So I don't read up on these things in any great detail, but things I've heard mentioned is that this bill will eventually put health insurance companies out of business and it will be simply a gov't ran program. I take it that's false?
Supreme Court Decisions
- Thread starter Stoked
- Start date
So I don't read up on these things in any great detail, but things I've heard mentioned is that this bill will eventually put health insurance companies out of business and it will be simply a gov't ran program. I take it that's false?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Close enough for government work. All personal bankruptcies is just more encompassing.
You left a critical bit off of your article quote.
https://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18175
So comparing all American citizen bankruptcies where it is one of several reasons to Canadian Senior bankruptcies where it is the primary reason we are only 2% off.
The point has been made. U.S. Medical bankruptcies are as mythical as Elizabeth Warren's Native American heritage.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
College students were already part of insurance coverage in Utah...the 4 year type college not the 8 year type college.
The ACA doesn't "allow for it". It mandates it; it requires it to be covered whether parents want to or not, and this mandate obviously increases premiums (costs).
Can you show me where I ever stated that I think any of this should be "mandated"? Take your time...
Also what about states outside Utah. Do they have the option to cover adult children? Even outside college. Lets say one of my kids is struggling and i am not. I tell them I will pick up their health insurance to help them out...why not?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying you think it should be mandated. You just haven't figured out it has been mandated and it ain't voluntary.
Why not? Because you usually get insurance through your employer and they don't want to allow you the option of including your adult children on your insurance because it would be more costly for them.
You're right. I did miss that your study was only about Canadian senior citizens. You'll note that this makes your comparison of Canadian and American medical-related bankruptcies even more apples to oranges than I said it was before. You've not advanced anything to show that the medical bankruptcy problem is "mythical" because it happens at a higher rate in Canada. You just declared the point proven and cited a data point relevant to a totally different question.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Nah...it makes it an "all apples to granny smith apples" comparison, making it an even stronger point.
Ahhhh yes, the infamous Millsapa logic engine hasn't been oiled in quite some time.
I was working for Anthem when they bought Wellpoint. The combined companies operated in 20 states. Insurance companies already cross state lines.
Now, maybe you meant "offer insurance into Louisiana use the insurance rules in Texas", or something similar. I think one state dictating how insurance can be sold in other states is a bad idea. Why do you think it is a good idea?
Question: After some research it appears that the "tax" to forgo insurance is substantially less than actually buying insurance. The "tax" is approximately $2200 per year for a a mid-income family of four. Trout, what would a family of 4 pay if they came to you for full coverage? I'm guessing it is quite a bit more... I'd guess nearly double and likely more with a high deductible.
Why wouldn't I just pay the penalty and then show up at the emergency room as my primary care giver? I'd be saving thousands every year and still have health care.
Why wouldn't I just pay the penalty and then show up at the emergency room as my primary care giver? I'd be saving thousands every year and still have health care.
True but you are now out 2,200 where you were not before.
The point was that this will not change much. Yeah, people will be paying a tax but I'm guessing that there will still be about the same amount of uninsured people that there are now. The $2200 that goes to the feds will just get sucked into the government spending vortex and not be applied to anything dealing with health care.
Oh ********. Go back and read my posts before you jumped into this conversation. I clearly show that I understand that it is a mandate and that I am against it. However if alot of this was voluntary...
Pay attention to what you are arguing and with who you are arguing it. You are getting crap mixed up.
If you are indeed Millsappa and this is the level of debate that you bring to the table than I am disappointed.
Especially if a majority of the states opt out of the Medicaid increase.
In your case, it may be the best fiscal option if you are healthy, and will remain so. However, just narrowing the gap means it makes sense for more people to have insurance.
Not every condition is well-handled/treated with an emergency room visit. As an adult, you can still be denied insurance if you develop high blood pressure, asthma, etc. Only your kids can't be denied for pre-existing conditions.
Kicky, take a look at this and let me know what you think. I'm mostly interested in the Commerce Clause portion of the article.
https://townhall.com/columnists/katehicks/2012/06/28/the_roberts_opinion_its_not_all_bad/page/full/
John Roberts is not a “traitor to his philosophy.” He is not a liberal. He is, above all else, a very strict originalist, and the Chief Justice of a Court that is acutely aware – and wary – of its role in politics. Understand that his opinion, though certainly not ideal for the Right, contains more good news for conservatives in its pages than it does on its face.
So let’s take a look at his surprising opinion – the controlling opinion, as it’s called, which sets precedent and “say what the law is,” as Marshall said so long ago.
The Good News
First: let’s give credit where it’s due. Roberts made it abundantly clear that he’s not a fan of the actual policy. Moreover, he shifted responsibility for this policy back to the American people, and revealed his respect for the separation of powers:
Unhappy with the ruling though you may be, the wisdom contained in that paragraph alone ought to cheer you. And I promise, there’s more!
Now then. What hath he wrought?
“Commerce Clause” is everywhere in the news today, and if you’ll recall, that was considered the basis for both upholding and striking down the mandate. Roberts threw out the government’s argument that it could regulate inactivity because of the “substantial effect” abstention from the market would have on the market as a whole. This, he said, was way too much power:
Moreover, he created a new precedent in Commerce Clause jurisprudence that limits its scope significantly, by accepting the distinction between activity and inactivity. In so doing, he created a concrete definition of Federal power that will influence the way Congress makes law in the future, and the way the Court interprets future Commerce Clause cases. Here’s the key passage to that effect:
It’s hard to see at first glance why we should celebrate this ruling, especially because it was evidently not enough for Roberts to overturn the mandate. But what Roberts did here was establish a defining limit on the Commerce Clause, which had heretofore not really existed. Congress is now restricted in its ability to use this very broad power, in that it cannot compel individuals to participate in the market. Consider, also, the wide array of tools at Congress’ disposal under the Commerce Clause to ensure compliance. Roberts has ruled that Congress can’t criminalize not buying something because of the effect abstention will have on the market. Indeed, that was at issue in this case; the fact that it’s unconstitutional is a win for liberty.
Furthermore, Roberts narrowed the definition of “substantially effects” to encompass activity that is already occurring, and curtailed Congress’ power to presuppose, and then regulate, activity.
Now, think back to the time when constitutional challenges to the mandate first began to surface: every legal scholar worth his salt, conservative or liberal, believed the Court would kill the activity/inactivity distinction. Yet that was the major victory the conservatives won in this case, and it’s now legal precedent. The mandate itself lives on, but Congress may never apply the full force of the U.S. government to compel anyone to make a purchase. This, the fight for the Commerce Clause, was the real war. And the right won it. Perhaps the fruit isn’t ripe yet, but it will prove juicy in time.
So now, to turn to the legal reasoning for why the mandate remains law. In other words…
The Bad News
Here’s Roberts: “And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”
You may keep your law, he says. But let me redefine it for you.
In the opinion, Roberts applies a test from an earlier case, Drexel Furniture, to determine whether the “penalty” meets all the requirements of a tax. It’s another long excerpt, but worth reading, as he’s very clear:
So here’s how it’s going to work from now on: the mandate is now just the “tax on not having healthcare,” which I’m sure will get a snappier name in the coming days, something akin to the “gas tax,” or the “income tax,” which most of us pay. Roberts says as much:
So after he invalidated the Commerce Clause justification, he determined that really, the “penalty” doesn’t force participation in the market; hence, why he didn’t throw out the mandate with the Commerce logic. It’s not really forcing people into the market; after all, it didn’t criminalize not owning insurance. It just puts a tax on it, and Roberts notes that taxes are often used to induce certain behavior:
Frankly, this doesn’t look like an expansion of the taxing power. Perhaps he’s articulating more clearly the intent behind so-called “sin taxes,” and other behaviorally-motivated taxes, but he’s not handing Congress more power. He’s just explaining a power they already had, and use.
Remember—he never said it was good policy, and in fact made it clear that he feels otherwise. What he did was invalidate an unconstitutional argument in defense of the policy, thereby banning it from future use, and then uphold a bad, but not unconstitutional statute, because it adhered to a permissible exercise of power. Congress passed a tax, he says, and it’s a bad one, and he doesn’t like it, but that doesn’t make it impermissible.
So, is this what the right really wanted to hear? Heck no! We like the dissent, where the whole thing goes. But Roberts is dumb like a fox, and it’s worth looking at the effects this ruling will have on the future, both near and far.
The Upshot
Over, and over, and over, President Obama assured us that this was not a tax. He was not raising taxes on the middle class (that’s what the Republicans were doing, remember?). Nope, says the CJ: ya raised our taxes. Politically, that’s going to prove troublesome for Obama this fall, and in a much more substantial way than having his “signature legislative accomplishment” overturned altogether.
For one, Roberts took away Obama’s ability to campaign against the Court. They upheld his law; he can’t do as he did after Citizens United and construe the ACA ruling as a massively political attack on the little guy and his uninsured plight. He has nothing to blame on the Justices. All they did was recharacterize the “penalty” as constitutional under the taxing power. Roberts robbed Obama of a scapegoat, and stuck Obama with an unpopular law in an election year. Ouch.
Second, Roberts has literally forced Obama to acknowledged that he broke a promise, and raised taxes. And tax increases don’t resonate well with the voters. Now, it’s doubtful Obama will assume responsibility for raising taxes – note that in his speech today, he didn’t acknowledge the Court’s reasoning for the ruling, only that they ruled in his favor. But the GOP has just added a major weapon to its arsenal: want to lower taxes? Then don’t reelect Obama.
This third observation is one that isn’t immediately eminent, but nonetheless just as important as those prior two, if not more so. Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare, and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future. As noted above, Americans don’t like taxes. And thanks to the fact that many will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance (as that will cost less), the insurance problem in this country hasn’t been solved. The fact that we’ve settled the question of the mandate’s constitutionality means we can turn to the rest of the law, and address the flaws contained therein, and perhaps find a real solution to the healthcare crisis. As for future laws, Democrats lost the ability to hide behind “penalty” language. Roberts saw that the mandate waddled and quacked, and gave it the appropriate name. (He also forbade Congress from actually “mandating” anything, so that name isn’t even correct anymore.) The ACA barely passed the first time; future iterations of this theory are destined to fail, because Congress will have to stand up and say, “We propose to enact a new tax so as to influence your behavior.” If that isn’t the proverbial lead balloon, I don’t know what is.
So there you have it: it’s really not all bad. It’s not what we wanted, but then – as I suspect Obama will learn in the coming months – we must remember to be careful what we wish for.
https://townhall.com/columnists/katehicks/2012/06/28/the_roberts_opinion_its_not_all_bad/page/full/
John Roberts is not a “traitor to his philosophy.” He is not a liberal. He is, above all else, a very strict originalist, and the Chief Justice of a Court that is acutely aware – and wary – of its role in politics. Understand that his opinion, though certainly not ideal for the Right, contains more good news for conservatives in its pages than it does on its face.
So let’s take a look at his surprising opinion – the controlling opinion, as it’s called, which sets precedent and “say
The Good News
First: let’s give credit where it’s due. Roberts made it abundantly clear that he’s not a fan of the actual policy. Moreover, he shifted responsibility for this policy back to the American people, and revealed his respect for the separation of powers:
Unhappy with the ruling though you may be, the wisdom contained in that paragraph alone ought to cheer you. And I promise, there’s more!
Now then. What hath he wrought?
“Commerce Clause” is everywhere in the news today, and if you’ll recall, that was considered the basis for both upholding and striking down the mandate. Roberts threw out the government’s argument that it could regulate inactivity because of the “substantial effect” abstention from the market would have on the market as a whole. This, he said, was way too much power:
Moreover, he created a new precedent in Commerce Clause jurisprudence that limits its scope significantly, by accepting the distinction between activity and inactivity. In so doing, he created a concrete definition of Federal power that will influence the way Congress makes law in the future, and the way the Court interprets future Commerce Clause cases. Here’s the key passage to that effect:
It’s hard to see at first glance why we should celebrate this ruling, especially because it was evidently not enough for Roberts to overturn the mandate. But what Roberts did here was establish a defining limit on the Commerce Clause, which had heretofore not really existed. Congress is now restricted in its ability to use this very broad power, in that it cannot compel individuals to participate in the market. Consider, also, the wide array of tools at Congress’ disposal under the Commerce Clause to ensure compliance. Roberts has ruled that Congress can’t criminalize not buying something because of the effect abstention will have on the market. Indeed, that was at issue in this case; the fact that it’s unconstitutional is a win for liberty.
Furthermore, Roberts narrowed the definition of “substantially effects” to encompass activity that is already occurring, and curtailed Congress’ power to presuppose, and then regulate, activity.
Now, think back to the time when constitutional challenges to the mandate first began to surface: every legal scholar worth his salt, conservative or liberal, believed the Court would kill the activity/inactivity distinction. Yet that was the major victory the conservatives won in this case, and it’s now legal precedent. The mandate itself lives on, but Congress may never apply the full force of the U.S. government to compel anyone to make a purchase. This, the fight for the Commerce Clause, was the real war. And the right won it. Perhaps the fruit isn’t ripe yet, but it will prove juicy in time.
So now, to turn to the legal reasoning for why the mandate remains law. In other words…
The Bad News
Here’s Roberts: “And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”
You may keep your law, he says. But let me redefine it for you.
In the opinion, Roberts applies a test from an earlier case, Drexel Furniture, to determine whether the “penalty” meets all the requirements of a tax. It’s another long excerpt, but worth reading, as he’s very clear:
So here’s how it’s going to work from now on: the mandate is now just the “tax on not having healthcare,” which I’m sure will get a snappier name in the coming days, something akin to the “gas tax,” or the “income tax,” which most of us pay. Roberts says as much:
So after he invalidated the Commerce Clause justification, he determined that really, the “penalty” doesn’t force participation in the market; hence, why he didn’t throw out the mandate with the Commerce logic. It’s not really forcing people into the market; after all, it didn’t criminalize not owning insurance. It just puts a tax on it, and Roberts notes that taxes are often used to induce certain behavior:
Frankly, this doesn’t look like an expansion of the taxing power. Perhaps he’s articulating more clearly the intent behind so-called “sin taxes,” and other behaviorally-motivated taxes, but he’s not handing Congress more power. He’s just explaining a power they already had, and use.
Remember—he never said it was good policy, and in fact made it clear that he feels otherwise. What he did was invalidate an unconstitutional argument in defense of the policy, thereby banning it from future use, and then uphold a bad, but not unconstitutional statute, because it adhered to a permissible exercise of power. Congress passed a tax, he says, and it’s a bad one, and he doesn’t like it, but that doesn’t make it impermissible.
So, is this what the right really wanted to hear? Heck no! We like the dissent, where the whole thing goes. But Roberts is dumb like a fox, and it’s worth looking at the effects this ruling will have on the future, both near and far.
The Upshot
Over, and over, and over, President Obama assured us that this was not a tax. He was not raising taxes on the middle class (that’s what the Republicans were doing, remember?). Nope, says the CJ: ya raised our taxes. Politically, that’s going to prove troublesome for Obama this fall, and in a much more substantial way than having his “signature legislative accomplishment” overturned altogether.
For one, Roberts took away Obama’s ability to campaign against the Court. They upheld his law; he can’t do as he did after Citizens United and construe the ACA ruling as a massively political attack on the little guy and his uninsured plight. He has nothing to blame on the Justices. All they did was recharacterize the “penalty” as constitutional under the taxing power. Roberts robbed Obama of a scapegoat, and stuck Obama with an unpopular law in an election year. Ouch.
Second, Roberts has literally forced Obama to acknowledged that he broke a promise, and raised taxes. And tax increases don’t resonate well with the voters. Now, it’s doubtful Obama will assume responsibility for raising taxes – note that in his speech today, he didn’t acknowledge the Court’s reasoning for the ruling, only that they ruled in his favor. But the GOP has just added a major weapon to its arsenal: want to lower taxes? Then don’t reelect Obama.
This third observation is one that isn’t immediately eminent, but nonetheless just as important as those prior two, if not more so. Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare, and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future. As noted above, Americans don’t like taxes. And thanks to the fact that many will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance (as that will cost less), the insurance problem in this country hasn’t been solved. The fact that we’ve settled the question of the mandate’s constitutionality means we can turn to the rest of the law, and address the flaws contained therein, and perhaps find a real solution to the healthcare crisis. As for future laws, Democrats lost the ability to hide behind “penalty” language. Roberts saw that the mandate waddled and quacked, and gave it the appropriate name. (He also forbade Congress from actually “mandating” anything, so that name isn’t even correct anymore.) The ACA barely passed the first time; future iterations of this theory are destined to fail, because Congress will have to stand up and say, “We propose to enact a new tax so as to influence your behavior.” If that isn’t the proverbial lead balloon, I don’t know what is.
So there you have it: it’s really not all bad. It’s not what we wanted, but then – as I suspect Obama will learn in the coming months – we must remember to be careful what we wish for.
I chuckled over this one.
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/health-care-ruling-scotus-cnn-gaffe-fox-news-154347515.html
https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/health-care-ruling-scotus-cnn-gaffe-fox-news-154347515.html
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The major point is that state mandates make a difference to price and quality of insurance, and if I don't like my state's retarded mandate to cover sex change operations I can go elsewhere.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That wasn't clear when you said this:
The "parent insurance thing" is mandatory and you declared your support for it.