The Supreme Court upheld President Obama's health care law today in a splintered, complex opinion that gives Obama a major election-year victory.
Basically. the justices said that the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine -- is constitutional as a tax.
Chief Justice John Roberts -- a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush -- provided the key vote to preserve the landmark health care law, which figures to be a major issue in Obama's re-election bid against Republican opponent Mitt Romney.
I agree that we're stuck with this Bill until it is repealled so we have to make the best of it. However, in any case, what is not specifically provided to the Federal Government by the Constitution as to ability, rights, or powers is forbidden by the Constitution to the Federal Government. It is written this way to protect the citizens of the United States from the Federal Government. It is the opposite for citizens and rightly so. So, for the SC to allow the Federal Government powers not specifically provided for by the Constitution is against the Framer's express intent and it moves us further down the road of totalitarianism. You can argue as did the several Justices of the Supreme Court that the penalty is a "tax". However, in reading the Bill with regard to Individual Responsibility in no place did it specifically state that the penalty was a tax, nor did the authors of the Bill state that it was a tax, they even denied that the penalty was a tax several times in several forums. So for the Supreme Court to state the penalty is a tax oversteps their bounds by a considerable margin in that they added verbiage not original to the Bill in order for it to meet the requirement of Constitutionality. The only body in the Government that can rewrite a Bill is the Legislative body and they (the Supreme Court) should have struck down this Bill and let Congress rewrite it to make it Constitutional. In this case, in my opinion, the Supreme Court failed in it's duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. However, there is no Court of Appeals and History will be the only judge.
However, the only court left available for appeal in this case is history.
Disagree. Court is in session the 1st Tuesday in November in even numbered years and the case can never be dismissed with prejudice.
Well hopefully the Court will decide in favor of the Constitution and the will of the people.
The will of the people is specifically not a consideration of the court - aside from those things which are passed in legistlation. Which this was.
The court in question is the election, Liam. You are not that dense.
If you were being facetious please disregard.
Apologies, Jon. I didn't read your comment that Rick was following up on. In my haste, I thought he was referencing the Supreme Court.
Genuinely, my mistake.
Rick - while I see your point, and understand where you are coming from, I think you are still trying to apply your own understanding of the constitutional language and role of the court. If the court decides something is constitutional, that can be challenged again in that court later, or it can be dealt with in legislation, but until then, it *is* constitutional. Their role, as much as anything, is deciding what is - by definition.
I thought the Constitution was clear on the Commerce Clause. As for taxation, yes, Congress can levy a tax. But what sticks in my craw is the fact that without the specific language existing in the Bill as it was passed by the Legislature the Supreme Court decided that the penalty was a tax. This is way, way beyond what they are supposed to be doing, as a matter of fact what they did was levy a tax on the American People, which is a job for Legislative Branch of the Government not the Judicial Branch. Even the Executive Branch can't levy a tax.
If the penalty was supposed to be a tax then that should have been expressly written in the Bill but it wasn't.
even as a Republican I agree with the elimination of pre-existing conditions as a barrier to insurance and even keeping children on your healthcare insurance until the age of 26. But telling someone they MUST have insurance even if they can't afford it or they will be penalized?
(1) It would be very difficult to have a functioning insurance market where everyone is allowed to insure against something happening if everyone or nearly everyone did not participate. You'd run into an adverse selection problem and you wouldn't be able to pool risk effectively.
The healthy person who rarely has medical issues in effect subsidizes someone who has more incidents of healthcare utilization. In a similar vein, the home insurance premiums of people whose houses don't burn down in effect subsidize the payouts to the few whose houses actually do burn down.
(2) Low-income people receive subsidies to purchase insurance. Some of them also would have been covered by a Medicaid expansion except that SCOTUS founnd that part of the bill unconstitutional today.
(3) According to Black's Law Dictionary, a tax is a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority." Just because I don't call my dog a dog doesn't mean it isn't one.
Uh, Liam...Obama fell all over himself to try to convince us that this was NOT a tax, and that only his "critics" (his words) were calling it that. So was he lying? Or was he just too stupid to know how his own law was going to be seen? Secondly, this IS socialism...RANK socialism. When the gov't is requiring everybody to fork over their money to provide a service that was previously provided by the private sector, then call it what you will, but stop acting like everybody who doesn't call a spade a spade just doesn't know what they're talking about.
Third, you talk like those "32 million people" actually are going to have access to health care. It's obvious that you've drunk the Kool-aide and actually buy into this stuff. NOW not a thing was done to bring down sky-rocketing costs, people who already couldn't afford it will now be paying through the nose for something they already couldn't afford, and then STILL won't be able to pay their co-pays and other fees---and STILL won't have access to health care. You say this is going to "open up the competitive market"---ObamaCare is simply going to drive out the private companies, companies won't be able to provide the healthcare they're providing now, medicare is going broke, and we're now caught in a downward spiral---and once they own the whole medical establishment WHO GETS TO DECIDE how that health care gets rationed out? Hmmmm? Our "efficient" government---the same one that can't manage to keep a viable postal service afloat? Hmmmm...
Yeah, I'll vote my conscience, that's for sure---but people WERE stupid, Liam---they were stupid for putting their faith in a socialist president who is bent on selling us out. They believed him when he said this wasn't a tax---and now they're accepting the Supreme Court telling us it is. When they're having to kick out hundreds and hundreds of dollars to pay for it...and STILL can't get health care? Well, who knows what they'll say then.
I don't have time for a complete point by point rebuttal here, but Todd - you really didn't read anything about the law did you?
No. Being told you have to buy something (incidentally, no change if you already have employer insurance - you don't have to buy anything new, you already have insurance) or pay a penalty, is not socialism. Tax, yes. Should Obama have owned up to that? Probably - though I can see how he (and I) wouldn't see it that way. Not any more than being fined for not having car insurance.
There are provisions for lower cost plans, and offset vouchers for low income (too low to afford, but not low enough for medicaid), as well as an expansion of medicaid to cover more people (provided each state wishes to allow the expansion). also - allowing kids up to 26 to stay on their parents insurance, aslo reaches some of those 32 million.
There is a specific marketplace provision meant to allow insurers to offer group plans to individuals - that is what I mean by competative market. This is not speculation - it's in there. The market is an insurance market - has nothing to do with employers - and in fact, may help small employers who no longer have to provide direct policies themselves.
Downward spiral? medicare shutting down? rationing? where do you get this crap?
I think it's obvious from the accuracy of my statements that I'm quite well-informed about the law, Liam--though I wonder where you're getting your information. How can you sit there and defend this piece of trash legislation when it's so painfully obvious to even the casual observer (let alone someone who actually takes an interest and has a clue what's going on) the devastation this is going to cause? Do you just believe EVERYTHING these people tell you, with no critical thinking and no reasoning? "The Liberal Dem's said it, so it must be right"? Amazing.
And then you downplay the fact that Obama denied this was a tax, as though it were nothing more than a little evasiveness for appearances ("should Obama have owned up to that? Probably...") No big deal, huh? Just politics? Wow....
And can you REALLY not see the difference between "Obama-Care" and the auto insurance thing? A. Auto insurance laws are state issues., B. The federal gov't does not provide universal auto insurance and compete with the private sector for the product., C. Only licensed drivers have to have auto insurance...and the federal government doesn't become involved (and I could go on). As much as this has been talked about and discussed, I'm a little surprised that you are even bringing it up--the whole "this is like auto insurance" line has been pretty effectively laid to rest.
This isn't socialism JUST because the federal government is dictating that everybody is now forced to buy it (unless they have insurance at work...while it lasts....)--THAT would be bad enough--but when they're going foist a government-run version of what the private sector already sells--AND force you to buy it--well? What if the government did this with meat? What if they did this with utilities?
As for the downward spiral---I really don't have the energy to get into it all with you. If you haven't heard what this is going to lead to (from the same people who pointed out that this WAS, most assuredly, a tax---despite what Obama called it, btw) by now, then there's nothing I could say that would change your mind. I guess we're in "Pelosi mode"---she made the asinine remark that "we need to pass this so we can see what's in it"---and some of the biggest supporters of this are still in that mode.