SCOTUS stands by insurance mandate, 5-4

Jan 2009
5,841
50
#1
All Americans will be required to have insurance by 2014 or will have to pay a penalty.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...are-overhaul-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

Edit: States will not have the gun-to-the-head with medicaid expansion though. SCOTUS ruled that they will have the choice of sticking to the current medicaid structure without fear of losing all funds.

Edit again: It will be interesting to see if any states decide to keep the current structure. Might mean people who can't afford insurance end up qualifying for hardship waivers and don't have to buy insurance anyway.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#2
All Americans will be required to have insurance by 2014 or will have to pay a penalty.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...are-overhaul-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

Edit: States will not have the gun-to-the-head with medicaid expansion though. SCOTUS ruled that they will have the choice of sticking to the current medicaid structure without fear of losing all funds.

Edit again: It will be interesting to see if any states decide to keep the current structure. Might mean people who can't afford insurance end up qualifying for hardship waivers and don't have to buy insurance anyway.
Just another sad day in America.:( With this Court and this president the "The Constitution" means less everyday.:( They all want to "make history". Right or wrong makes no difference.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#5
Just another sad day in America.:( With this Court and this president the "The Constitution" means less everyday.:( They all want to "make history". Right or wrong makes no difference.
I disagree on your sentiment that the Constitution means less. It is open to interpretation and these are Constitutional law scholars. They easily know more about the Constitution and its meanings than you or I.

Justice Roberts made it very clear that this decision is not an endorsement of sound policy, but just lawfulness.

I do not think the mandate was a good thing necessarily, but there are two issues at hand here and if it is lawful, it is lawful.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#6
I disagree on your sentiment that the Constitution means less. It is open to interpretation and these are Constitutional law scholars. They easily know more about the Constitution and its meanings than you or I.

Justice Roberts made it very clear that this decision is not an endorsement of sound policy, but just lawfulness.

I do not think the mandate was a good thing necessarily, but there are two issues at hand here and if it is lawful, it is lawful.
Justice Roberts caved in. We all know they can call anything "lawful". The 4 that disagreed were also "Constitutional law scholars", were they not?
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#7
Justice Roberts caved in. We all know they can call anything "lawful". The 4 that disagreed were also "Constitutional law scholars", were they not?
They were. But this is the way our government operates. It always has. Furthermore, it is the way the Constitution itself says things operate. At the end of the day, any piece of writing is up to interpretation. All we can do is respect the views of the court of the land. They have said they are not acting out of politics, but law, and I give them that benefit of the doubt. Also, it is a bit more complicated that 4-5, I realized. There were several situations that unfolded and various votes. For example the medicaid expansion vote that led to its ruling was a contingent vote on states not losing current benefits (as opposed to throwing medicaid expansion out or keeping it altogether) and votes moved around as things unfolded (I think the eventual medicaid part passed 6-3 if I remember correctly).
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#8
They were. But this is the way our government operates. It always has. Furthermore, it is the way the Constitution itself says things operate. At the end of the day, any piece of writing is up to interpretation. All we can do is respect the views of the court of the land. They have said they are not acting out of politics, but law, and I give them that benefit of the doubt. Also, it is a bit more complicated that 4-5, I realized. There were several situations that unfolded and various votes. For example the medicaid expansion vote that led to its ruling was a contingent vote on states not losing current benefits (as opposed to throwing medicaid expansion out or keeping it altogether) and votes moved around as things unfolded (I think the eventual medicaid part passed 6-3 if I remember correctly).
I can't respect anything that I see as clearly wrong. And when we as people just believe anything they say "must be right" we just give our rights away. I believe from my very soul that more and more "politics" trumps the Constitution in America. Some of our so called leaders see their job as pushing the envelope on the Constitution so they can "change America".

But it is our fault. We keep electing the same trash over and over.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#9
I can't respect anything that I see as clearly wrong. And when we as people just believe anything they say "must be right" we just give our rights away. I believe from my very soul that more and more "politics" trumps the Constitution in America. Some of our so called leaders see their job as pushing the envelope on the Constitution so they can "change America".

But it is our fault. We keep electing the same trash over and over.
I understand you do not like this law (neither do I), but that is not the question here. The question is whether it is lawful. Do you find it lawful as per the Constitution and if not, why?
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#10
And a bit on what it came down to for the SCOTUS. From the decision: "The issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so."

Roberts saw it as a tax. The dissenters did not.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#11
I understand you do not like this law (neither do I), but that is not the question here. The question is whether it is lawful. Do you find it lawful as per the Constitution and if not, why?
I don't see how it can be lawful to require someone to buy a product or service just because they are alive. But it seems we now have a new "lawful" here in the former land of the free.

But now I have a reason to vote for Romney. I have being looking for one for months.;)
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#12
And a bit on what it came down to for the SCOTUS. From the decision: "The issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so."

Roberts saw it as a tax. The dissenters did not.
I think Roberts over thought it and gave it a stretch.:(
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#13
I think Roberts over thought it and gave it a stretch.:(
Eh, this bill has no criminal penalties for not buying insurance. What it does have is fines. Effectively, that could be viewed as a tax. Even Greg Mankiw, one of Romney's economic advisors (and a famous economist and conservative) pointed that out.

I will agree that as a tax it could have been framed better semantically. But that might not have been the political goal. Either way, enough justices saw it that way and it is the law now as per even the Constitution.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#14
Eh, this bill has no criminal penalties for not buying insurance. What it does have is fines. Effectively, that could be viewed as a tax. Even Greg Mankiw, one of Romney's economic advisors (and a famous economist and conservative) pointed that out.

I will agree that as a tax it could have been framed better semantically. But that might not have been the political goal. Either way, enough justices saw it that way and it is the law now as per even the Constitution.
I guess so with the new spin on the Constitution. But there is some good to the ruling.

We now know what we need to do to get rid of it. And it will pull more people together that want it gone. We will see how it plays out in Nov.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#16
It is not a "new spin" but is an interpretation. The law and every law system in history has always worked like this.

The onus is on Congress to change the law.
That is what I was saying when I said:

"We now know what we need to do to get rid of it. And it will pull more people together that want it gone. We will see how it plays out in Nov."
 
Mar 2012
44
0
Michigan
#17
The problem with this as a “tax” is that it is either a selective tax, or it means that everyone actually pays the “penalty tax” but those who have insurance basically get a refund of that “tax.”
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#18
The problem with this as a “tax” is that it is either a selective tax, or it means that everyone actually pays the “penalty tax” but those who have insurance basically get a refund of that “tax.”
There are plenty of selective taxes, especially Pigouvian taxes, which would be the point. I am not sure of the details on how this will work, but I know in Massachusetts it works as a deduction that everyone who has insurance gets and those who don't have insurance lose.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#20
Interesting and rare piece on the inner-workings of the SCOTUS justices (namely Roberts) leading up to the decision: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_16...re-law/?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody
He worries about his "legacy". Well now he has one. One that I would be ashamed to have. I don't know why he did what he did. Maybe he was paid off in some way, or felt threatened about something. I hope he feels the love from this chicken-excrement move for a long time.
 

Similar Discussions