Chief Justice Roberts saves Obamacare!

[giblets]

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.

[giblets]

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.

[giblets]

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?

[Kidlicious]

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.