Chief Justice Roberts saves Obamacare!

[gribbler]

Bullshit.

The individual mandate is an adjustment to the income tax.

[Wiglaf]

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

[DinoDoc]

Wiglaf

[demonbinder]

I don't see how Romney can argue against this. It is the same thing as what they passed in his state when he was Governor. If Democrats are smart (which they aren't when it comes to rebutting the right) they will push this. Romney's response about what he would do to this if he gets elected are all points that are in the plan. Obama did the right thing by pointing out what the plan does for American families in his speech. They need to continue this to correct what a lot of people who didn't read the law think it is all about. Very glad about the ruling.

[Wiglaf]

Most people in Massachusetts wanted Romneycare. Most Americans did not want Obamacare, and still don't.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're willing to put in the effort to combat Obamacare but you're not willing to put in a similar effort to combat the death penalty. How many lethal injections form the moral equivalent of one condom use?

Total abortions in the US - 1 million/year

Total executions in Texas - 17 (2010).

Yep, I can see that I should be caring more about TX executions than I should be caring about abortion. Yes, I believe that TX death penalty is wrong. In terms of it being a priority, call me when TX executes as many people in a year as are killed through abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, good luck solving that coordination problem.

Not that hard. What do you think is going to happen the first time Obama tries to arrest someone for defying him on Obamacare. Like seriously. Everyone I work with was already fired up on that - none of us are going to pay any O-care fine for any reason.

[Ben Kenobi]

That worked so well in getting rid of the income tax.

When Obamacare is only collected from the top 1 percent, perhaps then the comparison would be valid.

The interesting part is that everyone is required to buy coverage. This is as regressive as it gets.

[MrFun]

Why should I require others who do not agree with my religious beliefs to live like I do?

OMFG! Did Ben just imply he does not want to force others to live like he does?

[gribbler]

So I'm a Klansman for opposing the free **** brigade? You can't make other people pay for what you want. You want healthcare, pay for it.

When Obamacare is only collected from the top 1 percent, perhaps then the comparison would be valid.

The interesting part is that everyone is required to buy coverage. This is as regressive as it gets.

Is this a giveaway of free stuff or is everyone required to buy the coverage? I'm confused

[Ben Kenobi]

OMFG! Did Ben just imply he does not want to force others to live like he does?

Not on the issue of the death penalty. It's contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church, but not to christianity in general. There's a few things that fall in this purview.

Here's ten off the top of my head.

1, pacifism
2, gambling,
3, drinking, (alcohol + caffeine)
4, smoking
5, sabbath day
6, death penalty
7, gun ownership
8, condom usage
9, food (ie, vegetarianism, kosher, etc)
10, fasting.

So, quick question for you, Fun. How do I actually live my life on all of these questions, and what do I actually believe?

[gribbler]

How does anyone exercise the death penalty without forcing their views on others?

[Ben Kenobi]

Is this a giveaway of free stuff or is everyone required to buy the coverage? I'm confused

Person A has health coverage that her employer generously provides.

Person B, works, does not have any health care coverage.

Post-Obamacare.

Person A loses her excellent health care coverage when her insurer goes out of business. She goes on Obamacare which charges her a fee less than what she was paying for her excellent health care coverers.

Person B, having no coverage at all is forced to buy coverage that he does not need or want. Thus, Person B is directly subsidizing Person A's health care.

Why is person B being forced to pay? To help cover the costs of Person A's health care.

[Ben Kenobi]

How does anyone exercise the death penalty without forcing their views on others?

Apparently gribbler believes that I support the death penalty. I believe it's wrong but not because of what Christianity teaches, but because of what Catholicism teaches.

[gribbler]

Person A has health coverage that her employer generously provides.

Person B, works, does not have any health care coverage.

Post-Obamacare.

Person A loses her excellent health care coverage when her insurer goes out of business. She goes on Obamacare which charges her a fee less than what she was paying for her excellent health care coverers.

Person B, having no coverage at all is forced to buy coverage that he does not need or want. Thus, Person B is directly subsidizing Person A's health care.

Why is person B being forced to pay? To help cover the costs of Person A's health care.

This makes no sense. How does one "go on Obamacare"? There's no public option. Do you mean she buys a new healthcare plan? How is person A's coverage getting subsidized?

[gribbler]

Apparently gribbler believes that I support the death penalty.

No. I don't see how anyone could characterize their position on the death penalty as a personal decision that they won't enforce on anyone else.

I believe it's wrong but not because of what Christianity teaches, but because of what Catholicism teaches.

Okay. I didn't ask for your opinions on Christian teachings.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. I don't see how anyone could characterize their position on the death penalty as a personal decision that they won't enforce on anyone else.

"I believe in the death penalty"
"I support the right of the state to decide whether or not it will have a death penalty".

Most death penalty supporters believe this, btw.

[Ben Kenobi]

This makes no sense. How does one "go on Obamacare"? Do you mean she buys a new healthcare plan? How is person A's coverage getting subsidized?

One, her previous plan is gone.

Two, she pays into Obamacare and is enrolled on the list.

Person A's coverage is getting subsidized by Person B, because the fees charged do not match the cost of her care. This is why they can't permit people to opt out, because if they did so, the only people who would stay on are the folks with medical conditions. The healthy folks would all quit the plan.

The actual result of Obamacare will be the increase in folks lacking health care (preferring to pay the fine, and/or being unwilling to enroll and meet the costs of enrollment. O-Care costs will rise dramatically in the first 5 years, and premiums will increase to match the massive rise in O-Care and it's cost per patient.

I'll bump the thread to show that this is in fact the case in about 5 years or so.

[gribbler]

One, her previous plan is gone.

Two, she pays into Obamacare and is enrolled on the list.

Person A's coverage is getting subsidized by Person B, because the fees charged do not match the cost of her care. This is why they can't permit people to opt out, because if they did so, the only people who would stay on are the folks with medical conditions. The healthy folks would all quit the plan.

Are you saying person A is one of those people with "pre-existing conditions"? You certainly did not make that clear. So you're offended about the healthy helping the sick and this strikes you as being "as regressive as it gets"? Okay.

[Ben Kenobi]

[quot]Are you saying person A is one of those people with "pre-existing conditions"? You certainly did not make that clear. So you're offended about the healthy helping the sick and this strikes you as being "as regressive as it gets"? Okay.[/quote]

Person A is everyone who has health care at present, and uses more of it, healthy or sick, than they would actually pay into the system through fees.

[gribbler]

Person A is everyone who has health care at present, and uses more of it, healthy or sick, than they would actually pay into the system through fees.

Unless, of course, there are people with pre-existing conditions who are currently uninsured, in which case they acquire insurance because of the legislation and are the ones receiving more services than they pay for. People who are already insured are not necessarily less healthy than the uninsured.

[kentonio]

Nope, I ain't paying squat. Obama can come and arrest me.

Gotta love an internet rebel.

[kentonio]

Oh and just to make it even more sweet, Intrade was full of **** again.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform law was surprising at least partly because a financial market had predicted that the opposite would happen, and financial markets can do no wrong. Crowds are wise. Markets are efficient.

Not so much, however, on the prediction market Intrade, where traders earlier this month assigned a nearly 80 percent chance that the Supreme Court would declare unconstitutional the health-care law's mandate that people buy health insurance. That had fallen to about 70 percent just before this morning's ruling, which is still a relatively sure thing.

But the individual mandate was of course upheld, meaning a lot of people making bets against it lost some money today. The contract price for betting on a mandate reversal has tumbled 97 percent today on Intrade.

[Zevico]

As I understand it merely from reading lawyers' blogs who disagree with the decision--I haven't read it myself--the minority criticism is that the taxing power was not expressly referred to or relied upon in the statute. The minority position is that the law could be constitutional if the statute actually described itself as a tax, but it did not.

The minority position on the taxing power is correct only if the self-description of a law under the US Constitution is relevant to the head of power under which it is valid. If the statute does not, say, assert that it is valid under such-and-such a head of power of the Constitution, or at least refer to it indirectly, that head of power may not be relied on.

It seems to me as if the absence of an express reference to the taxing power, or use of the word tax, in a statute, does not mean that the statute in question is not a tax, for constitutional purposes or otherwise. Yet there is value to the proposition that a law must describe the basis of its validity, if only because it encourages a more explicit public discussion on what the law constitutes and why.

Ultimately it is case law and precedent that ought to provide a positive answer on whether the minority position on this question of statutory interpretation is correct, though no definitive answer may prove to be available.
Edit: and I stand corrected. See post 175 below.

[Wiglaf]

As I understand it merely from reading lawyers' blogs who disagree with the decision--I haven't read it myself--the minority criticism is that the taxing power was not expressly referred to or relied upon in the statute. The minority position is that the law could be constitutional if the statute actually described itself as a tax, but it did not.

No, the minority position is that even if Congress said it had passed a tax, what they passed was not a tax by any understanding of the word "tax"; it is an unconstitutional "penalty." I will link this post again since you and Kuciwalker don't seem to understand this simple point. http://www.volokh.com/category/taxin...ending-clause/

[Zevico]

No, the minority position is that even if Congress said it had passed a tax, what they passed was not a tax by any understanding of the word "tax"; it is an unconstitutional "penalty." I will link this post again since you and Kuciwalker don't seem to understand this simple point. http://www.volokh.com/category/taxin...ending-clause/

Thank you.

However, it's worth pointing out that the distinction the writer seeks to draw here is not necessarily a convincing one.
As I understand it, an individual who does not get insurance must pay income tax at a higher rate. Tax credits and deductions, however, often have no relationship to a person's income level and everything to do with a goverment's particular concern with 'encouraging' this or that form of conduct by individuals. Does it follow that a person is penalised if he chooses not to work to obtain and qualify for each of these deductions and credits? If not, what difference is there between marking healthcare as a tax credit at a given rate, and calling it a tax hike on those who don't pay it?

[Kidicious]

Oh so now a penalty isn't a tax. Interesting.

[Wiglaf]

Thank you.

However, it's worth pointing out that the distinction the writer seeks to draw here is not necessarily a convincing one.
As I understand it, an individual who does not get insurance must pay income tax at a higher rate. Tax credits and deductions, however, often have no relationship to a person's income level and everything to do with a goverment's particular concern with 'encouraging' this or that form of conduct by individuals. Does it follow that a person is penalised if he chooses not to work to obtain and qualify for each of these deductions and credits? If not, what difference is there between marking healthcare as a tax credit at a given rate, and calling it a tax hike on those who don't pay it?

The states' argument is that a “tax on not having something” is an unconstitutional “direct tax," so any tax credit for an unconstitutional tax is also unconstitutional. This does not mean that all tax credits for constitutionally sound taxes are unconstitutional, though that argument doesn't strike me as particularly unreasonable (even if it would be considered radical).

For example, if Congress passes a law saying, anyone who practices Islam is subject to a $5,000 income tax increase, you might argue that that is okay, since it is really just a tax incentive to not practice Islam. But the nature of the tax itself --- which is not designed to raise revenue but to infringe on the first amendment --- makes it unconstitutional, and by extension, renders invalid any incentives based on it.

The health care law taxes inactivity, which until yesterday was as unthinkable as taxing religion. Roberts has redefined what passes for an acceptable 'tax,' thus broadly expanding Congress' power to mandate virtually anything and pass it off as a "tax." He has invalidated recent court precedent distinguishing taxes from penalties. He has sold out conservatives and his own ideology to appease the impotent Ezra Klein and lunatics like Chris Matthews.

See:

A tax credit is a deduction from some preexisting tax, such as an income tax. If the preexisting tax is constitutional, the same goes for most tax credits that merely serve to lower it for some people. By contrast, the individual mandate is a free-standing fine imposed on people who fail to purchase health insurance. If it were a true tax credit for purchasing health insurance (one that goes beyond previous tax deductions for employer-provided health insurance), it would cost the federal government billions of dollars in income tax revenue – including, presumably, from people who could claim the credit because they already have health insurance. Congress could potentially enact an across-the-board income tax increase to offset the lost revenue. But that too would be very different from the policy that it actually chose, and would have been a political non-starter to boot.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unless, of course, there are people with pre-existing conditions who are currently uninsured, in which case they acquire insurance because of the legislation and are the ones receiving more services than they pay for.

For most people, this will be the case - they will recieve more in benefits than they will pay, at least initially. Hence the free **** brigade. Once privatized insurance is destroyed - the fees will jump up massively.

People who are already insured are not necessarily less healthy than the uninsured.

Those who choose to be uninsured? Absolutely they tend to be younger and healthier. These folks are going to get screwed.

[Ben Kenobi]

As I understand it, an individual who does not get insurance must pay income tax at a higher rate.

Not as presently structured. Any individual found not to possess health care insurance will be fined. I'm sure the IRS will try to bundle it in with income tax but for now the fine is entirely separate.