• 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

No, that is clearly under the commerce clause, not a tax. We already have tons of requirements about benefits packages and whatnot. Nothing new there. This whole silly hypothetical issue about inaction doesn't apply there, since employers are doing something- employing people.

This post is a great big pile of disinformation.
Employers are being told they must provide insurance care per the act or be fined. That is not the commerce clause talking, it is the mandate----which the SCOTUS would only allow to be constitutional under the power to tax. So yes, it is the tax and the commerce clause absolutely does not control.

You are either trolling, ignorant of the ruling or so partisan that you dont care your posts are wrong.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Then PROPOSE and pass a UHC law,

I'd definitely be in favor of that. Unfortunately there is not a congressional majority for it. :2wave:

Anyone that looks at the REAL costs and believes that adding 45 million to the "insured" rolls (at 20% added overhead) will make costs go down is simply sipping WAY to much Koolaid.

Let's be clear about something. Our economy ALREADY incurs the cost of uninsured people...we just pay for it in the least efficient way possible. There is an economic cost associated with workplace absenteeism, shorter lives, increased risk-aversion, waiting until medical issues become emergencies, etc.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

We did. The GOP forced us to compromise away many of the key provisions.

Teamo engaging in more disinformation. The blue dog democrats had more to do with the compromises and key changes than the GOP did. The blue dogs wanted political cover for this---Stupak, Nelson, McCaskill, etc.

Snowe, Collins and Specter had very little to do with changes to the law.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

This post is a great big pile of disinformation.
Employers are being told they must provide insurance care per the act or be fined. That is not the commerce clause talking, it is the mandate----which the SCOTUS would only allow to be constitutional under the power to tax. So yes, it is the tax and the commerce clause absolutely does not control.

You are either trolling, ignorant of the ruling or so partisan that you dont care your posts are wrong.

You can certainly mandate things under the commerce clause... No idea where you got the idea that you couldn't. The inaction argument- that perhaps there is some super secret unwritten limit on the commerce clause that it can't regulate inaction- doesn't apply in the context of an employer because they are acting- they are employing people. That is commerce. When you engage in commerce, there is no question that your behavior can be regulated.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Teamo engaging in more disinformation. The blue dog democrats had more to do with the compromises and key changes than the GOP did. The blue dogs wanted political cover for this---Stupak, Nelson, McCaskill, etc.

Yeah. The blue dogs were the first to crack under the teabagging.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

You can certainly mandate things under the commerce clause... No idea where you got the idea that you couldn't. The inaction argument- that perhaps there is some super secret unwritten limit on the commerce clause that it can't regulate inaction- doesn't apply in the context of an employer because they are acting- they are employing people. That is commerce. When you engage in commerce, there is no question that your behavior can be regulated.

Dead wrong. You cannot regulate what insurance someone MUST provide. You are not able to mandate they must provide it. Unless you call it a tax. It is NOT commerce clause that was what the ruling was about. Go back and read it. They limited the commerce clause providing limitations on it specifically that you cannot justify forcing commerce that doesnt already exist but you can tax to force that behavior.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Yeah. The blue dogs were the first to crack under the teabagging.

Done deal, I get to call dem moves ****bagging now, as they are a **** bag party, are you a ****bagger?

Grow up, its the tea party you inflammatory partisan disinformation specialist.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Moderator's Warning:
Thjreads merged, please keep discussions on health care ruling in this thread.
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

Au contraire. The government has mandated me to buy a house in the same way that it's mandating insurance. If I don't have a mortgage then I'm being penalized through the tax code insofar as I would be paying more than people who do have a mortgage. Thus, according to your logic, the mortgage interest I'm paying is a tax.

Au contraire. I own a home and have no mortgage. What tax am I paying?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Done deal, I get to call dem moves ****bagging now, as they are a **** bag party, are you a ****bagger?

Grow up, its the tea party you inflammatory partisan disinformation specialist.

If he only teabagged once is he considered a teabagger?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Dead wrong. You cannot regulate what insurance someone MUST provide. You are not able to mandate they must provide it. Unless you call it a tax. It is NOT commerce clause that was what the ruling was about. Go back and read it. They limited the commerce clause providing limitations on it specifically that you cannot justify forcing commerce that doesnt already exist but you can tax to force that behavior.

No, the ruling was about the INDIVIDUAL mandate, not the fines for employers. You're mixed up. I don't even think the employer mandate was challenged. It is obviously constitutional. Those are parties engaging in interstate commerce. The compensation of the employees is commerce, so of course Congress can regulate it. And of course, it does all the time.

The argument that 5 of the justices bought is that there is an unwritten limit on the commerce clause that it can't force individuals who are not engaging in commerce to engage in it. That is incorrect of course. The constitution doesn't contain any such limit. But, regardless, it has nothing to do with the employer mandate.

Done deal, I get to call dem moves ****bagging now, as they are a **** bag party, are you a ****bagger?

Grow up, its the tea party you inflammatory partisan disinformation specialist.

Oh waaa. We should all feel really sorry for a group of people that organized for the purpose of preventing poor people from getting health care.... Suuuure... No, I don't think so. Teabaggers are viscious, cruel, ignorant, immoral people. They absolutely deserve zero respect.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

No, the ruling was about the INDIVIDUAL mandate, not the fines for employers. You're mixed up. I don't even think the employer mandate was challenged. It is obviously constitutional. Those are parties engaging in interstate commerce. The compensation of the employees is commerce, so of course Congress can regulate it. And of course, it does all the time.

The argument that 5 of the justices bought is that there is an unwritten limit on the commerce clause that it can't force individuals who are not engaging in commerce to engage in it. That is incorrect of course. The constitution doesn't contain any such limit. But, regardless, it has nothing to do with the employer mandate.



Oh waaa. We should all feel really sorry for a group of people that organized for the purpose of preventing poor people from getting health care.... Suuuure... No, I don't think so. Teabaggers are viscious, cruel, ignorant, immoral people. They absolutely deserve zero respect.

Health care as compensation is unregulated. ITS OPTIONAL. Mandating it is not allowable through commerce, its allowable through taxing powers. Its at the heart of the decision, to force providing insurance or commerce where before it was not. Commerce clause was pinned back by the decision to say that forcing commerce where it does not exist is not allowed, but you can force that through a tax and it must be described as such.

For bolded: neither do you deserve respect nor should you misrepresent the formation of the Tea Party, it formed during the stimulus and TARP and the bailouts, not the health care act. Again disinformation.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

it is amazing the US has lasted this long. How did we make it without health care for all? Not saying ACA is bad law. I'm saying ACA does raise some questions regarding implemenation, costs, and role of govt. Guess if someone doesn't agree they must be ignorant, immoral and deserve no respect. :mrgreen: (and I am not a teabagger). People have a right to their views.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

You can certainly mandate things under the commerce clause... No idea where you got the idea that you couldn't. The inaction argument- that perhaps there is some super secret unwritten limit on the commerce clause that it can't regulate inaction- doesn't apply in the context of an employer because they are acting- they are employing people. That is commerce. When you engage in commerce, there is no question that your behavior can be regulated.

An employer, that now pays $4K per employee in medical care insurance benefits (plus handles all the insurance paperwork) and has 100 employees now spends $400K in "overhead"; in return that money is not taxed as income, saving that employer say 25% or $100K in income taxes. If that employer drops that medical care insurance benefit, pays the PPACA tax of $140K, then they can give pay raises of $240K (or an average of $2,400 per employee) and break about even (but have no insurance paperwork to mess with). Is this what "we the people" really want? The OBVIOUS advantage, to the employer, is that medical care insurance costs (rising at 9%/year) no longer have to be factored into the price of their goods and services.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Moderator's Warning:
A few people are very close to the point of being removed from this thread. Either tone it way down or be removed.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Health care as compensation is unregulated. ITS OPTIONAL. Mandating it is not allowable through commerce, its allowable through taxing powers. Its at the heart of the decision, to force providing insurance or commerce where before it was not. Commerce clause was pinned back by the decision to say that forcing commerce where it does not exist is not allowed, but you can force that through a tax and it must be described as such.

Think about what you're saying. "forcing commerce where it does not exist is not allowed". An employer is engaging in commerce. Paying a person for their time is commerce.

Seriously, the decision did not deal with the employer mandate. There is zero question about that. It dealt only with the individual mandate.

For bolded: neither do you deserve respect nor should you misrepresent the formation of the Tea Party, it formed during the stimulus and TARP and the bailouts, not the health care act. Again disinformation.

If the teabaggers wanted decent Americans to respect them they should not have set out to harm the most vulnerable members of our society. Had they formed to try to help people instead of to hurt them, but I disagreed with the way they went about it, I would at least treat them with respect. But when a group sets out to hurt people for no reason other than shortsighted greed, that is not possible to respect that. It is just immorality and stupidity incarnate.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

An employer, that now pays $4K per employee in medical care insurance benefits (plus handles all the insurance paperwork) and has 100 employees now spends $400K in "overhead"; in return that money is not taxed as income, saving that employer say 25% or $100K in income taxes. If that employer drops that medical care insurance benefit, pays the PPACA tax of $140K, then they can give pay raises of $240K (or an average of $2,400 per employee) and break about even (but have no insurance paperwork to mess with). Is this what "we the people" really want? The OBVIOUS advantage, to the employer, is that medical care insurance costs (rising at 9%/year) no longer have to be factored into the price of their goods and services.

Why would an employer be more likely to quit offering insurance after a fine is imposed on it than before?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

An employer, that now pays $4K per employee in medical care insurance benefits (plus handles all the insurance paperwork) and has 100 employees now spends $400K in "overhead"; in return that money is not taxed as income, saving that employer say 25% or $100K in income taxes. If that employer drops that medical care insurance benefit, pays the PPACA tax of $140K, then they can give pay raises of $240K (or an average of $2,400 per employee) and break about even (but have no insurance paperwork to mess with). Is this what "we the people" really want?

We need to break the link between employment and health insurance. Getting our health insurance through employers is one of the dumbest, inefficient, and most idiosyncratic quirks of the American health care system. It traps people in jobs which they hate or aren't good at, it discourages people from starting businesses or going back to school, and it leaves people's health coverage at the mercy of their employer's whim.

We'd be far better off to transition to a system where employers just give us money, and we buy our health insurance individually. PPACA doesn't go nearly far enough in that regard, but at least it's a start and it opens the door to future expansion. If PPACA encourages employers to drop coverage of their employees, I consider that a feature rather than a bug.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Think about what you're saying. "forcing commerce where it does not exist is not allowed". An employer is engaging in commerce. Paying a person for their time is commerce.

Seriously, the decision did not deal with the employer mandate. There is zero question about that. It dealt only with the individual mandate.



If the teabaggers wanted decent Americans to respect them they should not have set out to harm the most vulnerable members of our society. Had they formed to try to help people instead of to hurt them, but I disagreed with the way they went about it, I would at least treat them with respect. But when a group sets out to hurt people for no reason other than shortsighted greed, that is not possible to respect that. It is just immorality and stupidity incarnate.

Le sigh. You are slow on the uptake. Use your head. Are employers required to provide health care as a part of compensation? No they are not. They are being compelled to do so. That is forcing commerce as a portion of compensation. The commerce clause has been redefined to be unable to force commerce where it does not already exist. You can compel that behavior through a tax, you cannot mandate it.

This is at the heart of the ruling regarding the commerce clause and the power to tax.

Why would an employer be more likely to quit offering insurance after a fine is imposed on it than before?

Because it costs less than the coverage that they are offering. See: unintended consequences.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Questions for my liberal friends:

How important is conservative acquiesence to Obamacare in view of the inevitable glitches and unforeseen problems that will invariably develop with such a massive piece of legislation?

What if the costs of Obamacare hurt the economy and consevatives won't allow liberals to repair and fix the legislation?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

We need to break the link between employment and health insurance. Getting our health insurance through employers is one of the dumbest, inefficient, and most idiosyncratic quirks of the American health care system. It traps people in jobs which they hate or aren't good at, it discourages people from starting businesses or going back to school, and it leaves people's health coverage at the mercy of their employer's whim.

Kandahar---we agree on something at least.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

We need to break the link between employment and health insurance.

Agreed. What we need, quite simply, is Medicare for all.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Agreed. What we need, quite simply, is Medicare for all.

We, do not agree :p

Individual payers are more responsible with the purchases if its their money and will hold insurance companies more accountable. Give the insurance regulators some serious teeth and move insurance to individuals and you WILL see costs drop.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Agreed. What we need, quite simply, is Medicare for all.

No, what we need is for everybody to provide for their own needs and not pass it off on to others.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

We need to break the link between employment and health insurance. Getting our health insurance through employers is one of the dumbest, inefficient, and most idiosyncratic quirks of the American health care system. It traps people in jobs which they hate or aren't good at, it discourages people from starting businesses or going back to school, and it leaves people's health coverage at the mercy of their employer's whim.

We'd be far better off to transition to a system where employers just give us money, and we buy our health insurance individually. PPACA doesn't go nearly far enough in that regard, but at least it's a start and it opens the door to future expansion. If PPACA encourages employers to drop coverage of their employees, I consider that a feature rather than a bug.

Kandahar---we agree on something at least.

Agreed. What we need, quite simply, is Medicare for all.

Agreed, although Kandahar's second paragraph says we independently buy insurance. I agree with AdamT - Medicare for all. Single payer, through the states. No more medical insurance industry, except for premium health insurance I you want to pay for it. No federal government involved in social welfare, including education, welfare, unemployment and medical care...all of that is at the state level.
 
Back
Top Bottom