Will the Supreme Court uphold or overturn Heathcare

[Magis]

That makes sense because HarperGov(tm) has been trying to make Canada more like the US

Yeah, this is one of those statements that people make without ever being able to actually establish the claim rationally.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I'd be interested in how you can justify your statement. And "They increased military spending" or some such other generality doesn't really cut it in my opinion.

[Simon_Jester]

Everyone I know right now is going crazy with conspiracy theories saying Roberts voted for it on purpose knowing it is going to hurt Obama by saying it is a "Tax" on America.

I had actually been HOPING that it was going to get struck down, that would put the Dems in the roll of "trying to help, but the evil GOP are against us". Now it is being said from the High Court that Obama has effectivly instituted a massive Tax on the American people. ESPECIALLY as "this is not a tax" is something Obama said a hundred times over.

Since I know people who would be essentially impossible to insure without Obamacare, and who therefore might get sick and die, or get sick and force their parents to burn tens of thousands of dollars caring for them.

So forgive me if I consider this a net win for the American people. If we gauge all political outcomes by "will this make Fox News talking heads scream like little girls or not," we're never going to get anything done.

[Agent Sorchus]

Ok I was one of the 3 people who said uphold.

1st striking the mandate wouldn't happen, it was all or nothing. With out this the cost of health care would sustain or increase, the corporations would find ways to shirk around actually covering things if they could and not eat massive costs. The law really doesn't work without this part.

As for striking the whole law, unlikely in my mind. The insurance companies where behind it in the first place and the power of corporations has been entirely supported by this and past Supreme Court rulings. Granting them the entire nation to tax is just too sweet a gift for the Justices to ignore.

Keeping the law whole is actually the path of least resistance, partially because the public support for actually getting some sort of reform of the Health care industry is great, and partially because it causes the most amount of corporate giddiness.

I actually am happy that Roberts supported this as a tax, it might allow a future challenge since taxing has never been a thing that involves paying a corporation instead of giving money to the government. To me this ruling actually allows for a further push towards something resembling single payer.

[Blayne]

Mr. Weir have you, or have you ever been a member of the NDP Party? Are you presently a member of the NDP Party?, if you wish to debate this further I don't mind doing so but you would probably be better served in starting a new thread, for courtesy reasons I would prefer to refrain doing so myself.

Since I know people who would be essentially impossible to insure without Obamacare, and who therefore might get sick and die, or get sick and force their parents to burn tens of thousands of dollars caring for them.

So forgive me if I consider this a net win for the American people. If we gauge all political outcomes by "will this make Fox News talking heads scream like little girls or not," we're never going to get anything done.

Exactly, I agree completely, the way I think of it is this way the Republicans need to now actually debate the Bill and Obamacare itself instead of its shadow. If it was struck down or thrown out then the Republicans were home free and had their job done for them; its easy to criticise something that's dead.

The Republican's lost big time here, that much is clear, they put a lot of energy into trying to get it repealed or otherwise smacked down and its blown in their face.

[Mr Bean]

So forgive me if I consider this a net win for the American people. If we gauge all political outcomes by "will this make Fox News talking heads scream like little girls or not," we're never going to get anything done.

Actually I disagree, most of the good stuff that needs getting done results in the Fox News Talking heads screaming like little girls.

Raise taxes? Yep
Heathcare? Yep
Gay rights? Yep
Immigration reform that does not consist of a second Berlin wall? Yep
Not invading Iran? Yep

I could go on, but most of the things Fox News whines and complains about are all things considered great things for most people. The things they don't complain about (Warrentless wiretapping, rendition, the drone assassination programs, money in politics) are the things that have me worried.

[Blayne]

This is pretty funny

There's also a picture on the internet somewhere about raising General Sherman from the dead or otherwise cloning him to send him at the Republicans.

[Azazal]

I would just like to apologize to Canada ahead of time
Sorry Canada, really

[Vaporous]

The best part of this from where I'm sitting:

Bush appointed Roberts.
Roberts vote saved the bill.
The bill is now Bushcare.

[Darmalus]

I would just like to apologize to Canada ahead of time
Sorry Canada, really

A bunch of those seem to be upset over the individual mandate, which I find a rather reasonable thing to be upset over. I'd rather have a single payer system than this corporate run mess we have now.

[Agent Sorchus]

From 538 yesterday, but basically the supreme court has ruled in favor of the federal government in 75% of cases and is probably the strongest indicator of how the court will rule tomorrow (aka today.)

...
But continued dissatisfaction over the health care bill was presumably already priced into the polls. A decision that upholds the status quo is not likely to change that much.(...)
And be wary of whatever the polls say for the next week or two — the short-term reaction to the news of the ruling may not match its long-term political effects. ...

A thoughtful article about how this decision could've influenced the presidential race.

Also for laughs at the end of the article
"Who came out looking better than the pundits? Interestingly, it may be high school students.

High school students participating in a Supreme Court “fantasy league” sponsored by the nonprofit Harlan Institute had been about evenly divided in predicting the court’s decision, with 57 percent thinking the mandate would be overturned and 43 percent saying it would be upheld."

[Jim Raynor]

OK, I admit that I'm not the most well-informed on this subject, but does upholding the law as a "tax" make any tangible difference for people? Did it change anything in the law that didn't exist yesterday? Because within minutes of the announcement, the FOX News crew was all but openly scheming to use the word "tax" as a rhetorical weapon. Seems like a bunch of semantics to me, but it's already having an effect. I work with a few conservatives, and they quickly fell in line with FOX and started bitching about Obama "raising our taxes."

[Eframepilot]

I would just like to apologize to Canada ahead of time
Sorry Canada, really

Maybe (joking) they're the liberals who say ACA doesn't go far enough. "We wanted ObamaCare overturned so we could get single payer!" Yes, some people actually believed that.

OK, I admit that I'm not the most well-informed on this subject, but does upholding the law as a "tax" make any tangible difference for people? Did it change anything in the law that didn't exist yesterday? Because within minutes of the announcement, the FOX News crew was all but openly scheming to use the word "tax" as a rhetorical weapon. Seems like a bunch of semantics to me, but it's already having an effect. I work with a few conservatives, and they quickly fell in line with FOX and started bitching about Obama "raising our taxes."

It changes nothing but the perception. Of course it's not a tax increase if you already have health insurance.

[JME2]

The best part of this from where I'm sitting:

Bush appointed Roberts.
Roberts vote saved the bill.
The bill is now Bushcare.

Oh irony of ironies.

So, suck it Mittens. I'm loving this.

[TimothyC]

OK, I admit that I'm not the most well-informed on this subject, but does upholding the law as a "tax" make any tangible difference for people? Did it change anything in the law that didn't exist yesterday? Because within minutes of the announcement, the FOX News crew was all but openly scheming to use the word "tax" as a rhetorical weapon. Seems like a bunch of semantics to me, but it's already having an effect. I work with a few conservatives, and they quickly fell in line with FOX and started bitching about Obama "raising our taxes."

Well, there is the tax argument. There is also the fact that it was not upheld on the Interstate Commerce Clause*, but under the taxation - so this represents another limit on the ability of Congress to use Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 to expand federal authority. Trust me, "He raised taxes!" will be used in campaigns going forward.

One other thing to keep in mind is the medicare ruling - from what I've read (and I haven't read the entire ruling yet - that's planned for tomorrow) Congress can't place new strings on old money, which limits their ability to influence the states.

*I'll check, but it looks like it was 9-0 in this respect.

Right now, this doesn't change anything for the average person - but it does change the potential landscape moving forward, and only time will tell us how.

[Alphawolf55]

So excuse me if this sounds stupid. But does this mean the Supreme Court altered the language of a bill? Because everyone thought the mandate would be struck down but at the same time, felt if instead of a mandate, we had a general tax increase on all Americans with a refundable tax credit equal to health care purchase that it would function the same as a mandate. But that's not what we had in the bill, we had a mandate. So did the Supreme Court just alter the text of a bill?

[Alyrium Denryle]

So excuse me if this sounds stupid. But does this mean the Supreme Court altered the language of a bill? Because everyone thought the mandate would be struck down but at the same time, felt if instead of a mandate, we had a general tax increase on all Americans with a refundable tax credit equal to health care purchase that it would function the same as a mandate. But that's not what we had in the bill, we had a mandate. So did the Supreme Court just alter the text of a bill?

No. But the mandate is enforced through tax penalties, which the feds are able to do just fine. "If you do X, you are penalized Y. If you do Z, you get tax credit N".

[Alphawolf55]

Examples of currently existing tax penalties? I mean I know there are tax incentives and there are fines but what tax penalties are there?

[General Zod]

Examples of currently existing tax penalties? I mean I know there are tax incentives and there are fines but what tax penalties are there?

Romney-care in Massachusetts uses tax penalties.

n 2007 Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, the penalty became pegged to 50% of the lowest monthly premium for insurance available from the Connector Authority.

[TimothyC]

Examples of currently existing tax penalties? I mean I know there are tax incentives and there are fines but what tax penalties are there?

Most of the time we see them as incentives.

For example, the government wants people to buy houses, so they offer a tax deduction for mortgage payments. The government would like people to get their homes more energy efficient so they offer tax credits for such upgrades. Any time you see a tax credit for something, constitutionally it's the same as what is happening here.

[Alphawolf55]

Examples of currently existing tax penalties? I mean I know there are tax incentives and there are fines but what tax penalties are there?

Most of the time we see them as incentives.

For example, the government wants people to buy houses, so they offer a tax deduction for mortgage payments. The government would like people to get their homes more energy efficient so they offer tax credits for such upgrades. Any time you see a tax credit for something, constitutionally it's the same as what is happening here.

But in what cases is a penalty offered on the Federal level I'm asking. I mean I know a mandate with a fine, a tax penalty, and a general tax increase with offered tax credits all function identical in practice but what cases of straight up penalties exist on the federal level?

[General Zod]

Examples of currently existing tax penalties? I mean I know there are tax incentives and there are fines but what tax penalties are there?

Most of the time we see them as incentives.

For example, the government wants people to buy houses, so they offer a tax deduction for mortgage payments. The government would like people to get their homes more energy efficient so they offer tax credits for such upgrades. Any time you see a tax credit for something, constitutionally it's the same as what is happening here.

But in what cases is a penalty offered on the Federal level I'm asking. I mean I know a mandate with a fine, a tax penalty, and a general tax increase with offered tax credits all function identical in practice but what cases of straight up penalties exist on the federal level?

Early 401k withdrawals penalize you 10% for withdrawing your money before retirement age.

[Alphawolf55]

But that's a specific action. Is there precedent for taxing inactivity?

Cause it seems there are three ways to look at this bill

1) It's a mandate with a fine under the Commerce Clause

2) It's a tax penalty.

3) It's a general tax increase with offered tax credits.

All three function identically. The 1st one was outright struck down as possible. The 2nd one additionally seems extremely iffy. The third one would be Constitutional in every way (or else every major tax credit system would be Unconstitutional). It just seems from what I'm reading, the bill was changed to version 3 rather then version 2.

[General Zod]

But that's a specific action. Is there precedent for taxing inactivity?

Cause it seems there are three ways to look at this bill

1) It's a mandate with a fine under the Commerce Clause

2) It's a tax penalty.

3) It's a general tax increase with offered tax credits.

All three function identically. The 1st one was outright struck down as possible. The 2nd one additionally seems extremely iffy. The third one would be Constitutional in every way (or else every major tax credit system would be Unconstitutional). It just seems from what I'm reading, the bill was changed to version 3 rather then version 2.

You're also penalized if you don't file your income taxes on time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_penalties

[Alphawolf55]

I would argue not paying taxes is tax avoidance and thus an action. I'm not arguing that Obamacare should have been struct down. It just feels the courts kind of changed what it was to something almost identical but distinctively difference almost for convenience sakes.

[General Zod]

I would argue not paying taxes is tax avoidance and thus an action. I'm not arguing that Obamacare should have been struct down. It just feels the courts kind of changed what it was to something almost identical but distinctively difference almost for convenience sakes.

It sounds like you're shifting the goalposts.