Amerikan Politics- Affordable Care Act Supreme Court Ruling

[Dreadnaught]

Tomorrow the US Supreme Court will rule on whether a key component of Obama's health care legislation is constitutional. Assuming the judges decide the law can be ruled on (which is likely), the key question turns to whether it is constitutional to force Americans to buy private health insurance.

If, Allah-willing, the Supreme Court finds that it is not constitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance, they will then rule on whether this finding means the entire law must be scrapped. Or if only this component of the law is scrapped.

On top is an expiring poll where you can vote on what you think will happen just to the "individual mandate" to buy insurance.

A summary of the issues for those (especially non-Americans) who haven't followed closely: http://money.usnews.com/money/person...on-the-mandate

[Lewkowski]

Pretty sure they will overturn just the individual mandate. I'd love for them to overturn the entire law but that's just wishful thinking IMO.

[Ominous Gamer]

fuck yeah!

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well Dread, on the positive side, at least you don't have to change your pants.

[earthJoker]

Seems Allah was not so strong today.

[Veldan Rath]

Okay, so what is the next thing the Fed can force us to buy?

[Aimless]

Roads, a ninth grade education,

[Veldan Rath]

Roads, a ninth grade education,

Uh huh...okay.

This is nothing like that and you know it.

[Flixy]

Uh huh...okay.

This is nothing like that and you know it.

You don't have compulsory education?

[Aimless]

Uh huh...okay.

This is nothing like that and you know it.

True, you're after all not actually forced to buy the insurance whereas you may be forced to get a basic education :P

[Loki]

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/1...-on-obamacare/ Result almost entirely predicted by a simple poli sci model.

[Flixy]

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/1...-on-obamacare/ Result almost entirely predicted by a simple poli sci model.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ng-127544.html

Not by CNN and Fox, it seems!

[Loki]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ng-127544.html

Not by CNN and Fox, it seems!

They couldn't even predict the result after it was made public.

[Veldan Rath]

Here's the fun part, the SCOTUS said this is a tax. Thus Congress can do it (which does make some sense in that regard), but didn't a certain president promise to NOT raise taxes on the middle class????

[Loki]

To be fair, this is mostly a tax on the poor.

[Veldan Rath]

Who will all vote for him again.

[Veldan Rath]

It's not a product that I have to purchase or be fined (taxed) if I don't buy it.

[Flixy]

It's not a product that I have to purchase or be fined (taxed) if I don't buy it.

Sorry, forgot about homeschooling, but realistically it means for the vast majority that you either use the state product, or purchase admission in a private school. No education = a fine.


Anyway, with your reasoning..

- The Government cannot force you to purchase a service
- But it can provide a service (and effectively pay it through taxes)
- So it could, in principle (not that it would ever pass) provide universal healthcare, as long as they provide it
- They are allowed to pay private companies to do it
- But government is ineffective, inefficient, and shitty, and there would be no competition
- Cutting out the middle man, government, and forcing you to buy insurance is evil.

So basically the complaint about government inefficiency and lack of competition is mainly there because you don't want to give them the possibility to do it efficiently or effectively?

(NOTE: I am not suggesting in any way that this law is efficient, but it basically provides universal healthcare, while allowing competition between private insurers)

(NOTE 2: It appears to me most people who oppose this are against universal healthcare altogether, and don't see health insurance as a right. I suggest we skip that, since Congress passed the law, so for the sake of the argument, there's a majority in favour of that)

[wiggin]

I think this is actually a fascinating decision. I felt beforehand it was likely the mandate would be struck down (and, actually, the rest of the law with it, since the argumentation seemed to indicate that the gov't AND the court felt it was central to the law) specifically because PPACA had been written stupidly. If they had phrased it as a tax, it would have been easy to defend; their problem was that it wasn't a tax, and the gov't argued it was regulating commerce.

What's fascinating is that Kennedy didn't buy it (I didn't either) and voted against it... but Roberts essentially decided that even if the gov't had a bunk case, the underlying law was essentially a tax, which is fine constitutionally. I never thought Roberts would go there (especially for a 5-4 decision), but he did. I'm not the biggest fan of PPACA, but I applaud Roberts for making what he clearly think is a principled decision even if he may personally dislike the law.

[Veldan Rath]

In that I agree Wiggin. In his reading of the majority he slamed Congress on the commerce clause, but as he (and the other 4) rules that this is a Tax, fine and good. It does put PresbO in the icky situation in that he had several interviews that this was NOT a tax.

Poor people without insurance...and not able to get...enjoy!

[Aimless]

Just add it to their benefits or let them continue to rely exclusively on emergency care in lieu of sanity.

[Veldan Rath]

What benefits?

Again these are people (some %) that don't have insurance cause they can't afford it. So....how does making them pay a Shared Responsibility Penalty to the IRS get them on insurance?

[Aimless]

What benefits?

The ones they should get by virtue of being poor of course! It's step 2 in the grand, mad but constitutional plan to realise the socialist nightmare.

[Knux897]

Perhaps I'm way out of the loop here, but I got the impression that this forced Americans to buy health insurance or else risk a fine. While this seems to be popular consensus, other people defend it as something else.

" They aren't forcing anybody to buy anything, my good soldier, just Incentivizing it. They CANT force anybody, there is no way to. Plus, who in their right mind goes without Health insurance these days anyway? The only reason I don't have it is because I can't afford it for myself, but hopefully, this bill will change that."


This was a comment on a Facebook post by a friend of mine. Is there some major misconception that Obamacare gives insurance to those who cannot afford it, or is it much deeper than that? I certainly don't want to ever be forced to buy a product or face a fine, but I'm not quite sure if this is just Fox News spewing bullshit everywhere.

[Aimless]

Perhaps I'm way out of the loop here, but I got the impression that this forced Americans to buy health insurance or else risk a fine. While this seems to be popular consensus, other people defend it as something else.

" They aren't forcing anybody to buy anything, my good soldier, just Incentivizing it. They CANT force anybody, there is no way to. Plus, who in their right mind goes without Health insurance these days anyway? The only reason I don't have it is because I can't afford it for myself, but hopefully, this bill will change that."


This was a comment on a Facebook post by a friend of mine. Is there some major misconception that Obamacare gives insurance to those who cannot afford it, or is it much deeper than that? I certainly don't want to ever be forced to buy a product or face a fine, but I'm not quite sure if this is just Fox News spewing bullshit everywhere.

Premiums will be subsidised for those who can't otherwise afford them.

[Knux897]

Premiums will be subsidised for those who can't otherwise afford them.

But why can't the government just enforce this without requirement to actually buy insurance? I can understand as discussed earlier the need for taxes for roads, schools, etc. but now it's a forced decision to buy a product from different companies. The government already has more power than many American people are comfortable with, so why is there so much emphasis on the mandatory buying? I'm obviously aware that most people who can afford it have it anyways, but it seems to me that the government is taking much more power into its hands than necessary.

[Aimless]

But why can't the government just enforce this without requirement to actually buy insurance?

Seemingly the only way to make the affordable care act affordable for the insured, the insurers and the government. See remarks above about how the individual mandate could have been the key to toppling the whole thing. Of course there are those who are convinced that Obamacare isn't affordable no matter what but you know how that goes

[Veldan Rath]

So, when will the Fed require that you buy disability insurance? (AFLACK!)

[wiggin]

So, when will the Fed require that you buy disability insurance? (AFLACK!)

Uh, it's called Social Security Disability Insurance, and it's funded through mandatory payroll taxes.

The Chief Justice, concerned with the perception of the court and his "legacy", might have subverted his principles on a case like this. He didn't want to be the Chief Justice who would be cited for being "partisan" and re-opening how we understand the Commerce Clause. He didn't want to be reviled by the left and the media (same thing?) forever for making the tough choice.

There's support for this as experts and bloggers have begun dissecting the rulings. Key are slices of Scalia's dissent, which suggest his opinion was originally a concurring majority opinion. In other words, Scalia's opinion suggests that the Chief Justice changed his vote at the last minute.

I find it highly unlikely that Roberts changed his vote because of some concern about his legacy (after all, doesn't this cement his 'legacy' as a turncoat conservative?). I think he genuinely believed this was a tax (forget the politicking of the White House) and that there was no constitutional problem thereof. Just because the dissent may have been originally written as a majority opinion doesn't mean Roberts was worried about his legacy - it means he was on the fence and eventually decided one way. We can't ascribe motivation to his choice.

I think that the Obama administration would have had a much stronger case had they written the PPACA slightly differently to change how the mandate works. The end result would have been identical (or nearly so), but the language would have been different, which makes all the difference. Fundamentally, Roberts was recognizing this reality and ruling according to his legal understanding of the law, not the rhetoric put forth by the administration. I think in that context his actions were appropriate.

[Loki]

Uh, it's called Social Security Disability Insurance, and it's funded through mandatory payroll taxes.

The difference here is that people are being forced to buy a private product. Then again, we already pay for publicly-financed sports stadiums.