Justices Skeptical That Health Care Mandate Is A ‘Tax’

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Mar 26, 2012 5:22 PM GMT
    Justices Skeptical That Health Care Mandate Is A ‘Tax’

    "Justice Antonin Scalia voiced this skepticism early, pointing out that in order for the Anti-Injunction Act to be triggered, the statute would need to clearly identify the penalty as a tax, which it does not. The Affordable Care Act describes the fine not as a revenue-raising mechanism but as a backstop penalty."

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/justices-skeptical-that-health-care-mandate-is-a-tax.php?ref=fpa


    “Obamacare” — How The Affordable Care Act Helps Gays

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/obamacare-how-the-affordable-care-act-helps-gays/legislation/2012/03/26/37109

    Religious Right Prays for the Supreme Court to Overturn Health Care Reform

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-prays-supreme-court-overturn-health-care-reform
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Mar 29, 2012 1:20 AM GMT
    Romney Justifies Denying Health Care To People With Pre-Existing Conditions: ‘We Can’t Play The Game Like That’

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/28/453474/romney-justifies-denying-health-care-to-people-with-preexisting-conditions-we-cant-play-the-game-like-that/
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Mar 29, 2012 1:50 AM GMT
    Well, I don't think that it has been proven to be unconstitutional yet. I am curious to see what the Supreme Court says on this.

    I do believe that that a civilized nation should make sure that all of its citizens have BASIC health care. It is the humane thing to do. Anything less than that is barbaric. I don't think that there is another industrialized nation that does not already do this.

    Ideally, I don't think it should be the responsibility of private businesses to pay for it. I think that the easiest thing would have been to just expand medicare for everyone. People over 65 end up with it anyways. I think that it might have been easier to change it so that every citizen can get it and just increase the taxes to pay for it. Private companies could either save a lot of money by not having to pay for it anymore or possibly pass on those savings to their employees by increasing their incomes. People could still have private insurance if they choose to.

    I had a friend with a kidney transplant and I used to frequently go with him to his doctor's visits. I saw the difference between having private insurance and using public insurance and the options available were often times better with the public insurance than the private insurance. I would rather spend my health care dollars on a non-profit government program than a profit based private program.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3283

    Mar 29, 2012 3:26 AM GMT
    metta8 saidWell, I don't think that it has been proven to be unconstitutional yet. I am curious to see what the Supreme Court says on this.

    I do believe that that a civilized nation should make sure that all of its citizens have BASIC health care. It is the humane thing to do. Anything less than that is barbaric. I don't think that there is another industrialized nation that does not already do this.

    Ideally, I don't think it should be the responsibility of private businesses to pay for it. I think that the easiest thing would have been to just expand medicare for everyone. People over 65 end up with it anyways. I think that it might have been easier to change it so that every citizen can get it and just increase the taxes to pay for it. Private companies could either save a lot of money by not having to pay for it anymore or possibly pass on those savings to their employees by increasing their incomes. People could still have private insurance if they choose to.

    I had a friend with a kidney transplant and I used to frequently go with him to his doctor's visits. I saw the difference between having private insurance and using public insurance and the options available were often times better with the public insurance than the private insurance. I would rather spend my health care dollars on a non-profit government program than a profit based private program.


    If there was a National health service created , then a TAX to pay for that health service , that would be Constitutional.

    Example. Enroll anyone non insured at the emergency room door with Medicare then pay for it with a tax.

    The way this law was constructed opens such a door for other silly government mandates. Its worth the temporary pain to go back to the drawing board and do it the right way.
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Mar 31, 2012 5:07 PM GMT

    534214_387942464563469_100000431568277_1

    "Heading into this big high profile, very partisan inflected court case on this big achievement of Barack Obama's first term in office, Bloomberg News polled Americans last week on how Americans thought justices would decide this case . . . 17% said the justices would decide this case solely on its legal merits. And 75% said they thought the justices own politics would influence how they ruled on this case. 75%. In other words, after Bush v. Gore, after Citizens United, we don't expect much as a country anymore from the Supreme Court. We do not expect that they are out there neutral, calling balls and strikes fairly, making non-partisan objective legal judgments. If you go by what people tell pollsters, we think they are partisans, at least we think the majority of the court is a partisan body that will do anything to help politicians who are on their side and to hurt politicians that are on other sides.

    "When bus loads of anti- health reform protesters arrived today from the Koch brothers' funded Americans for Prosperity group, when they turned up in Washington, D.C. at the court today, it was hard not to connect that to Justice Clarence Thomas, hearing that anti- health reform case today, even though he previously appeared as a featured speaker for the group that bankrolls these 'health reform is unconstitutional' buses -- this protest group. Clarance Thomas appeared at one of the Koch Brothers' secret fundraising conclaves as a special guest back in 2008. On the day that the Supreme Court decided to take this case Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia were both honored at an event held by the law firm that's arguing the anti- health reform case before the court today. Justice Thomas had to change his financial disclosure forms to reflect the fact that his wife has been a paid 'health reform is unconstitutional' activist for a wacky Tea-Party group that she founded . . .

    "So, today, as the conservative justices on the court, all in oral arguments, tipped their hand, at least seemed to tip their hand in questioning, to make it seem like they really do want to overturn health reform, the signature achievement of Barack Obama's first term as president -- I think the shortsighted question, I think maybe the question that is so shortsighted it is the wrong question to ask, is how might a ruling against the president's health reform law affect the Obama presidency and this president's chances at re-election? I think that is a shortsighted question and maybe not the right question to ask . . . The bigger question here, bigger in terms of its importance for not just what's going on in partisan politics right now, but for our system of government and our faith in it, is not about how a ruling from the Supreme Court on this law is going to affect perceptions of this one precedent. The bigger and more important question, the more farsighted question, is how this could affect perceptions of this Supreme Court as an institution? And do they even care?"

    — Rachel Maddow
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 31, 2012 5:18 PM GMT
    Ah, yes. Rachel Maddow...that pargon of un-biased opinion.

    Right up there with the 'Gray Lady', the NYT. icon_wink.gif

    And you, Metta, putting up a pic of Justices with elephant heads on some but not jackass heads on the remaining!
    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 31, 2012 5:19 PM GMT
    metta8 saidRomney Justifies Denying Health Care To People With Pre-Existing Conditions: ‘We Can’t Play The Game Like That’

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/28/453474/romney-justifies-denying-health-care-to-people-with-preexisting-conditions-we-cant-play-the-game-like-that/

    Might be useful to consider that in context instead of looking at your excerpt in isolation. Dealing with pre-existing conditions can involve addressing unfair practices when someone has had insurance, changes jobs, and is denied coverage under the new employer's health plan. The other issue deals with someone without coverage, who could afford it, but chooses to not be insured. To let them in without a penalty just when they need service would unfairly burden those paying in who were not trying to game the system. Abuses work both ways, and a constitutionally sound remedy can be crafted that deals with both.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 31, 2012 5:26 PM GMT
    StudlyScrewRite said Ah, yes. Rachel Maddow...that pargon of un-biased opinion.

    Right up there with the 'Gray Lady', the NYT. icon_wink.gif

    And you, Metta, putting up a pic of Justices with elephant heads on some but not jackass heads on the remaining!
    icon_rolleyes.gif

    The narrative and that photo in poor taste is a preview of the response from the left if the ruling doesn't go their way. The SC will be added to the list of organizations and people that the left will blame for all the ills in society. Building an election based on blaming everyone is all they can go on, because they having nothing else. Except for the no-brainer Bin Laden authorization. Will give him credit for not going to the UN or Pakistan for permission. That must have been a real big stretch.
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Mar 31, 2012 5:41 PM GMT
    ^
    it is actually a post that was in my fb feed. I did not make the graphic. I would not have cared if they would have put donkey heads on the other ones.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 31, 2012 7:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    metta8 saidRomney Justifies Denying Health Care To People With Pre-Existing Conditions: ‘We Can’t Play The Game Like That’

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/28/453474/romney-justifies-denying-health-care-to-people-with-preexisting-conditions-we-cant-play-the-game-like-that/


    Not at all sure what your post above has to do with your topic about failing to obey the mandate is / is not a tax...

    Too bad Mr. Obama and his Democrat cohorts couldn't figure out a constitutional way to get everyone health insurance coverage.






    Again SB, this Idea that has now become so distastefull to Republicans was after all originally a republican Idea.
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Apr 02, 2012 4:42 PM GMT


    Markets predict Supreme Court will overturn health care law, but uncertainty is high

    "The latest forecasts give 62.8 percent odds that the Supreme Court will strike down the so-called individual mandate. But there is less precision in this forecast than we see in elections."

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/markets-predict-supreme-court-overturn-health-care-law-171930393.html
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Apr 04, 2012 8:10 PM GMT

    Affordable Care Act Repeal Would Have Immediate Consequences

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/affordable-care-act-repeal_n_1400009.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2012 9:33 PM GMT
    Actually, Obama himself is skeptical that the health care mandate is a tax, since he, Pelosi, and Reid swore up and down Obamacare would not raise taxes and included no new taxes.



    Was that just a bold-faced lie intended to help him sell his hell scare deform nationalized Romneycare bill?

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Apr 06, 2012 12:27 AM GMT
    Europe Is Baffled by the U.S. Supreme Court

    http://news.yahoo.com/europe-baffled-u-supreme-court-220944850.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2012 12:39 AM GMT
    metta8 said, "I think that the easiest thing would have been to just expand medicare for everyone. People over 65 end up with it anyways. I think that it might have been easier to change it so that every citizen can get it and just increase the taxes to pay for it."

    SB replied with

    "That would have been the correct way to do it."

    SB agrees with socialized medicine?