Supreme Court upheld health care law...

[jpalamar]

In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld his signature health care law's individual insurance mandate in a 5-4 decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, joining the liberal wing of the court to save the law.

In brief comments Thursday afternoon, Obama called the decision a win for Americans. "With today's announcement it is time for us to move forward to implement and, where necessary, to improve this law," he said.

The court's four liberal justices agreed that the individual mandate should be upheld as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but Roberts disagreed, and wrote that the mandate is actually a tax, despite the Obama administration's reluctance to describe it that way during the bill's passage. In its argument to the court, the government left open the possibility that the mandate is a tax, but did not rely much on that argument. Under the law, people who do not have health insurance will have to pay 1 percent of their income to the IRS starting in 2014. (There are exceptions for some religious beliefs and financial hardship.)

"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."

A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe explains the reasoning further. "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually the court's swing vote, dissented, reading from the bench that he and three conservative justices believe "the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." In a 65-page dissent, he and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed Roberts' arguments, writing that there is a "mountain of evidence" that the mandate is not a tax. "To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," they wrote.

Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.

Before oral arguments in March, most Supreme Court experts and scholars believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.

House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision may slow momentum for that move. "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. Mitt Romney told reporters shortly before noon that he would repeal the law his first day in office if elected. "ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today," he said.

Seven of the nine justices agreed that the law's expansion of Medicaid to an estimated 16 million low-income people by 2014 is unconstitutional as it was written. The court decided that the federal government cannot threaten to withdraw existing Medicaid funds from states if they don't expand Medicaid. Instead, the government can only withhold future funds. It's unclear if that will mean fewer than the 16 million projected will gain coverage.

Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That's when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, payroll taxes will go up on higher-income workers, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health. In August, health care plans will have to offer preventative services--including birth control--at no extra cost to customers.

An estimated 32 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law, according to the Congressional Budget Office.


....Many of the more popular provisions

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...135554880.html

[jpalamar]

I'm curious to see what everyone thinks of this.

[99corvette]

it sucks, I wonder how many people are not going to have health insurance and then not pay their taxes in pa, My bet is a lot. Then you gotta worry about if the company you work for decides to cancel your insurance because it will be cheaper for them to pay the tax at the end of the year then it will be to pay for insurance. Because now we the people have to buy insurance from a private company who can make up their own price on your insurance, which I can see it being a increase on what we pay anyway because its the law to have it now so why not increase the cost, they wanna make money in the end right?

[RedBowTies88]

It's a failure for democracy and freedom as a whole.

This sets the president that the goverment can control ANYTHING it likes whether it is constitutionally legal for them to do so or not under the pretense of leveling taxes.




This is far bigger then just healthcare my friends. The overreach is now boundless. Might as well take the nearest copy of the constitution and wipe your ass with it.

[morla]

I love it and certainly am excited for it

[nuTinmuch]

Originally Posted by jpalamar

I'm curious to see what everyone thinks of this.

Thrilled. As someone with an incurable chronic disease, this was a pretty big deal.

If you can, you should read the actual briefing:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf

I imagine most people probably won't though, which is a shame. It'd save a lot of bickering, which is what this thread is going to turn into in about ten minutes. :p

[jpalamar]

Originally Posted by morla

I love it and certainly am excited for it

Are you trolling or actually happy... any why?

[RedBowTies88]

Originally Posted by jpalamar

Are you trolling or actually happy... any why?

Well clearly he understands that the goverment is by the people for the people, they can do no wrong, and it's their job to protect us.

Of course they aren't concerned with power or profit. at least someone understands that common sense point

[poolmike]

Here is how it screws people that don't want to pay for insurance companies insane bonuses......2010 census shows 50.7 Million uninsured Americans x $95 annual fine for not paying insurance(or 1% of your pay, whichever is higher)= $4,816,500,000(that is 4.8 Billion dollar bills for you stupid people that support this nonsense) $4.8 billions siphoned out of the economy, enforced by the IRS(who just hired thousands of new employees to screw YOU). At the end of the day, if you have no money to pay it, the IRS will take your property, use of liens, paycheck withdrawals, etc. You will pay for it, whether you want it or not. Whether you can or cannot. scary times folks....and you just gave the government 4.8 billion dollars of ability to take away freedom to choose.

[jpalamar]

Originally Posted by RedBowTies88

Well clearly he understands that the goverment is by the people for the people, they can do no wrong, and it's their job to protect us.

Of course they aren't concerned with power or profit. at least someone understands that common sense point

I'm truely interested in both sides of the arguement.

[01NightHawk]

I think that making insurance agencies covers those with pre-existing conditions is great. - as long as they're willing to at the least pay for their coverage like any other person would. Also taking into assumption that agencies wouldn't jump the cost for those people due to a condition that is uncontrollable and of course not had by choice.


Saying that it will be mandatory for everyone to purchase a product, on the other hand, is complete bull****. Nobody should be forced to purchase something - and then penalized if they don't want to. That kinda rubs me the wrong way.....

[jpalamar]

Originally Posted by 01NightHawk

I think that making insurance agencies covers those with pre-existing conditions is great. - as long as they're willing to at the least pay for their coverage like any other person would. Also taking into assumption that agencies wouldn't jump the cost for those people due to a condition that is uncontrollable and of course not had by choice.

People with pre-existing conditions cost more. Thats a fact It might not be fair but thats the way it is. They SHOULD pay more beccause they WILL require more treatment then a traditional healthy person. The only way you could get everyone to pay the same rates is if you just factored all total risk evently... but then everyones rates would increase dramaticly to help those with conditions.

This is kinda the same concept as auto insurnance... more accidents/tickets/young drivers/bad credit typically equals higher risks thus higher premiums. Auto insruance could charge everyone the same... but they still have to generate the same revenue so that just means that good drivers(aka healthy people) will have to pay more to cover the people who drive carelss(aka pre-existing conditions). I can guarentee if you were paying the same insurance rate when you have no accidnets/tickets as some moron that has DUIs, accidnets, and all that jazz.... you would be really upset. But with healthcare, everyone is worried about what is 'right' VS what is actually doable.

[HatchSurfer3]

Originally Posted by 01NightHawk

I think that making insurance agencies covers those with pre-existing conditions is great. - as long as they're willing to at the least pay for their coverage like any other person would. Also taking into assumption that agencies wouldn't jump the cost for those people due to a condition that is uncontrollable and of course not had by choice.


Saying that it will be mandatory for everyone to purchase a product, on the other hand, is complete bull****. Nobody should be forced to purchase something - and then penalized if they don't want to. That kinda rubs me the wrong way.....

They aren't forcing you to purchase anything. They are taxing you make you take it. See the difference? No? Well good cause there is none besides semantics. Even though Obama said that his whole thing would not cause a dime in tax increases. They deemed it unconstitutional to force someone to purchase a product. However, said it was ok to tax someone for the product...

[~Brian~]

Originally Posted by RedBowTies88

Well clearly he understands that the goverment is by the people for the people, they can do no wrong, and it's their job to protect us.

Of course they aren't concerned with power or profit. at least someone understands that common sense point

No, he is probably like me- somebody who wants health insurance but can't afford it. If we get hurt, we would be screwed with medical bills.

Sure, there will always be some drawbacks and people will always bitch, but overall, this is beneficial for people who would otherwise not be covered.


If people feel that it's that big of a deal and the US government is so horrible because you think they want to control every aspect of our lives, then feel free to renounce your citizenship and move to another country.

[RedBowTies88]

Originally Posted by ~Brian~

No, he is probably like me- somebody who wants health insurance but can't afford it. If we get hurt, we would be screwed with medical bills.

Sure, there will always be some drawbacks and people will always bitch, but overall, this is beneficial for people who would otherwise not be covered.


If people feel that it's that big of a deal and the US government is so horrible because you think they want to control every aspect of our lives, then feel free to renounce your citizenship and move to another country.

"If you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until you see what it cost whens it's free"

BTW, nice 1911 Agent....

Also remember its not JUST about health insurance.

Thought exercise: now that SCOTUS has ok'd the concept that you can be penalized for not transacting with a private company, what's to prevent the following scenarios?:

- If you don't scrap your current car and purchase an american made electric one, you'll have to pay a $5,000/year penalty to cover your cost of continuing to contribute to global warming.

- If you don't dispose of your current firearms and purchase new "smart" firearms, which are keyed to your biometrics, instead, you'll have to pay a $5,000/year penalty to cover the increased risk of misuse by family members/theft and subsequent use in a crime.

[~Brian~]

Originally Posted by RedBowTies88

"If you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until you see what it cost whens it's free"

BTW, nice 1911 Agent....

Also remember its not JUST about health insurance.

Thought exercise: now that SCOTUS has ok'd the concept that you can be penalized for not transacting with a private company, what's to prevent the following scenarios?:

- If you don't scrap your current car and purchase an american made electric one, you'll have to pay a $5,000/year penalty to cover your cost of continuing to contribute to global warming.

- If you don't dispose of your current firearms and purchase new "smart" firearms, which are keyed to your biometrics, instead, you'll have to pay a $5,000/year penalty to cover the increased risk of misuse by family members/theft and subsequent use in a crime.

Agent?

I don't have time to waste on thinking about hypothetical scenearos... Let's just focus on the here and now, mmk?

[RedBowTies88]

Originally Posted by ~Brian~

Agent? lmao, you think I work for some government agency?

I don't have time to waste on thinking about hypothetical scenearos... Let's just focus on the here and now, mmk?

1911 colt new agent pistol in your avatar I assumed it was yours..

Facepalm...

It might not be a colt but its modeled off the size specs of the new agent... sub compact 1911

And thinking about the here and now is not all the smart in my opinion when taking YOUR rights in consideration. There needs to be a safeguard against people trying to take those rights away. For a long time that safeguard was called the US constitution

[~Brian~]

Originally Posted by RedBowTies88

1911 colt new agent pistol

Facepalm...

It might not be a colt but its modeled off the size specs of the new agent... sub compact 1911

I know... lol I realized what you meant right after I posted that haha

[RedBowTies88]

OK lol

[poolmike]

Originally Posted by ~Brian~

No, he is probably like me- somebody who wants health insurance but can't afford it. If we get hurt, we would be screwed with medical bills.

Sure, there will always be some drawbacks and people will always bitch, but overall, this is beneficial for people who would otherwise not be covered.


If people feel that it's that big of a deal and the US government is so horrible because you think they want to control every aspect of our lives, then feel free to renounce your citizenship and move to another country.

Why do you live in fear of getting hurt and not being able to pay up?

Why are you asking people in a country that is supposed to represent freedom to leave when pissed off about you taking their freedom? It is you that should pack your bags and find a country that provides you with your needs. Get on outta here!