Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

PST wrote:
But no matter how long, complicated, convoluted, or ill-drafted anyone believes the PPACA to be, you'd better believe there was an army of interested parties reading each and every page.

That's why they get paid the big bucks.

AARP Responds to Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

AARP is pleased that the Supreme Court found the critically important provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to be constitutional. This landmark legislation is already improving the health and financial security of our members and all Americans.
from: Press Center | June 28, 2012

AARP supported this law because it helps many Medicare recipients avoid financially burdensome increases in prescription drug costs by closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, or "doughnut hole." The ACA also expands the number of people eligible for free preventive and wellness benefits, and cracks down on Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. Finally, for those not yet eligible for Medicare, the ACA will be instrumental in eliminating discriminatory health insurance practices such as exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, and in limiting the use of age rating to charge exorbitant premiums for older Americans.

http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/press-ce ... id=36421.0

Nate

All this stuff is over my head. But I will say this:

If traditional media were anywhere near as informed and articulate as PST, I do believe that I would consume more traditional media.

Mr. PST, you are a patient man, Sir. You missed your calling if you don't work in education.

For speed readers:

Nifty electronically tabbed compilation of the decision for speed readers.

The Supreme Court Decision on the 2010 Health Care Law

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... h_20120629

Respectfully, Nate

Sorry if this has been answered but I have a question. Obama said this was NOT a tax and it will lower healthcare cost. That's how he sold the bill.

Well since, the Court ruled it is a tax. (no question here)

How is Obamacare going to lower the cost of healthcare?

Ticman wrote:Sorry if this has been answered but I have a question. Obama said this was NOT a tax and it will lower healthcare cost. That's how he sold the bill.

Well since, the Court ruled it is a tax. (no question here)

How is Obamacare going to lower the cost of healthcare?

You are not supposed to let such trivial matters bother you.

Ticman wrote:Sorry if this has been answered but I have a question. Obama said this was NOT a tax and it will lower healthcare cost. That's how he sold the bill.

Well since, the Court ruled it is a tax. (no question here)

How is Obamacare going to lower the cost of healthcare?

Your question begs another.
How is one related to the other? Does it really matter what label gets stuck to it to define the mechanism that pays for the program? Is the label "tax" somehow going to magically change the effectiveness? In short, no. And, so what if it is a tax? After all, taxes pay for things like roads, and pipes that bring water mains to your property lines, schools for our children, etc. Furthermore our government already spends more of your tax dollars PER PERSON on medical care than any of the 50+ countries that have successful socialized medicine programs. And despite this FACT, we still have MILLIONS of uninsured people with no access to medical care. This is simply deplorable in the greatest country on earth and we have to do something to fix it. I personally don't know if the PPACA will work as claimed, but I want it to and I want to give it a chance to.

One thing that I do know is that I am unwilling to listen to conservatives who are not at all interested in the truth. People who instead are only interested in spreading half truths and fear mongering. And I'm certainly not interested in listening to a man who's so desperate to win at any cost that he would turn his back on the successful program that he created and that was used as the model for the PPACA just to gain the support of the party.

Ticman wrote:Sorry if this has been answered but I have a question. Obama said this was NOT a tax and it will lower healthcare cost. That's how he sold the bill.

Well since, the Court ruled it is a tax. (no question here)

How is Obamacare going to lower the cost of healthcare?

There IS a question whether the Court ruled that the insurance mandate is a tax. News reports have been very superficial about describing what the justices actually said. Only one justice out of nine based his opinion on the theory that the mandate is a tax, but he was the swing vote and wrote the main opinion.

First, the question isn't whether the whole PPACA should be characterized as a tax, but how best to analyze one particular part. Chief Justice Roberts described the relevant part this way at pages 7-8 of his opinion (citations omitted):

The individual mandate requires most Americans to maintain "minimum essential" health insurance coverage... Many individuals will receive the required coverage through their employer, or from a government program such as Medicaid or Medicare. But for individuals who are not exempt and do not receive health insurance through a third party, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company.

Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a "[s]hared responsibility payment" to the Federal Government. That payment, which the Act describes as a "penalty," is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual's household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). The Act provides that the penalty will be paid tothe Internal Revenue Service with an individual's taxes, and "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund."

Most people thought the Court would view the mandate as a requirement (a "command") that everyone buy insurance, accompanied by a penalty assessed against anyone who failed to do so. The question would be whether Congress has the power to impose such a requirement under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Eight justices saw the issue that way, but they split 4-4 on the answer. Chief Justice Roberts was alone in holding that Congress has no authority to impose such a requirement under the interstate commerce clause, but then asking whether it had the authority to do so under its taxing power. He explained that he had a duty to look at the law in every reasonable way, because the Court should always try uphold the constitutionality of legislation if it can. He admitted that the mandate doesn't look much like a tax, but he analyzed it as a tax anyway because he felt that this was his responsibility, saying at pages 44-45:

[T]he statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be interpreted as a tax. Without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction. The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose atax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.

I know that there are a number of conservative commentators today crowing, "It's a tax, it's a tax. They said it wasn't but the Court says it is." I think that will turn out to be one of those arguments that people who already agree with one another love, but that just makes everyone else say, "So what?" If you think that the mandate is a good idea because it prevents free riders from taking unfair advantage of a plan to extend insurance coverage to everyone, then you won't care if one justice calls it a tax. After all, you won't be paying it. And if you see the mandate as an infringement on liberty and a federal power grab over the healthcare system, I can't see how this makes it any worse. So in my opinion, at least, a week from now everyone will remember that the Court upheld the PPACA and only the hard core opponents will remember or care that the Chief Justice decided he could view the mandate as a tax if he squinted one eye and tilted his head a little.

mikewithe wrote:
Furthermore our government already spends more of your tax dollars PER PERSON on medical care than any of the 50+ countries that have successful socialized medicine programs. And despite this FACT, we still have MILLIONS of uninsured people with no access to medical care.

Yes but ObamaCare was sold to the public under the premise that it would LOWER health care costs. It was sold under the premise of REVENUE NEUTRAL. (The OMB has already doubled it's original estimate.)
Now I won't even bother you with Obama's promise of NO NEW TAXES -- what did he say in the State Of The Union address ? "Not one thin dime" to those making under $250,000.

I guess none of this matters, huh?

mikewithe wrote:
And despite this FACT, we still have MILLIONS of uninsured people with no access to medical care. This is simply deplorable in the greatest country on earth and we have to do something to fix it.

No -- they have no access to medical INSURANCE. Quite a different story. And of those millions, a large percentage opts NOT to pay for the insurance, because they are young, healthy, and indestructable. They choose to pay for material things.

BTW -- yesterday's ruling STILL does not solve the issue of 15-20 million who DO NOT HAVE ACCESS to the insurance. In fact, with the other ruling on Medicade, it now sets the bar higher for those people. So, you are talking in circles.

Sloop wrote:

mikewithe wrote:
Furthermore our government already spends more of your tax dollars PER PERSON on medical care than any of the 50+ countries that have successful socialized medicine programs. And despite this FACT, we still have MILLIONS of uninsured people with no access to medical care.

Yes but ObamaCare was sold to the public under the premise that it would LOWER health care costs. It was sold under the premise of REVENUE NEUTRAL. (The OMB has already doubled it's original estimate.)
Now I won't even bother you with Obama's promise of NO NEW TAXES -- what did he say in the State Of The Union address ? "Not one thin dime" to those making under $250,000.

I guess none of this matters, huh?

You very obviously have no interest in debate. You've made up your mind to fight to the death to defend your irrational fear. So much so that you are unwilling or unable to listen to reason or to even read for yourself. If you'd take the time to read, or to listen, you'd understand that those who can't afford it will receive subsidies to offset the cost and many, if not most, will receive 100% subsidies. So where's the "thin dime?"

So just go back to faux err.. Fox "news", or Rush Limbaugh so you can hear people who agree with your narrow minded opinions as that is clearly all you are interested in. I have no more time to waste on fools such as yourself.

mikewithe wrote:
So just go back to faux err.. Fox "news", or Rush Limbaugh so you can hear people who agree with your narrow minded opinions as that is clearly all you are interested in. I have no more time to waste on fools such as yourself.

Sorry you feel that way -- but trust me, I fully understand where you are coming from.

One thing that I do know is that I am unwilling to listen to conservatives who are not at all interested in the truth.

Only willing to listen to liberals who are not at all interested in the truth.

mikewithe wrote:

Ticman wrote:Sorry if this has been answered but I have a question. Obama said this was NOT a tax and it will lower healthcare cost. That's how he sold the bill.

Well since, the Court ruled it is a tax. (no question here)

How is Obamacare going to lower the cost of healthcare?

Your question begs another.
How is one related to the other? Does it really matter what label gets stuck to it to define the mechanism that pays for the program? Is the label "tax" somehow going to magically change the effectiveness? In short, no. And, so what if it is a tax? After all, taxes pay for things like roads, and pipes that bring water mains to your property lines, schools for our children, etc. Furthermore our government already spends more of your tax dollars PER PERSON on medical care than any of the 50+ countries that have successful socialized medicine programs. And despite this FACT, we still have MILLIONS of uninsured people with no access to medical care. This is simply deplorable in the greatest country on earth and we have to do something to fix it. I personally don't know if the PPACA will work as claimed, but I want it to and I want to give it a chance to.

One thing that I do know is that I am unwilling to listen to conservatives who are not at all interested in the truth. People who instead are only interested in spreading half truths and fear mongering. And I'm certainly not interested in listening to a man who's so desperate to win at any cost that he would turn his back on the successful program that he created and that was used as the model for the PPACA just to gain the support of the party.

So to simplify this. Obama lied and you're okay with it. Is that about right?

Ticman wrote: So to simplify this. Obama lied and you're okay with it. Is that about right?

And Obama lied how, exactly?

One Justice, over whom he, i.e., the President, has no control decided to say that the mandate was kind of sort of like a tax and that makes Obama a liar? No, I don't think so. But if you feel like that vindicates your view of the President, so be it.