Supreme Court and the Individual Mandate

Talk about "angels that can dance on the head of a pin" -- it has been fascinating over the last few days to watch the Democrats, who are clearly backed into a corner over the PPACA now being declared a TAX by the Supreme Court, try to spin this thing into ANYTHING but a tax.

It's better than watching old re-runs of Laugh In.

Sorry to tell you Obama lovers out there but this is socialized medicine that is presented as health care reform. You can beat the details around forever but at the end of the day, once again, the middle class pays the bill. The silent majority takes the hit. We have no voice in the matter.

I don't mind helping people who are truely in need by providing health care. What I do mind is paying more to support the legions of lazy welfare bums whose chosen lifestyle is the most unhealthy of the entire population.

Finally - for NateS and PST

I am enjoying the heck out of this discussion, but I can assure you that as we have dug deeply into the minutiae of this stuff, we LOST OUR AUDIENCE a long time ago.

I wonder if this little historical overview of the origin of the mandate, as reported by Fox, is correct?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 ... ered-past/

jnk wrote:I wonder if this little historical overview of the origin of the mandate, as reported by Fox, is correct?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 ... ered-past/

Yes, this is often a spear used by the liberals -- but I have read many times that it is factual.

There is no question that if we continue down this path to make health insurance available to "everyone" (which of course can never happen), then it is going to have to be funded somehow. There are no free lunches.

Speaking for myself, I would much prefer to see the barriers, that currently exist for intra-state insurance competition, fall and then for the insurance companies THEMSELVES to set up group policies of catastrophic insurance for millions of unattached citizens. By unattached, I mean those who currently do not have group policies through their employment. I think this would go a long way to greatly lower insurance costs. Of course there will always be a segment of our society that needs financial help to purchase such policies IF THEY ACTUALLY WANT IT, but the numbers (still in the millions) would be manageable instead of the almost criminal costs (Trillions upon trillions of dollars) now associated with ObamaCare.

Sloop wrote:Yes, this is often a spear used by the liberals -- but I have read many times that it is factual.

And the Heritage Foundation realized what a mistake it was four years later and significantly changed it's position.

Now that the precedent has been set, how long until we're all forced to buy a hybrid car... or pay a penalty (oops, I mean "tax"!)

Hogwash!!! I just bought me a 2005 Dodge Magnum station wagon w/a Hemi and I "ain't" parting w/it no how. It is one sleek, sexy looking machine in MINT condition and I LOVE it!!!

I haven't owned anything but an Olds Cierra station wagon since the 1980s and loved them for their 26-27 mpg and the "fit", just the right size inside and out for me, plus I loved the way they hug the road, the secure ride they gave. But the last one came off the lines in 1996 and the time had come to retire my current Cierra. *sigh*

So - I figured now was as good a time as any to enjoy a second childhood. In all likelihood this will be the last car I will ever own so .... I decided to splurge and go out in style!!! Hemi, sun roof, heated seats ....... I feel like a real RB in it, even in my jeans and t-shirt. *wicked grin*

Son even put a "Gangsta Mom" license plate on the front.

LinkC wrote:Now that the precedent has been set, how long until we're all forced to buy a hybrid car... or pay a penalty (oops, I mean "tax"!)

... and it will be a hybrid car produced in a union plant as the Democrats continue to bestow favors to in return for votes and large PAC contributions.

LinkC wrote:Now that the precedent has been set, how long until we're all forced to buy a hybrid car... or pay a penalty (oops, I mean "tax"!)

Shoot -- the list is endless. How long before Sebelius makes us buy solar panels or special windows for our homes?

mikewithe wrote:The whole discussion is moot, though; isn't it? After all, isn't the world ending on 12/21 of this year?

Nope. it's just the start of another calendar cycle.

Sloop wrote:There is no question that if we continue down this path to make health insurance available to "everyone" (which of course can never happen)

That is a very strange statement. How do you account for the fact that, through all phases of the business cycle, up and down, every other civilized, industrialized nation in the world provides all citizens with health care? You can talk about the present economic crisis in Europe all you want, but they also had it during economic boom times.

And if there were really a cause and effect between European universal coverage and their present economic crisis, then we here in America, who do not have it, should be in good shape economically now, right?

You can't isolate cause and effect in Europe and not isolate it in the US. In fact you can't isolate it at all.

Furthermore, you are confusing health insurance with health care. Not everyone wants health insurance, but everyone wants health care when they need it. The need for health care is not an optional choice. The analogy to purchasing broccoli is ridiculous and was just intended for audience sensation for the gullible.

Should health care just be for those who can afford it? This is ridiculous, not to mention immoral.

What has been happening for years here in America, up until the PPACA, is that we who can afford health insurance and the health care it purchases are paying through the nose for exorbitant CEO salaries and profits of the health insurance industry and for the expensive, barndoor open non-preventative health care given to those who cannot pay and whose cost is passed on to us through higher insurance payments to providers and higher premium costs to us.

But keep believing the propaganda of the health insurance industry and their lobbyists and kept politicians on the right.

Or, you might read:

Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans

Wendell Potter is the insurance industry's worst nightmare.
In June 2009, Wendell Potter made national headlines with his scorching testimony before the Senate panel on health care reform. This former senior VP of CIGNA explained how health insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, how they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and how they skew political debate with multibillion-dollar PR campaigns designed to spread disinformation.
Potter had walked away from a six-figure salary and two decades as an insurance executive because he could no longer abide the routine practices of an industry where the needs of sick and suffering Americans take a backseat to the bottom line. The last straw: when he visited a rural health clinic and saw hundreds of people standing in line in the rain to receive treatment in stalls built for livestock.
In Deadly Spin, Potter takes readers behind the scenes to show how a huge chunk of our absurd healthcare spending actually bankrolls a propaganda campaign and lobbying effort focused on protecting one thing: profits. Whatever the fate of the current health care legislation, it makes no attempt to change that fundamental problem.

http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Spin-Insur ... rd_title_0

Nate

This is getting silly, Sloop. You seem to be under the impression that there were no other tax aspects to the PPACA, and that therefore last Thursday's decision uncovered some constitutional infirmity arising from the requirement that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives. Nonsense. That decision found that the penalty for violating the mandate could be considered a tax, but there have always been open and acknowledged tax sections in the PPACA. Check out Title IX, which is entitled Revenue Provisions. That's why the Senate's version had to be in the form of an amendment to a House bill. You quote Wikipedia as if it contradicted me, but in fact it is saying exactly the same thing I said. The PPACA is H.R. 3590, a House bill, amended in the Senate. This was done deliberately to conform to the constitution. I won't quote your whole message here, just the most relevant part of the Wikipedia article:

Wikipedia wrote:The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members. As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[162] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[163] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

To repeat, this was done openly and with everyone's knowledge two and a half years ago. If anyone seriously thought that this called into question the validity of the act, don't you think some of the many plaintiffs who filed the lawsuits decided last week would have raised it? The issue was laid to rest by the Supreme Court back in 1910 in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. and reinforced by several courts ruling on the validity of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was substituted for the entire text of an unrelated House bill by a Republican Senate in 1982 and signed by President Reagan. This is old hat.

That is why you are dead wrong to say:

Sloop wrote:So obviously there is -- at the least - some doubt as to whether the process meets Constitutional muster for PPACA having actually originated in the House. This will be the CENTER of debate in the months to come.

There will be plenty of debate on other points, and this contention may rattle around the right-wing blogosphere for awhile until another shiny object presents itself, but it will not be a subject of actual debate because there is nothing to it. If you decline to believe me again this time, I can direct you to a conservative columnist who makes the same point:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washi ... itutional/

NateS wrote:

Sloop wrote:There is no question that if we continue down this path to make health insurance available to "everyone" (which of course can never happen)

Furthermore, you are confusing health insurance with health care. Not everyone wants health insurance, but everyone wants health care when they need it. The need for health care is not an optional choice. The analogy to purchasing broccoli is ridiculous and was just intended for audience sensation for the gullible.

Nate

No -- you are the one that is confused. I ALWAYS make sure I differentiate between health care and health insurance. Notice in my quote above that I specifically said "health insurance". And what I said is fact -- no matter what system is deployed in the U.S., we'll never come even close to 100% participation in health insurance. Even with ObamaCare as it stands now, there are some 20-25 million people who will not be covered.

PST wrote:This is getting silly, Sloop. You seem to be under the impression that there were no other tax aspects to the PPACA, and that therefore last Thursday's decision uncovered some constitutional infirmity arising from the requirement that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives. Nonsense.

You act as if I am the only one in the world who was quite surprised at Roberts finding that the mandate falls under a TAX. We are talking THE MANDATE -- not the rest of the provisions in the law. AND none of the liberals want to put their arms around the mandate now being ruled as a tax.
Get back on subject please.