How will the Supreme Court's Health Care Reform ruling ...

[WhyteRain]

Let me rephrase: The Court ruled that the government cannot force anyone to purchase a product. That is the definition of a mandate. What's at issue here is that you are not being forced to buy health insurance, but you will be taxed if you don't.

Also, I read an interesting article that I think some people here might enjoy.

"Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius"
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Come on. These anti ACA people can't seriously expect us to believe that they would rather have Roberts do what he did rather then join 4 other justices in striking the whole thing down.

That's what I've been saying all day, even before the decision was announced.  And I was one of the many people here who picked "Option 3 -- The whole thing struck down".

This is looking like a Machiavellian decision by Roberts:  He agrees with the conservatives on all the critical issues -- like mandate invalid under Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment precludes Medicare expansion -- and then leaves Obama and the Democrats to defend the most unpopular law since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

If he had done as I and most of the "experts" thought and struck down ACA, then Obama and the 'crats could go on the offensive against the "rightwing Republican court".  What he did was robbed them of that issue and stuck them with an ugly tarbaby to defend.  He resusitated the issue that most inflamed the voters in 2010.  No one's going to give a damn now about what Romney did at Bain Capital.  

[modify:]  Btw FWIW, left-wing TV host Ed Schultz agrees with me that this was a tactical victory but a strategic defeat for Democrats:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/28/ed_schultz_obamacare_decision_helps_mitt_romney.html

[True Federalist]

The other point, about the "poor person in Alabama." The ACA also provides for money to encourage states to expand the coverage offered by Medicaid for people up to 133% of the poverty line. The Supreme Court struck down the part of the ACA which would have penalized states for not expanding medicaid, but left standing the part of the law providing generous subsidies to states for Medicaid expansion (100% of costs now, eventually coming down to 90%).
In other words, after 2014, if that "poor person in Alabama" isn't covered by Medicaid, it won't be because of Obama, but rather because the state of Alabama has decided to refuse the federal money that would have given her Medicaid.
Now, I suspect Alabama just might be dumb enough to turn down that money, but if they do, we'll know who to blame, right?

And you don't think that as part of some future DC budget deal, the Feds might not decrease their share to something less than 90%? I certainly do. so I won't blame States for being worried that the expanded Medicaid could turn into a budget trap.

[ajb]

The other point, about the "poor person in Alabama." The ACA also provides for money to encourage states to expand the coverage offered by Medicaid for people up to 133% of the poverty line. The Supreme Court struck down the part of the ACA which would have penalized states for not expanding medicaid, but left standing the part of the law providing generous subsidies to states for Medicaid expansion (100% of costs now, eventually coming down to 90%).
In other words, after 2014, if that "poor person in Alabama" isn't covered by Medicaid, it won't be because of Obama, but rather because the state of Alabama has decided to refuse the federal money that would have given her Medicaid.
Now, I suspect Alabama just might be dumb enough to turn down that money, but if they do, we'll know who to blame, right?

And you don't think that as part of some future DC budget deal, the Feds might not decrease their share to something less than 90%? I certainly do. so I won't blame States for being worried that the expanded Medicaid could turn into a budget trap.

Ah, but are they worried that expanded Medicaid could turn into a budget trap, or that expanded Medicaid would give more health insurance to the working poor? Because they seem to view the latter as the real problem.

[ajb]

This isn't over. The states could nullify it.

The states can't nullify federal law.

Actually they can and they have done it in the past.

Cooper v. Aaron?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let me rephrase: The Court ruled that the government cannot force anyone to purchase a product. That is the definition of a mandate. What's at issue here is that you are not being forced to buy health insurance, but you will be taxed if you don't.

Also, I read an interesting article that I think some people here might enjoy.

"Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius"
http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Come on. These anti ACA people can't seriously expect us to believe that they would rather have Roberts do what he did rather then join 4 other justices in striking the whole thing down.

That's what I've been saying all day, even before the decision was announced.  And I was one of the many people here who picked "Option 3 -- The whole thing struck down".

This is looking like a Machiavellian decision by Roberts:  He agrees with the conservatives on all the critical issues -- like mandate invalid under Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment precludes Medicare expansion -- and then leaves Obama and the Democrats to defend the most unpopular law since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

If he had done as I and most of the "experts" thought and struck down ACA, then Obama and the 'crats could go on the offensive against the "rightwing Republican court".  What he did was robbed them of that issue and stuck them with an ugly tarbaby to defend.  He resusitated the issue that most inflamed the voters in 2010.  No one's going to give a damn now about what Romney did at Bain Capital.  

[modify:]  Btw FWIW, left-wing TV host Ed Schultz agrees with me that this was a tactical victory but a strategic defeat for Democrats:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/28/ed_schultz_obamacare_decision_helps_mitt_romney.html

Look, this obviously wasn't a 100% victory for Democrats, but to claim that it was a victory for Republicans is pretty silly.

[milhouse24]

I saw that the full ruling says that States will not be punished by the Fed if they opt out of the program, which many budget-strapped states will do.  Then the Fed is just taxing citizens living in states that won't provide the "universal package"

So basically, the states will still have "States Rights" when it comes to universal health care.

But citizens will still have to pay the federal tax (if there state does not offer premiums).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I really don't understand what's so scary here.

If someone does not want to buy a product, it is their individual right to refuse to do so. End of discussion. It's about liberty.

And you might be able to pass the mandate off as a tax, but it punishes people for choosing an option that the government doesn't like. How is that a good thing.

"If you do not buy an apple a day, you will be taxed." That is ridiculous.
"If you buy this unhealthly product, you will be taxed." Now that sounds a little less abstract.

Taxing someone for not having something is just so strange.

[Mr. Morden]

I really don't understand what's so scary here.

If someone does not want to buy a product, it is their individual right to refuse to do so. End of discussion. It's about liberty.

And you might be able to pass the mandate off as a tax, but it punishes people for choosing an option that the government doesn't like. How is that a good thing.

"If you do not buy an apple a day, you will be taxed." That is ridiculous.
"If you buy this unhealthly product, you will be taxed." Now that sounds a little less abstract.

Taxing someone for not having something is just so strange.

Doesn't the government already give out tax credits for all sorts of things?  Can't you just think of the mandate as a tax on everyone, with the people who have health insurance getting an exemption (equivalent of a tax credit)?

[Harry]

I really don't understand what's so scary here.

If someone does not want to buy a product, it is their individual right to refuse to do so. End of discussion. It's about liberty.

And you might be able to pass the mandate off as a tax, but it punishes people for choosing an option that the government doesn't like. How is that a good thing.

"If you do not buy an apple a day, you will be taxed." That is ridiculous.
"If you buy this unhealthly product, you will be taxed." Now that sounds a little less abstract.

Taxing someone for not having something is just so strange.

Doesn't the government already give out tax credits for all sorts of things?  Can't you just think of the mandate as a tax on everyone, with the people who have health insurance getting an exemption (equivalent of a tax credit)?

Yes, that is the logical way of looking at it, but I sure hope Obama never articulates it that way...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I really don't understand what's so scary here.

If someone does not want to buy a product, it is their individual right to refuse to do so. End of discussion. It's about liberty.

And you might be able to pass the mandate off as a tax, but it punishes people for choosing an option that the government doesn't like. How is that a good thing.

"If you do not buy an apple a day, you will be taxed." That is ridiculous.
"If you buy this unhealthly product, you will be taxed." Now that sounds a little less abstract.

Taxing someone for not having something is just so strange.

Doesn't the government already give out tax credits for all sorts of things?  Can't you just think of the mandate as a tax on everyone, with the people who have health insurance getting an exemption (equivalent of a tax credit)?

I guess you could look at it that way, but it still wouldn't be the reality of the Obamacare situation.

[ajb]

I really don't understand what's so scary here.

If someone does not want to buy a product, it is their individual right to refuse to do so. End of discussion. It's about liberty.

And you might be able to pass the mandate off as a tax, but it punishes people for choosing an option that the government doesn't like. How is that a good thing.

"If you do not buy an apple a day, you will be taxed." That is ridiculous.
"If you buy this unhealthly product, you will be taxed." Now that sounds a little less abstract.

Taxing someone for not having something is just so strange.

Doesn't the government already give out tax credits for all sorts of things?  Can't you just think of the mandate as a tax on everyone, with the people who have health insurance getting an exemption (equivalent of a tax credit)?

I guess you could look at it that way, but it still wouldn't be the reality of the Obamacare situation.

The analogy to excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes is a good one, I think. Consumption of alcohol and tobacco are both legal and pervasive, but impose significant negative externalities. It would be misguided (and yes, a violation of liberty) to ban them outright just because of the harm that they do, but the excise taxes, in effect, capture some percentage of the added cost that the alcohol/tobacco consumption of some imposes on all of us (higher Medicare/Medicaid expenses, court costs, higher auto insurance premiums, etc).

Of the forty million-odd Americans who currently don't have health insurance, many would like to have it but have trouble affording it -- their employer doesn't offer it, they have a pre-existing condition that makes the cost of insurance prohibitive, whatever. Most of what the ACA does is to provide incentives that make insurance affordable for many of those people.

But there is a pool of people out there who can afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it, mostly younger people who are in good general health and are gambling that they'll never need it. Their choice not to buy health insurance imposes a negative externality on the rest of us, since our premiums are higher than they would be if there were more young healthy people buying health insurance.

The ACA's mandate penalty is targeted at those people (fairly precisely targeted, if you look at the details; http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/individual_mandate_penalties-04-22.pdf). Nobody is forced to buy health insurance, but a small number (perhaps 4 million out of the 40 million + without insurance; that includes dependents, so the number of people whose taxes will go up is even smaller) will have to pay a penalty for not having insurance. That penalty will amount to less money than buying insurance would, but will act as a marginal incentive to encourage those who can afford insurance to buy it. And that will help to keep the costs of insurance lower in the future than they would otherwise be.

[Mr. Morden]

People with children get a discount on their taxes, so I'm effectively being taxed for *not* having children.  The government is taxing me for not having something.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

But it is a discount from a tax on everyone.

Sure, they are effectively taxing you for not having something. But they are not officially doing it.

With Obamacare, there is no tax credit. There is just a tax.

[WhyteRain]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS A GENIUS

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
 
It will be a short-lived celebration.
 
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

READ THE REST AT:  http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

[Tender Branson]

3 people had "Reform upheld - Approvals rise"

Which seems to be the case, says Rasmussen.

[WhyteRain]

3 people had "Reform upheld - Approvals rise"

Which seems to be the case, says Rasmussen.

Yup.  The same thing happened immediately after the passage of O'Care in 2010 -- Obama's approval numbers went up, about 4% for about 2 weeks.  Expect the same this time.

[Harry]

It's funny how butthurt republicans got when Obama (correctly) predicted PPACA would be upheld. How they spun that into "threats" and "childish insults" is beyond me...

[WhyteRain]

3 people had "Reform upheld - Approvals rise"

Which seems to be the case, says Rasmussen.

Yup.  The same thing happened immediately after the passage of O'Care in 2010 -- Obama's approval numbers went up, about 4% for about 2 weeks.  Expect the same this time.

I decided to check Rasmussen's numbers:

Date        Strong Approve   Strong Disapprove   Total Approve  Total Disapprove
3/20/10
Date before
ACA passes      23%      (-21)      44%                    43%      (-14)    56%
3/26/10
A few days
later                31%      (-10)      41%                    49%       (-2)     51%
5/26/10
Two months
later                23%      (-22)      45%                    43%      (-14)    56%
11/02/10
Date before
2010 midterm  30%      (-15)      45%                    48%        (-3)    51%
6/25/12
Date before
law upheld       23%      (-21)      45%                    44%       (-10)   54%
6/30/12
Most
recent poll       26%      (-15)       41%                    50%       (+1)   49%

Given that the 2010 midterm was the greatest midterm election beatdown for a new President in generations (since 1922, and in 1922 the GOP had so many seats to spare that they didn't lose their House or Senate majority), how much are the polls "good news for Obama"?

[Lieutenant Governor Clinton1996]

Well according to Rasmussen Polling, which does kinda have a GOP Bias, he got a moderate ump in approval and in the Head-to-Head matchup. But then again Romney had been falling for about a week.

[Tender Branson]

A new Reuters/Ipsos ONLINE poll shows Obamacare about evenly split (about 50% hate the overall law and 50% like it).

The mandate is still unpopular (39% vs. 61%), but the reforms within the law are awesomely popular (letting under-26-year-olds stay on their parents plans etc.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85S14820120701