San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis

The problems I have with the law are as follows:
(a) too complex. Public coverage for everyone, with the right to purchase additional private coverage would have much simpler.
(b) it doesn't necessarily cover the very poor. Medicaid eligibility is raised to 133% of the poverty line, but states aren't actually required to implement that provision.

brian, I DO worry about my aging brethren living in the "red states." Even the ones significantly younger than me don't seem to take very good care of themselves. I'm pretty sure most vote Republican and some vote Independent. Even many people "of color" (whatever that means, lol) living in "red states" vote Republican and there are many Republican elected representatives "of color."

I see huge populations of these "red states" not being healthy enough to "weather the storm" (last until old age). I think this mindset is a function of local food and culture (incl smoking allowed in restaurants, bars and offices), the dearth of fresh produce in many areas and wanting freedom from all government restrictions (having thin local governments to protect them from polluted waters and so forth). The meth scrouge has invaded the states of KS, MO, IL, TN, AR, OK (and maybe others), incl their environments and their thin ranks of rural law enforcement cannot keep up with it (even with the DEA "setting up shop" in targeted areas there). I think there is a bit of malaise caused by "situational depression" going around in some of those parts but if you ask the locals if they would ever consider relocating, the answer is a resounding, NO! They love where they are.

I don't know the answer. Perhaps more education on TV there on nutrition and effects of environmental hazards??

We're all going to have to pay for their healthcare in one way or another beginning 2014.

BRian
Did you mean the Venetian Cafe? I know the owner well. Not bad but you gotta step it up. I could send you to. Much better eats

I'm becoming like flu, I gave up on the Red States some time ago. Screw them if they can't make the right decisions for themselves.

We need to proceed as if they don't exist because they can't be persuaded by logic anyway.

Economically though they can't do without us and their elite all live in our states while keeping their official residences back home so they can hold on to power.

sdrealtor, I don't know the Venetian Cafe.
My friends live near Upenn and they wanted to go to the Vientiane Cafe which is a Thai restaurant on Baltimore.

BTW, Asian food in california is much better, IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7cT5xD2aM

Interesting. But the supreme court ruled that it's not a tax. Nuance is importance.

Must be a different place. You are right about Thai, sushi, Indian,Vietnamese etc being better but Chinese food is better there. Hit up Chinatown next time

"The Supreme Court upheld most of President Obama's Health Care law, including the controversial individual mandate that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance or be subject to a fine. The court said that fine ultimately amounts to a tax, and therefore the government does have the power to impose it."

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/0...

"In other words, the Court said that Congress can impose a 'tax' on people if they don't buy health insurance."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

fwiw, after subsidies and other help to get people into insurance plans, the penalty will affect about 2% of taxpayers. Hardly a huge middle class tax increase.

Obama is vindicated and riding high this week.

A Supreme Court defeat would have emboldened his critics and depressed his base making him vulnerable to the charge that he wasted political capital for nothing.

Yep. Roberts also said:

“The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits ‘for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.’… Congress, however, chose to describe the ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a ‘tax,’ but as a ‘penalty.’ …There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to ‘any tax’ would apply to a ‘penalty.’”

Congress’s decision to label this exaction a ‘penalty’ rather than a ‘tax’ is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as ‘taxes.’”

….

The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits."

The court applied two different tests to determine whether the penalty is a tax under two different powers. It is not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction act, and is a tax under the taxing powers of congress.

In the same ruling, it was judged to be both a tax and not a tax.

SK: Good point, as many are missing the nuance in the Roberts' decision, which did emphatically reject the Obama Administration's Commerce Clause argument: "The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. ... The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. ... Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and – under the government's theory – empower Congress to make those decisions for him."

While some, like Brian, are gloating over what they perceive as a clear-cut victory, in truth, it's anything but. The rebuke: "Under our written Constitution ... the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace."

This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn't finished yet.

Yeah, I caught that, too. I wasn't quite sure what to make of that.

I'm less than convinced that this was a meaningful decision wrt that battle. It appears to limit the commerce clause to activity, rather than inactivity. There is some almost ancient precedent allowing regulation of inactivity, which was ignored (i think?) in the majority opinions. But then the court allowed regulation of inactivity through taxation (penalties). Arguably a wash. Powers under the commerce clause may suffered a little damage around the edges. It will take something bigger to shove Wilsonian evolution back in the bottle.

It's time for celebration indeed. A victory for a signature legislation, something that eluded presidents for decades.

When the Court ruled in favor of Bush and gave him the presidency, the other side celebrated. Now it's our turn. Fair is fair.

How is this not a clear victory as far the Affordable Care Act is concerned?

You're thinking too far, Allan. The Administration was not seeking to expand the power of the Federal government infinitely beyond health care.

Here, Obama got the law that he wanted and that's what matters.

Madbury v. Madison?... Maybe my American history is rusty.

A number of legal observers compared Roberts’s threading-the-needle approach Thursday to the strategy used by one of Roberts’s judicial heroes, Chief Justice John Marshall.

In the landmark 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, Marshall established the court’s power of judicial review that persists to this day. But the decision itself was a legal pretzel, concluding that Thomas Jefferson’s administration had acted illegally but also that the court lacked jurisdiction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/r...

SK: It will definitely take something bigger than ACA, but, if you take the wider (and non-partisan) vantage, then Roberts' decision was entirely consistent and in keeping with his views as a jurist.

Many on the liberal side celebrated his decision as some sort of "revolt", but the truth is far more sanguine. It was very much a conservative opinion and it pushed back strongly on what was viewed as an over-reach. His language was emphatic and it was clear.

Within the larger and looming battle over entitlement reform, this decision will have due weight. The days of the "Blue State Model" and the "New Deal/Great Society" Dems are approaching an end and for reasons other than politics or partisanship. Simple arithmetic is going to kill or severely curtail programs dating back to the 1930s. It's becoming all of a piece and, as the saying goes, "The best laws are made in the courts."

Brian: I don't have the time or the inclination to take you to task for your imprecise understanding of American history.

No, I wasn't referencing Marbury versus Madison, but rather Madisonian ideals (limited government as dictated by the enumerated powers found in the Constitution) versus Wilsonian ideals (misguided and wrong-headed philosophy that holds government involvement as necessary to cure/prevent all manner of social "ills" and pushes the Constitution to its most elastic limits.)

We continue to live with Wilson's misbegotten legacy, most notably in the Nanny State foisted upon us by the "Progressives", those do-gooders who ultimately do the most harm.

ACA remains a deeply flawed piece of legislation, and largely because Obama decided to outsource it to Congress, versus taking the role on himself and crafting a law that would stand the test of time. In terms of a Dem who knew how to get things done, you need look no further than LBJ. This was a hardball negotiator of the first order and the legislation that emerged HAS stood the test of time. Obama was so concerned over his "legacy" that he forgot to do the actual work. And, if you think the GOP isn't going to use this decision to their utmost advantage in what will prove to be a vicious and hard-fought election, well, Brian, you truly do NOT have a good understanding of American history.

Roberts wanted to rule on the constitutionality of penalty now rather than wait for later, until the penalty goes into effect. So he took advantage of the fact that Congress did not label the penalty a tax.

The Anti-Injunction Act is a act of Congress, so it makes sense that the Supreme Court defer to Congress when it comes to the definition of a tax.

But for all intents and purposes, the penalty is a tax so it's allowed under the Constitution regardless of the label. Here, the Court is deciding powers defined in the Constitution itself.

Makes prefect sense to me.

Allan, my AP History teacher's husband was a scholar of Woodrow Wilson. I don't know much about Madison.

Beside, Wilson is much more of our times... I don't really want to go back to Madison's time. Anything before the Industrial Revolution and WWI is a different world. The way we live has changed so much.

Despite how you feel about Obama, I believe that even you have to acknowledge that the Supreme Court's decision is to Obama's advantage. A negative outcome would have done much more damage to Obama's reelection chances and legacy.

BTW, whereas Antonin Scalia represents the other side, Stephen Breyer is my hero. I think it's a comparison that people living today can more easily understand.

Very short version. Madison-limited federal government. Wilson - federal government solves problems. Wilson, think FDR New Deal.

Justices are people too.

I believe that Roberts wanted ACA because the country needs health care reform. ACA may not be ideal but it's better than nothing, because nothing is what we'd get without ACA.

Scalia knew of the Court's decision so that's why he was so furious on Monday. Scalia's rant was directed at Obama but he was furious at Roberts.

Roberts ruled that the penalty for not having health insurance was not a tax for the purpose of the Anti-Injuction Act. He could easily have reached that same conclusion with regard to the constitutionality of the penalty/tax and sided with the conservative wing of the court.

But Roberts chose to hand Obama a victory because it was the right thing to do for the country and the credibility of the Court.

I also think that on gay marriage, Roberts will side with the liberal wing. We shall see.

Excellent discussion as always by Allan and SK, but as Shakespeare might say: "A tax by any other name would smell as sweet." And Zeit might say looks like a tax, walks like a tax, etc.

I take Roberts at his word. He feels it is the SC's job to find any way possible to prove legislation passed is legal. Barring that, they have to strike it down.

And so he did just that - found a thread through the labyrinth of US judicial history to find the law legal.

I would be disappointed in him if he ruled in favor simply because he thought the US needed healthcare reform. I think he truly believes the law is valid.

I think Allan is right also - the ruling is really noteworthy for what it didn't allow (ie use of the commerce clause).

His language was emphatic, clear, and as related to the commerce clause, non-binding dictum.

Justice Ginsburg said about a week ago that this term has been "more than usually taxing". (I got quite a chuckle when I went back and found her precise wording.) Ignoring the precise wording she used, I think she was referring to her rebuke of Justice Roberts insistence of including dictum related to the commerce clause in this decision, when it was wholely unnecessary. She found the inclusion "puzzling". While it may portend Justice Roberts' future thinking, and potentially pursuasive to lower courts, it does not represent legal authority. So technically, as specifically related to the commerce clause, nothing happened.

Brian: Wilson may have been more contemporary, but that isn't the issue at hand.

Wilson, that poor misguided soul, was of the belief that government and a proper, "Progressive" animating spirit could go out into the world and reverse many of the ills we confronted, most notably war. Hence, Wilson's belief in "outlawing" war and the laughable notion that became the League of Nations. You might want to check history and see how Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy thought about the League of Nations.

So, when you start discussing "outlawing" obesity or "eradicating" redneck culture, I think of misguided Wilsonian ideals and try to remind you that, in America, you need to mind your own business. As long as we're not infringing on each other's rights, we should be perfectly able to do as we please, including consuming massive quantities of Mountain Dew (or a nice Merlot), watching a truck pull (or an opera) and bolting down innumerable Big Macs (or Pad Thai) without ham-handed gubment interference.

Brian: Roberts "wanted" ACA? Really? Based on what reasoning? I hate to break this to you, but you're arguing about another entitlement amidst impending massive fiscal dislocation. You did notice that Stockton went belly up, right?

Whether or not this country "needs" health reform is actually irrelevant right now. The Great Society programs of the 1960s were enacted during a period of surplus, meaning we could afford both Beans (Great Society) and Bullets (Vietnam War.) Those days are looooong gone, my friend.

Times have irrevocably changed and neither the Dems nor the GOP is prepared. At this point, it doesn't matter if Obama gets elected, or Romney. Neither has a clue and neither has a plan. So, as to handing Obama a victory? In the grand scheme of things, eh, not so much. The SCOTUS decision actually handed both Obama AND Romney a victory, of sorts. You're familiar with the term "Pyrrhic Victory", right?

I'll give you some reasoning. Roberts has been called a corporatist. The ACA, with the mandate was (and since it is now intact, it remains) a multi-billion dollar gift to insurance companies. In that context, if he wanted the ACA, it was only with the mandate.

Was that meaningful in his thought process? I really have no idea. Scalia and Thomas are partisan hacks. I think it's pretty clear they care about politics. I'm not sure Roberts does.

Obviously, I'm pleased about the ruling. But I'm far from convinced that Roberts is going to be a Justice that will be predictable as Scalia and Thomas (or Bryer and Ginsburg for that matter) have proved to be. I have no doubt that the Justices, just like most of us, make decisions, then go find support for those decisions. I don't suspect Roberts is any different. But the zeitgeist in which he operates may be very different than his neighbors on that side of the bench.

Again, this is just a possible reasoning. In twenty years we may know more.

Yeah, there's definitely a lack of historical knowledge here. But at least some people are able to acknowledge what they don't know.

Once again the discussion is steered toward a perception of Obama's character flaws. It always comes down to that in Allan's "analysis."

LBJ's legislation stood the test of time?

I guess you are right, decades later there are still plenty of unexploded mines strewn throughout the jungles of Southeast Asia.

Or are you talking about Medicare? Might want to check the history of that one. Started out much like Obamacare, controversial, and has changed much over time (as Obamacare will also.)

It is true that Medicare was not as misunderstood, since there was no Murdoch propaganda machine back then.

It's the same tired old argument: Obama loses, even when he wins.

How's that "vigorous" Rick Perry campaign doing?

The Court's decision validates the key legislation of Obama's fist term, and completely deflates Romney's and the Republican's main point of attack. It's that simple.

All they got now is the jobs issue, and there's no way Romney can frame himself as someone that will create jobs.

You are right that the Republicans will try to use this ruling against Obama, and in frighteningly desperate ways.

I've said it before: They are going full-on Orwell in this election. The Ministry of Truth will be working triple shifts.

Allan, the rich vocabulary and vague historical references don't change the score: Your analysis and predictions are consistently wrong (and the wishful thinking is utterly transparent.)

...and btw, Nazis? Seriously...Nazis?

Allan, you're thinking too far and broad from Madison to Wilson and now to Obama.

I don't think that anybody makes decisions with this broad of an outlook. We make decisions that affect our own lives.

Again, Roberts could have easily struck down ACA. But he didn't.

SK makes a good point that Roberts is a corporatist and ACA works best with the mandate; so it was important to preserve the mandate with the law.

Also, as SK points out, with regard to the Commerce Clause, nothing has changed, so you're reading too much into the decision.

I have hopes that Roberts, as Chief Justice, wants to run the Court in a fashion that builds a lasting legacy. Yes, in 20 years we may know more.

Allan, you keep on saying that it doesn't matter if Obama gets reelected or not. If that's the case, then stop disparaging him; reelect him and be done with it.

Then you can sit back, relax and watch the events unfold. You'd better live a long time if you want to see your long term predictions come true.

Who's talking about outlawing anything?

As a conservative, you should know about certain things being frowned upon and socially undesirable. Didn't some Moral Majority evangelist say that Rap music is detrimental to our youth?

Anyway, I wouldn't want to eradicate redneck culture. Where would I find my entertainment?

Allan, it's all in good fun. I'm all for "vive la difference". I just like to draw caricatures for the fun of it. After all, didn't your side, over the years, make enough fun of treehuggers, granola munchers and tofu eaters? How times have changed... it now turns out that appreciating different kinds of tofu is quite yuppieish and elegant.

Allan, I bet that if you invited your daughter's boyfriend's parents over for dinner, you'd rather they came in a Prius than a jacked-up 4x4.