Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[Moiraine]

Just an observation:

 

Many positive posters to the decision before 5 PM - many more negative posters after they got home from work

 

we need a better rolleyes emote

[krill]

So now it's official, Congress, through the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution

 

 

That's what Pelosi and the rest of the lib elite cited in justifying this lesiglation long before scotus ruled.

 

 

I apologize, a face palm emote is not a good response.

 

The legislation was upheld on the basis of congressional authority to tax, and the constitutional interpretation of the commerce clause (which was the administration's main argument to avoid calling it a tax) was actually narrowed in today's decision.

[HSKR]

Just an observation:

 

Many positive posters to the decision before 5 PM - many more negative posters after they got home from work

 

You can tell rather quickly on here, who has strict non work related surfing/cell phone policies and who doesn't or maybe they still live in Mom and Dad's basement.

['SkersRule]

So now it's official, Congress, through the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution

 

 

That's what Pelosi and the rest of the lib elite cited in justifying this lesiglation long before scotus ruled.

 

 

I apologize, a face palm emote is not a good response.

 

The legislation was upheld on the basis of congressional authority to tax, and the constitutional interpretation of the commerce clause (which was the administration's main argument to avoid calling it a tax) was actually narrowed in today's decision.

 

That makes sense.

 

But what DOES NOT make sense is our government's ability to "tax" someone who is not involved in the market. Stated another way, if I own a house, I can be taxed for the purchase of the house, I can be taxed for the value of the property, and I can be taxed for neighborhood appearance. But how can I be "taxed" for owning a home if I do not own a home? This ruling, in effect, allows Congress to "tax" me even if I do not own a home/buy healthcare.

[Yossarian]

Just an observation:

 

Many positive posters to the decision before 5 PM - many more negative posters after they got home from work

Those peoples' jobs must not require them to wait for hours with only a laptop or phone to keep them connected.

 

 

 

It's hot out there running that shovel. I know. I used to be there.

 

Actually, Obama supporters like to surf the net on their bosses' dime.

[krill]

But what DOES NOT make sense is our government's ability to "tax" someone who is not involved in the market. Stated another way, if I own a house, I can be taxed for the purchase of the house, I can be taxed for the value of the property, and I can be taxed for neighborhood appearance. But how can I be "taxed" for owning a home if I do not own a home? This ruling, in effect, allows Congress to "tax" me even if I do not own a home/buy healthcare.

 

Justice Roberts's opinion was that congress does have this power. However, somewhere in all the hoopla today it's been lost that the individual mandate is still very unpopular. That won't change unless people who are currently insured see concrete proof that it is somehow going to enable lower their cost, and people who are not insured see a value in becoming insured.

['SkersRule]

Just an observation:

 

Many positive posters to the decision before 5 PM - many more negative posters after they got home from work

Those peoples' jobs must not require them to wait for hours with only a laptop or phone to keep them connected.

 

 

 

It's hot out there running that shovel. I know. I used to be there.

 

Actually, Obama supporters like to surf the net on their bosses' dime.

 

You mean George Soros?

['SkersRule]

But what DOES NOT make sense is our government's ability to "tax" someone who is not involved in the market. Stated another way, if I own a house, I can be taxed for the purchase of the house, I can be taxed for the value of the property, and I can be taxed for neighborhood appearance. But how can I be "taxed" for owning a home if I do not own a home? This ruling, in effect, allows Congress to "tax" me even if I do not own a home/buy healthcare.

 

Justice Roberts's opinion was that congress does have this power. However, somewhere in all the hoopla today it's been lost that the individual mandate is still very unpopular. That won't change unless people who are currently insured see concrete proof that it is somehow going to enable lower their cost, and people who are not insured see a value in becoming insured.

 

Can you point me to the rationale the Justice Roberts used in affirming that Congress does in fact have this power?

 

Trust me, it has not been "lost" that the individual mandate is unpopular. And count me as part of the skeptical (non-believing majority) who doubts that Obamacare will lower my, and others, costs.

[krill]

Here are excerpts of his opinion from the LA Times, beginning after the reasoning for why it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause.

 

http://www.latimes.c...urce=feedburner

 

----------------

 

That is not the end of the matter. Because the Com­merce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.”

 

****

 

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn­ing income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

 

****

 

Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur­ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Gov­ernment agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insur­ance, they have fully complied with the law.

 

Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance…. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citi­zens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.

 

****

 

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in §5000A under the taxing power, and that §5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.

 

****

 

Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is … not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa­tions. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchas­ing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

 

****

 

----------------

 

I meant to add to that last point that since health care is something that is intimately important to most Americans, and we have a historical tenancy to resist taxation, it stands to reason that if the ACA fails miserably it will be repealed / replaced down the road without an epic battle. If the worst fears of rationing, death panels, exploding spending, etc. are realized it will sink the Democratic party for a very long time. I think some people who do the big thinking are more worried about it actually working though.

[walksalone]

Call me simple, or whatever, I just think the individual should have the right to make the decision, whether or not he/she wants healthcare.

[JJ Husker]

Call me simple, or whatever, I just think the individual should have the right to make the decision, whether or not he/she wants healthcare.

 

That's not simple, that's exactly the way it should be in a free country. When the government can tell you what to purchase and then tax you if you don't purchase it, well that is something less than a free country.

[knapplc]

Where was the uproar over the legal requirements to have car insurance? Why is this piece of legislation any more of an infringement on personal rights than requiring insurance for your vehicle?

 

I'd like to believe the level of upset over this isn't simply based on party lines. But I'm having a hard time not seeing it that way.

[JJ Husker]

Where was the uproar over the legal requirements to have car insurance? Why is this piece of legislation any more of an infringement on personal rights than requiring insurance for your vehicle?

 

I'd like to believe the level of upset over this isn't simply based on party lines. But I'm having a hard time not seeing it that way.

I guess we all still have the right to pick and choose exactly what we want to complain about.

 

However, I view the ACA mandate to purchase health insurance a little differently than your example of auto insurance. Anyone who drives a car has a very real possibility of inficting direct damage on another persons body or property. If that person has no insurance and no other resources, the harmed person may not be fairly compensated for their loss. That is not the case with personal health insurance. If a person does not have health insurance, it harms no one other themself. Of course I am disregarding the cost shifting problem but, that problem is really caused by the notion that care must provided to those who cannot afford it and not by the ability to choose whether or not you purchase health insurance.

[carlfense]

[HSKR]

Where was the uproar over the legal requirements to have car insurance? Why is this piece of legislation any more of an infringement on personal rights than requiring insurance for your vehicle?

 

I'd like to believe the level of upset over this isn't simply based on party lines. But I'm having a hard time not seeing it that way.

 

You aren't required to get car insurance to fix your own car if it is in an accident, you are required to get it if you cause damage to someone else's at your fault. Terrible analogy. So you think I should get health insurance to help pay for your health? Well I guess you are getting your wish now.