• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't make that claim. He did just raise taxes on everyone that can't or won't afford health insurance, middle-class or not.


Mac here are the plans that are going to be sold by the insurance exchanges.

General percentage by level paid by consumer
(through deductibles, copays and coinsurance)

Bronze Level – 40%
Silver Level – 30%
Gold Level – 20%
Platinum Level – 10%

What kind of coverage will the plans sold through the health insurance exchanges include?

At the Bronze level (affordable?) If you need a hip replacement bring your VISA card.

For patients without health insurance, a total hip replacement usually will cost between $31,839 and $44,816, with an average cost of $39,299, according to Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina.

Cost of Hip Replacement - Consumer Information and Prices Paid - CostHelper.com

If we break out the calculator.....$39,299 X 40% = $15,719.60 that would be what the patient is responsible for OR you would need some sort of gap insurance at more additional cost.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

They didn't say a law doesn't have to be constitutional as long as the only consequence is a tax. For example:

- They can't pass a law taxing me for not buying a Bible. (1st Amendment)
- They can't pass a law taxing me for not contributing to a political party. (All states are guaranteed a republican form of government.)
- They can't pass a law taxing me for being a certain race or gender. (14th Amendment)
- They can't pass a law taxing me for voting (24th Amendment)

Upon thinking about this further:

-They can't pass a law "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States" (10th Amendment)

You understand? the law CAN be unconstitutional so long as the consequence of that law is constitutional: a tax.

What I'm trying to say is that the individual mandate for healthcare is not a power delegated to the US Government anywhere in the constitution. Which means, per the 10th amendment, it is unconstitutional to pass such a law. If they cannot stretch the commerce clause or necessary & proper clause to cover it, then it's unconstitutional. This is why it was always so important to debate these clauses at the SCOTUS level.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Medicare was cut prior to this fisco was found constitutional by $500M. Who do you thinks going to pick up that tab?

The taxpayers and/or the providers. Not the patients. The Affordable Care Act makes no such provision for charging patients more for Medicare.

Part of the new and improved HC "taxes" is a tax on hip replacement devices. Who do you think is going to pick up the tab for this?

Is this what you're referring to? If so, it's an excise tax charged to the manufacturers, not the patients. And it will be more than offset by the increased demand for such devices due to more people having insurance.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Those two statements mean the same thing. Prior to the ACA you had no recourse if you couldn't afford health insurance; now the costs will be transferred to the public, as they should be.


Ok I can like that definition. Another govt welfare program.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Upon thinking about this further:

-They can't pass a law "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States" (10th Amendment)

You understand? the law CAN be unconstitutional so long as the consequence of that law is constitutional: a tax.

What I'm trying to say is that the individual mandate for healthcare is not a power delegated to the US Government anywhere in the constitution.

But in this case, it *is* a power delegated to the US government in the Constitution...in Congress' power to levy a tax:

US Constitution said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

EXACTLY. ObamaCare = Income redistribution. Taking setting the risk based premium rates out of the private insurance "business" leaves absolutely NOTHING for them to do but verify/pay claims for a profit (set by the gov't).


That's exactly what it's been all along. Another way to take money from th 52% and pay for the 48%. You gotta admit getting the taxpaper to pay for liberal votes is really smart.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

How do you figure that, since I can almost GUARANTEE that when our Union Contract is up next year the Company I work for is going to do everything in their power to limit or take our health insurance benefit away from us due to the "Cadilac" healthcare provision in this bill?

You can bet on that. As long as companies can save money by dumping health insurance plans, they will.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I think the supporters of this decision missed a very important point I made. Let's say the religious right wins the next election and uses the decision for political gain, they say "okay, fine, you win on the abortion debate it's legal" "thanks to your new backdoor though we now can tax an abortion at 1000%, go ahead, take it to SCOTUS, but remember thanks to your new champion John Roberts we can tax for anything". Or, since the BOR was subjugated to tax powers, if say..........the poll tax were to be re-instituted, the civil rights act < BOR < Taxation. People don't realize what was done here.



This is now a solid possibility. This is scary as hell to me.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

The decision in Roberts v. America yesterday legitimates fraud in the inducement in the passage of all future legislation. The day will come when this fact produces consequences that the American left deeply abhors.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Medicare was cut prior to this fisco was found constitutional by $500M. Who do you thinks going to pick up that tab?

Part of the new and improved HC "taxes" is a tax on hip replacement devices. Who do you think is going to pick up the tab for this?
For a second time Billy, try to understand the issue:


Q:Where did the $500 million taken from Medicare this year under President Obama’s health care law come from, and how does it affect Medicare for retiring baby boomers in 2012?

A:The Affordable Care Act had a number of provisions that achieved savings in the Medicare program. Those savings, which is what you are referring to, come from primarily two places: payments and cuts. There is a slowdown in the increase of payments to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and other health-care providers. In other words, their reimbursements will still increase, but they won't increase as much as they would have under old law. There will also be savings from actual cuts in reimbursements to Medicare advantage plans—which had been traditionally overpaid by the federal government, getting paid more than 100% of what the traditional or fee for service. The private insurance companies were getting 110% to 113% of what it costs the traditional-run government programs to take care of somebody—that number is getting ratcheted down to 100% over the next three to five years.
The important thing to know is that these savings do two things: they will make the Medicare program more sustainable and are not expected to lead to any kinds of problems for baby boomers or anyone else on the Medicare programs. There are no cuts to benefits or increased premiums to people with Medicare because of these savings.


Read more: Medicare Changes Every Boomer Needs to Know About for 2012 | Fox Business
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

You can bet on that. As long as companies can save money by dumping health insurance plans, they will.

In all this despair, let us not forget that companies still need to attract the best employees they can.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

In all this despair, let us not forget that companies still need to attract the best employees they can.

That is true for very highly skilled employees, but the overwhelming majority of Americans don't fall within that category.

The problem is that the world is awash in highly skilled Chinese and Indians. Even the legal profession has been affected by outsourcing because of the reduced costs of hiring Indian lawyers for lower level routine legal work.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

In all this despair, let us not forget that companies still need to attract the best employees they can.

Quite true, I'm sure management will still have health care in their packages.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

But in this case, it *is* a power delegated to the US government in the Constitution...in Congress' power to levy a tax:

So let's word it this way: This law is a tax charged to the people at 1% of their income (except low-wage earners). They can get a deduction equal to this tax for buying health insurance.

Is this accurate? This turns the 10th amendment on its head. So now instead of the federal government only having the power to do what is specified in the constitution, the government now has the power to encourage through taxation anything that they are not specifically restricted to do in the constitution.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

The decision in Roberts v. America yesterday legitimates fraud in the inducement in the passage of all future legislation. The day will come when this fact produces consequences that the American left deeply abhors.

Cool, but you're forgetting one thing. We have an actual law on our side...the most sweeping piece of economic legislation since Medicare. All you have are silly hypotheticals. :2wave:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

You can bet on that. As long as companies can save money by dumping health insurance plans, they will.

They did that before, too. So now the difference is that there's somewhere else to go.
 
You will probably be sued if you have money and refuse to pay.

So tell me again how the opt-outters are screwing The People? It doesn't sound like they have a way to simply evade all personal medical costs. Comparatively, it's by far the Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries who are doing the most amount of screwing.

But middle class people don't have near enough money to cover a serious injury or illness. If they did they wouldn't be middle class.

So whether people are insured or not is irrelevant, as either way the cost of their care will be transferred.

That is the cost of living in a civilized society.

The cost of living in a civilized society is to be on the hook for everyone's potentially limitless health care needs when it's clear that as a nation we cannot afford it? When the problem is financing a need that exceeds the ability to keep paying for it, the "cost of living in a civilized society" argument is an utter copout.

That's like me spending myself and my wife into bankruptcy and, in response to her protest, shrugging and saying "that's the cost of being in a happy marriage with me."

And there is some value in knowing that no matter how wrong things may go for you, at least you won't be left on the street to rot from cancer.

Actually, the reality is that no matter how much of other people's money the system lets you siphon to pay for your personal medical needs before you die, you're still going to die and rot anyway.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Quite true, I'm sure management will still have health care in their packages.

Naturally. Have to give them tons of money and access to the company jet to attract the right talent! Somehow this never gets applied to teachers...

When the economy is bad, companies can more easily get away with dropping health care plans because people need the job. When things are better, people will have more options, and therefore will have the option to not work for the crappy company who dropped its health care plan.

One thing that bothers me about this is how half the right-wing doesn't even seem upset about the ruling because they see it as another weapon to use in election season. This tells me they care less about the content of the laws and more about how they can "win."
 
So tell me again how the opt-outters are screwing The People? It doesn't sound like they have an easy way to evade medical costs.



So whether people are insured or not is irrelevant, as either way the cost of their care will be transferred.



The cost of living in a civilized society is to be on the hook for everyone's potentially limitless health care needs when it's clear that as a nation we cannot afford it? When the problem is financing a need that exceeds the ability to keep paying for it, the "cost of living in a civilized society" argument is an utter copout.

[quoteAnd there is some value in knowing that no matter how wrong things may go for you, at least you won't be left on the street to rot from cancer.
Actually, the reality is that no matter how much of other people's money you summon to pay for your personal medical needs before you die, you're still going to die and rot anyway.


Actually the reality is that if we can't provide decent healthcare for our citizens then we must resign ourself to the fact that we are a failed society. You seem quite content with failure.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Naturally. Have to give them tons of money and access to the company jet to attract the right talent! Somehow this never gets applied to teachers...
Teachers are a protected class. There are some great ones and some horrid ones, the sad thing is when it comes to raises it's about time in, tenure, and not results. I would love to see bad teachers encouraged to leave the profession by stagnation and great teachers encouraged to stay by the same economic pressures. I'm not sure of the best way to judge merit, but I'm also not paid for that.

When the economy is bad, companies can more easily get away with dropping health care plans because people need the job. When things are better, people will have more options, and therefore will have the option to not work for the crappy company who dropped its health care plan.
I see where the theory is in that. However don't forget that there are always underperformers that will gladly take that job, for the lower level jobs it's not a great enough amount of differentiation in results.

One thing that bothers me about this is how half the right-wing doesn't even seem upset about the ruling because they see it as another weapon to use in election season. This tells me they care less about the content of the laws and more about how they can "win."
Partisans on both sides are looking at the politics, that's all they do. What you are seeing in the people who pay attention is the details, most of those from the right and left who care about the fallout don't do so to win, we are both trying to protect something, the right doesn't want a blank check to taxation, or a back door to regulation and the constitution, and the left wants their agenda. Not really anything new.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Cool, but you're forgetting one thing. We have an actual law on our side...the most sweeping piece of economic legislation since Medicare. All you have are silly hypotheticals. :2wave:

The owners of Dredd Scott also had the Supreme Court on their side. That decision helped precipitate the Civil War.

The law is illegitimate because its passage was induced through fraud. Congress debated whether the Mandate was a tax and specifically rejected that basis because Congress didn't want to be held accountable for raising taxes. President Obama specifically said the Mandate wasn't a tax. Then President Obama's lawyers went to court and argued the Mandate was valid as an exercise of the power of taxation. That's called fraud in the inducement.

That fraud is what ensures that the furor won't die. The flames of controversy will also be fanned by increased costs, declining quality and clear cut rationing. The line of causation to Obamacare will be readily apparent, and will impact white seniors particularly.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

In all this despair, let us not forget that companies still need to attract the best employees they can.

You mean that employers don't just hire people out of pity or that they got their taxes cut? That employers actually NEED their workers to make a profit? Where did you hear that?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

They did that before, too. So now the difference is that there's somewhere else to go.

General percentage by level paid by consumer
(through deductibles, copays and coinsurance)

Bronze Level – 40%
Silver Level – 30%
Gold Level – 20%
Platinum Level – 10%

What kind of coverage will the plans sold through the health insurance exchanges include?

Except the coverage ain't so great. For those who can barely afford the Bronze coverage, how can they afford to pay 40% of the health care bills?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom