Health Care upheld

[Riverwind]

The Supreme Court upheld the Health Care Law with Roberts casting the swing vote, go figure.

I will leave the details to Dave.


River

[A-1]

Then, MITTLESCHMERTZ Romney vows that when elected he will REPEAL OBAMACARE...

Or, the translation, Romney will take back the ability of 30 million Americans who can be insured now, so that they CANNOT be insured and he will deliver healthcare BACK into the hands of the big business Medical Insurance companies.

This, despite the FACT that the Affordable Health Care Act was patterned after the program that HE enacted while Governor of Massachusetts.

Romney is a RICH BASTARD out only for all of the other RICH BASTARDS and screw the rest of us...

HE is a BAD MAN out to secure the fortunes all of the other BAD MEN...

[Riverwind]

Just a bit of political theater going on today, Eric Canter has vowed that the HOUSE will take a vote to end the Health Care Bill once and for all. Now think about this, the House can do what ever it wants, they can vote to repeal the bill, then Senator Reed in the Senate will throw it in the trash as it will get no further. Romney however said the way to get rid of this bill is to vote for him, LOL no surprise here. Bachmann asked the question, WHAT IS THIS COURT THINKING, well Bachmann, this court is telling you that this bill is constitutional, just because you don't like it does not mean its not legal.

So the Democrats are vindicated and the Republicans are calling foul, and just when you think you have the Supreme Court figured out, they do something different.

River

[Dave]

>>Aw thanks River... like 5,000,000 reporters weren't trying to explain it all day?
>>It's a very complex ruling and roughly 190 pages that I won't try to read or explain it all.
>>
>>In simple language :
1. Congress may not create commerce between citizens and insurance companies by requiring a citizen buy insurance and thus become part of the commerce to be governed under the "Commerce Clause"... That justification for the "Individual Mandate" was a circular argument that is unconstitutional. Apparently, people have the right to not have insurance and that is not commerce.
>>HOWEVER, the penalty for not having insurance is a tax and Congress definitely has the power to tax and thus the Individual Mandate is constitutional under the Tax Clause. We do this all the time. There are thousands of tax exemptions, credits, fees, surprises, set-asides in the current tax law... Thus the law stands...
2. IT doesn't matter which justification is used, the Law stands.
3. The Federal government may not threaten to withdraw ALL Medicare funds to force State Compliance. It can, however, simply not give the extra money to any State not in compliance with this part of the law. Simply, the previous medicare funding is untouched by this law.
>>
>>Not a very simple explanation but the simplest explanation I can write.
>>Don't trust me. Read the article.
>>Legal scholars can and will spend days on the simplest aspects of this decision.
>>

Supreme Court upholds health care law
By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer
June 28, 2012, 3:00 pm

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...-care-law?lite

Updated at 11:55 a.m. ET: In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law Thursday, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax.

Roberts re-framed the debate over health care as a debate over increasing taxes. Congress, he said, is “increasing taxes” on those who choose to go uninsured.

Click here for the text of the ruling

The 2010 law, the Affordable Care Act, requires non-exempted individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

The essence of Roberts’s ruling was:

• “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote.

• “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.”

• But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

Roberts made a point of noting that he and the other justices “possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Click here for Twitter reactions to the ruling

The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

He said “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.”

He said the Supreme Court precedent is that “every reasonable construction” of a law passed by Congress “must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”

Dems cheer high court as galvanized GOP vows 'full repeal'

Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein told NBC’s Pete Williams that “the Affordable Care Act was saved by Chief Justice John Roberts.”

Goldstein said the Obama administration “got the one vote they really needed in Chief Justice John Roberts.”

When he served in the Senate in 2005, Obama voted against confirming Roberts as chief justice, arguing that he lacked empathy for underdogs and “he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”

(Twenty-one other Democratic senators, including Joe Biden, also voted against confirming Roberts. Twenty-two Democratic senators voted to confirm him.)

Obama hailed his victory: “The highest court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law and we'll work together to improve on it where we can.”

But he urged Americans to refrain from re-fighting "the political battles of two years ago" or trying to "go back to the way things were.”

The four justices joining Roberts in upholding the law were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The dissenting justices were Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

For individuals who choose to not comply with the individual insurance mandate, Congress deliberately chose to make the penalty fairly weak: only $95 for 2014; $325 for 2015; and $695 in 2016.

After 2016, that $695 amount is indexed to the consumer price index.

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

NBC's Pete Williams reported that Roberts reasoned that “there’s no real compulsion here” since those who do not pay the penalty for not having insurance can’t be sent to jail. “This is one of the scenarios that administration officials had considered that if the court did this they would consider it a big victory,” Williams said.

In his reaction to the court’s decision, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said, “What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy.”

He said the ruling had made it clear “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have replace President Obama.”

But in a major victory for the states who challenged the law, the court said that the Obama administration cannot coerce states to go along with the Medicaid insurance program for low-income people.

The financial pressure which the federal government puts on the states in the expansion of Medicaid “is a gun to the head,” Roberts wrote.

“A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it,” Roberts said.

Congress cannot “penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding,” Roberts said.

The Medicaid provision is projected to add nearly 30 million more people to the insurance program for low-income Americans -- but the court’s decision left states free to opt out of the expansion if they choose.


>>That's a hard cut and paste from MSNBC.

[Dave]

I think that Chief Justice Robert's attitude that a certain deference must be used in deciding whether a law is constitutional or not is the right attitude. I think that the dissents were examples of Judicial Activism and overreach.

[devi]

Well, I didn't expect the supreme court to uphold the health care reform but then one has to remember that Justice Roberts is an old time Republican from back in the day when most Republicans were not extremists. Still I'll only believe the health care reform when most of the legislation comes through in 2014 without it being shot down as what happened to all earlier efforts. I remember Hillary making all kinds of concessions to the Republicans only to get utterly double dealed and blind sided by them. Then we ended up with absolutely nothing. A couple years later she did manage to squeak through one piece of legislation for keeping insurance after being layed off (if you could afford it). But that was it.

[Riverwind]

Republican are saying that all then need to do to repeal the law is get rid of Obama, however, the way the senate is lining up no matter what the republican do they will not get a 60 majority which they will need to repeal the law, so its safe for the time being, once it gets going in 2014 it will be much harder to end, and as time passes people will like it, Republicans will do their best to make it so expensive that nobody can afford it, the insurance companies will get richer, the 1% will own even more of the country until we finally figure it out.

Question, to all you republicans, I don't mean the fiscal conservative like me, I mean you social conservatives, what is it about a social program that offends you so much? why? You claim to be Christian or Christ like yet you reject everything he stood for. I don't get it.

River

[Cainanite]

So, I've been thinking about this.

I was surprised that the ruling came out the way it did. I thought the mandate was going to be shut down, and this was going to become an election issue, showing Obama's weakness as a reason he needs to be replaced.

An interesting thing happened though. The mandate was upheld as a form of taxation. Okay, to be more specific, it is a tax you can be exempted from, if you purchase medical insurance. And from the looks of it, some of the new plans to be offered by 2016, will actually be cheaper than the tax amount, which will make it a no-brainer to go with the medical plan rather than nothing at all. In other words, if you choose to go uninsured, you'll be fined. Kinda like if you choose to drive your car without valid plates, you could get a ticket. That makes sense to me.

What I was expecting to happen was the right wing was going to declare victory when the mandate was shot down, and they'd be in a position to declare Obama a failed president. If the very idea he championed was proven unconstitutional, then he is clearly out of touch with the laws of the land, and he is bad for America. Pretty sound political strategy.

Instead, the republicans are left with a pretty iron clad law to contend with. It passed congress. It passed the senate. It was signed into law by the president. It was found constitutional by the highest court in the land. Not many chinks in that armor.

Unfortunately, the republicans have spent so much time and effort fighting Obamacare, that they haven't left themselves an out. They've painted themselves into a corner on this. They have to keep fighting it. All their momentum demands it. All they are left with is that the mandate was upheld as a tax, and they HATE taxes.

So where can the Republican go with this? Politically, they can only scream more negative things. They can only hope people hate taxes more than they like being covered for pre-existing conditions. That's it. There is no part of the health-care act that they can attack. They can only hope they get an overwhelming majority in the next election, and repeal the whole thing. People definitely won't like that.

In fact, the republicans are having a harder and harder time running against Obama. He just keeps succeeding where they need him to fail. They've never seen a politician like him. In my opinion, the only places where Obama is seen as weak, is in areas that Liberals hold dear. Obama has been cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries, the liberals don't like that, but the republicans won't go there. Obama failed to close Guantanamo Prison. Liberals hate that, but republicans won't call him on it. Obama has let four years go, without doing anything to control the banking and trading on Wallstreet. Liberals see that as a big failure, but the GOP doesn't even want to consider regulations on their rich pals.

As we come into the next election, the GOP doesn't have much to offer in the way of a compelling argument. They still haven't told anyone WHY they'd be better for the country than the Democrats. This supreme court decision has just made doing that all the much harder for them.

For the first time in a while, I've begun to see a real possibility that the GOP could lose big this election cycle. No matter how much they spend on advertising to try and make Obama look bad, they don't have enough money to make themselves look like a good alternative.

They are spending record amounts of money to win this election. They are trying everything at their disposal to conquer the airwaves. But all that screaming needs to come with a message. Thanks to this supreme court decision, a message is the one thing they don't have.

Look to Fox News to quickly shift the discussion to the Fast and Furious program. They'll be trying to paint a failed mission as a huge scandal. When that turns out to be for naught, maybe they'll go back to the old Birther conspiracy theory.

They're running out of attack points.

[moi621]

The elegance of it was Roberts, the Chief Justice taking a stand.
The switcheroo from interstate commerce to tax law was interesting too
and it was Roberts who played that card.

The Life Term appointment to the court and the wisdom of the
American system shined today.

Yes I am among those who feel it was a bad law but, Constitutional.
If I pay my 1% do I have health insurance or is that only a fine?

Moi




Cainanite, we observe your fresh water like H.G.Wells Martians surveying the blue orb of Earth

[Riverwind]

Moi, when I pay my 1% its for health care when you pay it its a FINE.

River

[moi621]

How do you figure?

And how do I figure 1% of no income taxes paid for over ten years.
Insufficient "taxable" income, y'see.

[A-1]

How do you figure?

And how do I figure 1% of no income taxes paid for over ten years.
Insufficient "taxable" income, y'see.

If you check I believe that you will find that the tax statutes will have have been changed when the dust finally settles and the air finally clears.

You WILL get a tax credit to buy insurance. What you do with the money is your business, but I expect that if you do not use it for its intended purpose that you will lose it and end up paying a penalty to boot.

You know that if the IRS is in charge of it, if you mess with it YOU will be in a world of HURT. You know how they operate, and it ain't pretty.

Better re-think non-compliance, any of you that are leaning that way.

[jemagirl]

I have mixed feelings about the affordable health care law. I absolutely believe affordable health care should be available to every person in this country, even if they are just visiting! I just think this law wasn't the best way to do it. The law that we have today is better than what we have had before, but it is not perfect, and it remains to be seen how well it will work when there are people who will do there level best to make it fail. Now where is that wrenching emoticon when I need it.....oh there it is.

So I guess you can say that I am mildly pleased at the courts decision.... Even though I do feel it sets a bad president..... But but but they are calling it a tax. Ok, ok I get it. Why didn't we just start with a tax then? Bah! Republicans.... Can't even say the word tax around them

Also I hate that people keep comparing buying health insurance to buying car insurance.... PLEASE people, they are two entirely different things. Driving a car is a privelage which is afforded to you under the state when you meet the requirements...... So if you don't want to pay for car insurance than you don't get to drive. Now it like you are here in this country breathing, so Uncle Sam say you have to go do business with a private insurer or you get fined. Oh I'm sorry I forgot its a TAX. My bad

[Cainanite]

I have mixed feelings about the affordable health care law. I absolutely believe affordable health care should be available to every person in this country, even if they are just visiting! I just think this law wasn't the best way to do it. The law that we have today is better than what we have had before, but it is not perfect, and it remains to be seen how well it will work when there are people who will do there level best to make it fail. Now where is that wrenching emoticon when I need it.....oh there it is.

So I guess you can say that I am mildly pleased at the courts decision.... Even though I do feel it sets a bad president..... But but but they are calling it a tax. Ok, ok I get it. Why didn't we just start with a tax then? Bah! Republicans.... Can't even say the word tax around them

Also I hate that people keep comparing buying health insurance to buying car insurance.... PLEASE people, they are two entirely different things. Driving a car is a privelage which is afforded to you under the state when you meet the requirements...... So if you don't want to pay for car insurance than you don't get to drive. Now it like you are here in this country breathing, so Uncle Sam say you have to go do business with a private insurer or you get fined. Oh I'm sorry I forgot its a TAX. My bad

To paraphrase a very intelligent poster (janekane), If something is worth doing, then it is worth doing poorly. And if it is important enough, you'll keep doing it poorly, until you figure out a way to do it better.

In other words, even if you know that what you are doing isn't perfect, if it is important, you do it anyway. You can figure out how to make it perfect later on. This health care act is like that. It is not perfect, but people are suffering now. People need help now. This law gives them that help. Could it be done better? Yes. Do those people who need help have the time to wait for a perfect bill? No.

The republicans would have you believe that because the bill isn't 100% perfect, it should be thrown out whole hog. They're not willing to tweak an error in the bill, or correct where the bill overreaches. They weren't even willing to have a dialog about the bill. By their logic if the bill is 99% good and 1% bad, then the whole thing has to go. Let the people who are being denied coverage suffer. Let the people who can't afford health care die. Only when we are 100% satisfied will we be willing to try it.

I don't know of any government program that started off 100% perfect. Does anyone?

Heck, we're still debating changes to our healthcare up here in Canada, and we've had it for more than 50 years. Despite it being a glowing example of heath coverage to the rest of the world, we're still not happy with it. We don't throw it out and go back to every man for himself, just because it has a few problems.

Now that the USA has something closer to universal healthcare, the government can start to tweak and adjust as time goes on. Some things will clearly work, and some things clearly won't. Now the USA has the freedom to make those adjustments. Maybe one day, they'll even be able to eliminate the unnecessary middle-man, and go single payer like they should have in the first place.

[jemagirl]

To paraphrase a very intelligent poster (janekane), If something is worth doing, then it is worth doing poorly. And if it is important enough, you'll keep doing it poorly, until you figure out a way to do it better.

I think we are pretty much on the same page.