• 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.
AdamT said:
The penalty will rise somewhat rapidly in the next several years, so you'll be paying closer to $1,000. Still cheaper, right? But at least you've paid something to offset costs.
Click to expand...

If you forego insurance but have money and incur big medical expenses, you're billed for them. What happens if you have money but still refuse to pay?

And of course all of this hand wringing is overblown insofar very few people will actually be impacted by the mandate. Most get insurance through their employer, or get Medicare/aid, or would qualify for subsidized insurance.

So to actually get hit you have to be able to afford insurance but turn it down, making the conscious decision to pay the penalty because you know you can screw over your fellow Americans if you do get sick by cheating the insurance system.
Click to expand...

What screws over fellow Americans is that there's any way at all to get oodles of health care at no cost. That includes Medicare and Medicaid. You act as though someone getting medical without insurance screws others over in a way that being able to fill out paperwork for free medical somehow does not. One way or another people with no money are incurring costs on the rest of us. That's what screws us.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

AdamT said:
Wow, so you're the personification of the Santa Cruz Realtors Association? Great job with that housing crisis. :D
Click to expand...

Counselor, you know better than to make specious arguments. I was the personification of a public charity as defined by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Why use the Realtors? They gave my charity a built in source of fundraising for my charitable objective.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

fredmertzz said:
This guy starts a non-profit to help the less fortunate afford housing and you use it as an opportunity to call him disingenuous about his other concerns in society? Then immediately after making the bold statement, claim to want to keep this topic 'on track' and ask for the conversation to end like that???

Man... I just don't know to say.
Click to expand...

It's usually best to say nothing when you're in doubt.

......but yeah, when someone makes numerous posts about how the ACA is going to destroy our white elderly population, I want to see if he's putting his money where his mouth is.
Seems he's not. :shrug:
 
Kandahar said:
You obviously don't have a very solid understanding of how the Constitution - or legal jurisprudence - works. Taxes ARE laws and always have been. What the Supreme Court ACTUALLY said was that it couldn't be justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, but it *is* justified under the "levy a tax" clause.

An analogy: Just because Congress has the power to establish post offices doesn't mean that everything they do has to be justified by the post office clause. They can also exercise their OTHER powers. Similarly, just because Congress passed a tax doesn't mean that it ALSO has to be justified by the commerce clause. As long as it's justified by ANY of Congress' enumerated powers, it does not exceed their authority.
Click to expand...

But they have no authority under the constitution for the individual mandate! So individual mandates are unconstitutional. They confirmed this yesterday. But because this doesn't have any consequence of Congress beyond its authority to tax, it is allowed. What they're saying is that rules passed by Congress do not have to be constitutional so long as the consequence of breaking the rules is a tax.
 
AdamT said:
No, because it's a tax penalty and he made no bones about it being a tax penalty. The penalty is exactly how it was described, and whether Congress created it under the auspices of its taxing power or it's power to regulate commerce doesn't change that one iota.
Click to expand...


[video]http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video?id=8620606[/video]
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

missypea said:
It's usually best to say nothing when you're in doubt.

......but yeah, when someone makes numerous posts about how the ACA is going to destroy our white elderly population, I want to see if he's putting his money where his mouth is.
Seems he's not. :shrug:
Click to expand...

yes, shame on him for prioritizing his concerns and not having unlimited funds...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

fredmertzz said:
yes, shame on him for prioritizing his concerns and not having unlimited funds...
Click to expand...

Oh come on, fred. Let's get this thread back on track. Whaddya say?

What are your thoughts about the ACA?
 
Last year the voters in Ohio voted 2-1 in support of a proposal to prevent them from being forced to participate in a health care system. Wonder how that's gonna play out...
 
fredmertzz said:
But they have no authority under the constitution for the individual mandate! So individual mandates are unconstitutional. They confirmed this yesterday.
Click to expand...

Correct. According to the Supreme Court, it would be unconstitutional for them to pass a law saying "Buy health insurance or we'll put you in jail." However, they also said that this isn't an individual mandate because you aren't being forced to buy health insurance. It's perfectly legitimate if you decide to pay the tax instead of buying health insurance.

But because this doesn't have any consequence of Congress beyond its authority to tax, it is allowed. What they're saying is that rules passed by Congress do not have to be constitutional so long as the consequence of breaking the rules is a tax.
Click to expand...

That isn't at all what they said. If Congress has the power to do A, B, C, and D, they can pass a law that only exercises power B. They don't *also* have to make sure they exercise power A, C, and D in the same law.
 
Neomalthusian said:
If you forego insurance but have money and incur big medical expenses, you're billed for them. What happens if you have money but still refuse to pay?
Click to expand...

You will probably be sued if you have money and refuse to pay. 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.

What screws over fellow Americans is that there's any way at all to get oodles of health care at no cost.
Click to expand...

That is the cost of living in a civilized society. 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.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Kandahar said:
There's about to be a lot less. PPACA mandates that they spend at least 80-85% of revenue on health care. If they don't, they have to rebate their customers for the difference.That only leaves 15-20% for everything else...administrative costs, overhead, profits, etc. They aren't going to have much money left to bribe politicians.
Click to expand...

I would like to thank you also for all the information youve provided...Ive kept mostly quiet because I dont know enough but I have been reading...and if this is a fact then its a good thing as far as im concerned, they will concentrate more on patients than keeping care from patients for more profit
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

missypea said:
Oh come on, fred. Let's get this thread back on track. Whaddya say?

What are your thoughts about the ACA?
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Other libertarians will hate me for this: but I'm all for a single-payer system, run at the national level, approved at the state level.

But the ACA... no way.

What the Supreme Court has done yesterday is said that the rules Congress sets does not have to be constitutional. I.E. the individual mandate was not found constitutional under the commerce clause or the necessary & proper clause. But so long as Congress does not use punishments beyond its taxing authorities, that any law they set forth is allowed, whether it is constitutional or not.

This is so backwards I don't know where to begin. I'd happily argue this is not a direct tax and that Congress does not have the authority to impose it. But even that seems to be getting too far into the argument. The fact that a law does not have to be constitutional so long as the consequence is only a tax seems absurd to me.
 
Kandahar said:
As soon as I saw the domain name I decided not to click on your link. Do you have anything remotely substantive or just rants from right-wing websites?
Click to expand...

it's actually a pretty decent article.

I don't agree with the conclusion. I mean, it would be great if we finally help politicians feet to the fire and make them deal with us honestly and openly, but I don't think that is the role of scotus.

instead, it is up to the voters to show them that we don't tolerate these lies and distortions.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

lpast said:
I would like to thank you also for all the information youve provided...Ive kept mostly quiet because I dont know enough but I have been reading...and if this is a fact then its a good thing as far as im concerned, they will concentrate more on patients than keeping care from patients for more profit
Click to expand...

It is a good thing, and a lot of folks are going to get checks or premium rebates this year as a result.

Later this summer, nearly 13 million Americans will receive $1.1 billion in rebates from insurance companies — an average of $151 for each family policy — because of the law’s requirement that at least 80 percent of insurance premiums paid by consumers must go for medical care or quality improvement measures. Insurers that don’t meet the standard must pay a rebate to their policyholders by Aug. 1 for the difference, either in cash or by a reduction in premiums.

Read more here: Ruling impacts millions of health care consumers - Florida - MiamiHerald.com
Click to expand...
 
Kandahar said:
Correct. According to the Supreme Court, it would be unconstitutional for them to pass a law saying "Buy health insurance or we'll put you in jail." However, they also said that this isn't an individual mandate because you aren't being forced to buy health insurance. It's perfectly legitimate if you decide to pay the tax instead of buying health insurance.



That isn't at all what they said. If Congress has the power to do A, B, C, and D, they can pass a law that only exercises power B. They don't *also* have to make sure they exercise power A, C, and D in the same law.
Click to expand...


I see what you are saying. Thank you for explaining. So from the court's perspective, this is a tax, which you can avoid by buying healthcare. It seems it was me who was looking at this backwards...

I can even see where that is technically constitutional and from that point, up to the people to decide who is making these laws.

I do insist that this opens the door for Congress to pass nearly any rule that it would like, under the idea that they will tax you unless you yield to their demands. And that prospect is VERY scary to me. And that Congress' ability to tax should be limited to direct taxes to avoid this potential future calamity.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

fredmertzz said:
Fair enough.

Other libertarians will hate me for this: but I'm all for a single-payer system, run at the national level, approved at the state level.

But the ACA... no way.

What the Supreme Court has done yesterday is said that the rules Congress sets does not have to be constitutional. I.E. the individual mandate was not found constitutional under the commerce clause or the necessary & proper clause. But so long as Congress does not use punishments beyond its taxing authorities, that any law they set forth is allowed, whether it is constitutional or not.

This is so backwards I don't know where to begin. I'd happily argue this is not a direct tax and that Congress does not have the authority to impose it. But even that seems to be getting too far into the argument. The fact that a law does not have to be constitutional so long as the consequence is only a tax seems absurd to me.
Click to expand...

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

fredmertzz said:
Fair enough.

Other libertarians will hate me for this: but I'm all for a single-payer system, run at the national level, approved at the state level.
Click to expand...

It looks like we found a common ground.
I wanted a single payer system as well.
I think this is a start down that road.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Tigger said:
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?
Click to expand...

Then go vote for a Republican. They just LOVE unions. <snicker>
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Kandahar said:
Pay more for Medicare? Taxed for a hip replacement? Example #2,078,622 of someone criticizing the ACA without even understanding what's in it. There are no such provisions in the ACA.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

j-mac said:
You had a miscarriage? How does a guy have a miscarriage?
Click to expand...

You can do it in California.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Kal'Stang said:
Slavery was once the Law of the Land also. Along with many other things that never should have been. Yet they were gotten rid of. Now we have another POS piece of legislation to get rid of. Just how do you think we're going to achieve this if we don't cry out against it? Sorry Lpast but I WILL NOT shut up about this and just "make it the best it can be". Because the best it can be is still crap.
Click to expand...


Well said. Smack down. :mrgreen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom