It appears that the individual mandate is constitutionally permitted as a tax.

"Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it."

Interestingly, the Court held that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, and that sets a new outer limit for Wickard. But that doesn't matter since it is permissible as an exercise of the taxing power.

Nearly all of the law is upheld, except for some portions regarding state Medicaid funds.

"Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 09:28AM by Mr Downtown.

We we sold a bill of goods! Congress did not legislated the mandate as a TAX. The word tax does not appear in the bill as written.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

That doesn't matter, Swamp Thing. The Supremes have ruled that Congress can impose the individual mandate thanks to its authority to impose a tax. So while Congress did not specifically designate the individual mandate as a tax, that's how the Supremes consider it.

HA ha!

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

The bill was always and obviously drafted with the penalty being a tax provision. The final bill just avoided calling it that. My vague memory is that drafts of the ACA (on the senate side) included that, but that came out in the final bill. The Tax question was always pretty straightforward to me.

I will give props to Mr. Downtown for being right on the commerce clause, something I never thought was or should be in play.

I recall one of the potential responses to being shot down by the SCOTUS was to change the mandate terminology to "tax". Looks like the Court saved Congress the trouble.

That's kind of a interesting SCOTUS approach on its own, as in "here, let me fix that for you"---does it have precedent?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 09:51AM by Acer.

Faith in the Supreme Court has been restored.

Acer, Congress doesn't have to cite its Section Eight power when drafting legislation. Its actions are presumed constitutional. Only when no authority can be found in the Constitution does the Supreme Court rule that the law is invalid.

Nor are there any magic words that must or must not appear in the statute. Section 5000A imposes "penalties" on "taxpayers." That seems pretty clear to me.

So, when do I get my tax exemption ?

---

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

This is a great decision by Roberts; that does affirm my faith in the court. Hard to understand where Kennedy is at in the dissent, but at a glance, he might have supported it as a tax provision, if they had called it a tax and adopted it that way, so that Acer's point may have been the difference between 5-4 and 6-3.

Quote
Pam
Faith in the Supreme Court has been restored.

I have also heard a number of commentators say that Roberts went this direction because of even more contentious cases coming up next term (voter rights etc...) where he will likely veer back to the hard right. I guess we will all see.

---

It appears that Roberts is turning into a leftist, and Scalia is none too pleased, as evidenced by his loony rant on the Arizona immigration case.

Right or wrong, it's nice to see Roberts making some independent decisions lately.

---

Unpaid Social Liaison

Energizes the right wing base - looking at the long term hopes of getting the outsourcer-in-chief elected. Then the right wing sky's the limit.

I suppose this is a good example of a successful compromise since both sides are somewhat unhappy with the outcome. The liberals (including me) are unhappy that we are stuck with a system designed by the republicans as a giveaway to the insurance companies and the "conservatives" are unhappy because they couldn't use this issue to spear Obama in an election year.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 10:35AM by davester.

Quote
olnacl
outsourcer-in-chief

You do know that the outsourcing portion of PPACA was designed by the right wing heritage foundation, introduced to appease republicans and is pretty much identical to romneycare, right?

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

Quote
mick e
It appears that Roberts is turning into a leftist, and Scalia is none too pleased, as evidenced by his loony rant on the Arizona immigration case.

Right or wrong, it's nice to see Roberts making some independent decisions lately.

I'm not sure that moving towards the center is becoming leftist.

I believe that Roberts may be awakening to the nature of being a Supreme Court Justice - this is something we used to see back in the good old days as the justices would acquire an awareness of his/her solemn position and begin to make rulings based on the Constitution and not on someone else's agenda.

In short, Roberts may just be stepping up to the plate as a Supreme Court Justice in the finer traditions. I hope so.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Question -- Did I read in he opinion that a state may opt out of the program?
Living in a deep red state that lead the charge against this, they have already stated a will to opt out. Does that mean this will not have to be offered in my state?

Just curious and know others understand it better than I.

---

You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands...
- For example, if they are wrapped around your throat she's probably slightly upset.

As I understand it, the states can opt out of the expansion of Medicaid to include more people than it does now. I think the law said they would lose all their Medicaid funding if they opted out of expansion, but the court said they can refuse expansion without losing their funds. I think.

I am sure that the opting out part applies only to the Medicaid part of the law.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 11:16AM by $tevie.

Quote
Ombligo
Question -- Did I read in he opinion that a state may opt out of the program?
Living in a deep red state that lead the charge against this, they have already stated a will to opt out. Does that mean this will not have to be offered in my state?

Just curious and know others understand it better than I.

Feds cover 100% of the cost of that expansion in the first few years, then 90%. Most states will take the money, it makes no sense not too. Some states may cut off their noses to spite their faces, for political spite, and ironically it's some of the states with the most poor people to cover who will attempt this. Like most things, they will yell and scream politically, then quietly take the money and do the right thing for their citizens.

President speaking now.

And now Romney.

It'll cost umpty gazibazillions! (as compared with doing nothing Mitt?)

You'll lose the insurance you have that you like and want to keep (lie!)

Puts the government between you and your doctor. (lie.)
This from a Republican?? Really???

You'd have to be illiterate or have no access to news or internet in order to believe what Romney is saying right now. This is the biggest load he's dumped yet.

Quote
Lemon Drop
And now Romney.

It'll cost umpty gazibazillions! (as compared with doing nothing Mitt?)

You'll lose the insurance you have that you like and want to keep (lie!)

Puts the government between you and your doctor. (lie.)
This from a Republican?? Really???

You'd have to be illiterate or have no access to news or internet in order to believe what Romney is saying right now. This is the biggest load he's dumped yet.

How do you know when Romney is lying...?

(Well, you pretty much know the answer to that...)

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
Mr Downtown
It appears that the individual mandate is constitutionally permitted as a tax.

Glad to see all of those republicans finally stood up to Norquist when they voted for this tax.

[twitter.com]

Never too early for a little Andy.

Not making comment one way or the other, but I found this entertaining: Explain Obamacare to me like I'm five (image link - kinda big for an in-thread post)

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 02:14PM by Zoidberg.

Quote
$tevie
As I understand it, the states can opt out of the expansion of Medicaid to include more people than it does now.

Yippee! States rights means that you can stick it to old people and disabled people.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

No, I think it means they don't have to include non-old and non-disabled people who are lower income adults.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
Lemon Drop
And now Romney.

It'll cost umpty gazibazillions! (as compared with doing nothing Mitt?)

You'll lose the insurance you have that you like and want to keep (lie!)

Puts the government between you and your doctor. (lie.)
This from a Republican?? Really???

You'd have to be illiterate or have no access to news or internet in order to believe what Romney is saying right now. This is the biggest load he's dumped yet.

I wish that were true. There are so many people who are not illiterate and not ignorant who totally buy into everything GOP leaders say no matter what.

---

Quote
$tevie
No, I think it means they don't have to include non-old and non-disabled people who are lower income adults.

True. The medicaid expansion is not for seniors or the disabled or children. It is for other low income adults.

A really interesting question for implementation now will be how the Admin handles those low income folks in States that don't offer the medicaid expansion. They would be eligible most likely for the exchanges (which are intended to start at 133% of poverty), and the Feds could offer a substantial subsidy for those not eligible for medicaid but below that level.

Its a crazy choice though for a State not to implement this. They are giving up tons of federal money and putting more burden on themselves, and if they get in later, which they will do eventually, they will have lost the benefit of the 100% paid for by the Feds phase in.

Quote
swampy
We we sold a bill of goods! Congress did not legislated the mandate as a TAX. The word tax does not appear in the bill as written.

Cheer up Swampy.
Now Obama is a tax - raiser. Can't deny it any more.
Roberts has also taken the Out-of-control Judicial Activist Court golf club out of Obama's re-election bag.

I bet there are three crumpled up speeches in the White House garbage can that Obama would have preferred to have used.

ObamaCare is now ObamaTax.
That might be a tough label to wear in November.


With a little luck, maybe a viable third party candidate will pop up between now and then.

---

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Zoidberg
Not making comment one way or the other, but I found this entertaining: Explain Obamacare to me like I'm five (image link - kinda big for an in-thread post)

Thanks. Now I have a clue- I think.

Quote
michaelb

Quote
$tevie
No, I think it means they don't have to include non-old and non-disabled people who are lower income adults.

The medicaid expansion is not for seniors or the disabled or children. It is for other low income adults.

I'm pretty sure for a single male to get Medicaid, he must be declared disabled. That will make it tough for lots of men whose jobs don't pay very much.

Quote
Dennis S

Quote
michaelb

Quote
$tevie
No, I think it means they don't have to include non-old and non-disabled people who are lower income adults.

The medicaid expansion is not for seniors or the disabled or children. It is for other low income adults.

I'm pretty sure for a single male to get Medicaid, he must be declared disabled. That will make it tough for lots of men whose jobs don't pay very much.

That was why they were planning to expand who it covers.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

So now your going to have the government, who could not run a @#$%& house in Nevada, (google Chicken Ranch) managing your health care.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

It IS pretty upsetting if it's true that the government can't run a brothel.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
michaelb
Its a crazy choice though for a State not to implement this. They are giving up tons of federal money and putting more burden on themselves, and if they get in later, which they will do eventually, they will have lost the benefit of the 100% paid for by the Feds phase in.

It's not like they haven't made similarly crazy choices before.
[www.chron.com]

...But they usually figure out that they're screwing themselves. Eventually. After plaguing the suffering masses with great hardship for awhile.
[money.cnn.com]

Quote
$tevie

Quote
mick e
It appears that Roberts is turning into a leftist, and Scalia is none too pleased, as evidenced by his loony rant on the Arizona immigration case.

Right or wrong, it's nice to see Roberts making some independent decisions lately.

I'm not sure that moving towards the center is becoming leftist.

I believe that Roberts may be awakening to the nature of being a Supreme Court Justice - this is something we used to see back in the good old days as the justices would acquire an awareness of his/her solemn position and begin to make rulings based on the Constitution and not on someone else's agenda.

In short, Roberts may just be stepping up to the plate as a Supreme Court Justice in the finer traditions. I hope so.

My concern is that RomneyCare has bankrupted Massachusets--one of the most wealthy states in the Union. If I were in a less wealthy state, I'd opt out...and hope that all of my less wealthy citizens would move to a neighboring state that accepts the Medicaid money.

[video.foxnews.com]

RomneyCare costs have risen over 600% in a few years. Wait until the fraud folks get access to ObamaCare, it will even be worse...

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY

Hmmm...I guess someone else has already thought of this. I predict that America will be bankrupt in about 3 years.

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY

Quote
swampy
So now your going to have the government, who could not run a @#$%& house in Nevada, (google Chicken Ranch) managing your health care.

Aren't you on Medicare? It works pretty well from what I hear.
Except improved efficiency, what are you expecting to see change?
Nothing is going to change about my private insurance except that they can't kick me out for a pre-existing condition and my kids can stay on the policy until they are 26. Which is probably good since they both plan to go to grad school.
When I go in for an appointment it's going to the doctor there, not a congressman. Maybe things are different where you live.

EDIT: Although, since you mentioned it, if I go to the Chicken Ranch I probably would expect to see a congressman there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 06:32PM by Lemon Drop.

Quote
wowzer
Hmmm...I guess someone else has already thought of this. I predict that America will be bankrupt in about 3 years.

$ 1 5 , 7 8 3 , 1 2 7 , 7 3 5 , 1 1 8 . 7 6 in debt.
[www.brillig.com]

"RomneyCare costs have risen over 600% in a few years."

Can you supply a link for this besides Fox News?

Quote
wowzer


My concern is that RomneyCare has bankrupted Massachusets--one of the most wealthy states in the Union. If I were in a less wealthy state, I'd opt out...and hope that all of my less wealthy citizens would move to a neighboring state that accepts the Medicaid money.

[video.foxnews.com]

RomneyCare costs have risen over 600% in a few years. Wait until the fraud folks get access to ObamaCare, it will even be worse...

You might want to take a look at the facts instead of the Fox spin. Massachusetts health care reform has led to a state with the lowest rate of uninsured and lower premiums but more offered coverage by employers.
[www.mahealthconnector.org]

So Roberts said to Congress you really meant to say it is a tax so I will correct the legislation for you then approve it! Between the executive ignoring laws and judiciary writing laws looks like anything goes.

My bad, I meant Mustang Ranch not Chicken Ranch. Senior moment.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

Quote
swampy
My bad, I meant Mustang Ranch not Chicken Ranch. Senior moment.

No worries, Medicare covers that too.

Medicare is wonderful if you can find a doctor that will accept it. My family physician of 40 years died in December 2010. It took me 9 months to find another family practice doctor who accepted Medicare. I was notified last winter that my breast surgeon was dropping all his Medicare patients effective 12/31/11.

Best of luck to you and your family finding doctors even if you have the best coverage money can buy.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

I don't know where you live but just about everywhere else, Medicare is almost universally accepted. Now Medicaid is a different story.

---