SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[dayman]

 

I always find it very amusing when the US Attorney is oblivious to the point where he can't make an argument that the justices are handing them on a silver platter.

 

 

He was not oblivious. He was hamstrung. They tried to make the argument they wanted to make politically, as opposed to the argument they needed to make Constitutionally. In the end it did nothing except make us all think "damn, that went terrible" for a few months.

[WilliamCody]

No surprises here...but you're wrong. Again.

 

And a quick forum search could have told you that.

 

Or, hell, reading through this thread could have told you that.

 

 

I always find it very amusing when the US Attorney is oblivious to the point where he can't make an argument that the justices are handing them on a silver platter.

 

To be fair, this forum or thread is not an accurate cross section. It represents those who care enough to debate on the issues in a sustained way. Demographically speaking, this is a fractionally small minority of the population.

[B-Large]

Here you go fellas. Heres what it going to cost you.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/#

 

So we would be subject to 1390/ year in addtional tax penalty if we had no insurance. That is not horrific, but not insignificant either

[WilliamCody]

In decision, Roberts Warns Against Regulating ‘Inactivity’

 

portion of his opinion

[birdog1960]

Politically speaking this could be a bad thing for Obama. The majority of people are against this bs law. If it had been ruled unconstituitional or eviscerated then it would have been much less of a factor in the upcoming election. This ruling will fire up that majority and give them a reason to vote against Obama.

and this case losing for obama would have been better for his reelection prospects? i think not.

 

perhaps the point to be made about the political ramifications is that healthcare reform was a no win proposition politically from the start. that's why no one has got it done before and it was near impossible this time. maybe obama's priority is doing the right thing and not getting reelcted...but i'm betting he will anyway.

[LeviF]

To be fair, this forum or thread is not an accurate cross section. It represents those who care enough to debate on the issues in a sustained way. Demographically speaking, this is a fractionally small minority of the population.

This is true.

 

But then, I think PTR lives in Vermont.

 

So, yeah.

[fjl2nd]

No it's not.

 

How is not a distraction? Or useful?

[WilliamCody]

So we would be subject to 1390/ year in addtional tax penalty if we had no insurance. That is not horrific, but not insignificant either

 

Is there any provision within the law that streamlines that money directly into subsidies for hospitals who serve the un-insured or does it go into the general fund? Anyone know?

[3rdnlng]

Ha. Most people who are against "Obamacare" are in favor of most of it's provisions. Most can't give a single reason why they oppose it. What they oppose is the scary name.

 

So now the GOP is falling back to calling it a tax increase. Next they will call it cooties.

 

PTR

 

Doing another drive-by, eh? SCOTUS just upheld it by calling it a tax. Nowhere in the 2700 pages is the word "tax". They passed it by insisting it wasn't a tax. So, whatcha think, is it a tax or a penalty?

[B-Large]

Is there any provision within the law that streamlines that money directly into subsidies for hospitals who serve the un-insured or does it go into the general fund? Anyone know?

 

My guess, for those who are uninsured and pay the tax, when they do get sick perhaps they will end up on the Medicaid rolls?

[Taro T]

Question: have there been other laws that lack a 'severability clause' that have had a portion of the law struck down (section dealing w/ States' Medicaid) but the rest of the law remains valid?

 

I wasn't aware of any, but am by no means a constitutional scholar or historian.

 

If there weren't, has the SCOTUS just given itself a 'line item veto' of sorts?

[fjl2nd]

Question: have there been other laws that lack a 'severability clause' that have had a portion of the law struck down (section dealing w/ States' Medicaid) but the rest of the law remains valid?

 

I wasn't aware of any, but am by no means a constitutional scholar or historian.

 

If there weren't, has the SCOTUS just given itself a 'line item veto' of sorts?

 

This just happened with the Arizona immigration law too. I doubt it is new.

[IDBillzFan]

So we would be subject to 1390/ year in addtional tax penalty if we had no insurance. That is not horrific, but not insignificant either

It's not horrific to who? You? I have many family members and employees who beg to differ. But it's still cheaper than health insurance, and since you can wait until you're sick before you get insurance, you need only pay the taxes, then get sick, then get insurance, then get better, then drop insurance until you're sick again.

 

It's a win-win for anyone who, y'know, is a freaking moron.

Edited June 28, 2012 by LABillzFan

[WilliamCody]

My guess, for those who are uninsured and pay the tax, when they do get sick perhaps they will end up on the Medicaid rolls?

 

Which may or may not have the fund to support them because this program is being scaled back all over. My ultimate question is does the "tax" or "penalty" or whatever you want to call it ultimate go towards providing healthcare for someone or does it get simply lost in the government's money pile?

[dayman]

Question: have there been other laws that lack a 'severability clause' that have had a portion of the law struck down (section dealing w/ States' Medicaid) but the rest of the law remains valid?

 

I wasn't aware of any, but am by no means a constitutional scholar or historian.

 

If there weren't, has the SCOTUS just given itself a 'line item veto' of sorts?

 

 

1) Absolutely that has happened countless times

 

2) The only thing struck down regarding Medicaid expansion is that if a State refuses to expand the Medicaid as the ACA demands then they cannot lose the existing Medicaid funding as a penalty, they still don't get the additional funds etc...if states want to give the finger to their people under 133% of poverty line feel free at their own political peril. Millions of people now should have access to healthcare, poor people won a huge victory provided they don't live in a state with a suicidal governor...

[Gary M]

 

 

So now the GOP is falling back to calling it a tax increase. Next they will call it cooties.

 

PTR

 

No SCOTUS called a tax

[Joe Miner]

Like I said, I probably wouldn't have made the decision Roberts did. It all comes down to what you hold in higher regard. You and I may see Congressional intent to be just as important as the actual function of the bill. But that's not Roberts's style. At least he's consistent, though.

 

To me, it only functions how it's written. And it's not written as a tax.

 

The bill doesn't function as it was written. It now functions with a bit of editing by the Court.

[B-Man]

How is not a distraction? Or useful?

 

 

It is obvious.

 

 

You may have heard, there is an election in November.

 

and the voters in each of the congressional districts deserve to know where their congressperson stands on the issue of repeal.

 

Not just campaign rhetoric, but an actual demonstration.

 

Let them show where they stand, so the people can make a proper choice......and that goes for either position.

 

 

 

.

[dayman]

It's not horrific to who? You? I have many family members and employees who beg to differ. But it's still cheaper than health insurance, and since you can wait until you're sick before you get insurance, you need only pay the taxes, then get sick, then get insurance, then get better, then drop insurance until you're sick again.

 

It's a win-win for anyone who, y'know, is a freaking moron.

 

 

Except there are windows for enrollment. If you are hell bent on not being covered when you are sick, you will still **** yourself. What you suggest simply isn't true. We've covered this in the original ACA thread but of course conservative nutballs wouldn't pay attention to the actual text I presented.

[WilliamCody]

It's not horrific to who? You? I have many family members and employees who beg to differ. But it's still cheaper than health insurance, and since you can wait until you're sick before you get insurance, you need only pay the taxes, then get sick, then get insurance, then get better, then drop insurance until you're sick again.

 

It's a win-win for anyone who, y'know, is a freaking moron.

 

This is a big problem and one of the things I hope gets work out either by Congress or by the insurance companies themselves.