Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Skinsguy,

You seem to have your own interpretation of the rules, especially regarding the individual mandate. The mandate isn't specifically for low income people neither do ALL in the pool of 30 million qualify to receive a tax credit.

The Supreme Court's ruling said, the federal gov't under Obamacare cannot dictate to states whether to accept Medicaid funding. Essentially, that's the only portion of the law that was more or less struck down.

Right now the federal government pays for about 57% of total Medicaid costs. That's even before we start debating whether "Obamacare" is a good or bad idea. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state. Some states have a vastly more complex healthcare delivery system than others. State run hospitals, university hospitals, and other network providers are absorbing the costs and looking toward the state for reimbursement. In other words, states defray costs and foot the bill for covering the uninsured. When times are lean, Medicaid is the typically the first program to see the axe and have eligibility requirements change. The new law, "Obamacare", says you can't change those eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Cut your budgets elsewhere. See where this is going? Now we can debate the merits of Medicaid, but to call it socialized medicine is not the case.

Lastly, I couldn't care less which party get's credit. The facts are the facts. A Democrat passed healthcare reform. Had it been Reagan, Bush, or Roy Rogers I'd acknowledge that.

Oh, what does Obama's proposal to raise taxes, which he's not, have to do with Affordable Care Act? These are two distinctly different pieces of legislation.

I don't want to start a completely different argument in this thread, but...at some point taxes are going to have to go up. So there.

some of the "history" of how Obamacare became law:
The American Spectator : Obamacare's Hideous History, Recounted (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/03/obamacares-hideous-history-rec)

quote]And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.Obamacare as it was written (and unread by many in Congress) is certainly no conservative "concept". You can point to Romneycare, however the law that passed in MA was with (8) over-ridded Romney vetos. For those that are interested in the differences in Romneycare vs. Obamacare here's a good link:

The American Spectator : Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-cruc/)

The court killing the Commerce Clause argument was HUGE and absolutely necessary to curtailing an already out of control, over-regulatory, federal gov't. Here's Roberts' opinion, and while I'm no fan of Obamacare being upheld as a constitutional tax, I'l take that loss while the SCOTUS curtails the federal gov'ts expansion of power.

"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.

Unfortunatley I've exceeded the 7.5% a couple of years in the last few. Bottom line, is this is an increased tax burden for many Americans.


There is no such thing as free lunch and ultimately everyone pays. The real question is when and how does the piper get paid? Is it through the back-door or through the front-door, or will it be through an unmarked envelope under the table?

Bottom line, there are two things certain in life, death and taxes...the bourgeoisie need to be weary of the mob less they want to end up under the guillotine sooner than desirable.

Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.

The last time I checked it was a religious sect that was serving cool aid to it's memebers and lying to them.My question to you ...what about the not very poor,what about the people who are doing the best they can to hang on but don't qualify as "very poor",Sammy what do they do?It's a very difficult situation. I understand, I've experienced it first hand with my parents. My mom continued to work, just to keep health insurance for my Dad, until Medicare kicked in. My sister and I did what we could at the time to help. Once Medicare kicked in the benefit levels dropped.

By no means do I think the health care system doesn't need reform, it certainly does, and now. But ultimately turing over control of mine and my family's health care to the gov't under a single-payer system, which is Obama's stated goal, is not something I want to see happen.

And all the numbers, taxes/not taxes, FSA, whatever aside, I'm Catholic and there is no way I'll support any legislation, or politician that advocates legislation, that forces a religious affiliated hospital or charity to provide services (sterilization, abortion drug, contraception) that are directly counter to its core beliefs with no avenue for an "opt-out" or religious exemption.

There is no such thing as free lunch and ultimately everyone pays. The real question is when and how does the piper get paid? Is it through the back-door or through the front-door, or will it be through an unmarked envelope under the table?

Bottom line, there are two things certain in life, death and taxes...the bourgeoisie need to be weary of the mob less they want to end up under the guillotine sooner than desirable.Agree. You and I differ on when/how the piper is paid, and when/how/if the mob rules, but you are up front about what the ultimate point of Obamacare is no smoke-n-mirrors. Kudos.

Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.

I'm pretty sure Roberts said it was a tax hence his support. This whole finessing of the English language is truly absurd...any money collected by the government is by nature a tax.

Sammy, you do understand that the Court said Obamacare must fall under the taxing authority of Congress, it did not explicitly state that it was a tax. There's a difference.

There is nothing mutually incompatible about the terms "fee", "penalty" and "tax". Is it a tax. Yes. Is it a penalty? Sure. Is it a fee? Absolutely. It is a cliche of political economics that when governments want to encourage something, they subsidize it; if they want to discourage something they tax it. There is no contradiction there.You're very "on message" here, good job. Point is the fed gov't should be encouraging/discouraging behavior a lot less.

I couldn't care less if it's a penalty/tax/fee, ultimately the fed is taking money from me...and yes I completely get that they have the constitutional right to do so. I don't agree so I certainly will be voting for and advocating for those in elected office who will do less encouraging/discouraging (taxing).

My main point was, the Commerce Clause argument is a victory for limiting the feds powers vs. the states.