• 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-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Word is that Chief Justice Roberts is experiencing cognitive decline as a result of his epilepsy medicine. Medications have a helluva an impact on people's ability to think. That's why lots of lawyers and doctors ultimately decide to retire.
I really dont find his decision all that horrible. Look, the federal government already has the power to compel us into programs like SS medicare and medicaid. What he said was that the government cannot compel us to buy a private product but could tax us if we dont. The state shouldnt IMHO, have that power, but they do and the have for years. Had the dems just voted to expand medicare to cover everyone, it would have been constitutional, so socialized medicine, while repugnant will certainly be found constitutional when it ultimately happens--which it will.

As it stands, Obamacare is a tax plan and as such can be repealed by the people. If you want it gone, vote out Obama. If you dont want to be taxed by the state for not doing what they command, vote against liberals at every level. Taxes are harder to get through congress then some sneaky expansion of the commerce clause. But elections have consequences. Electing Obama and giving him super majorities in both houses was a big mistake. But it is not something that cant be undone.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Aren't they already being punished enough by having to live a life in poverty? While pile on more?
Then it isnt about discouraging free loading as you claimed. Besides, the people who are going to be hit with the tax are the ones who dont buy health insurance. Many of those are "already being punished enough by having to live a life in poverty? While pile on more?"
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I wonder if Roberts was really sharp enough to do the old Chinese strategy of taking one step backward so as to take two steps forward. Maybe the CJ really stuck it to Obama in the long run

I swear that was the FIRST thing I thought when I heard it was Roberts.

Purely cynical, purely political, coldly calculated "sacrifice" play.

Denies the Dems any "bump" from the ACA getting overturned. Twists the Tea Party types right up. Blood boiling as we enter the election season.

Pretty tricky, I say.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I pay CASH and get all the care that I need, I pay my bills, I buy and take my medications and get HUGE cash discounts for doing so. The clinic that I use never even has to send me a bill, as I refuse to leave until I pay for that visit. They LIKE me there, and would help me in any way should I ask for it. They have even had me admitted to the hospital for surgery ($5,800) and I paid CASH for that as well (but it took 2.5 years). Paying cash is not impossible.

$5,800 is a drop in the bucket compared to what you'll owe if you need a major medical procedure.

I do not WANT gov't help, if I really needed it, then my family, friends and neighbors would try to raise it, as we all did for another neighbor whose entire house was recently destroyed by a lighting strike fire. People CAN DO much more than most think, if they are simply willing to TRY and help each other when in need, what goes around, comes around.

Even the cost of replacing a house isn't as much as the cost of many medical procedures.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I really dont find his decision all that horrible. Look, the federal government already has the power to compel us into programs like SS medicare and medicaid. What he said was that the government cannot compel us to buy a private product but could tax us if we dont. The state shouldnt IMHO, have that power, but they do and the have for years. Had the dems just voted to expand medicare to cover everyone, it would have been constitutional, so socialized medicine, while repugnant will certainly be found constitutional when it ultimately happens--which it will.

As it stands, Obamacare is a tax plan and as such can be repealed by the people. If you want it gone, vote out Obama. If you dont want to be taxed by the state for not doing what they command, vote against liberals at every level. Taxes are harder to get through congress then some sneaky expansion of the commerce clause. But elections have consequences. Electing Obama and giving him super majorities in both houses was a big mistake. But it is not something that cant be undone.

I think you're right about elections having consequences. Some consequences seem remote and difficult to anticipate. I think this legislation will have consequences that deeply divide the American people. I think Obama's victory will end up wounding American solidarity and social cohesion because of the treacherous way in which it was effected. Some victory's aren't worth having.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Then it isnt about discouraging free loading as you claimed. Besides, the people who are going to be hit with the tax are the ones who dont buy health insurance. Many of those are "already being punished enough by having to live a life in poverty? While pile on more?"

No... Nobody in poverty can't get health insurance anymore. That's the whole freaking point of this thing. To get those folks insurance.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I pay CASH and get all the care that I need, I pay my bills, I buy and take my medications and get HUGE cash discounts for doing so. The clinic that I use never even has to send me a bill, as I refuse to leave until I pay for that visit. They LIKE me there, and would help me in any way should I ask for it. They have even had me admitted to the hospital for surgery ($5,800) and I paid CASH for that as well (but it took 2.5 years). Paying cash is not impossible.

What you're missing is that by doing that you are imposing risk on the rest of us. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, you're going to get admitted to an ER, it is going to cost $200k to fix you back up, and we'll have to foot most of that bill.

I do not WANT gov't help, if I really needed it, then my family, friends and neighbors would try to raise it, as we all did for another neighbor whose entire house was recently destroyed by a lighting strike fire. People CAN DO much more than most think, if they are simply willing to TRY and help each other when in need, what goes around, comes around.

I am old and have been in many motorcycle accidents that have taken their toll, over the years, via multiple broken bones, plates, screws, bone grafts and some messed up soft tissue (discs and nerves) and some circulation problems, but can still work, so I do, hopefully until at least age 62 to get SS help, that I will have worked 45 years for.

This distinction where you think there is something morally wrong about accepting help with your medical expenses prior to turning 62, but that it is ok after 62 is a bit odd... But, whatever, hey, I respect that you want to be independent like that. It's even admirable in a way. But it doesn't align with the modern reality. The reality today is that by trying to be independent you are imposing your risks on the rest of us. And, besides, just because you want to turn down help doesn't mean that most people do. We have to design policies around everybody. We can't always accommodate the individual quirks of each person's preferences.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Most of them have never even SEEN poverty.

Have you never spent time with somebody who was living on public assistance alone? I have. It's brutal. Often times their houses are not closed off to the elements because they can't afford to fix holes in the roof and whatnot. Often times they have discarded objects as furniture like milk crates for chairs and a board on a couple of cinder blocks for a table. Why anybody would want to hurt people in that situation even more is beyond me.

Our economic system has built right into it the reality that some people are going to lose out. They aren't going to be smart enough, or lucky enough or who knows what, and they're going to be poor. That's by design. How much extra **** do we need to pile on to them on top of the poverty? What is the point of doing that? Just malice?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

$5,800 is a drop in the bucket compared to what you'll owe if you need a major medical procedure.



Even the cost of replacing a house isn't as much as the cost of many medical procedures.

Living on about $900/month does not allow me to pay insurance, so I do what I can to avoid needing medical care, when my number is up, then that is it for me. If I had major assets to protect or others depending on my income then insurance would be a wise expense, I had it earlier in life through my job(s), as things are, it is not practical to try to live on less than $300/month rent, sharing an old 2BR singlewide mobile home is good enough for me. If Obama thinks I need to pay a fine for that "crime", then so be it. I hope this stupid PPACA law is gone by 2014, if not, I may just "retire" (at least from IRS view).
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Living on about $900/month does not allow me to pay insurance, so I do what I can to avoid needing medical care, when my number is up, then that is it for me. If I had major assets to protect or others depending on my income then insurance would be a wise expense, I had it earlier in life through my job(s), as things are, it is not practical to try to live on less than $300/month rent, sharing an old 2BR singlewide mobile home is good enough for me. If Obama thinks I need to pay a fine for that "crime", then so be it. I hope this stupid PPACA law is gone by 2014, if not, I may just "retire" (at least from IRS view).

Two things:

1) Insurance is free for you. Just sign up and that's all you've got to do. We want you to take it.

2) Avoiding medical care can be good or bad. Living healthy, yeah, for sure that's good. Not going to the doctor for minor stuff to save money, that's bad. What that is is just avoiding preventative care which is ultimately much cheaper than treatment after the fact. If you hit 62 and accept medicare, we'll all be paying for that lack of preventive care through the teeth. We would far rather that you sign up for the free insurance now, get that preventative care, and it'll save us a boatload on medicare.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Have you never spent time with somebody who was living on public assistance alone? I have. It's brutal. Often times their houses are not closed off to the elements because they can't afford to fix holes in the roof and whatnot. Often times they have discarded objects as furniture like milk crates for chairs and a board on a couple of cinder blocks for a table. Why anybody would want to hurt people in that situation even more is beyond me.

Our economic system has built right into it the reality that some people are going to lose out. They aren't going to be smart enough, or lucky enough or who knows what, and they're going to be poor. That's by design. How much extra **** do we need to pile on to them on top of the poverty? What is the point of doing that? Just malice?
What is your point?
An appeal to emotion?
Is that it?

If so - horse pucky.

If you want to take care of these type of people, do so, with your money, and the money of those who wish to do the same.

But don't force others, or support laws that forces others to take care of those who would naturally cease on their own.

It just isn't beneficial to society as a whole to allow those who suck off the societal teat, to continue to do so, or even to allow them to beget others that will learn to do the same.
It just isn't beneficial to society as a whole.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What you're missing is that by doing that you are imposing risk on the rest of us. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, you're going to get admitted to an ER, it is going to cost $200k to fix you back up, and we'll have to foot most of that bill.



This distinction where you think there is something morally wrong about accepting help with your medical expenses prior to turning 62, but that it is ok after 62 is a bit odd... But, whatever, hey, I respect that you want to be independent like that. It's even admirable in a way. But it doesn't align with the modern reality. The reality today is that by trying to be independent you are imposing your risks on the rest of us. And, besides, just because you want to turn down help doesn't mean that most people do. We have to design policies around everybody. We can't always accommodate the individual quirks of each person's preferences.

At 62 I can get SS (1,100/month?) but no medicare until 65, that is actually a pay raise from what I live on now. I view SS/Medicare as fair gov't benefit (entitlement?), since I have been paying those taxes since 1970 and will try to get my SS in 2016, then I can work "off the books" as long as I am able.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Have you never spent time with somebody who was living on public assistance alone? I have. It's brutal. Often times their houses are not closed off to the elements because they can't afford to fix holes in the roof and whatnot. Often times they have discarded objects as furniture like milk crates for chairs and a board on a couple of cinder blocks for a table. Why anybody would want to hurt people in that situation even more is beyond me.

Our economic system has built right into it the reality that some people are going to lose out. They aren't going to be smart enough, or lucky enough or who knows what, and they're going to be poor. That's by design. How much extra **** do we need to pile on to them on top of the poverty? What is the point of doing that? Just malice?

LOL. I have seen people living WITHOUT public assistance, in sheds, boxes and under bridges, most somewhat by choice, yet they get by. There are ways to make money, without great skill, just some good honest work. Some even make a decent amount just flying a sign, yet waste it staying stoned on their drug of choice. I like my beer but don't let it run my life. Nobody is OWED a living, if they can't get a dozen or so "friends" to help or meet people needing some odds and ends done for them, to get some pocket money, when they are "between jobs" then they are just not trying very hard. If your savings get too low, then its time to get busier.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

That's exactly why I would consider it more of a fine than a tax. They're being punished for trying to freeload.

The Supreme Court said it was a tax

It's a tax
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What is your point?
An appeal to emotion?
Is that it?

If so - horse pucky.

If you want to take care of these type of people, do so, with your money, and the money of those who wish to do the same.

But don't force others, or support laws that forces others to take care of those who would naturally cease on their own.

It just isn't beneficial to society as a whole to allow those who suck off the societal teat, to continue to do so, or even to allow them to beget others that will learn to do the same.
It just isn't beneficial to society as a whole.

Well, from my perspective, the values you are espousing just aren't the values of a good person. They are the values of a selfish, greedy, evil person. Somebody who only can understand why he should help somebody else in terms of how it helps him. So, just off the top, we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think debate can really rectify that.

But, even within your ultra limited moral system where you only care about yourself, you are still wrong. Investing in poverty amelioration is one of the highest return investments there is. We are radically underinvesting in it at huge cost to our society.

The median American- just your average joe- generates $3 million of GDP in their lifetime. If we can spend $2 million getting just one single person out of poverty, we profited $1 million by doing that. But here we are dicking around squabbling over whether we can spend $6,000 instead of $5,000 and having to fight right wingers tooth and nail the whole way.

Countries that invest more of their GDP in poverty amelioration (which is almost the entire rest of the first world) see huge returns. Poverty has practically been eliminated in most of the first world for decades. The problems we're still struggling with in regards to poverty- the economic drain, the crime, all that- are radically more manageable in the rest of the first world. We're making a huge mistake just letting a problem that is relatively easy to solve fester. We treat the symptoms with a huge prison system and whatnot when it is way, way, cheaper, and in fact much more economically advantageous, to just solve the problem itself.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

If I had major assets to protect or others depending on my income then insurance would be a wise expense

Here is the thing. Our assets are standing in line behind yours. If you get a major medical expense that would have dipped into your major assets if you had them, the expense doesn't just disappear, it comes out of our assets. And we want you to get insurance for the same reason you would want to get it if they were your assets being risked.

Honestly, I think you're a good man and I think you're doing what you think is right. I respect what you're trying to do, but you've miscalculated. By trying to protect us from having to support you, you are actually imposing greater costs on us. Who knows, maybe you'll roll the dice and get lucky and never have a medical expense you can't cover yourself. But, then again, maybe you'll get an unlucky roll. And that couple thousand a year you're saving by not having insurance won't be much consolation if you impose $800,000 in medical costs on society. And that is VERY possible to run up $800,000 in medical bills. Cancer is common and cancer treatment regimens often run over $1 million. On average, it ends up better off for us all if everybody just gets insurance and goes in regularly for check ups and deals with medical problems as soon as they emerge. Even if we have to pay for the insurance, that is way cheaper, on average, than gambling on it. And like I say, based on the numbers you've listed about your income, it's free. You don't have that many more years before you're on medicare. Just go ahead and get the insurance now in case something happens before then. We don't want to take that gamble.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The Supreme Court said it was a tax

It's a tax

The Supreme Court said that it is authorized by the taxation clause. That isn't really the same thing. The only distinction anybody has come up with between a tax and a fine is that a fine is to punish you for something. This is to punish people who are trying to freeload off the system, so that sounds more like a fine to me. Either way though, fine or tax, it is authorized by the taxation clause.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Living on about $900/month does not allow me to pay insurance, so I do what I can to avoid needing medical care, when my number is up, then that is it for me. If I had major assets to protect or others depending on my income then insurance would be a wise expense, I had it earlier in life through my job(s), as things are, it is not practical to try to live on less than $300/month rent, sharing an old 2BR singlewide mobile home is good enough for me. If Obama thinks I need to pay a fine for that "crime", then so be it. I hope this stupid PPACA law is gone by 2014, if not, I may just "retire" (at least from IRS view).

At your income level, you will qualify for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (if Texas decides to participate in the expansion...which isn't necessarily a certainty in the short term). You won't need to pay any fine...in fact, you'll get full coverage without paying a dime.

If Texas opts to not participate in the Medicaid expansion for political reasons, you will still be eligible for nearly-free private insurance. You'll pay $18 per month for your premium, and the federal government will pay for the rest.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

At your income level, you will qualify for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (if Texas decides to participate in the expansion...which isn't necessarily a certainty in the short term). You won't need to pay any fine...in fact, you'll get full coverage without paying a dime.

If Texas opts to not participate in the Medicaid expansion for political reasons, you will still be eligible for nearly-free private insurance. You'll pay $18 per month for your premium, and the federal government will pay for the rest.

Sounds OK, but my clinic will not take medicaid, so I'll still pay cash when I can, because they give good care. But I would certainly pay $18/month for medicaid (or whatever), just in case, IFF the PPACA stands as is, because the fine just likely to be wasted money. Right now insurance in Texas is at least $238/month and that is with a $5000 annual deductable, which is basically useless to me, unless something REALLY bad happens to me.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The Supreme Court said that it is authorized by the taxation clause. That isn't really the same thing. The only distinction anybody has come up with between a tax and a fine is that a fine is to punish you for something. This is to punish people who are trying to freeload off the system, so that sounds more like a fine to me. Either way though, fine or tax, it is authorized by the taxation clause.

Two reasons I see it as a tax:

The IRS is delegated to collect the 'fee'.

The fee is a percentage of ones income and not a flat 'fee'.

But your right either way it is authorized by the taxation clause.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Here is the thing. Our assets are standing in line behind yours. If you get a major medical expense that would have dipped into your major assets if you had them, the expense doesn't just disappear, it comes out of our assets. And we want you to get insurance for the same reason you would want to get it if they were your assets being risked.

Honestly, I think you're a good man and I think you're doing what you think is right. I respect what you're trying to do, but you've miscalculated. By trying to protect us from having to support you, you are actually imposing greater costs on us. Who knows, maybe you'll roll the dice and get lucky and never have a medical expense you can't cover yourself. But, then again, maybe you'll get an unlucky roll. And that couple thousand a year you're saving by not having insurance won't be much consolation if you impose $800,000 in medical costs on society. And that is VERY possible to run up $800,000 in medical bills. Cancer is common and cancer treatment regimens often run over $1 million. On average, it ends up better off for us all if everybody just gets insurance and goes in regularly for check ups and deals with medical problems as soon as they emerge. Even if we have to pay for the insurance, that is way cheaper, on average, than gambling on it. And like I say, based on the numbers you've listed about your income, it's free. You don't have that many more years before you're on medicare. Just go ahead and get the insurance now in case something happens before then. We don't want to take that gamble.

I go to the clinic every month, for blood lab work and a basic checkup, and see the main doctor every three months and even bump into my vascular surgeon on occasion, he still can't believe that I paid his bill. ;-)
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Two reasons I see it as a tax:

The IRS is delegated to collect the 'fee'.

The fee is a percentage of ones income and not a flat 'fee'.

But your right either way it is authorized by the taxation clause.

Yeah, I can see how those would make it seem more like a tax. But, then again, most fines are adjusted based on a person's means. Courts definitely drop or raise fines based on the person's income, and most fines from administrative agencies and whatnot are means tested. So, while that might suggest a tax, it isn't really determinative. To me, the fact that it is a punishment for undesirable behavior strongly suggests that it is a fine. Also, it just isn't about revenue. It is about trying to prod people to get insurance. Our hope is that everybody gets insurance and nobody pays the fine. That's the goal. And that sounds more fine-like to me.

But really, that distinction is pretty meaningless. There certainly are some things that I would definitely see as a tax, but not a fine. Income taxes for example. But whether, for example, we call a charge that we give to people that pollute a "fine" or a "tax" doesn't really matter, does it? IMO the political debate in this country is far, far, too hung up on meaningless distinctions. If we give a $1,000 subsidy to corn growers, one whole group of people is up in arms because they hate subsidies. But, if we call it a "tax break" instead, then those same people all support it because they like tax breaks... But it is the same exact damn thing! Same deal here. Why would somebody support it if it were called a "fine", but oppose it if it is called a "tax"? It makes no sense.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The law upheld in it's entirety, yet at the end of the day it seems as if conservatives gain more political clout and enthusiasm than the victors in all their glory.

Actually, the law was NOT upheld in it's entirety. Yes, Roberts joined with the Liberal faction, but in striking down the Commerce Clause argument, and calling it a tax, he is opening the door to undoing a lot of FDR's agenda, much of which was based on the Commerce Clause. In the long run, this trend will be a defeat for the Liberals.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Actually, the law was NOT upheld in it's entirety. Yes, Roberts joined with the Liberal faction, but in striking down the Commerce Clause argument, and calling it a tax, he is opening the door to undoing a lot of FDR's agenda, much of which was based on the Commerce Clause. In the long run, this trend will be a defeat for the Liberals.

Not even close. The commerce clause issue was limited to this unique case, or other attempts to "create commerce" and then regulate it under the commerce clause. That doesn't implicate existing commerce clause precedent at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom