I have listened to people’s hysteria over ACA for several years now. Part of it escapes me–the hysteria that is. Health care is horribly expensive. Insurance companies rip people off all the time and often one’s treatment depends on what is deemed appropriate by the insurance company, not by the medical community and the patient. People are excluded from health care because of pre-existing conditions. All the things I have mentioned are not good for the average person.
So I am looking for the cause of the hysteria. As I look, I am reminded of the vicious attacks on Hillary Clinton almost 20 years ago over health care. Again, the same conditions existed. Both Clinton and Obama were reviled by the same set of people. (they are 20 years older now) I am wondering if these same people are going to turn down Medicare?
It seems to me that the most obvious answer is to get in there and let it roll. If there is something objectionable, fix it. Why are we treating ACA like it is etched in stone like the 10 Commandments? There is plenty of time to look things over and to see obvious, glaring problems. In fact, democrats and republicans could become heroes. they could go get in there and fix things up legally by working together towards a common goal, sort of like Hatch and Kennedy used to do. Now there is a novel idea.
Additionally, I keep reading that this conservative or that conservative has called Roberts a traitor. Why is he a traitor? Does he not have free will to think for himself? Why must ever justice have an ideology on every topic? There is something refreshing about someone like Sandra Day O’Connor. She thought for herself. She surprised us. You knew that she thought things through.
mitt romney explaining why the individual mandate is such a crucial
part of good, effective healthcare reform:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SuVwcM6cLY
Well stated, Mr Romney!
Such support Starry! You’re going to vote for him because he’s a centrist! Right?
“It seems to me that the most obvious answer is to get in there and let it roll. If there is something objectionable, fix it. Why are we treating ACA like it is etched in stone like the 10 Commandments? There is plenty of time to look things over and to see obvious, glaring problems. ”
Have you seen the way the 10 Commandments are treated?
1) We just tried. The mandate was one such problem. Now we have this idiotic taxing problem because Roberts obviously felt the need to do….something. He stretched logic so badly that even I could see the illogic and contradictions. I mean, Roberts states that Congress has no power to declare a mandate, but we’re going to allow them to tax us to force us to do it anyway. http://unitedconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/06/syllabus-of-decision.html (be warned. I’m tired and I let my personal feelings out on his actions.)
2) we can’t fix it. Some of it is not written. It directs the Sec. to write regulations AS NEEDED. And the more time we have to “look over it” means more damage to the medical industry.
3) Name ONE entitlement that we’ve been able to manage, much less fix or remove.
4) The act defies the laws of supply and demand. You CANNOT increase demand and lower costs.
5) The act does not do what it was touted to do. It does NOT lower health care costs, gov’t costs, etc. It will NOT improve healthcare. See #4. The CBO has said so and has said that the gov’t was dishonest in its figuring.
6) It adds yet more power to the federal gov’t and to the IRS.
What makes Roberts a conservative? His support for Bush’s programs in the War on Terror? Bush was a progressive. So is Roberts. Any Justice that rewrites a law in direct opposition to the way it was presented and written….AND gives the Congress new power to tax….is a progressive.
No Democrat would dream of reducing the scope of ACR to fix ANYTHING. Its perfect. Just ask Nancy Pelosi. Now that we’ve passed it….I’m sure that she’s finally read it.
Medicare is also unconstitutional. Just because its popular doesn’t make it right.
@Cargo,
And you wonder why I sometimes make assertions that you consdier yourself the final word. 🙄
Roberts and Bush are NOT progressives.
If I were as riled up over the state of the nation as you are, I would have to jump off a bridge or be committed.
#4 That’s what happens when a company expands. The more volume, the lower the price.
I will bite. Who declared Medicare unconstitutional and how come no one has caught it in the past 50- years or so?
Amazing….I just read the dissent. And it matches my thoughts almost exactly.
Apparently, I’m brilliant. 🙂
For a non-hysteria take on how the decision impacts folks.
http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2012/06/28/the-health-care-decision-what-it-means-to-you/
Regarding the mandate and penalties and taxes… without getting into the federalism issue, it is long established that governments can have “mandates” and if we don’t comply we pay a penalty. For example RomneyCare in Mass. Or a penalty if we break the mandate of speed limits (if we are caught). Or the requirement in VA and most states that I if I have a car I am mandated to have car insurance or else pay an uninsured motorist fee.
So, is the requirement that people buy health insurance or pay the penalty a tax increase as some on the right are claiming (Fox was pivoting to this quickly after their screwup)? Only in the broadest sense of the word “tax” I suppose that could be right. By some definitions any money paid to government is a tax–including fees at national parks or to use the municipal parking lot (and the penalty of the ticket if you don’t). In common usage those things (and the uninsured motorist fee) are not so much seen as “taxes” but as a user fee or penalty for not complying with the law.
There are lots of good things in ACA–see link–that could be in jeopardy if ALL of us aren’t in the system (kind of like if car insurance were optional). People without health insurance are freeloaders who are gaming the system counting on the rest of us to take care of them if they bet wrong. They are one factor driving up health costs of all of us. For those who won’t take personal responsibility, there is the mandate, the “penalty” or “tax increase.”
Welcome, Bette Rose. Thanks for your insight. I agree with much of what you said.
“Breaking the mandate of speed limits” is an entirely different animal from breaking a mandate to pay a tax for simply being alive. Anyway, Obama swore this was not a tax, said that repeatedly, his lawyer argued to the Supremes that it was not a tax.
So the upside of this decision was the exposure of all the lies we knew the administration was telling all along, and the ones they told the Supreme Court during oral arguments:
Yeah, right. So why the huge increase in hiring IRS agents?
If Congress passed a law that said that your cable company had to provide you with internet access, without the ability to pay – they would go to the Supreme Court – and rightly have it overturned.
But, Congress has mandated that Healthcare be given out and not denied based on the ability of the person to pay – is that fair or correct? The only reason why so many people skirt the system is because of this – the ability to get treatment when they need it the most. If the ER were able to turn you away, many more people would be out getting insurance.
What changes were there in Healthcare between HillaryCare and ObamaCare – nothing. Nuff said.
Insurance across state lines – tell the states to give up the states rights of regulating insurance plans. Talk about a Fed overreach.
I understand the Repeal part, what I do not have a good grasp on is the Replace part. Too bad the R’s waited until HCR to reveal that they had a plan ready to implement. Is there a better way – Yes – and it is up to Congress to fix it.
Healthcare costs and outcomes – http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm – the US spends more money (and increasingly more) than other nations, and we do not have better outcomes.
PPACA – is it perfect, hardly. Status Quo is not helping out economy – we are spending way too much on HC compared to other nations, which is making the US more non competitive. But, people do not like change, especially when you have special interests skewing the facts to make it work in their favor. There are many good things in there – if Congress were to come up with a plan to fix it, Congress would become more favorable.
Many people do not know that States can get Waivers out of the individual mandate – if they have a plan in place to cover all residents.
I am tired of subsidizing the HC of many many people that can afford it – they just decide to free ride the system – how many young people go without insurance because they are healthy – but when the get into an accident, they skip out on the bill. Some of you have sons and daughters that have done that (you may not know it).
@Cargosquid
Romney is no longer casting himself as a centrist. I couldn’t support him now. I think he used to be a decent candidate, before he started pandering for the far rightie vote.
I see him now as someone who will say anything to get elected. Who knows how he will govern.
“I see him now as someone who will say anything to get elected. Who knows how he will govern.”
As opposed to Obama, who has been the great uniter?
@No Emma, I wasn’t comparing him to Obama. However, since you brought it up, I wasn’t an Obama supporter in the first place. Obama became more centrist after getting in office and so therefore, he has grown on me. all the things he liberaled about before getting elected I disliked anyway so I am pleased.
I like Romney while gov. of Massachusetts. He was a centrist. He is no longer.
What I fail to see is why supposed conservatives are trying to protect the free riders. You people have howled about welfare recipients for as long as I can remember. Now you are protecting, at all costs, the health care welfare recipients–those who go to the hospital ER, uninsured, and bascially get free service. Meanwhile, the rest of us chumps pay…and pay large amounts.
I don’t get it. At least be consistent.
Emma, no one said it was a tax…Roberts said the ability to tax made it allowable to extract a penalty.
You are simply arguing over what it is called. More importantly are you protecting the free riders? Shouldn’t they have to pay also? Just askin’.
@Moon-howler
Conservatives are not protecting the free-riders. I despise free-riders and anyone who expects me to work and produce to support their irresponsible behavior. We’re protecting the right to choose to be a free-rider. Without that freedom of choice we all become nothing more than servants of the government.
Obama and the other collectivists miss the point entirely. Their view is that everyone should share the same benefits regardless of the choices they make. Health care for all! Someone should have the right to make any choice they want. If their behavior and choices are irresponsible, they should bear the burden of those choices; not me or any other producers.
If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance and then needs care, I don’t object to the care being provided in emergency circumstances. However, their bill should be attached to their tax liability and their income garnished until their debt is paid in full for the services received.
The individual mandate for health insurance is not analogous to auto liability insurance, which we are required to purchase. You can choose not to use the public roadways and avoid buying the insurance. Using the roadways is a privilege rather than a right, and carries costs that all who benefit should pay. Liability is one of those costs. The health care mandate leaves one with no choice. Either follow the government’s dictate or pay the huge tax. The Supreme Court yesterday clearly defined the payment as a tax – the largest tax increase in the history of our nation.
I’m not defending free-riders in any degree. I’m defending freedom of choice and of conscience, and the obligation of everyone to deal with the consequences of their choices, whether good or bad, without recourse to the fruits of my productivity.
@NTK, You missed something. People can still be free riders. REgardless. You are protecting them, regardless of how you justify it. You are going to have health care. They are not. However, if they show up at the emergency room ill, they are going to get the same treatment as you do. That is not Obama’s fault.
I guess I am a collectivist (is that the name du jour that we are called?0. I want health care for everyone. I don’t think people should be able to just drive up to the ER while I pay for it. I also don’t think people should have to die in the street.
The amount of bells and whistles you have with your plan is up to you…but the basics should be for everyone. Private room, whistling IV, no deductive, specialist non referrals and all that….those are the extras we pay for. That should be the difference, not the dying in the street or me paying for someone elses.
@Need to Know
Well said.
I’m not overly depressed on the ruling. I think I said on another thread that Roberts did put a spear into the heart of the governments argument that they could compel under the Commerce Clause. I think anyone with half a brain knew that could not be the case.
The government however does have the power to tax and in this case they are taxing inactivity. They are taxing a choice not to participate. While unwise and for many unjust it is a legal power of the Federal Government.
What Roberts showed us is that spineless politicians that carry an R behind their name got us to this point. Instead of showing the testicular fortitude they should to beat down Big Government they allowed this monstrosity to progress. They had hoped that the courts would make the decision that they were themselves afraid to make. Roberts gave them a double pumper and said, “It’s your bed. You lay in it.”
Republicans handed the Federals an unheard of level of power to dictate to us what we can and cannot do. While this may have passed by the votes of Democrats I forgive them for they are not very bright and can’t see past themselves and the emotional feelings for having ‘done something good’. I do not forgive the Republicans because they consistent slide to the left from them got us here.
We’ve made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, and no further!
And by the way. Y’all live in a fantasy world if you think Romney will try and over turn it. The Republican party had one real chance to move away from where we are headed and instead they threw their lot in with the Dems by advancing Romney.
A strong argument could be made for calling out people who are “not very bright.” Let’s just not get that started.
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
(b)Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations (OF COURSE NOT. YOU CAN BUY INSURANCE AND PAY THE “TAX), as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.
BUT HERE’S THE KEY SENTENCE:
Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.
It is a tax per Roberts.
So what. What difference does it make what it is called. Roberts named it that, Not Obama.
@marinm
I have no animosity toward the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court. Their job is not to make public policy, but to decide based on rational thought and reason if a law is or is not constitutional. That’s what Roberts did. Roberts wrote in his ruling that it is not based on whether the Affordable Care Act is or is not good public policy. That is a decision for the political process to make.
Interestingly, it’s the liberals on the court who have shown themselves to be rubber stamps for the party line. All four virtually always vote for whatever their side wants politically. The President’s health care bill won yesterday because one of the conservative justices, Chief Justice Roberts, chose to make a decision based on reason and the Constitution rather than on politics and his own “feelings.” The Chief Justice chose to do his job as the Founding Fathers intended and leave policy-making to the Congress and the President.
Medicare is unconstitutional as the program and programs like it are not authorized in any part of the Constitution. Of course, there is no politician other than Ron Paul willing to say it. And so, it will remain “constitutional” until a court case can be made.
That said, since medicare IS the law of the land…..and likely to remain so….why did the Feds decide not to just expand medicare to everybody, since getting everybody into health care coverage was the goal? If its good enough for those 65 and older, its good enough for all. Just think, we could end Medicaid and all other health assistance. I mean….we’re already paying THAT tax.
Air traffic controllers aren’t authorized by the constitution either.
As for your medicare question, lots of people think that would be a good idea. On the other hand, young sprout, the idea of medicare was for retired people to have affordable health care when they no longer have an income.
Those capable of work should probably pull their own weight without a discount.
You seem to show lots of resentment towards what the older populations gets. I base this statement on remarks you have made about Medicare, social security and pensions.
If everyone gets medicare then they would have to pay a higher premium than those 65 and older pay.
@Need to Know
Roberts made that decision to save the “appearance” of the court. He didn’t want to be seen as “partisan” if the court overturned it 5-4. And so he tortured the language to make a non-tax penalty into a non-penalty tax.
This was a victory for no one except the Court.
Cargo, you make it sound like Roberts sat down and had a little chat with you as to his motives. Now…I don’t think that happened. You should identify statements like that as speculation and opinion. You and I have no idea why he did as he did.
Perhaps it is because he is a good Catholic boy and in addition to being conservative, he is also very much aware of social justice and that aspect of the church. I was just speculating….
@Need to Know
Agreed. “It is not our job to protect the people,” Roberts wrote, “from the consequences of their political choices.”
Cargo, I disagree to an extent. I think Roberts slapped the Republican party and said you can’t rely on us to fix your mess. I think he put this into a very stark contrast for us – do we want to be like Greece and vote ourselves into destruction or save ourselves? The choice is ours.
@marinm
Its not his job to “slap” anybody. Either something is unconstitutional or not. Yes, Congress made the mess. Of course…the Republicans did NOT make this one. No Republican voted for it and we don’t have the votes to repeal it.
If you’re talking about spending in general…yes. Its the problem caused by both parties.
The Republicans had 8 years to sit down and draft a health care bill during the Bush years. They did not do it, knowing that reform was needed. In that way, they are very much at fault.
@marinm
We can’t emphasize the path to becoming Greece enough. That’s our future if we continue doing as we are doing. The only difference is that the U.S. will be the last to fall from debt and fiscal irresponsibility, and there’s no one there to bail us out.
So what happened to the massive Tea Party “rampage” that Patrick Kennedy predicted would happen if the ACA was upheld?
What an ass.
The day is young. I do expect a rampage, but then I am an ass. I would like very much to be proven wrong, and that the tea party will just go quietly off and lick its wounds…operative word being quietly. Somehow, I don’t think that will happen.
@Cargosquid
I agree the fiscal problems arise from the actions of both Parties. No one can look back at the Bush years and accuse the Republicans of fiscal responsibility. We must earn the public’s trust by actions from today forward. That change must take place from the Prince William County Board of Supervisors (don’t relent, Pete Candland) to the Congress and, hopefully after November, the White House.
@Emma
Its coming….but its coming inside the party. The Tea Party is getting active at the grass roots level where candidates are chosen and approved.
Protests are nice….but, for the Tea Party, we’re past that. Let OCCUPY make noise.
If you are going to start making noise again, how about chosing another name and get organized rather than the million headless “clubs.” That way you can get credit for good things and take heat for bad things, just like everyone else. Stop latching on to the Republicans. They aren’t your butt monkeys. You really are going to make them lose every election. If you all are that forceful, then stand on yor own and be your own party.
I have nothing against real Republicans. I have a lot against some of the fools calling themselves Republicans.
@Cargosquid
Except of course if Ms. Snowe had voted to kill it in committee we wouldn’t be here.
@Need to Know
Exactly. If we want to bring back the trust of Americans regarding fiscal matters we can’t simply vote in people like George Allen that say they’ll ‘fix’ things but in reailty vote for increased spending. No sacred cows. We have to be willing to tax, spend and cut with an eye on preserving our priorities and doing so without a vice grip on the taxpayer.
@Emma
My personal favorite was the DNC tweeting, It’s constitutional, bitches!
Form your own party. Stop trying to take over an existing party and telling the old guard how to run things.
Strap on a pair and be your own people.
Dupe because my comment went into moderation.
@Cargosquid
Except of course if Ms. Snowe had voted to kill it in committee we wouldn’t be here.
@Need to Know
Exactly. If we want to bring back the trust of Americans regarding fiscal matters we can’t simply vote in people like George Allen that say they’ll ‘fix’ things but in reailty vote for increased spending. No sacred cows. We have to be willing to tax, spend and cut with an eye on preserving our priorities and doing so without a vice grip on the taxpayer.
@Emma
My personal favorite was the DNC tweeting, It’s constitutional, bitches!
@marinm
I voted for George Allen in the primary because he has the best chance of beating Kaine. Granted, Allen isn’t perfect but he has said he will vote to repeal Obamacare. He had a conservative, if not perfect, record when he was in the Senate previously.
@marinm
Snowe? But you were blaming Republicans….. 😉
The Status Quo is not going to help us in Healthcare, Taxes, Deficit or Debt.
Hide in your cave and blame it all on the Dem’s. The FACTS are that the Republicans spent money (the very SAME Republicans that want to gut everything but DoD) without any regard for the funding or the costs. Ryan, Cantor, Boehner, the list goes on – they were part of the creation of the mess, and want to blame everyone else when it is time to clean up.
Standing ovation @ Pat Herve
@Pat Herve
I think marinm and I beat you to the punch in saying that Republicans share the blame for our fiscal problems; Bush era in particular. I’m on record on multiple occaisions on MH in stating my preference for a “mind-our-own-business” foreign policy that relies on a much cheaper military.
How do you figure a massive expansion of the government and the largest tax hike in history (that still won’t fully pay for Obamacare, by the way) is going to help our fiscal situation?
@Pat Herve
Welcome to the Tea Party.
The Status Quo will NOT help. ACR is now the status quo.
Repeal it.THAT right there will save 900 billion.
Freeze spending. Period. No more increases. No more base line increases, including entitlements.
Take back all the money sucked out of Social Security. Put THAT back into a fund to pay Social Security. THAT should be a separate account. No more mixing of funds.
Cut programs and combine them. Get rid of departments. Education…not needed. I’m sure there are others.
Pat, you are absolutely right. The Republicans and the Democrats spent too much. So, let’s fix it. Prioritize.
You know, I dont think that is exactly what Pat was saying.
Freeze spending? Now what on earth does that mean? Is that another attempt to not pay our bills? Refuse to pay our workers?
@Cargosquid
Cargosquid for President!
That’s the difference between a partisan and a conservative. A partisan will always say my party first no matter what they do, or however inconsistent they are with the party’s core values. A true fiscal conservative will police their own and not hide from the truth. That’s true whether we’re talking about Republicans on the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, the US Congress, or the White House flushing our money down the toilet.
@Need to Know
NTK said: “Interestingly, it’s the liberals on the court who have shown themselves to be rubber stamps for the party line. All four virtually always vote for whatever their side wants politically.”
I know this is probably against Fox News orthodoxy, but you should look at … what’s the word? … facts.
The most consistent voting block on the Court is Scalia and Thomas, who agreed 93% of the time. Ranked second is Roberts and Alito, who agreed 91% of the time. That means even the Court’s most reliable voting block did not agree about 1 in 10 times. The biggest divergence is between Scalia and Ginsburg, who agreed on 56% of decisions, which means even the polar extremes agreed more often than they did not. http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/
The Court does seem to more often than not divide along party lines in landmark cases related to politics, like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, but usually there is an O’Connor or a Kennedy who gains a reputation as the “swing vote” that keeps either side from truly highjacking the Court.
I miss O’Connor.
I miss O’Connor also. She is probably my favorite justice in my lifetime. I even forgive her for bush vs. Gore decision.
cargo – no, I will not be a participant to the tea party.
ntk – much of what you have written here is very partisan. Like the sound bite – “largest tax hike in history” – which one – HCR is so not the largest tax hike in history, the SS Tax reduction that the R’s tried so hard to squash is much larger, and affects more people. The bush tax cuts expiring (which were supposed to be temporary) – much larger. Just sound bites because it sounds good.
Another standing ovation for Pat Herve
It is like the kid that has a party at his parents house when they are away on vacation. One hundred people show up and trash the house. When the parents get home, his only defense is – but I only invited about 10 people over, never realizing his mistake was having the party in the first place.
I do not trust the same R’s and D’s that got us into much of this unfunded spending to figure a way out of the mess that they created. IF they decided to get to work and do something beneficial for the people, even better. But this constant partisan political obstructionist ways are hurting all of us. Making sure the President is defeated at every turn is not good for our economy.
take the likes of Eric Cantor – the only spending he does not like is spending proposed by a D or Obama. Voting for war and voting for tax cuts at the same time – borrow more to make war – makes no sense to anyone, but they did it.
@Pat Herve
Now…see, this is why I say…Welcome to the Tea Party.
Cantor is not a popular guy there either. He got a lot of heat….including from me. I was a delegate at the last convention.
@Moon-howler
When I say freeze…I mean keep the same budget as we have this year. Don’t increase spending. The “cuts” that are coming are cuts to baseline increases. Even the cuts to the military do not actually reduce anything but expected increases.
Prioritize. Pay the bills first. Then start prioritizing. What don’t we NEED?
Notice that there’s no REDUCED spending. This year is 1 trillion in deficit spending. I’ve given up on the current President living up to his word on cutting spending….not that I believed his lies to begin with. And the only party that pays lip service to fiscal responsibility is terrified of growing a collective spine and actually cutting spending and telling the Democrats “NO.” instead of agreeing to idiocies like the recent highway bill. The House should refuse everything until the Senate obeys the law and writes and passes a budget to reconcile with the House.
I don’t understand this. Right wingers say the ACA is a tax increase, so we should repeal it in order to – um – save money? Um, isn’t that a bit contradictory?
….FLASHBACK: Romney Acknowledged His Massachusetts Healthcare Plan Imposed A Tax
By Michael Falcone | ABC OTUS News – 23 hrs ago..
ABC News’ Michael Falcone reports:
In what is now a well-known exchange from ABC News’ January 2008 Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney declared “I like mandates” when asked by moderator Charlie Gibson about his approach to health care reform in Massachusetts.
But there’s another moment from the debate that’s getting more traction after yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling – on in which Romney says “yes,” when asked is the health reform law he ushered in as governor constituted a tax.
GIBSON: “Governor … you imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts?”
ROMNEY: “Yes, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way; don’t be free-riders.”
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-acknowledges-08-healthcare-plan-imposed-tax-131255148–abc-news-politics.html
@Starryflights
Actually, you are half right. ROBERTS says its a tax increase…we are just taking him at his word. Obama is still calling it a penalty. CBO says that it will cost money, not save money.
Not all taxes raise more than is spent. Just see the current administration.
You know….if President Obama continues to insist that the “tax” IS a penalty, SCOTUS should amend their ruling. According to them, if its a penalty, then the Act is unconstitutional.
Maybe someone should tell the President.
Cargo, do you think you might be nit-picking? A rose by any other name. Worry over the important things. Its a freaking fine.
Seems most people don’t like the ACA. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Some parts are popular, like the extention of benefits to elder children, but overall it is seriously flawed. The Law is so complex, and includes so many items unrelated to healthcare(i.e., a total takeover of the college loan system by the Dept of Education,) that it will actually be an impediment to our nations health. I don’t see the insurers losing out in the long run, just the taxpayer. It has already and will affect me and my family greatly. It will certainly cost me more money. Reform was certainly needed, but I personally think the ACA is a overreach by the Feds.
Why are college loans in the health care package?
Are you sure?
The reason the ACA is so involved is because each state has its own medicaid program. 50X +y =2700
@Moon-howler
I agree with you. The Court does not. The definitions are what make it “legal.” Roberts had to torture his way to “tax” instead of “penalty.” He states that if its a penalty…its not legal.
But a federal law does not have to match each state. It just has to have a blanket federal law that states “X” and the states adapt to IT.
Reform can happen. This just isn’t it. It needs to be repealed.
I have read that each state was dealt with individually. Is that your impression?
http://m.atr.org/article.php?id=6996
The taxes involved in ACR
Yes. But that’s not the only reason it is complex. Regulatory power grabs always are complex. And a big problem is that the bill states that the Sec of Health and Human services is to write the regulations as needed. So Congress pass an UNWRITTEN bill. How does Congress pass a bill that does not have the actual laws written?
I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld Romneycare.
Congress did not pass an unwritten bill.
Really? Since the Sec. is supposed to write the regs as needed, and a lot of them are still not written….please define unwritten for me. You seem to have a different definition.
A bill authorizing laws to be written is not a valid bill. How can citizenry be expected to follow laws that have been passed, but not written?
I have been trying to find an eloquent way to state my thoughts about the SCOTUS ruling. I am just going to say it straight out: I’m pissed.
Roberts undoubtedly has a brilliant legal mind, but it was not on display here. There is absolutely no way that a scholar of the Constitution could come to the conclusion that he did using the tortured “reasoning” and logical gymnastics necessary to re-label Obamacare as a tax.
It is clear that for some unknown reason he WANTED this outcome. Whether it was to preserve the appearance of a bipartisan court or to avoid throwing out major economic legislation or to establish his place in history, the opinion reads like he decided what the answer would be and then rationalized why it should be so. Whatever the motivation, his choice is a sad one for the country because it effectively ended any limits to what Congress can do to us.
Despite my disagreement with them, I respect the Liberal justices much more than Roberts, because they gave a reasoned, straightforward description as to why they believe Congress has the power to establish the individual mandate. Most importantly, their opinion requires no magical reinterpretation of the penalty for noncompliance to be a tax, especially after Obama said it was not.
Because of Roberts’ dissembling and overall lack of forthrightness, my opinion, based on careful analysis, and thus much better reasoning than the SCOTUS decision, is that when it really mattered the Chief Justice behaved no better than a cheap, mail-order lawyer that routinely bilks his poor, uneducated clients.
And on the other hand, how many of us here are Constitutional lawyers? I know I am not any kind of lawyer. These decisions are based on the interpretation of hundreds of other laws.
I actually don’t have an opinion of Roberts one way or another other than I am glad he isn’t locked in to voting the same way all the time. I liked that about O’Connor also. I think a good mix is needed but not this ideological 4/5 stuff most of the time.
Regardless of how anyone feels about Roberts, he is young and should be with us a long time. Look what happened with Blackmun. He was appointed by a conservative and continued to grow more liberal. Stevens also.
@kelly_3406
Since you have done a careful analysis of the decision could you cite some specific places where CJ Roberts is off base? Your earlier comment is made up of generalities and lacks specifics. It would be easier to agree or disagree with you if I could read what he said and review the authorities he relied upon.