions, but it is the right thing to do. And all kids should be covered if their parents can't cover them.

 

[Nintendesert]

I have to say it again...
This sets the path for expanded medicare AND government healthcare "option" creation so that the poor can take advantage of healthcare.
IT WILL HAPPEN!!!!

Now... to Romney...
Romney can take credit (if he is smart enough) in that Obamacare has always been based on Romneycare.
If Romney has even a ounce of brain matter not owned and operated by the tea party, Mitt should stand up and take some well deserved credit.
Then... go with THAT. Come on Mitt... don't fight it.
This can or could be your winning hand.
Question, will you Mitt be smart enough to grasp the moment?

BTW... fox news has already moved on to "other" news. lol

You know you're the reason their ratings are so high right?

 

[zsdersw]

Every politician has done a 180 on pretty much every single campaign pledge to the letter. No one will remember or care.

FTFY.

 

[nerp]

what a load of crap.

What else can goverment force us to buy next?

Car insurance.

 

[nehalem256]

It seems like this ruling is really perhaps the largest expansion of federal power in history.

The federal government can now mandate that you perform an activity. And if you refuse they can impose a "tax" on you. If you fail to pay the tax you can then be thrown in jail for tax evasion.

 

[Farang]

I think it is kind of misleading to say the mandate is upheld. In effect that is the case, but really it is deemed unconstitutional for Congress to mandate activity under the commerce clause. This is essentially a 1 percent tax increase on everyone, with a deduction if you buy health insurance. See:

Take a quick look at Footnote 11, which is on page 44 of the slip opinion: Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax.

I compare it to a mortgage deduction. The court says it is not illegal to forgo insurance, so the "mandate" is not upheld

 

[nehalem256]

Car insurance.

You are thinking small. Mandating abortions for poor women would seem to be perfectly constitutional now, so long as the punishment is a "tax".

 

[Beavermatic]

That is then, and this is now.

Alot can change in 2 years before they rule any such tax to be legal. today was only acknowledging that (a) yes, it could be considered a tax, and (b) it might be able to be upheld as a tax, and (c) It is definetely illegal as a commerece.

the legality and requirements have a LONG way to go, and nothing confirms if it will ever be considred legal or illegal as a tax of current.

At current rate, Obama will *likely* not be president come the vote in a few months. What happens once he's out and has minimal influence over it being ruled legal as a tax is yet to be determined. Lets face fact, he's pretty well disliked at this point, even by most of his own political party... Of course thats speculation... but thats also the likely outcome.

 

[mshan]

Originally Posted by mshan
Penalty in 2014 for not getting insurance is $285 or 1% of income.

Jumps up to just under $1000 or 2% of income in 2015, and then I think about $2000 or 2.5% of income in 2016.

Is it "whichever is higher" or "whichever is lower"?

Not sure, just saw those stats on CNN while I had tv on in background.

Zeke Emmanual, one of the architects of Obama initial plan (before Congress changed it with pharma and hospital lobbyists writing bill?), had some really, really good insights on how the plan would bend the cost curve on health care costs going forward:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000098889&play=1 :thumbsup:

 

[munkus]

"This is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." Senator Padme Amidala (D-Naboo)

Just lightening the mood.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This may actually help Romney get elected. Obamacare is not especially popular.

 

[umbrella39]

Yay for upholding shitty laws! Hurrah!

Yay for the system working and opinions mattering but in the end... not really.

 

[sportage]

Penalty in 2014 for not getting insurance is $285 or 1% of income.

Jumps up to just under $1000 or 2% of income in 2015, and then I think about $2000 or 2.5% of income in 2016.

Oh come on people....
You know affordable expanded """MEDICARE""" and or """GOVERNMENT OPTION CREATION""" will be next on the agenda.
And YES... even from the republican side.
Watch republicans flip flop on this issue, so the poor and fixed income can now have healthcare.
People WILL NOT get to the point where they would pay a TAX instead of a more affordable healthcare policy from expanded MEDICARE or THE PUBLIC OPTION.

Don't judge today on tomorrow.
The rules will not be the same.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Car insurance.

<sigh>

A pet peeve of mine is when people try to equate car insurance to this law. There are many important differences:

1. The government DOES NOT force you to buy car insurance. Ask a guy in New York who doesn't own a car and takes the subway everywhere if he is required by law to have car insurance.

2. At one time, many states accepted proof of financial liability in the form of bonds of a set amount. I assume (but am not sure) that's the case today as well.

3. Car insurance is governed by state law, not federal.

 

[ichy]

At any rate, I understand the economics of covering people with pre-existing conditions, but it is the right thing to do.

If you don't force people to buy coverage when they're healthy then covering those with pre-existing conditions is also the unaffordable thing to do. I'm curious (not being sarcastic here, I'm no mindless ACA fanboy) how else you suggest making it feasible to require coverage for the uninsured?

I am not a huge cheerleader for Obamacare but I have yet to see any serious suggestions that would work better. As for "OMG the gov't forces us to buy insurance," we are ALREADY being forced to pay for the healthcare of the uninsured. Right now there are plenty of bums and freeloaders who walk into the ER and get treated, or simply don't pay their hospital bills. The basic individual mandate concept was originally pushed by conservatives as a way to stop people from freeloading.