The Supreme Court and Healthcare Mandates

[GrayMatterWife]

I heard a funny quote referring to the 3 days of oral arguments: "It was like Woodstock for the jurisprudence nerds!"

Yes!! We were all high on Scalia, trippin' on Sotomayor, and mellow with Roberts. Peace, man.

[GrayMatterWife]

The Solicitor General did a shockingly bad job. A very bad job. That's not saying that the law will not be upheld (oral arguments rarely matter, honestly). But his performance was abissmal.

[diggitydot]

Upheld.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...-care-law?lite

[SuzySunshine]

Wow, it will be interesting to see what effect this has on the election.

[GrayMatterWife]

Yep, it's a tax. Which Obama swore up and down it wasn't. Until his lawyers argued that it was. (Apparently, the Constitutional professor didn't have much of a grasp on the basics.)

And, the States are allowed to opt out of the exchanges. They can't be strongarmed into it, since that part was limited by the Court.

Thanks, Obama, for the tax increase. For no reason.

And it get more ironic. The people who are getting taxed are getting taxed for something they didn't do...something that the Court said they could not be forced to do under the Commerce Clause.

What a mess.

[SoonerTexan]

Wow, I'm surprised! I honestly thought it would go the other way.

As far as the election, it probably will not make a difference in the long run. If it failed, Republicans would hold it as a victory and now that it is upheld they will just use it as a rallying call. Who knows, though

[SuzySunshine]

So if it's a tax for nothing because the states can't be forced to participate where is that money going to go?

[GrayMatterWife]

I really admire Roberts, though. He took an incredibly unpopular position to do what he thought was right under the law. The opinion makes the Obama administration look like a total bunch of idiots and it pisses off the right to no end.

[GrayMatterWife]

Yes. It's a tax that was supposed to facilitate the exchanges. Which many states (at least 26) won't participate in. The states won that point--they can't be forced to expand their Medicaid rolls.

[scrub-jay]

I'm excited to see it in action. I wish it weren't so political honestly, our country needs a health care overhaul and I'm not even sure if this law will do enough. But from the MPH perspective, I am excited to see change. Realistically, though, the fight is not over yet.

[scrub-jay]

I really admire Roberts, though. He took an incredibly unpopular position to do what he thought was right under the law.

I found this refreshing honestly. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above the "politics" and make decisions based on the law. Kennedy voted against it and Roberts for it I think.

[diggitydot]

Thanks, Obama, for the tax increase. For no reason.

I wouldn't say "for no reason". Providing health coverage for millions of people is a pretty huge reason.

The people who are getting taxed are getting taxed for something they didn't do...

Fine, fee, tax -- they're all the same thing; money paid to the government. People pay fines all the time for not doing things; not registering their car, failing to shovel the sidewalk after it snows, not keeping up their yard, etc.

[GrayMatterWife]

I am so so so relieved that it was not upheld under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. That would have been a total disaster, on a much bigger scale than this law.

Obama better think through very careful how he reacts to this. He didn't recognize that he was raising taxes,and now has to deal with the reality that he is seeking re-election in a bad economy after supporting an unpopular tax-increase that got gutted on an important provision (expansion of Medicaid). Good luck pitching that...

Romney had better be very careful, too. This was not partisan. He better not seek to demonize the Court.

[GrayMatterWife]

No, it's a big difference. When passed, it was pitched specifically as NOT a tax. It was only after they got desperate that they changed their position. From a legal perspective, it's huge. And the limitations placed on the Commerce Clause as a result of the opinion are huge, too.

The reason I said it was for no reason is due to the limitations placed on the ability of the Feds to force the states to participate in the exchanges. The states are not required to expand their rolls, and the Feds have considerably less valid reason for raising taxes--since they will not have to fund five years' of increased enrollment costs, as the law had been structured.

[diggitydot]

Romney had better be very careful, too. This was not partisan. He better not seek to demonize the Court.

I would hope he has better political instincts than to do that since the ACA is very similar to his plan in MA. But, he hasn't shown the greatest political instincts, so who knows?