Another blow to Obamacare, this time its - U.S. appeals court in Atlanta

[GuitarDaddy]

Totally different, you will collect SS. You may not want it or even need it, but you will collect it. That is a bit of different situation than what we are talking about here.

Not different at all, and there is no gaurantee that you will live to collect a penny of SS. It is insurance no different than health insurance

 

[classy]

Hogwash! Social Security is mandated insurance that everyone that works is forced to purchase. It has been around for 75 years and not been deemed unconstitutional.

And before you go trying to claim SS isn't insurance it's a retirement fund do a little research. What people commonly refer to as the SS trust fund is actually two funds.
OASI (Old Age Security Insurance)
DI (Disability Insurance)

Yes but if I don't work and don't pay SS insurance, no one can penalize me for it through a tax bill. Now can they?

 

[Dulanic]

I don't think there was ever any doubt that the provision to mandate everyone purchase health insurance was unconstitutional. The government should never have that kind of power and the constitution certainly doesn't afford the governement that kind of extreme right.

I will agree with this the day we can leave someone on the side of the road if they refuse to purchase health insurance. I am sick and fucking tired of paying for people getting free healthcare and us paying for it. Alas, neither thing will happen and we will continue to overpay for our 3rd world health care system. Of course... 3rd world systems actually work better in some cases... hmmmm

 

[First]

Another untruth. For years every state has taken advantaged of CHIP for kids up until they are 18. For years hospitals have treated every patient and written off the bills under charity care. The working class folks who continue to work will have coverage. And for unemployment for short terms, there are options. You are going to pay anyway, you and I both. Those who can't pay won't and never did. The rich never pay anyway.

There are many areas in the U.S. where public transportation isn't available and you are, by extension, put in a situation where you HAVE to own a car to survive because it's the only way to get to work. And in that scenario, you are simply not able to avoid paying auto insurance because it's mandated by law. Obama healthcare is the exact same concept with the (ultimately insignificant) distinction that with auto insurance you do have one freedom that allows you to avoid it, and that is to move, uproot your family and way of life to avoid buying a car in the first place. I think it's likely Kennedy will properly weigh that the "freedom" many Americans have to avoid auto insurance is really not one at all, and that pretty much guarantees SCOTUS victory for Obama's healthcare plan.

 

[werepossum]

The whole law, no can't be struck down, but this part will most certainly be struck down. You can't make people buy something, you just can't do it. OB tried to liken this to car insurance, but that is highly flawed. I only need to buy car insurance if I want to drive a car.

Problem is, we as a society have decided that we owe people health care. As a libertarian, I have a big problem with entitlement without responsibility. Either you have to have health insurance, or you are not entitled to health care on the public dime.

My problem was never the mandate's Constitutionality, it was with the concept that the mandate actually solved any problems. People don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. People without health insurance, but with assets, can have those assets seized if they get health care on the public dime. So the mandate itself solved nothing.

That said, I'm going to be amazed if SCOTUS rules against Obamacare, though it is possible. Obamacare greatly empowers the executive branch, and SCOTUS did overturn term limits on the basis that Congress cannot delegate its Constitutional responsibilities to the executive or judicial branches. I still don't think it's likely, though it is ironic that in a country of over 300 million, health care is likely to be determined by one justice.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Yes but if I don't work and don't pay SS insurance, no one can penalize me for it through a tax bill. Now can they?

Same goes with the Health Care mandate, it you don't work and pay no taxes they can't and won't penalize you for not having health insurance. The way the penalty works is everyone who has proof of insurance gets a tax credit, it you don't have insurance you don't get the tax credit thats how the penalty works. So obviously if you don't work and don't pay taxes you won't be penalized.

Now whats your next erroneous straw man argument


Might as well give up, the folks that crafted the legislation are constitutional scholars, YOU ARE NOT! It was designed to pass constitutional muster and it will despite the rightwingers bullshit arguments to the contrary

 

[classy]

There are many areas in the U.S. where public transportation isn't available and you are, by extension, put in a situation where you HAVE to own a car to survive because it's the only way to get to work. And in that scenario, you are simply not able to avoid paying auto insurance because it's mandated by law. Obama healthcare is the exact same concept with the (ultimately insignificant) distinction that with auto insurance you do have one freedom that allows you to avoid it, and that is to move, uproot your family and way of life to avoid buying a car in the first place. I think it's likely Kennedy will properly weigh that the "freedom" many Americans have to avoid auto insurance is really not one at all, and that pretty much guarantees SCOTUS victory for Obama's healthcare plan.

This part of the bill loses in the Supreme Court. The healthcare system is not a government system for one. So they don't have the right to force anyone to buy anything, that is a fundamental right. Two, every scenario you and others have presented as arguments all have the same flaw, it is by the individual's choice. And none of them come with a tax penalty from the government if I choose to do whatever.

 

[thraashman]

I've never been thrilled with the healthcare bill we got. I think of it more as a first step towards fixing a much larger problem. Unfortunately because it was an Obama platform, the right has opposed any healthcare reform wholeheartedly. Even though most will agree we need healthcare reform, they don't want it to get done under Obama's admin. So by trying to please Republicans who voted against it anyway, we ended up with this thing that is kinda a mess.

That being said if this is actually unconstitutional I would think the current USSC would uphold it then as they've made so many rulings in the last few years that are so obviously unconstitutional its funny, or it would be if it wasn't so sad.

 

[classy]

Same goes with the Health Care mandate, it you don't work and pay no taxes they can't and won't penalize you. The way the penalty works is everyone who has proof of insurance gets a tax credit, it you don't have insurance you don't get the tax credit thats how the penalty works. So obviously if you don't work and don't pay taxes you won't be penalized.

Now whats your next erroneous straw man argument


Might as well give up, the folks that crafted the legislation are constitutional scholars, YOU ARE NOT! It was designed to pass constitutional muster and it will despite the rightwingers bullshit arguments to the contrary

You are sadly mistaken. If I lose my job and start to collect unemployment which is enough for me to pay my bare essential bills and I choose to pay my light bill instead of carrying health insurance they have the right through that bill to penalize me.

I may be a straw man, but I read the bill. It is solely through income. Suppose I gotta pay my kids tutition or pay for health insurance and I am healthy as a horse. Who's choice should that be, mine or the government's?

 

[Lithium381]

good get that peice of crap legislation out of here

 

[First]

This part of the bill loses in the Supreme Court. The healthcare system is not a government system for one. So they don't have the right to force anyone to buy anything, that is a fundamental right.

If it's a fundamental right it has already violated for decades in the form of, say, state-mandated auto insurance. The distinction isn't particularly germane, that's why it has been thrown out so many times.

Two, every scenario you and others have presented as arguments all have the same flaw, it is by the individual's choice. And none of them come with a tax penalty from the government if I choose to do whatever.

There is a tax penalty if you don't have auto insurance. And again, the "individual choice" isn't one at all for millions of Americans, when it comes to auto insurance. The simple logic on mandates is inescapable.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

You are sadly mistaken. If I lose my job and start to collect unemployment which is enough for me to pay my bare essential bills and I choose to pay my light bill instead of carrying health insurance they have the right through that bill to penalize me.

I may be a straw man, but I read the bill. It is solely through income. Suppose I gotta pay my kids tutition or pay for health insurance and I am healthy as a horse. Who's choice should that be, mine or the government's?

Bullshit, show me in the bill where they have any means to penalize you except dening you a tax credit. The bill doesn't force anyone to buy insurance it only rewards those that do with a tax credit, which has been done over and over and with other items.

You buy energy efficiant appliances you get a tax credit. Unconstitutional? No

You buy a new car and trade in a clunker you get a tax credit. Unconstitutional? No

You pay pay private childcare expenses you get a tax credit? Unconstitutional? No

You buy health insurance you get a tax credit. Unconstitutional? No

You really believe they would go to this much trouble without making sure it would pass constitutional muster?

Quit living in a dream land. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

I am not really finding the comparison here. If you don't have a mortage or kids, then not getting a tax break is not a penalty. Here we have the government telling households that if you don't carry this you will pay a penalty. That allows them to determine what or how I should spend my money in my house. That is not their right or place.

Why should I have a higher tax bill than you because you have kids or pay a mortgage?

 

[CPA]

I don't think there was ever any doubt that the provision to mandate everyone purchase health insurance was unconstitutional. The government should never have that kind of power and the constitution certainly doesn't afford the governement that kind of extreme right.

Depends on who you talk to on this board. There were plenty that believed it was constitutional.

 

[classy]

Bullshit, show me in the bill where they have any means to penalize you except dening you a tax credit. The bill doesn't force anyone to buy insurance it only rewards those that do with a tax credit, which has been done over and over and with other items.

You buy energy efficiant appliances you get a tax credit. Unconstitutional? No

You buy a new car and trade in a clunker you get a tax credit. Unconstitutional? No

You pay pay private childcare expenses you get a tax credit? Unconstitutional? No

You buy health insurance you get a tax credit. Unconstitutional? No

You really believe they would go to this much trouble without making sure it would pass constitutional muster?

Quit living in a dream land. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.

The health care law signed Tuesday by President Obama is projected to extend insurance coverage to roughly 32 million additional Americans, but what happens to those who don't get themselves covered by health insurance?

The new law creates penalties in the tax code as an incentive.

An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price tag of a basic health plan. But by 2016, the penalty increases to $695 for an uninsured adult, and up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-24/...urance-insurance-pool-tax-filers?_s=PM:HEALTH

Also you can only go 3 months without insurance.

 

[CPA]

Why should I have a higher tax bill than you because you have kids or pay a mortgage?

Why should I have a higher tax bill because I make more money than you? Two can play at this game.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Why should I have a higher tax bill because I make more money than you? Two can play at this game.

I'm all about a flat tax.

 

[kranky]

Seems dangerous to me to support this because it's a "tax credit" and not a "tax penalty" or however you want to characterize it. Of course there are plenty of prior situations to justify it as have been mentioned - electric cars, etc.

But this raises the stakes to a much bigger level (cost to the consumer) than a $30 credit for buying a refrigerator, and it will be difficult to draw a line to say "enough is enough". I just don't like the idea of corporations being in a position to lobby Congress to implement "tax credits" for people who buy their product. Tax credits for electric cars, and others like it, are simply a taxpayer-funded rebate for buying the product, no matter how rah-rah the justification may sound. A private company takes in the money, the government hands you a rebate. That's how it is with the health care thing, that's how it is with electric cars, appliances, child care, etc.

If the mandate is upheld, I don't see how it would be possible to fight anything in the future that is legislated as a "tax credit", no matter how high the cost to the consumer.

 

[fskimospy]

Depends on who you talk to on this board. There were plenty that believed it was constitutional.

As do half the courts that have ruled on it and most legal experts. But hey, it wouldn't be ATPN if we didn't ignore inconvenient facts now would it?

 

[werepossum]

Seems dangerous to me to support this because it's a "tax credit" and not a "tax penalty" or however you want to characterize it. Of course there are plenty of prior situations to justify it as have been mentioned - electric cars, etc.

But this raises the stakes to a much bigger level (cost to the consumer) than a $30 credit for buying a refrigerator, and it will be difficult to draw a line to say "enough is enough". I just don't like the idea of corporations being in a position to lobby Congress to implement "tax credits" for people who buy their product. Tax credits for electric cars, and others like it, are simply a taxpayer-funded rebate for buying the product, no matter how rah-rah the justification may sound. A private company takes in the money, the government hands you a rebate. That's how it is with the health care thing, that's how it is with electric cars, appliances, child care, etc.

If the mandate is upheld, I don't see how it would be possible to fight anything in the future that is legislated as a "tax credit", no matter how high the cost to the consumer.

This is true, and a good point. However, those of us who oppose federal health care (Medicaid for all) can't have it both ways. If we want to keep our private sector health insurance, we're going to have to accept the mandate to buy health insurance. The only alternatives are complete government health care, and a harsh libertarian system in which people who can't afford health care don't get it. Health care for the poor by charity won't work because we have too many poor people and too many entitled people who would rely on charities to spend their own money on other things; with the cost of modern health care it would never work.

Even a two-tiered system with Medicaid for all - truly bare bones health care provided to everyone, rationed mostly by waiting queues and generic-only drugs, wouldn't be THAT bad. But I fear this idea that we're going to run everyone's health care/health insurance through the federal government with all its inefficiencies and expect the same level of health care most of us now enjoy is going to bankrupt us.

 

[randomrogue]

I don't get how buying health insurance can possibly be unconstitutional. I know you guys are already well on your way to beating this dead horse but basic things like health care and education are part of living in our society. Being forced to send your kids to school is not unconstitutional and neither should having health insurance. I would love to not pay for social security, which I think is a stupid program, but I'm forced to do that too. Since when do we get to pick and choose what we want to pay for? If your community, state, or country votes to pay for something then you have to as well. I can't say that I don't want to pay for our roads to be repaired simply because I don't drive on them. If you're such a goofball that you don't want to use healthcare then you don't belong in our society.

 

[ElFenix]

I pay a tax penalty by not having a mortgage or having children or any number of deductions I can't take advantage of. The math works out the same way regardless if it's a penalty for not buying something or a deduction for buying it. This isn't some grand leap in government control, it's a tax penalty, one you can't even be prosecuted for if you refuse to pay.

that is all well and good except for the fact that congress and the administration tripped over themselves running around telling everyone they're not using the taxing power to do this. so they cut that avenue off.

 

[Lithium381]

If it's a fundamental right it has already violated for decades in the form of, say, state-mandated auto insurance. The distinction isn't particularly germane, that's why it has been thrown out so many times.



There is a tax penalty if you don't have auto insurance. And again, the "individual choice" isn't one at all for millions of Americans, when it comes to auto insurance. The simple logic on mandates is inescapable.

Auto insurance isn't to protect the individual that's driving, it's to cover the people they hit and the property they damage when they drive like idiots....

once they figure out they can simply mandate what everyone buys, they can mandate that everyone jewish must buy a star of david and wear it, or face "tax penalties" of an arbitrary amount (20,000) or be jailed. hmmmmmmmm

 

[matt0611]

The "but states require auto insurance" argument is so weak.

For one, not all states require auto insurance (New Hampshire does not iirc)

Second, the States have more leeway in making laws like this under their constitution. The Federal government has no such power to require americans to buy health insurance. Its a 10th amendment thing.

Third, you are only required to buy car insurance if you choose to drive on a public road. And yes, you can "survive" without driving, it is not a requirement to live. You can live in the city, you can get a ride from a friend or family member, you can use public transportation, you can walk, you can ride a bicycle etc

This will no doubt go to the supreme court, I predict it will be ruled unconstitutional as it should.

 

[sactoking]

PPAC is not like Social Security. Social Security is a direct tax levied by the Fed to fund a public program. PPAC mandate causes individuals to purchase insurance from a private entity.

PPAC mandate => give money to a private company
SS mandate => give money to the public gov't

PPAC is not like auto insurance. Auto insurance is mandated by the States. Auto insurance is only mandatory if you choose to own a car/drive. PPAC is mandated by the Fed. PPAC is mandatory if you are alive and in the US.

PPAC mandate => Uses Commerce Clause to regulate lack of commerce. Affects all living Americans.
Auto insurance mandate => Uses States' ability to regulate commerce by regulating an activity that Americans choose to participate in.

Seriously now, comparing PPAC to Social Security and/or auto insurance is an apples to rhubarb/strawberry comparison.