ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[nehalem256]

Of course it's not new. The government has always had enormous power to coerce people into behaving as it wants. I think people just genuinely didn't realize it. Hell, as has been mentioned before George Washington signed an individual mandate for people to purchase a private product (firearms).

That being said, it is highly unlikely that any state could pass an 'abortion tax' of any size large enough to actually stop abortions to any meaningful degree. It would be slapped down by the courts pretty fast.

Except apparently for abortions. Which is some kind of super duper totally beyond uninfringable right.

 

[fskimospy]

So you do not think their is not an inherent right to have the government not force you to purchase things?

We already covered this. If you can just point me to either the part of the Constitution or any USSC decision that contains in it a personal and affirmative right to not be forced to purchase things I would love to see it.

It would appear from the boggley face that the Constitution is very confusing to you, if you need any help understanding things just ask the forum. People can be very helpful!

 

[fskimospy]

Except apparently for abortions. Which is some kind of super duper totally beyond uninfringable right.

No, it's just a civil liberty that is constitutionally protected. Similarly the government faces a high barrier to being able to restrict your speech, your right to own firearms, etc, etc as these are all constitutionally protected rights. The government has huge coercive powers generally, with the exceptions being to constitutionally protected rights. There its powers are far more limited.

As you do not have a recognized constitutional right to not buy things, this doesn't apply there. Hope that clears things up.

 

[nehalem256]

We already covered this. If you can just point me to either the part of the Constitution or any USSC decision that contains in it a personal and affirmative right to not be forced to purchase things I would love to see it.

It would appear from the boggley face that the Constitution is very confusing to you, if you need any help understanding things just ask the forum. People can be very helpful!

I would assume it is right there next to right to abortion

 

[fskimospy]

I would assume it is right there next to right to abortion

That's interesting, I didn't see any part of the Roe v. Wade decision that referenced a right not to buy things. Here's the full text of the decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

If you can just find me the relevant text to support what you just said I will gladly accept your argument! I eagerly await your response.

 

[shira]

That premiums will be going up I don't think is in debate, though, except by wild-eyed Beltway residents, who live in a reality distortion field.

Why would you think this? If the insurance base is expanded substantially to include many millions more young people, the average cost of care per insured will go down.

Remember, starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to charge higher rates for higher-risk customers. Right now, a disproportionately large percentage of the insured are higher risk (they're the ones who do not choose to be uninsured, because they know they're going to need expensive medical care). After ACA fully kicks in, the proportion of higher-risk insured customers will go down, so the average insured person will be lower risk than currently, and insurance rates will go down to reflect this reduction in average risk.

 

[sactoking]

Why would you think this? If the insurance base is expanded substantially to include many millions more young people, the average cost of care per insured will go down.

Remember, starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to charge higher rates for higher-risk customers. Right now, a disproportionately large percentage of the insured are higher risk (they're the ones who do not choose to be uninsured, because they know they're going to need expensive medical care). After ACA fully kicks in, the proportion of higher-risk insured customers will go down, so the average insured person will be lower risk than currently, and insurance rates will go down to reflect this reduction in average risk.

Actually, in 2014 insurers will still be able to charge higher rates for higher-risk customers. The risk premium within a rate band cannot exceed 300%; IOW the highest premium can be nor more than 4x the lowest premium.

The mandate is expected to bring in millions of more customers, many of whom will be young and healthy. This will work to push average premiums for young, healthy people lower. Some of the people brought in by the mandate will be those who were previously uninsurable. This will work to push average premiums for older, unhealthy people higher. Unfortunately, since the individual risk pool must be aggregated and the small group/employer risk pool must be aggregated or merged into the individual risk pool, PLUS the 300% premium disparity, insurers will not be able to offer young, healthy people the low rates they should be paying nor older, unhealthy people the higher rates they should be paying. The most at-risk individuals will see lower premiums but everyone else will see higher premiums.

Then add in the fact that Essential Health Benefits can no longer be capped and loss costs will increase, pushing all rates higher.

The insurers I've heard from all say average rate increases of 20-25% "at least" come 2014.

 

[Cerb]

Why would you think this? If the insurance base is expanded substantially to include many millions more young people, the average cost of care per insured will go down.

Remember, starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to charge higher rates for higher-risk customers. Right now, a disproportionately large percentage of the insured are higher risk (they're the ones who do not choose to be uninsured, because they know they're going to need expensive medical care). After ACA fully kicks in, the proportion of higher-risk insured customers will go down, so the average insured person will be lower risk than currently, and insurance rates will go down to reflect this reduction in average risk.

Think about how those are being paid for. Half the people who currently don't have insurance still won't, because insurance premiums are so much greater than the penalty tax, and the Medicare expansion is not being supported by about half the states (including my own). Higher-risk people will still cost more. But, with a limit on how much they can cost, the obvious solution is to raise the minimum and average costs. Meanwhile, insurance will remain too costly for those with pre-existing conditions that make insurance unaffordable for them (outside of a job that includes a decent group plan as a benefit).

 

[DCal430]

Think about how those are being paid for. Half the people who currently don't have insurance still won't, because insurance premiums are so much greater than the penalty tax, and the Medicare expansion is not being supported by about half the states (including my own). Higher-risk people will still cost more. But, with a limit on how much they can cost, the obvious solution is to raise the minimum and average costs. Meanwhile, insurance will remain too costly for those with pre-existing conditions that make insurance unaffordable for them (outside of a job that includes a decent group plan as a benefit).

NO for the average household the difference between the penalty and insurance will be under 1000 a year. It makes no sense not to take the insurance. In fact for low income people the penalty is more than the insurance.

 

[Matt1970]

If you can just point me to either the part of the Constitution or any USSC decision that contains in it a personal and affirmative right to not be forced to purchase things I would love to see it.!

Wow. How anyone can come up with something like that is beyond me. Never in the history of our country has anyone ever been forced to purchase anything. Only mandatory purchases up to this point were associated with PRIVELAGES which you could easily refuse any privelage

 

[Fern]

I haven't read through the whole decision yet but I did come across the part concerning it not being a direct tax (as Roberts states) and it caught my attention.

"(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportionto the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like acapitation or other direct tax under this Courts precedents. It there-fore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population. Pp. 4041."

This whole paragraph is confusing. Paraphrasing from above:

- The new "healthcare tax" must comply with the Direct Tax Clause.
- A tax on going with healthcare insurance is not like a capitation or direct tax so does not need to be apportioned.

So it's a direct tax that doesn't need to be apportioned. Doesn't that clearly defy the section of the Constitution he quoted in the paragraph?

Maybe the real key phrases are "Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax" and "under this Courts precedents."

Anyone else have thoughts/ideas on this?

You wrote: "So it's a direct tax that doesn't need to be apportioned."

No. See above sentence with bolded words. Roberts said it's NOT a direct tax.

His argument is very facile and shallow. He lists a few direct taxes, then concludes this one is not "like" them without explanation or laying out the characteristics that define them as direct taxes. Had he listed those characteristics he would have had to labor mightily to try and exclude this penalty/tax from qualifying as a direct tax. (He had done enough of that already when trying explain why this is a tax and not a penalty.)

The Constitution only lists two types of tax that Congress has the power to impose: Direct taxes and indirect taxes. By claiming that this is not a direct tax he is saying it is an indirect tax. Therefore, the obvious question is why didn't he approach this in a straightforward manner: Why didn't he say that this was an indirect tax? The answer is that he could not. Indirect taxes have their own characteristics and the ACA penalty/tax cannot be reasonably shown to share those and thus qualify as an indirect tax.

I have no doubt he did this because he was mindful of future precedent. He knows he's wrong. He gave an exceedingly brief argument as to why it's not a direct tax, yet still provided a dangerous precedent IMO. However, even worse would have been an affirmative statement that the tax/penalty was an indirect tax. In future cases deciding if something qualifies as an indirect tax the courts would be left it as an example for comparison. That would cause a great amount of problems in lower courts which must follow SCOTUS precedent. It would have created chaos in this area of (tax) law.

Fern

 

[Fern]

We already covered this. If you can just point me to either the part of the Constitution or any USSC decision that contains in it a personal and affirmative right to not be forced to purchase things I would love to see it.
-snip-

Wow.

D:

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Wow. How anyone can come up with something like that is beyond me. Never in the history of our country has anyone ever been forced to purchase anything. Only mandatory purchases up to this point were associated with PRIVELAGES which you could easily refuse any privelage

2nd Militia Act of 1792:
"Every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and an absak, a pouch containing a box with no less than 24 cartridges"

- signed by George Washington

So not only has it happened in the history of our country, it happened almost immediately after the ratification of the Constitution by the very first president. I'm not sure how George Washington came up with it though, unfortunately he is not here for you to ask so his reasoning might remain forever 'beyond you'.

 

[nehalem256]

2nd Militia Act of 1792:
"Every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and an absak, a pouch containing a box with no less than 24 cartridges"

- signed by George Washington

So not only has it happened in the history of our country, it happened almost immediately after the ratification of the Constitution by the very first president. I'm not sure how George Washington came up with it though, unfortunately he is not here for you to ask so his reasoning might remain forever 'beyond you'.

And what happened if they did not do this?

 

[Cerb]

NO for the average household the difference between the penalty and insurance will be under 1000 a year. It makes no sense not to take the insurance. In fact for low income people the penalty is more than the insurance.

(a) where is the math to support that, and (b) from where is this low-income cheap insurance going to pop up?

For $50k or less (median income <$50k), the penalty is not likely to go above $1000, from what I've seen. $3000/yr is not bad at all for insurance due to employment, much less an individual plan.

 

[fskimospy]

And what happened if they did not do this?

From what I see the law doesn't cover specific penalties for lack of arming oneself, however other parts of the act talk about defying presidential orders (of which this would be one presumably). In those cases it was fines or imprisonment up to a year.

Such tyranny! I bet the founding fathers were rolling over in their graves about how tyrannical the founding fathers were.

 

[Fern]

2nd Militia Act of 1792:
"Every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and an absak, a pouch containing a box with no less than 24 cartridges"

- signed by George Washington

So not only has it happened in the history of our country, it happened almost immediately after the ratification of the Constitution by the very first president. I'm not sure how George Washington came up with it though, unfortunately he is not here for you to ask so his reasoning might remain forever 'beyond you'.

The answer is in the title.

The point wasn't to force people to purchase weapons. The point was to raise a militia: A power of Congress/federal govt plainly enumerated in the Constitution.

Has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare and its mandate.

Fern

 

[Cerb]

OT: what is an absak?

 

[Fern]

OT: what is google?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The answer is in the title.

The point wasn't to force people to purchase weapons. The point was to raise a militia: A power of Congress/federal govt plainly enumerated in the Constitution.

Has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare and its mandate.

Fern

Nope, sorry.

I was responding to Matt1970's claim that people had never been forced to purchase anything in the history of our country. The militia act of 1792 explicitly proves this to be false. Furthermore, the point of that passage was expressly to force people to purchase weapons. It says so word for word, and that point is inarguable. Unless you are trying to argue that "...every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock" does not mean that citizens have to purchase a good musket or firelock. (I guess they could build their own?)

You are trying to shoehorn in a different argument as if it would have any bearing on this one. The SOURCE of the authority to force people to buy guns was different than with the ACA as it was not the Commerce Clause or the tax powers of Congress; in that you are right. That's not what other people were arguing here or what you seemed so amazed by just a short time ago, however. They asserted that there was an individual, positive right to not be forced to buy something. That right would exist regardless of the source of congressional authority much as the right to free speech does not depend on which power Congress is seeking to limit it under.

3 years after the ratification of the Constitution a Congress with a number of the framers as members and the president best known as the father of our country passed a law that explicitly forced someone to make a purchase of a private product. If there was some implicit positive right to not do that the founders must not have gotten the memo.

 

[Cerb]

OT: what is google?

Fern

A search engine, which you obviously did not try to use.

So, with Google, every dictionary I can think of, and Wikipedia not helping find what an absak is, anybody here know?

 

[EagleKeeper]

2nd Militia Act of 1792:
"Every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and an absak, a pouch containing a box with no less than 24 cartridges"

- signed by George Washington

So not only has it happened in the history of our country, it happened almost immediately after the ratification of the Constitution by the very first president. I'm not sure how George Washington came up with it though, unfortunately he is not here for you to ask so his reasoning might remain forever 'beyond you'.

The citizens were being drafted into the militia - required to bring the arms.

What are we being drafted into that requires being taxed on nothing

 

[nehalem256]

Nope, sorry.

I was responding to Matt1970's claim that people had never been forced to purchase anything in the history of our country. The militia act of 1792 explicitly proves this to be false. Furthermore, the point of that passage was expressly to force people to purchase weapons. It says so word for word, and that point is inarguable. Unless you are trying to argue that "...every citizen shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock" does not mean that citizens have to purchase a good musket or firelock. (I guess they could build their own?)

You are trying to shoehorn in a different argument as if it would have any bearing on this one. The SOURCE of the authority to force people to buy guns was different than with the ACA as it was not the Commerce Clause or the tax powers of Congress; in that you are right. That's not what other people were arguing here or what you seemed so amazed by just a short time ago, however. They asserted that there was an individual, positive right to not be forced to buy something. That right would exist regardless of the source of congressional authority much as the right to free speech does not depend on which power Congress is seeking to limit it under.

3 years after the ratification of the Constitution a Congress with a number of the framers as members and the president best known as the father of our country passed a law that explicitly forced someone to make a purchase of a private product. If there was some implicit positive right to not do that the founders must not have gotten the memo.

So are you implying that every man between 18-45 was permanently in the Militia until 1903?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

 

[nehalem256]

And it seems clear. If only Obama was willing to draft everyone in to the Militia THEN he could compel them to buy health insurance.

 

[fskimospy]

The citizens were being drafted into the militia - required to bring the arms.

What are we being drafted into that requires being taxed on nothing

Irrelevant. Citizens were being forced to purchase a private product regardless of any wants or desires of their own. Is your argument that Congress may force you to buy private products once it conscripts you? Would it have been a permissible exercise of power for Congress to draft all of the United States into the military and then impose the individual mandate? (as the health of troops is very important)