Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) ruled constitutional - strong reactions abound

[AdminAssistant]

You say you have 'no need' of health insurance. Well, if you're a good driver, you should have 'no need' of car insurance, right? But accidents/natural disasters/shit happens, so we all carry car insurance so that we're prepared. Health insurance should be the same way.

[Hyena Dandy]

Nope but this bill is.

That provision of the bill is now a tax. Or, more accurate, that provision of the bill is allowable due to congress's ability to tax an individual.

"The state can obligate an individual to purchase health insurance" is the decision in a sentence. Thus, the state can obligate a person to purchase health care.

The provision regarding an employer providing health insurance is not. Because that was not what was challenged.

The supreme court is really only allowed to make a decision on the question they were asked. They are allowed (as happened in Citizens United) to ask that a case be re-argued to challenge something else.

They didn't. Whether or not you can oblige a non-profit to provide health insurance was not asked. And it can't be answered unless it's ASKED.

Essentially, a Supreme Court decision is an answer to a very simple question. "Can they do that?" And the answer is either "Yes, because..." Or "No, because..."

The court is not allowed to answer "Yes, but they can't do this other thing."

Edit: For clarification.

The court can usually answer "Yes, and they can also do this other thing." And they can answer, "No, and they can't do this other thing." But unless multiple things are challenged (as happened in the Arizona law) these multiple things can't be decided on. Unless the court orders a re-argument on that other question.

Double Edit: Rereading the decision now.

The court didn't declare the purchasing of health care a tax. The court declared that the penalty for not paying health care is a tax.

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 thatit 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. 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.Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave 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, 285
U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.

[Greenday]

I'm not arguing over whether it's legal or not. The Supreme Court already answered that question. I'm just pointing out that Obama just added a huge tax on a lot of us.

[gremcint]

actually some of the rules will reduce costs for some. no more charging people extra just because, people will be getting rebates because of how the companies have been spending the money.

Also it doesn't matter how healthy you are when a car runs you over.

[Andara Bledin]

Define "huge."

Include citations to be taken seriously.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I can't find the text of the bill at the moment.

However, you really are poorly portraying the idea. That Obama 'just added a huge tax on a lot of us.'

1) This law was passed in 2009. That part will not come into effect until 2014. No, he did not 'Just' add a huge tax. He added a penalty for not buying health insurance which is collected in the same manner as taxes.

"For individuals who are not exempt, and who do not receive healthinsurance through an employer or government program, the means ofsatisfying 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."

(Citation: Majority decision)

In other words - People who have no insurance, and whose employers don't give insurance, are expected to buy their own. If they don't, they pay a penalty. Assessed as a tax.

In 2014, you will be asked to pay a penalty of about 100 dollars ($95)

In 2015, you will be asked to pay about 400 dollars. (350)

In 2016, you will be asked to pay about 800 dollars. (750)

According to the summary I'm using, penalties will be 'indexed' after. This means they will be tied to a number the government tracks (most likely income, but it doesn't state indexed to WHAT) to determine what they will be.

Unless you can't afford to buy coverage. Or if you have less than poverty level income. Or your religion forbids health insurance. Or you have a full time job, and your employer has at least 200 employees, in which case you don't HAVE to buy coverage, you already have it.

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill04.pdf

And everybody needs health insurance. Accidents happen. You can be hit by a car. You can slip and fall. You could be in a crash. You could electrocute yourself. Nobody is careful enough that they are immune from mistakes.

[Andara Bledin]

Unless you can't afford to buy coverage. Or if you have less than poverty level income.

Actually, unless you live in a state run by assholes who choose to not adopt the expanded Medicaid rules, everyone who makes less than 133% of the poverty level qualifies. That's about 15-20% of the nation covered right there. From 133% to 250% gets assistance, and 200% to 400% gets tax cuts (I forget the exact term). For perspective about 50% of the country is below 400% of the poverty level.

^-.-^

[guywithashovel]

I was one of those ones who "waited" to buy health insurance until I had a need for it. For a long time, I was young and healthy, my job didn't provide coverage, and it seemed like a waste of money. But then on Christmas Eve 2010 I slipped and dislocated my shoulder. Because I was uninsured, the hospital gave me financial aid and a bill I could handle. Almost a year later, I had some more trouble with the shoulder, but was able to handle the care I needed (with financial aid from the hospital). But when I went to buy insurance later on, the companies wanted to significantly jack up my premiums all because of those shoulder incidents.

The deductible I have now is over four times what I could have gotten for almost the same price had this shoulder thing not happened.

Like others said, you never know when your health will run out.

[crashhelmet]

Back in 1993, my brother decided he didn't need to pay for insurance anymore. He would rather have had the money taken out of his check in his wallet. he had the very attitude of "I never get sick."

My dad got transfer orders to go from Orlando to the SF Bay Area and right after putting the very last item on the moving truck, my brother mis-stepped, fell off the back of the truck, and suffered a compound fracture in his arm. We spent Christmas with him in the hospital, recovering from reconstructive surgery.

He racked up so much debt from it that it took him about 8 years of living paycheck to paycheck to finally pay it all off. Had he kept his insurance, the surgery would've cost him his deductible and then just his co-pays for therapy. A hell of a lot cheaper than what he paid out for not having it.

You may go the rest of your life without ever getting hurt or sick. Even so, take advantage of having the insurance. Get annual physicals, get your eyes checked, your teeth cleaned, do the necessary preventative maintenance on your body that will help keep you healthy, if not healthier.

[KnitShoni]

I'm just amused at all the people threatening to move to Canada because of the ruling.

[Greenday]

I'm just amused at all the people threatening to move to Canada because of the ruling.

Same thing as we here with other unfavorable stuff. Only this time it's ironic.

[Fuzzykitten99]

Whether you agree or not with the ruling, the article link below is a great distillation of the decision and why it was made, and why those who are decrying the death of America, not to just toss those lemons we were just given. Make lemonade, lemon pie, cookies, whatever, and serve it up on a gold plate.

I clipped the center of the article for posting here.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398...ith-obamacare/

bold/underline/italics are mine.

...
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

...

With 26+ states suing the Federal Gov't over this, you can bet those and probably more, will 'opt out'.

[Greenday]

And unfortunately NJ isn't one of them. I mean, if you are going to tax/fine/whatever me, at least give me something in return. Why should I pay for something I don't receive?

[Andara Bledin]

Wow. That quoted blurb is just chock full of FUD.

First bolded bit: This isn't about the funding of the ACA, it's about the legality of the Individual Mandate (one of the two items under contention). To bring the funding of the ACA into the mix is disingenuous and a platform for the misinformation and misdirection that follow.

Second bolded bit: More of the same. Whether it's a penalty or tax is stupidly irreleant. You're still being assessed in the same fashion for the same reason by the same agency using the same criteria. If people care that it's legally a tax as opposed to a penalty, they're reacting, not thinking.

Third bolded bit: That part was specifically about the expansions to Medicaid, not the ACA as a whole. While this part of the ACA was an attempt to penalize those states who don't care about their poor and will refuse to expand the Medicaid program to cover people like, say, Mytical (to have a face to put to the people who desperately need this part of the ACA to be adopted by their states), who either don't have kids, or don't have kids young enough and make between 100% and 133% of the national poverty level. You can't even live on the 100% NPL level, and if you have any sort of medical issues, you're pretty much fucked.

Fourth bolded bit: Again, this isn't about funding the ACA; this was about the money being used to fund medical services for people who choose to not partake of a health plan and thus aren't even part of the ACA. Essentially, this fund is so that people hit by emergencies that they were betting (out of ignorance, stupidity, or hubris, usually) would never happen to them won't be ruined financially when it inevitably does.

Honestly, do yourself a favor and don't let other people tell you what the facts are; most of us have an agenda, and more often than not, it's not to educate others. It sure as hell wasn't the point of that article.

I feel sorry for the people who can't or can't be bothered to read either the act itself or the decision by the SCotUS to get to the truth.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

I feel sorry for the people who can't or can't be bothered to read either the act itself or the decision by the SCotUS to get to the truth.

Is there anyone here arguing against the SCOTUS decision or what it is? We know what the act is, we just disagree with it.

I believe in universal healthcare. I just wish this was what they are doing.