Today the United States Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
In advance of that ruling, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how the court might rule & your opinion on the ruling once it’s handed down.
Let’s remember, in the next election, that Walker’s mouthpiece and legal enabler, J.B. Van Hollen joined the Florida lawsuit early in 2011 when the GOP obtained control of the Wisconsin legislature.
http://healthcarelawsuits.org/blog/detail.php?c=2390566&t=Wisconsin-Joins-Florida-Suit
I am an optimist, so I’ll repeat one “expert’s” call of a 6-3 support of PP&ACA including the individual mandate.
Logic suggests if the State of Wisconsin can require all drivers to have auto insurance, then why not a health care insurance mandate in Obamacare?
Ironically the GOP supported a mandate in the 1990’s when Clinton was pushing for universal coverage. Even more startling the arch conservative, Heritage Foundation, conceived and recommended in the 1980’s. BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
UPHELD!!!!! It’s a tax, not and order to purchase and they said this is one tax you have the right not to pay. Whatever. Thanks Roberts!
it is stricken down. And with it a precedent that weakens the federal role in regulating commerce, thus opening the henhouse door to global investment foxes.
The important point here is that the PP&ACA was NOT ruled UNCOSTITUTIONAL!!!
It’s a big win for Obmama and for 31,000,000 uninsured citizens.
True, SCOTUS provided an out for States without incurring a penalty regarding their refusal to increase MEDICAID coverage.
In terms of a football game, the final score was 21 to 3.
Not sure sure it’s as big of a win for the President as you seem to think. I think it nets Romney a lot of votes.
Clip: Obama saying it’s not a tax.
Text from SCOTUS ruling saying it is only constitutional because it is a tax.
Voice Over: Obama signed into law a $X00 billion tax increase on the middle class and lied about it being a tax increase.
As old as the day is long, painting your opponent as a tax-raiser like saying he’s “gonna take away your social security” are two proven ways to gain votes.
I don’t know that I think it means Romney wins, but I think the Romney campaign can use the ruling to at narrow the gap.
Sour grapes, mo-fo. Sour grapes.
I used to think that you were principled, Locke. Unfortunately, it appears that you’re no better than anybody whom Roger Ailes would be interested in hiring. Just STOP trying to spin this one, huh?
Check out the respective responses of President Obama and the Father of “ObamaCare”, the one, the only, Mittens RomneyBot.
One response is that of, not only a winner, but of one of the adults in the room on healthcare reform. The other is the response of a flip-flopping “Panderer-In-Chief”. . .and a reactionary loser.
The President has been large and in charge all along on this issue, as well as many others. Romney looks increasingly petty and small across the board.
If you think that the President’s victory here is something other than a, you know, victory, you’re delusional. He would have won re-election no matter which way the decision here went. The American people, who, when polled on the specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act, overwhelmingly approved of it, will see it as just ANOTHER reason to vote for him come November, no matter how many Republicans, conservatives and/or wingnuts, like you, Mike {“the SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare was just like 9/ll”) Pence and Erick Erickson, gnash their teeth over the ACA being found constitutional, AND try to re-label it “ObamaTax”.
America won today. Progressives won an important political victory today. Republicans, conservatives and wingnuts lost. Deal with it, Locke, and keep your pseudo-professorial sour grapes to yourself.
Under the provisions of the ACA, there’s a 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200 per individual or $27,500 per family.
I could be wrong, but my state employee health insurance would likely be considered “Cadillac” coverage, thus exposing me to the excise tax. This may end up being a political victory for President Obama, but it may not be a victory for my family’s pocketbook.
Joan McCarter, in a Daily Kos diary (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/28/1104038/-New-Republican-talking-point-Obamacare-is-the-biggest-tax-hike-on-middle-class-EVER), explained things quite well:
“Roberts did conservatives a solid in one thing…[H]e gave them their talking point by declaring that the individual mandate isn’t really a mandate, but a tax. With some help from Rush Limbaugh, that’s the new narrative from Republicans.
Speaker John Boehner calls it a tax hike. Ditto Rep. Joe Walsh (R-FormerlyADeadbeatDad), calling it a “new tax on middle class America.” Sarah Palin, of course, piled on.
So did Mitt Romney, putting himself in some dubious company by declaring the same thing: “Obamacare raises taxes.”
Well, not really, as Chris Hayes explains:
There is a difference between something being a tax and being permissible under congress’ taxing authority.
— @chrislhayes via web
The Supreme Court ruling gives the federal government taxing authority, which is by no means the same as the imposition of a broad new tax.
No, this is not a massive tax increase on the American people. It’s a penalty paid by people who choose not to purchase insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will hit about 4 million Americans, about 1 percent of the population. Now, it’s refreshing that Republicans care about a different 1 percent for a change, but that still doesn’t make this a tax hike.
And what’s (way, way) more, most of the federal spending for the ACA is in tax credits for middle class people to help them afford insurance. Which is actually more like a tax cut.”
Game, set, match, Obama and the American people, including you, Zach…
Anyway, a tax hike? Yeahhhh, I don’t think so.
That said, Zach, would you prefer the system in place before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, wherein we were all subject to the caprices of the insurance industry?
Emphasis added:
Zuma, as it’s currently configured, my public employee health insurance plan falls into the “Cadillac” insurance policy category, subjecting me to the 40% excise tax.
Here’s the actual text of Title 9 of the ACA, which clearly spells out the 40% excise tax on “any excess benefit” exceeding $23,000 per year for family coverage. As I wrote before, the health insurance coverage for my family exceeds $23,000 per year, so unless I’m missing something I’ll be subjected to the tax. As for whether I’d prefer the old system vs. the new, I’ll just say I’d prefer not to pay an excise tax.
Are there some good parts to the ACA? Yeah, absolutely. Disallowing denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions is a good thing, and I think the exchanges hold some promise.
Sounds like Zach has learned the true meaning of “tax the rich.”
If what you say is true, it brings to mind a few questions:
1. A 40% excise tax on public employees health insurance is way worse than what Walker’s plan asked for. So how come Marty Beil and state employees didn’t protest and raise holy hell over this provision?
2. This means that even President Obama and Democrats believe that public employee health plans are more lavish than the average joe in the private sector.
3. What does the 40% excise tax accomplish exactly, other than bringing everyone to the lowest common denominator. Isn’t this that “race to the bottom” I keep hearing about from liberals? Seems like the tax will create lousy coverage for most of us except the super rich who can afford to pay the penalty. When the time comes, the public employees and unions might actually be advocating the state to lower their benefits to avoid this tax. Amazing.
I knew there was a reason I haven’t bothered responding to anything you’ve said in quite some time. Thanks for the reminder. Good bye.
@ Locke who petulantly wrote: “I knew there was a reason I haven’t bothered responding to anything you’ve said in quite some time. Thanks for the reminder. Good bye.”
Hmmmmm. AND yet you responded with THIS, all the while ignoring the substantive aspects of what I had to say. Faux outrage doesn’t suit you, Locke. Lack of substantive engagement doesn’t, either.
The fact remains that you’ve shown that you are willing to skew your analysis for purely ideological reasons.
Principled, Locke? Yeahhhh, not so much.
Look, Locke (or, what did I call you, oh, yeah, “mofo”), my bringing a little of the “street” to Blogging Blue was just my attempt to spice things up around here. Nothing personal. Anyway, I said, “mofo”, and not “m*th*rf*ck*r” for a reason.
Lighten up, and take your lumps like a man.
No matter how you try to cynically twist the outcome in the SCOTUS decision on the Affordable Care Act, this is a win for the American people AND for progressives. Why not just admit that THAT is why you don’t like it, instead of conjuring up your fundamentally and obviously “sour grapes” takes on the decision and on the ACA?
Ok so if I understand this correctly (and I may not) the mandate is enforceable as a tax.
Assuming the above statement is true, then doesn’t this more or less amount to a massive tax increase on the poor as they are the ones who are most likely uninsured and therefore subject to the mandate?
Not positive, but I believe the “poor” are already covered under the existing Medicaid or state programs.
The poor is likely already covered by medicaid and most of the rich already have insurance through their employment.
To that end, the tax would more likely fall on the middle class that has the means to buy insurance but has chosen not to. Also, there has been some mention that individuals that have a “Cadillac Health Plan” would be subjected to additional taxes. If I’m not mistaken this would include most union health plans.
Though it’s important to note the tax is only applied to those individuals/families that don’t buy health insurance.
Then is it really a victory for the 31,000,000 uninsured Americans who will now be taxed? I doubt they will see it that way, after all, if they had the extra money they would have purchased insurance. This is one that the devil will be in the details. I think we all agree this bill does not fix our nations health care problems.
My initial thought of the decision is that it resonates of Marbury v. Madison in which, John Marshall gives a victory to the president but takes away the congressional power during the process. Here, Roberts limits the commerce clause, which I would suggest was his true aim, while giving a victory to the bill on other grounds (ie. that it is tax).
This one will be interesting going forward because subsequent revisions to the bill will need to be performed under the tax code, rather than under the Congress’ inherent powers to regulate commerce.
Winners: Insurance companies, Obama Administration, John Roberts, Romney Campaign. Tea Party (they now have a concrete issue, much the way the pro-life movement has Roe v. Wade as a rallying call), Lawyers (our profession is going to get a lot of work off of this).
Losers: Obama campaign, middle class, business, people with expensive insurance from their employer or union.
Again, I’m not as well-versed in all the intricacies of the law as I could be, but it’s my understanding that the health insurance exchanges to be implemented by the states would provide consumers with lower-cost health insurance options.
Here’s a list of the law’s provisions from White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-president-obamas-health-care-reform?utm_source=email168&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=healthcare#health-care-checklist
There are 15 items on this list. 12 of them would be unnecessary items if the insurance industry were eliminated and our health care system were socialized. And the burden of proof is on the patient-consumer if insurance companies continue to behave badly.
The last item is the creation of a state-based market place. I don’t find this last bit a benefit at all. I find it cumbersome and burdensome – it’s the paradox and tyranny of choice in a market with too many choices. There’s also freedom from choice. There’s the freedom to walk into any clinic, anywhere, at any time, for anything with the knowledge you’re already covered.
There’s nothing in here that leads me to believe it is a stepping stone to something more Progressive. Obama’s rhetoric surrounding this bill echoes his approach on the economy; it signals that he has no intention of moving to the Left. His continual push of “individual responsibility” with respect to the mandate and reference to “people who work hard” being rewarded tells me he’s all about being right of center. Both references to the “individual” are unrealistic and offensive because they are unrealistic.
Certainly an aspect that you have better feel on than me, but I find it hard to take a ruling that says, “you can’t force people to buy something but so long as you call it a tax instead of a fine, you’re good” really does much to limit the Congress. Maybe a very minor edge of the commerce cause (which seems to me, recent history has been limitless), but in turn, handing them a workaround that makes such limit effectively pointless.
Locke, a few other commentators have also noted the Marbury v. Madison similarities.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/28/inside-the-obamacare-ruling-how-roberts-got-a-majority/
The general impression is that he actually limited congressional power pretty significantly.
Seems like a dangerous precedent. What if one of those evil special interests out there lobbies Congress and convinces legislators that every American needs to buy {fill in the blank} some private good: a gun, cable TV, pizza, you name it. So now I have to pay a penalty, er a tax, if I don’t believe that private good is in my best interests like Congress believes.
Forgot Your Screen Name,
It is a dangerous precedent, set by none other than the founders themselves in 1792 with the Second Militia Act which compelled all eligible militia men to purchase their own guns and ammunition. The Second Militia Act had nothing whatsoever to do with special interests. The same cannot be said of the ACA, of course, because the special interest that won the day is “free” market capitalism itself via the predatory insurance industry. Given your concern, I’m sure you advocate for the elimination of all lobbying and campaign contributions from the private sector so as to avoid the looming and realistic coercion you allude to in your hypothetical scenario. After all, the “free” market is not synonymous with freedom as expressed in the Declaration of Independence or codified in the Constitution.
Yeah I’ve heard the 1792 example before. Any more recent examples that aren’t 220 years old? It’s not quite an apples to apples comparison either. After all they were requiring something of all eligible militia men, absent a standing military at the time (these men were required to report to training twice yearly). Note they didn’t require every living, breathing human being (in fact some occupations were exempt like congressmen, go figure). By the way, was that requirement ever challenged in court? I think not. Are you going to defend the Alien & Sedition Act next?
What’s free market about requiring me to buy a specific product? True free market would put the consumer back in charge of health care. After all, health care is so expensive now because government in part created the problem by offering a large amount of service (in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, etc) while not fully reimbursing the true cost of the services.
I take the opposite end of your argument: lobbying and campaign contributions wouldn’t be a problem if we didn’t give Congress so much power over our daily lives.
Perhaps you didn’t make yourself clear. You pointed to a dangerous precedent . I agree. But that precedent wasn’t set with the ACA. It was set by George Washington. The Second Militia Act is apples to apples if your concern is government coercion. That the Second Militia Act didn’t apply to the entire citizenry is immaterial and doesn’t shift the underlying premise from apples to oranges. Why would you need a later precedent than one set by the framers of our government? How about one that is even more apples to apples? Your umbrage is Congress has exceeded its authority by meddling too much into our daily lives, but that position is not supported by the framers’ intent nor their legislative record. They (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton in agreement) also levied a tax upon private sector merchant marines to pay for the cost of a government-run hospital system to house them when they were sick or injured. In other words, if you aspired to be a sailor in the merchant marines, you were required to pay the tax to support the federal marine hospital. The federal marine hospitals, in other words, operated in the same way as medicare – an exchange of taxes for government-run health care. No mediating insurance industry. No ‘free” market “competition.” You are simply wrong about the role of government in our lives – the designers of our government did not hold the position you do. You are distorting their intent. It is the private sector and the “free” market that has too much control over our lives.
Your position of “lobbying and campaign contributions wouldn’t be a problem if we didn’t give Congress so much power over our daily lives?” Yeah, that’s a nonsensical non-sequitur. Congress was endowed with the authority to secure and protect the rights and liberties of the public, not the private sector. If you think for a moment that the Revolutionary War wasn’t spurred by the influence of private sector special interests that favored aristocratic capital investors you simply need to read more history. What has happened with our government is precisely what the founders were trying to prevent. Your fear of an active government is unreflective of how the framers designed it. They never intended government to be hands-off or impotent or inert or small. They intended for government to be active and responsive to the citizenry and to its collective need.
Your position is unsupported by the founders’ desire to create an active government and a population of citizens active in government – which is why we have coercive mandates like jury duty. You may prefer to live an isolated existence independent of society – you’re free to do so, but in a society, there are these things called reciprocities if you want to participate in it. Like owning a home or driving a car – if you want to participate in society by engaging in these two activities you are likely mandated to buy insurance for them. Now if you’d like to argue the merits of the insurance industry, that’s another matter. Government hasn’t intervened too much into our daily lives it has intervened too little. It has allowed the private sector to determine the direction and quality of our lives in every aspect from economy to environment and everything in between.
I don’t think that FMSN, one of the resident wingnuts here, knew what he was getting into when he decided to lock horns with you.
Game, set, match, PJ.
To Zuma: just like Locke, I remember why I don’t post as often any more. So because I have a different opinion on the role of the federal government, I am automatically a lunatic radical? No need to start in with the name calling. There’s no right or wrong answer with PJ, me or anybody else. It’s just a matter of perspective on the role of government. Chill out and have a great day!
So you agree it’s a dangerous precedent, but at the same time you justify it just because it was done 220 years ago. Again, Congress can pass any law that may or may not be constitutional. Was the militia act tested in court? Was there a tax for not militia men not owning a gun (something they surely all had to begin with). It is a precedent in that now the Supreme Court has something to say about it.
Since you’re such a fan of the militia act, I propose that we revive it. I think every American should be required to own a gun in the interests of personal protection? Don’t like it? Pay a hefty tax.
Obesity is also a problem and fits right in with the health care initiative. Congress should give every household a grocery list with the foods that have been deemed healthy. You don’t HAVE to buy them, but you will pay a hefty tax if you don’t. It’s more like a friendly suggestion, yeah that’s it.
I don’t believe the federal government has required for us to buy home insurance, but many states do require auto insurance. However, that is a requirement for a voluntary activity. Government isn’t saying we have to own a car (not yet anyway), but if you choose to own a car there are responsibilities that go along with it. Also, this is a state requirement, not a federal law (a distinction that you probably care very little about). If you don’t have auto insurance, the state can issue you a ticket and compel you to buy insurance if you want to keep driving your car, but that’s not quite the same as charging you thousands of dollars for not buying it.
You say a meddling federal goverment was not a problem for the founders? Seriously?! Some of them didn’t even want a bill of rights because they didn’t want to LIMIT individual rights by spelling them out. Perhaps you need to review the 10th Amendment. We will just simply disagree that the federal government hasn’t done enough in our lives. I for one like to make my own decisions and don’t want the feds telling me how to spend my money at every turn.
All in all, I am confused where you stand because you agree it’s a dangerous precedent but then say that government hasn’t done enough. Where do you draw the line, good sir?
Yes, yes, I’m well aware of the chattering in the Conservative blogosphere which you managed to quote with uncanny precision. I’m aware of the attempt to argue that the ACA’s individual mandate is unprecedented because it requires all citizens to engage in an activity and the Second Militia Act did not. But the precedent is inactivity, and in no way is substance altered by scope. You may not like the idea that the designers of our government did consider mandated “coercion” appropriate, but history still stands whether you choose to recognize it or not.
I did not try to justify the mandate with the Second Militia Act. I oppose the ACA. I’m drawing your attention to a justifiable precedent to counter your narrow perception of how the designers of our government viewed the scope of its authority. I also gave you another justifiable precedent with the establishment of the federal marine hospitals – and that is the precedent I believe we, as a nation, should follow when we think about solving the serious problems with our health care system; nearly, all of which, are localized within the insurance industry. The bulk of the ACA addresses insurance industry abuses. I don’t agree with that regulatory approach. I’d prefer to model our health care system on the one the founding fathers envisioned and enacted for the merchant marines. You may prefer an unaccountable, unreliable, unethical privatized system not grounded on the concept of health. I prefer the wisdom of the founding fathers. The ACA follows your assumption – health care is best managed by the free market. I disagree. I think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton were right when they designed the federal marine hospital.
Yes, we will agree to differ. I don’t hold your attitude that government is a meddling force. I do consider the varied concerns the framers and their critics held about individual rights and the role of government. Yes, you are correct. The Bill of Rights and the 9th and 10th Amendments were contentious because these were potentially limiting – but bear in mind it was the Federalists who challenged all three on those very grounds. It was the Federalists who pointed out that these were erroneous amendments which offered no substantive addition to the principles of governance. The Federalists argued that nothing included within the 9th and 10th amendments was not addressed elsewhere in the text. The 10th Amendment primarily established the principle of Federalism in order to avoid the pitfalls presented by the Articles of Confederation and, indeed, the fate of the Greek city states. Yes, the Bill of Rights was, in part, an Anti-Federalist compromise but the Federalist portion of that compromise was the understanding that the rights included therein were not historically or textually exclusive or the only rights to be derived by the context of posterity. You are using Federalist arguments to make an Anti-Federalist case. Please, by all means – argue the Anti-Federalist case because if you do you will be making the argument that I have been making all along about what has happened to our contemporary government. Among their concerns was favoring the interests of the wealthy elite at the expense of the collective commons. Dangerous then. Dangerous now.
Yes, the Anti-Federalists were extreme in their concern for their personal liberties. But really, The Bill of Rights and the 9th and 10th Amendments are little more than hat tips to them, carrots to sweeten ratification – even the Anti-Federalists had to concede that the instability of the Articles and the imminent threat of British re-invasion rendered their positions untenable. The bulk of their concerns were not reflected in the ratified Constitution and certainly their concerns about “meddling” authority were countermanded by the first Congresses. I think you’d be hard pressed in establishing the Anti-Federalists as framers of the Constitution. They were not. They were critics. Some of their criticisms were legitimate, some were not, and some were really only applicable within the context of their own time.
True, the framers and their dissenters were concerned about the scope of government, but their desire was to avoid a small, dictatorial government subject to interests counter to their own. The founders designed a big government – a government machine as opposed to a governing man with a corrupted parliament – with checks and balances and room for bureaucracy – because they well understood the differences between Attica and Sparta and the corrupting forces that undermined the Florentine Republic. I wouldn’t say Revolutionary period notions of “hands-on” and “hands-off” governance are comparable to how those concepts are wielded today.
Was the Second Militia Act challenged in court? To my knowledge no but not germane either way. Yada, yada yada all you want – solid constitutionality Article I, Section 8. Not germane. Yes, the Second Militia Act was revised and repealed in 1795. The revisions don’t speak well for your point, though. The revised Act contained far more “coercive” authority than the 1792 Act in terms of government “meddling” in individual lives and in the preeminence of federal authority over the states especially the authority of the president – not the Congress. Clearly, Anti-Federalist ideals were not reflected here. The guiding principle was active government.
I wouldn’t hope you engage in argumentation over the idea of mandatory gun ownership because I think you’ll find yourself entering a quandary far more viscous than a sticky wicket. Essentially, to make that argument you will need switch to Second Amendment precedent, and the most successful argumentation there is pretty near the opposite of what you are arguing against with the Second Militia Act. I believe you’d have to reject your opposition to the precedence of the Second Militia Act in order to maintain the constitutionality of the Second Amendment. Honestly, I don’t want to go there and I’m not going to. So, if you choose to make arguments, feel free, but I don’t think we will be serving any purpose. I won’t rebut any of your opinions. Have at it.
But, I will say this. If such a mandate were imposed and it was reasoned with a sound foundation combined with a legitimate contemporary context I would not oppose it. I would judge the mandate on terms other than my own limited interest. I would judge it on the collective interest of the nation. And that is probably where you and I differ most. I can live with something I don’t like if it is a matter that genuinely benefits the public good. I don’t have to nor do I want to micro-manage my existence. If the government is functioning properly and as it should – I trust it.
Distinction between state law and federal law. You are quite right. In the 21st century as we are immersed in a hyper-globalized investor economy – no. It is a distinction that matters little. There are too few differences between the states to justify exacerbated divisions or disjointed regulatory measures. The “free” market has so homogenized us – we are more alike now than ever before in history. And the “free” market is in the process of homogenizing the rest of the world as well. Any appreciable regional differences with qualitative distinctiveness should be respected to best respond to their individual needs, of course. Not rocket science. If, however, you consider of grave importance the trivialities of how each state regulates something like auto or home insurance then I think you should buck up and start thinking about states rights in a reality context and seriously ponder the priorities this nation faces at home and in the world. If you are truly devoted to “free” market competition then start thinking with a business model – streamlined efficiency would be one place to start. And for heaven’s sake evaluate state’s rights empirically, not by belief. Look at American and world history if you’re going to evaluate state’s rights. If this were 1803 and Thomas Jefferson just made the Louisiana Purchase, I’d say yes. States’ rights had some applicability. Now. Not so much. If you can argue a utilitarian purpose for states’ rights, do it. If you can make an argument lacking in petulance, please do. You’re free to feel that states’ rights are good, but don’t try to pass off unsubstantiated emotion as something that it’s not. Feel the righteousness of states’ rights. Fine. Believe it. Fine. But until you articulate a reason for holding your position you’ve demonstrated nothing more than you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you have no principled foundation to stand on either.
Cry me a river, Forget Me Not My Name on Screen. “I don’t want the feds telling me how to spend my money at every turn” is an attitude – a peevish one at that. It is not a reasoned position. You’ve demonstrated that you can conceive of tangentially analogical hypotheticals not concretized in the meat of the issues at hand, but cut through the grizzle a little will you? Chew some fat, address the matters with which you don’t agree by flexing your brain. These are critical issues we’re dealing with here. If you don’t know the details have the courage to admit that you don’t. Conjuring up one straw man after the other will fill your head with only straw.
The convoluted hyperbole you make with your grocery list tirade exemplifies exactly why Conservative distortions of our founding principles are so corrupting. Distorted principles have created an irrationality culture with societal psychosis – peopled by narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive control freaks incapable of critical thought. I’m not making that observation of you personally, only your pattern of argumentation. I hope you are critical of your own thought lest you descend into narcissistic, obsessive-compulsive control freak tendencies. How is one to react to your tirade other than: you can’t possibly be serious? The sad thing is, you are quite serious. You’ve drifted far out of the bounds of reason. Truly, using your logic I could argue that any issue facing this nation is reducible to your personal decision and subject to your personal interest. Please. Use your God-given reason. Exercise your God-given morality. Maybe recognize your own personal interest isn’t the only one you could consider when evaluating public policy.
I like to make my own choices too, and I assure you I am very exacting and very discerning in my choices. But I have sense enough to figure out that the kinds of choices I want to make on a daily basis are not things like: “Is it safe to drink my tap water today?” “Should I eat this cheeseburger – might it be laced with pink slime?” “Gee, quite a lot of muggings at gunpoint have occurred recently, should I take my evening stroll around the block?”
And then there’s the burden of the inundated consumer, forced to be a legal genius and an expert in everything under the sun. There is a substantial difference between meaningful choice and what we have now – the tyranny of small decisions. In the 21st century in one of the wealthiest, most advanced nations in the world my expectations are much higher. My aspirations for America are vastly higher than mulling over valueless consumerist minutiae and worrying over potentially hazardous consequences of choice.
So, yes. I think given that we live in one of the most advanced nations in the world whether or not the food we eat is hazardous or healthy should not be a choice. It should be healthy. I have the right not to be given hazardous choices.
You may be satisfied with slugging through nonsense or inferior quality at best and hazard at worst. I am not. And there’s a body of evidence that suggests overwhelming choice in modern society leads to a slew of disorders including distress syndrome, stress, anxiety and depression. Choice has its place, but it’s place is not in abundance. Your devotion to psychotic abundance of choice is overrated and misguided. It isn’t increasing the quality of our lives in America; it is diminishing it.
If Congress is doing its job then it is making responsible choices in protecting and securing our rights and liberties. But, what we have now are special interests making all the meaningful choices about our lives. Our government, is in fact, currently subsumed by special interests that are counter to the public good and inhibitive to a properly active government. The answer is not less government in our lives, the answer is returning to government to its proper role – guardian of rights and liberties. That role, when our government was in its formative process, was an active role.
Dan, feel free to call it whatever the hell you want.
Credits will be offered to the poor if they are already not on Medicaid.
Bottom line, more people will be able to live their lives at a basic level of human dignity.
Well I hope it works out. I guess I have kind of a “believe it when I see it” feeling about this law.
I’m in agreement. I’m still not convinced this was the best (or easiest) solution to the health care problem.
Dan, this actually is more likely to hit the working class — with a penalty tax that could turn them into the poor. We will have to see what the states come up with (or for states like Wisconsin where Walker refuses to comply, what the feds impose) in terms of the “lower cost” insurance for the uninsured.
And, like Zach, I’m waiting to see how hard this hits those of us who are driving beater cars as a result of having pay so much more, thanks to Walker, for our so-called “Cadillac” insurance.
Migosh wrote “this actually is more likely to hit the working class — with a penalty tax that could turn them into the poor.”
That is false. I don’t have the exact citation in front of me (apologies if I’m off the numbers), but once the law is fully in effect, the most an individual will pay in penalties is about $975 a year, collected by the IRS. The most that any family will pay as a whole is 4 times the individual amount, regardless of how many are in the household. There’s also a cap as a percentage of total income. Now if that threatens to make you poor, then chances are you qualify for the subsidized plan that you can purchase from the exchange at lesser cost.
Bottom line: nobody is going to become poor just because of the penalty.
WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year…
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obamacare-costs-will-fall-on-backs-of-those-making-less-than-120k-a-year/
Chief Economist for the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Fox News parent corporation News Corp.
Yeah, that’s clearly an unbiased and impartial source. *eye roll*
I think the likely effect is that is that it will tax lower income individuals because they still will be unable to afford insurance. For example, we just had an employee leave an entry level position. $28,000 salary plus benefits. For that employee to continue coverage under COBRA, they would have to pay in excess of $550 a month.
Most people making sub 30k is not going to have an extra 6K to purchase insurance. They will be hit with the tax because they cannot afford to purchase what the government is making them buy. This is going to be a very regressive tax.
Most people do not realize how expensive is for employers. We have employees that we pay over 17K a year for premiums.
Now a person might not be “poor” but if they had to incur these types of costs on their own, most income brackets would struggle. In other words, the tax credits will have to be huge to offset these types of costs.
Sorry, but everything I’ve read points everywhere but that conclusion. The CBO estimates that about 6 million people will eventually will have to pay the penalty. Take the 30 million who are uninsured now, that means 24 million people will have insurance that they didn’t have before AND will be able to afford it. Two keys to success are a) how well the states do in setting up their exchanges, and b) how well the states manage Medicaid expansion. Under Medicaid expansion, those making not more than 133% of the poverty line will be eligible.
In the out years, everyone’s premiums will go down as the pool of insured Americans grows.
Here’s an excellent reference: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/
For the record, the vote was 5-4 with Chief Justice Roberts joining the liberals.
Still a disaster. The individual mandate was not upheld by the commerce clause but by the enumerated powers allowing congress to “lay and collect taxes.” Bad precedent. Especially if the legal provisions of the TransPacific Partnership Agreement are enacted – these would limit state and federal regulatory powers of foreign corporations operating within the U.S.
Bad precedent for maintaining a strong federal government in the midst of the global investor economy. Bad call all around for the ability of congress to effectively regulate anything.
Preventing the government from exerting authority over the states (the medicaid expansion) is another bad precedent. Weakens federal authority again. This precedent will be seized upon in no time at all over a variety of matters, no doubt.
I’m forced to concur with Dan. I’ll believe it when I see it. The law helps some but not all. I see little use in a plan that forces one to purchase health insurance if one is struggling to make ends meet – which is a lot of people not classified as “poor.” If one can’t afford the ever increasing deductibles insurance companies are pushing, and subsequently one foregoes preventative check-ups, treatment, etc. then it is useless coverage because it goes unused and individual health suffers. I understand that 100% participation is required to lower costs, but that feature could be achieved by socializing the health care system. Obama has indicated he isn’t interested in any more debate on health care now that the court has ruled. I doubt we’ll see any further “improvements” to the system. It is what is going to be. Not what I would have liked him to fight for.
Guess the upside is SCOTUS confirmed that congress has the authority to tax and spend.
THIS MORNING ON MSNBC, OUR IDIOT SENATOR, RON JOHNSON, CLAIMS JUSTICE ROBERTS “REWROTE” THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND IT WILL BANKRUPT US. FALSE CLAIM AND BAD MATH.
Let’s keep in mind that Ron Johnson is no lawyer, so I really wouldn’t put any stock in what he says.
By the way, unclick your caps lock key….all those caps are hurting my eyes.
I understand that upper case is unacceptable and I apologize for the caps. But the small print is very difficult to edit and taxing with my 81 year old eyes. Wait til you get there. Where is the Reader’s Digest’s enlarged print version when you need it! LOL
Thanks for the clarification Duane…..I’ll try to bump the font size up a little bit for ya.
Duane – just a friendly tip…Let your browser take care of it – Control (or Apple on Macs) and then the plus or minus key will increase or decrease the font size in most of the browsers. I don’t know about Internet Explorer though, but all of the rest use that key shortcut.
I use high resolution displays because it helps me fit all of my palettes on the screen while I’m working – but my eyes aren’t what they used to be either especially for text on web pages so I’m always bumping up & down the font size.