UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Although I'm upset that Robert's caved in, he is a conservative judge, so he is not legislating from the bench. Basically he is saying that elections have consequences and this ****** law and ****** economy are the result of us electing an idiot as president. We have to live with it. .
 
When I read the outcome the first words that came to mind were 'their going to pay with it via fines and they can hide the fine by routing it through the IRS.'

That is not what was intended, though the admin argued in support of that just so they had another route to 'victory.'

That is not a victory. That is troubling.

I don't think Roberts did anything wrong. He went with the arguments that were dealt to him.

I think we need some kind of national, universal healthcare in order to make our nation the best it can be, but we have to get there via agreement. It may be difficult to get to that point in the current atmosphere of acrimony us vs them rah rah, but the faith in the possibility of transparency that we all need to have in our governmental system took a hit in this decision -- even if it is technically correct, which I believe it is. Perhaps this kid of thing has to happen every once in a while in that complicated, multi-faceted interactions often create unforeseen dynamics and structures.

I think those on the left must admit that, while healthcare is important, and while we are comfortable with the government doing some meddling on its behalf, we don't want the IRS fining us as a backdoor on maintaining a mandate that is otherwise to be seen as unconstitutional.

Prodigal suggested that the SC should have sent it back for retooling. They did, though after finding that the arguments were such that it could be upheld under the less popular rubric of a tax. One understandably wishes that we could get some clarification between a tax and a fine.

Finally, always keep in mind that, no matter how often justices seem like ideologues, the simplicity of the popular understanding that attaches to their decisions almost never captures the complexity and variability of their thinking process and values. In short, you never really know what they will do individually or as a group.

This decision is only a win if the legislature returns to the law and, now, the question of backdooring unconstitutional mandates through the IRS via fines painted up as taxes.
 
As an addendum, we should keep in mind that fines used as coercion all of the time and such is a time-honored method of raising needed monies and hammering compliance into place. It may already be that power to tax is wound tight with the power to fine. It's just a distinction that, in this case, seems slippery and therefore nefarious.

Also, Roberts was pains to explain that it is well accepted that, if there is a constitutional reading that can reasonably assessed to the law, it will rise to the occasion, so to speak, so, regardless of the politics connected with the law, and the verbiage used during the legislative battles, once on the books, the question becomes 'is there a way for it to survive constitutional scrutiny?' He thought there was. SC decisions are often a patchwork of reasoning and it is not uncommon for two reasons leading to the same end to have points of disharmony.

The word 'tax' is going to make some people crazy. It's a fine administered by the IRS through the tax system, the tortured nature of that routing understandably causing some to be crazy.
 
SCOTUS just bailed Obama out. They passed it for him after the Congress messed it up so much. Very disappointed in Roberts.
 
The Commerce Clause argument used by the admin failed constitutional scrutiny.

It is, however, okay to legislate something like universal healthcare and to pay for it by fining non-compliance. You can't make people participate by turning their money over, but you can punish them for non-compliance with the program.

How to pay for it was always the issue, not whether there could be legislated universal healthcare. You can't make them pay, but you can make them pay. Nice.
 
I am not angry.

The decision is not a clear, clean win, that is all, and there are dynamics to it that, while not unprecedented, are reason for pause.

We knew it was going to have to be paid for, and that there were fines contemplated within the law. The word tax makes some people go nuts. The proponents said it wasn't a tax, and technically I would agree, notwithstanding the IRS' role in administering the fining apparatus. The shift in emphasis form Commerce Clause, front-end coercion to back-end, tax/fine coercion is slippery and therefore damages our belief in transparency, which is not good. Our political bickering isn't going to be attenuated by this ruling.

The law is not perfect and most feel it needs tweaked, one direction or the other.

Class warfare seems natural to me. I am not offended by the dynamics that accrue from noting that individuals in differing material circumstances have differing interests.

The SC handled the case in an appropriate fashion. I was prepared to hear that the Commerce Clause wasn't going to provide adequate cover and admit I didn't follow it closely enough to realize that the backdoor through the tax power would hold the day. Whatever.
 
Don't forget the new tax on the sale of your home. What that has to do with healthcare I'll never know, but hey what a great idea. Right?


brickwall.gif
 
I've never heard a decent explanation for how an insurance company will be able to survive when they have no choice but to cover preexisting conditions.

I suppose they can contribute to the Obama campaign and get an opt-out. That seems to be the MO.
 
Re the insurance companies getting destroyed: I once had lunch with the head underwriter of one of the bigger insurance companies for nursing homes and he explained why he would not write policies for punitive damages for nursing homes in Texas: If I can figure out what the risk is and set my rates accordingly, I would insure gay bath houses against AIDS claims.

That is the whole point of the exchanges set up under the ACA; it allows the insurance companies to control the risk and set appropriate set premiums.

I still think it will be a colossal mess but the insurance companies will do fine.

Question for the bedwetters: If a guy turns over fifty million new customers to the insurance industry, is he still a socialist?
 
Dheimen: the people who mostly do without insurance now are not the leaches but rather the lower working class. They can't get government jobs or jobs with "good" companies, so they work part time or with small undercapitalized companies that cannot afford insurance.

Take a look at the numbers on the uninsured if you doubt me. During the congress fight there were a lot of stats being floated and what they showed was that the poor got free healthcare, as did the kids and a lot of vets, etc.

The working poor are going to get covered. The leaches already are.
 
It's way too premature for me to make an informed decision regarding the merits of obamacare without first observing what the women on "The View" and Satchel have to say about the issue. Come to think of it, Satchel never posts anymore. Well, I'm sure Joy Behar will have an insightful and intelligent take on this issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top