OT: Obamacare decision rassling ring

[spdrun]

Ding! Ding! Bring it ON …

[UCGal]

I think a lot of the talking heads were completely wrong in their predictions of what the Supremes would do. I can state that now, since hindsight is 20-20.

I’m personally glad since I’ve been trying to figure out my healthcare options if I retire early in a few years. It’s good to know recision and pre-existing conditions won’t keep me from purchasing insurance.

For those who believe in market based solutions – hopefully the market will drive prices down. If a company charges too much, people will shop around… like they do for car insurance.

[briansd1]

Victory for my side! 😉

I always had a good feeling that the Surpreme Court would uphold Obama Care.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court to save the heart of President Obama’s landmark health-care law, agreeing that the requirement for nearly all Americans to secure health insurance is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-rule-thursday-on-health-care-law/2012/06/28/gJQAarRm8V_story.html?hpid=z1

[briansd1]

Roberts wrote that the portion of the health-care law that expands Medicaid “violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding.”

On the Medicaid expansion provision, the states that will choose not to expand Medicaid will likely be Red States like Mississipi. Tough luck for the non-college educated, low-income folks there who lack insurance. They’ll know which side to vote for the next time around.

[livinincali]

I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by).

The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.

[ninaprincess]

How it’s a tax? If you have insurance from your employer then this law will not affect you. If you are self employed and decide not to buy insurance, you want a free ride when you end up in a hospital and declare bankruptcy?

Do you buy car insurance?

[quote=livinincali]I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by).

The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

[briansd1]

[quote=livinincali] I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

In this case, I do admire the Court’s prescience in dealing with the needs of society.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by).

The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience [sic]it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

The law didn’t change. It’s still the same mandate it was before the decision. Judge Roberts (and concurring judges Kagen, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsburg) agreed with the less strongly argued case, that Congress has the power to tax, instead of the more strongly argued case for the powers granted under the commerce clause. The legal claim upheld does nothing to change the law. It’s still the same mandate as it was before the decision. (Though Grover Norquist might hate it even more now.)

[livinincali]

[quote]
How it’s a tax? If you have insurance from your employer then this law will not affect you. If you are self employed and decide not to buy insurance, you want a free ride when you end up in a hospital and declare bankruptcy?

Do you buy car insurance?
[/quote]

It’s a tax because that’s what made it constitutional. The same is true of social security, it’s a tax also so there’s no guarantee that you’ll get anything from the system. EMTALA of 1986 is law that made it a requirement for hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay. It survived constitutionality on the premise that if you take medicare tax dollars than government could regulate your business.

My comment was based on the constitutionality, not whether it’s right health care system or the wrong one. Health care is a contentious issue.

Everybody is probably going to need health care at some point in their life but most of us want somebody else to pay the high cost of having the best services on demand. Health “insurance” should cover the unexpected, the accidents, the random cancer early in a person’s life, not standard things that happen when you get old.

This law does nothing to change the escalating costs of health care.

[beanmaestro]

I think this decision is a good compromise:
– It upheld the basic law. Given the divisions in Congress and the stupid expansion of the filibuster, it would have been impossible to make any health care laws if this one was struck down
– It didn’t use the commerce clause to uphold the law. Doing so would have noticeably widened a part of of the constitution that’s already being grossly abused to reduce states’ rights
– If red states don’t want to accept government money to pay for the health of poor people, that’s unfortunate, but they’re basically just letting Washington keep money that would otherwise go to their state economy. I suspect in the long run, most states will either take the money or suffer.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
The law didn’t change. It’s still the same mandate it was before the decision. Judge Roberts (and concurring judges Kagen, Sotomayor, Bryer and Ginsburg) agreed with the less strongly argued case, that Congress has the power to tax, instead of the more strongly argued case for the powers granted under the commerce clause. The legal claim upheld does nothing to change the law. It’s still the same mandate as it was before the decision. (Though Grover Norquist might hate it even more now.)[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote=livinincali]I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by). [/quote]

I don’t see how this decision is polarizing. The Court deferred to Congress and let the law that Congress passed stand.

In this case the Court stayed out of “judicial activism” and left politics to the politicians. Roberts did the right thing.

Now we all know why Scalia was ranting like a nutcase on Monday.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/antonin_scalia_ranting_old_man/

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Now we all know why Scalia was ranting like a nutcase on Monday.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/antonin_scalia_ranting_old_man/%5B/quote%5D

I’m mildly surprised there wasn’t a single curse word in Scalia’s dissent. He has jumped the shark.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/legal-scholar-scalia-has-finally-jumped-shark

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Victory for my side! 😉

[/quote]

Brian: Yup, it definitely is a victory for Obama and he sorely needed some good news, especially after the month he had.

However, the GOP will make hay of this, too. Romney raised $1MM in 3 hours following the ruling, when he called for repeal.

I think the GOP would have been more hurt by Obamacare being overturned than the Dems. Now, the GOP can campaign against ACA, even though I believe the chances of repeal are nil.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=briansd1]Now we all know why Scalia was ranting like a nutcase on Monday.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/25/antonin_scalia_ranting_old_man/%5B/quote%5D

I’m mildly surprised there wasn’t a single curse word in Scalia’s dissent. He has jumped the shark.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/legal-scholar-scalia-has-finally-jumped-shark%5B/quote%5D

SK: Yeah, for a devout Catholic, that boy has a mouth on him. And, he ordinarily seems so sane…

[UCGal]

[quote=livinincali]I just wish the supreme court wasn’t so polarized and becoming so liberal vs. conservative. It’s suppose to determine constitutionality not ideals of political minds (with 5-4 decisions based on the politics of the person you were appointed by).

The reality is now it’s not an individual mandate at all and instead it’s a tax on people for not buying something. I don’t like the prescience it sets where it’s giving taxing authority for something you don’t purchase.[/quote]

If you don’t purchase a house using a mortgage, you don’t get the tax breaks. So that’s a case where doing nothing /buying nothing means more tax.

Our tax code is full of moral decisions: Kids are good, mortgages are good, yada yada yada. In this case congress said “buying health insurance is good”.

And did you really mean prescience – are you saying the supreme court can see the future? That’s both scary and exciting at the same time.
(I assume you meant precedence.)

As far as the partisan nature of the court – in this case Roberts *didn’t* vote in a partisan fashion. Are you saying you wish he had? Or are you complaining about the 8’s predictable votes?

I think this will be good for folks with an entrepreneurial spirit. Even if they have a pre-existing condition, they can leave their corporate health insurance next week. They can go into business for themselves… spurring the economy, creating jobs. (Next week will be 18 months till 1/1/14… so Cobra can tide them over till the pre-existing condition part goes into effect.)
No longer will people be tied to employers *just* for healthcare. This is huge!

[Author]

Posts