The Supreme Court and Healthcare Mandates

[diggitydot]

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.

I can't argue with the change in the legal aspect and I respect your opinion. But I still think calling it one thing or another is splitting hairs since it accomplishes the same thing -- money going from people to government to discourage or punish unwanted behaviors.

[PrincessFiona]

Can someone dumb it down for me. I just read the msnbc article that hte supreme court upheld the decision....I don't really understand all of the commerce/tax implications etc. I'm too busy cleaning (gaaah) to figure this out on my own. Cliff Notes for the dummy version??? Can someone fill me in?

[GrayMatterWife]

Simply: it's a tax. And Congresa has the power to tax. It doesn't have the authority to force you to buy insurance under the Commerce Clause, but it can tax you for failing to buy it.

[Michele]

So a person will be taxed if they don't have health insurance?

But the states don't have to enforce that tax?

[diggitydot]

So a person will be taxed if they don't have health insurance?

But the states don't have to enforce that tax?

No. Two different issues.

States won't have their federal Medicare funding yanked of they don't expand their Medicare coverage.

The tax is for people who are capable of purchasing/having insurance, but elect not to.

[GrayMatterWife]

Wow. Obama just gave his self-congratulatory speech, on which he said that the Court affirmed that all people are entitled to healthcare. Setting aside the correctness of that premise in either a legal or moral level, that is simply factually incorrect and intellectually disingenuous. That is not remotely what the court said. The court said that it was a tax and the court would not pass on the wisdom of the tax.

And, of course, he didn't mention that he was massively mistaken as to what the law was, or that it is a giant tax.

Meanwhile, half the right is laying into Roberts. First, it is tacky ans disrespecrful. Second, it makes them look stupid.His opinion makes the administration look like they have zero idea what they're doing. the con law professor didn't recognize a tax and wrongly believed it was proper under the Commerce Clause. Plus, the opinion brought under control the overreading of the Xommerce Clause that has happened over the past 100 years. From a conservative viewpoint, it was a gift in many ways.

I hate politicians.

[BonBon]

I hate politicians.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on everything.

[SuzySunshine]

That last line pretty much sums it up for me too and this country is so divided and so into finger pointing and blame rather then ACTUALLY trying to fix anything it's just sad in my opinion.

[Momo]

I hate to be a cynic, but has there ever been a tactic of promoting something & arguing it's one thing knowing full well that it might very well be upheld under something else?
Pardon me for my naivete but what I am getting @ is, do you think he may have known it had the possibility of being found constitutional as a tax instead of fee/fine under commerce? Fully knowing it may go that way & arguing for it under the commerce clause, so as to avoid the negativity of calling it(up until now) what it would ultimately be a tax? I don't know...either GMW is absolutely right & he truly didn't understand this correctly or he knew that it could also be found legal as a tax but chose to argue for what made a safer sound bite w/the American population!

[diggitydot]

My guess is that Obama avoided calling it a tax because taxes are disliked by everyone. Really, whether it's called a fine, a fee, or a tax -- they all accomplish the same thing. It's semantics.

[GrayMatterWife]

.either GMW is absolutely right & he truly didn't understand this correctly or he knew that it could also be found legal as a tax but chose to argue for what made a safer sound bite w/the American population!

Wait, wait. Am I getting credited with giving Obama too much character and credit? That's a first.

I certainly hope he was just clueless. He repeatedly claimed that it wasn't a tax, and he seemed to honestly believe it (or at least earnestly say it). If he didn't, and really thought it was a tax but just wanted to manipulate the public...well, that's a bridge I don't want to cross. I would far rather think he isn't a master of Con Law that to think he is evil. He doesn't strike me as evil--maybe some of his advisors, but not him personally. I think he just believes his own hype and gets a lot of incredibly bad advice.

[JaneDoe]

My guess is that Obama avoided calling it a tax because taxes are disliked by everyone. Really, whether it's called a fine, a fee, or a tax -- they all accomplish the same thing. It's semantics.

This is exactly what I think. It was political strategy to not call it a tax.

[GrayMatterWife]

If anyone is interest: an explanation and defense of Chief Justice Roberts. It is a good opinion piece from Charles Hurt at the Washington Post, explaining why John Roberts does not deserve the vitriol of the conservatives. (And, by equal implication, the thanks of liberals.) Basically, the piece argues that Roberts was the grown-up.
____________________________________

ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Conservatives gathering now for a low-tech lynching of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. need to take a quick breath of air and think about what he managed to accomplish by upholding President Obama’s highly unpopular, signature piece of legislation.
Though he shocked many by joining the left plank on the high court, Justice Roberts. pretty much did what he was supposed to do. He finally put a boundary on how much freedom the federal government can gobble up from states and individuals under the “commerce clause” — that most specious scheme for so much federal thievery.
Then he told President Obama and his kleptocrats in Congress that they can have their health care law, but they cannot keep lying about it. A tax is a tax and they are liars if they call it anything else. And they just stuck the crippled American taxpayer with one of the biggest, broadest, most regressive tax-hikes in history — and during a deep, double-dip recession!
Finally, Justice Roberts turned to the bumbling, tongue-twisted and goofball opposition party — sometimes called the “Republican” party but usually called the “stupid” or “slow” party — and told them to man up, quit whining and fix the horrific mess that they are so much responsible for. They may have messed their diaper, but he’s not changing it for them.
Okay, fine, maybe Republicans didn’t vote for Obamacare. Woo-hoo! And that got us, well, Obamacare anyway.
Yes, Republicans are nearly equally responsible for Obamacare because they set the stage perfectly for Mr. Obama’s unquestioned ascent to the White House and handed his kelptocrats complete control of Congress for the first two years of the Great Taxus Interegnum.
So badly had they mishandled the economy and everything else and so badly had they compromised and corrupted themselves that even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid became viable options for leadership.
It was under the dazed gaze of San Fran Pelosi and the fat-fisted leadership of Vegas Reid that we got stuck with Obamacare.
In response to an ocean of debt, out-of-control spending and taxpayers running out of money, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and Mr. Obama decided to double down on the debt, spend even more money we don’t have and take away what little money taxpayers had left.
And in response to the highest unemployment in decades, they decided to take even more money away from the companies that provide jobs. And then they yoked those companies with Obamacare.
Somehow, Republicans were not able to make a coherent argument against all of this. They could not make the simple argument that if you don’t like your postal service, you aren’t going to like health care brought to you by the federal government either.
Now, going into the election, President Obama has his law and now me must live with it. He must own it. And he must be judged for the massive taxes his law will levy on innocent Americans.
And then it will be up to Mitt Romney and a new set of Republicans to clean up this legislative cesspool.
Because, as Justice Roberts eloquently writes:
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

[GrayMatterWife]

This is exactly what I think. It was political strategy to not call it a tax.

Interesting question: poll for y'all--do you feel lied to? I heard someone say that today. They felt that Obama and the ObamaCare advocates lied to them, deceived them into thinking that this was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Lying seems like a pretty heavy accusation to me. I didn't get the impression that they lied. I don't think they KNEW. I think they were arrogant and (some of them) ignorant, but I didn't think dishonest. I don't feel lied to. I feel like the people who thought this was not a tax were just not profound legal thinkers.

[scrub-jay]

... explaining why John Roberts does not deserve the vitriol of the conservatives. (And, by equal implication, the thanks of liberals.) Basically, the piece argues that Roberts was the grown-up.

I give credit to both Roberts and Kennedy for voting what they felt was right in the eyes of the law, especially when it went against what was politically "expected" of them. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above the politics and I am proud that the Justices made a decision based on the law and not on their colors. That's not to say that this law will not continue to be fought politically through this election year. I agree with you wholeheartedly - I hate politicians.