Healthcare Law Prediction Thread UPDATE: ACA UPHELD

[The-Noid]

As a tax it's easier to kill as well. Can't believe no one has brought that up yet. 51 votes...

 

[dank69]

dank is reading SCOTUSblog 🙂

:thumbsup:

 

[munkus]

Kind of interesting. There is no political accountability in this as we heard for months "this is not a tax," however I am glad to see SCOTUS took it that way rather than giving congress even more power/precident under the commerce clause...

And the pundits are saying this could be considered the largest "tax" in history.

I suppose time will tell if the dire predictions about the long wait times, poor quality of care, and doctors jumping ship will come true or not.

Can't wait for the Presidential Debates. Gonna be ugly. <gets popcorn ready>

 

[NoStateofMind]

I thought I lived in the USA. Apparently I'm mistaken because America is a nation of laws with its chief document being the Constitution. Where is this? The USSR reborn?

 

[The-Noid]

And the pundits are saying this could be considered the largest "tax" in history.

I suppose time will tell if the dire predictions about the long wait times, poor quality of care, and doctors jumping ship will come true or not.

Can't wait for the Presidential Debates. Gonna be ugly. <gets popcorn ready>

No question, this is the largest tax increase on poor and middle class Americans in history.

It is a tax though.

 

[MovingTarget]

all this does is raise taxes on those that already pay taxes. The people that couldn't afford health insurance before this, still won't be able to afford health insurance now. It doesn't put money in anyones pocket except the government.
I hope i'm not right, but I can imagine a lot of employers are going to start dropping their health coverage benefits for their employees and just pay the $2000 penalty (tax) as that is much cheaper for the employer. The employees are going to have to foot the bill now, which means many more people will be dependent on the government, which is what the Libs want. They want total control over our lives.

Libs wanting people to be dependent on the government is pure fallacy. No liberal wants that. Second, there is a silver lining if that does happen. One of the dumbest, most counterproductive things about our health "insurance" industry is the fact that it is largely tied to one's employment. That puts our companies at a global disadvantage and discourages entrepreneurship by individuals.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

There's a better discussion going on in this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2254712&page=8

 

[zinfamous]

I'm pretty shocked that they didn't. Crazy times we live in...

especially when the chief arbitor of precedent-rejecting activist judgments (Roberts) sides with the "left," and the expected defender of the swinging "middle" (Kennedy) is the only one to outright overturn everything about the law.

Crazy decision any way you look at it.

 

[zinfamous]

I thought I lived in the USA. Apparently I'm mistaken because America is a nation of laws with its chief document being the Constitution. Where is this? The USSR reborn?

wake me when your family and all your neighbors are sent to the Gulag.

🙄

 

[dmcowen674]

I thought I lived in the USA. Apparently I'm mistaken because America is a nation of laws with its chief document being the Constitution. Where is this? The USSR reborn?

Does that mean you will leave? :thumbsup:

 

[Slew Foot]

Called it, what do I win?

 

[Atreus21]

I thought I lived in the USA. Apparently I'm mistaken because America is a nation of laws with its chief document being the Constitution. Where is this? The USSR reborn?

The USSR had a constitution, or something like it. It protected freedom of speech, religion, and most of what ours does.

It just didn't really abide by it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

wake me when your family and all your neighbors are sent to the Gulag.

🙄

I take it you are happy your new overlords. What you are missing is that Obamacare has set the precedent that it is now Constitutional to remove your freedom of choice for anything. You have no protections, only faith in the beneficence of our effective masters.

 

[woolfe9999]

I take it you are happy your new overlords. What you are missing is that Obamacare has set the precedent that it is now Constitutional to remove your freedom of choice for anything. You have no protections, only faith in the beneficence of our effective masters.

You sure this is the implication of this precedent, or are you perhaps exaggerating just a wee bit?

 

[dank69]

I take it you are happy your new overlords. What you are missing is that Obamacare has set the precedent that it is now Constitutional to remove your freedom of choice for anything. You have no protections, only faith in the beneficence of our effective masters.

Are you saying we can no longer vote out our representatives when they do something we don't like? Yes, that's what you are saying.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You sure this is the implication of this precedent, or are you perhaps exaggerating just a wee bit?

What is the Constitutional limit now in coercion other than outright illegal activities? I don't mean depending on good will but Constitutional "the government cannot" sort.

 

[zinfamous]

I take it you are happy your new overlords. What you are missing is that Obamacare has set the precedent that it is now Constitutional to remove your freedom of choice for anything. You have no protections, only faith in the beneficence of our effective masters.

Again: wake me when you are sent to the Gulag.

🙄




(aka: most of you are irrational and pathetic)

 

[woolfe9999]

What is the Constitutional limit now in coercion other than outright illegal activities? I don't mean depending on good will but Constitutional "the government cannot" sort.

Uhm, let's see. How about the Bill of Rights? What about this ruling says the government can ban speech? What about this ruling says the state can conduct unreasonable and warrantless search and seizure? What about this ruling says the state can compel you to incriminate yourself? What about this ruling says the state can ban or endorse religion? What about this ruling says the state can ban sodomy? For that matter, what about this ruling overturns Roe V. Wade and permits the state to ban early term abortions?

Need I go on?

What I don't understand is why you think it's OK if the state forcibly taxes you then buys you health insurance, but isn't OK that they require you to take what would otherwise have been that same money and buy the insurance yourself, having choices about which policy to buy instead of the government deciding for you? Which abridges freedom of choice more?

 

[Infohawk]

What I don't understand is why you think it's OK if the state forcibly taxes you then buys you health insurance, but isn't OK that they require you to take what would otherwise have been that same money and buy the insurance yourself, having choices about which policy to buy instead of the government deciding for you?

I can't think of many situations where the government forces you to buy something from a private entity. The only one I can think of is auto insurance, which is very narrowly tailored to the risk inherent in driving an automobile and where you can still make a choice not to drive. In a normal tax situation, you are paying the government and the government is providing you a service.

I actually think this forced purchasing from private entities could be a concern for some left-wing people if they weren't so caught up in the (potentially unrealistic) hope that this law means affordable health care for all Americans. Granted, it doesn't seem likely there will be other measures that require people to buy other products from private entities.

I'm not as concerned as Hayabusa, but this does seem to be something qualitatively new. But maybe someone knows of other examples where government has forced citizens to buy something from private parties.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you saying we can no longer vote out our representatives when they do something we don't like? Yes, that's what you are saying.

I'm saying there is unrestrained power available to those in office. Maybe they get voted out maybe not, but what is done is done unless it's overturned by Congress. Remember this when the next Dick Cheney becomes elected.

 

[werepossum]

I'm saying there is unrestrained power available to those in office. Maybe they get voted out maybe not, but what is done is done unless it's overturned by Congress. Remember this when the next Dick Cheney becomes elected.

The mandate seems to me to be fairly mild compared to Wickard v. Filburn and downright libertarian compared to Kelo v. New London. SCOTUS is government, and with the notable exception of First and Second Amendment rights, government is not in the business of dis-empowering government.

 

[fskimospy]

I can't think of many situations where the government forces you to buy something from a private entity. The only one I can think of is auto insurance, which is very narrowly tailored to the risk inherent in driving an automobile and where you can still make a choice not to drive. In a normal tax situation, you are paying the government and the government is providing you a service.

I actually think this forced purchasing from private entities could be a concern for some left-wing people if they weren't so caught up in the (potentially unrealistic) hope that this law means affordable health care for all Americans. Granted, it doesn't seem likely there will be other measures that require people to buy other products from private entities.

I'm not as concerned as Hayabusa, but this does seem to be something qualitatively new. But maybe someone knows of other examples where government has forced citizens to buy something from private parties.

George Washington signed a law shortly after the ratification of the Constitution that required all able bodied men to buy a gun from private industry. (well, I guess they could have made it themselves)

 

[woolfe9999]

I can't think of many situations where the government forces you to buy something from a private entity. The only one I can think of is auto insurance, which is very narrowly tailored to the risk inherent in driving an automobile and where you can still make a choice not to drive. In a normal tax situation, you are paying the government and the government is providing you a service.

I actually think this forced purchasing from private entities could be a concern for some left-wing people if they weren't so caught up in the (potentially unrealistic) hope that this law means affordable health care for all Americans. Granted, it doesn't seem likely there will be other measures that require people to buy other products from private entities.

I'm not as concerned as Hayabusa, but this does seem to be something qualitatively new. But maybe someone knows of other examples where government has forced citizens to buy something from private parties.

Well, it's not "new" for government to require you to purchase things. It goes back to the founding of the republic. Nonetheless, in the current climate it is unusual. Unusual does not equate with tyrannical, however. My point was that in every way that you compare this to tax and spending, this is less coercive. We have only a little indirect control (through the ballot box) over how our tax money is spent. With this mandate, we have options about which insurance to buy. Furthermore, there are no hardship exemptions for taxes. With the Medicare tax, you pay into if you earn any income at all. With this mandate, there are numerous exemptions. I just don't see how one is tyrannical and the other is not.

- wolf

 

[Matt1970]

Obama: If you make under $250,000 a year your taxes will not go up one dime........

Except for the $5000 a year health care tax.

 

[Pulsar]

Breaking news:

Congress has imposed a $5,000 a gallon tax if you don't buy milk each week. They have also enacted a tax on the cost of a gallon of milk: $5000 a gallon. They agree milk 'does a body good', so this is clearly for the common good of the nation.