Listening to the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare. . .

@Thomas,

Yeah, I later realized that. Took a little bit though.

0 Replies

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3039/lapndemsecstaticgopvows.jpg

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The individual votes on the issue were themselves interesting. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Chief Justice was trying to avoid inflaming an already fractuous relationship with the president. It seems also interesting that the Court, in effect, modified the law, which did not refer to the penalties for remaining uninsured as a tax (and neither did its Congressional sponsors or the President do so: indeed they emphasized the contrary interpretation ), to make the insurance mandate constitutionally acceptable.

An immediate result is that in some quarters the forthcoming election will be to some extent a referendum on Obamacare. This could have both favorable and unfavorable consequences for both sides, though I'm sure that both sides will emphasize the positive in their campaign rhetoric.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

shuld make for "interesting times" neh?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It seems also interesting that the Court, in effect, modified the law, which did not refer to the penalties for remaining uninsured as a tax (and neither did its Congressional sponsors or the President do so: indeed they emphasized the contrary interpretation ), to make the insurance mandate constitutionally acceptable.

While I agree with you that Roberts did that, I don't really find it that interesting. Roberts merely applied a well-accepted principle of statutory construction: Courts should go out of their way to construe statutes so as to conflict with the constitution. Even Scalia, in his dissent, agrees with this principle in the abstract. He merely thinks that Roberts applied it incorrectly in practice.

georgeob1 wrote:

An immediate result is that in some quarters the forthcoming election will be to some extent a referendum on Obamacare. This could have both favorable and unfavorable consequences for both sides, though I'm sure that both sides will emphasize the positive in their campaign rhetoric.

If I was a Republican candidate, I would taunt Obama for breaking his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. If the noncompliance penalty is a tax, Obama did increase taxes on middle-class Americans.

4 Replies

@Thomas,

What other statutes levy taxes for non-compliance? seems that all others levy "fines" or prison time.
Most Constitutional lawyers were touting the Constitutionality of Obamacare in the interim. Those I heard on the radio mentioned Congress power to levy taxes but for the life of me I cant figure out how this is such a case.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

While I agree with you that Roberts did that, I don't really find it that interesting. Roberts merely applied a well-accepted principle of statutory construction: Courts should go out of their way to construe statutes so as to conflict with the constitution. Even Scalia, in his dissent, agrees with this principle in the abstract. He merely thinks that Roberts applied it incorrectly in practice.

Well neither of us knows for sure just what were Robert's motives here. I had thought that the oral argiuments had made it quite clear that, whether the penalties associated with the mandate were considered taxes or fines, upholding this element of the legislation meant that the Federal Government has the ability to compel or punish any action under the commerce clause. The principal you cite is merely a suitable rationalizatio, but alone did not - in my view at least - compel that the mandate survive. Apparently four other justices agreed.

Whether this works to the benefit of the Democrats (perhaps in mobilizing othersise listless supporters) or the Republicans (perhaps in mobilizing and motivating the majority who, according to polls, appear to oppose the legislation), will be very interesting to observe.

I don't think that taunting Obama about his self-serving denials that the law involved new taxes would be a particularly useful tactic for Republicans. A passing comment perhaps, but I wouldn't make a Federal case out of it. That is too much like Obama's own tactics for my taste. Better I think to emphasize the contrast with the increasingly evident glib, but shallow character of the President.

1 Reply

Apropos of opposing Obamacare: Are there any recent polls that distinguish between opponents who'd rather have Medicare for all, and opponents who don't want any universal healthcare on principle? Most pollsters shoehorn public opinion into this binary "oppose / support" format. I find that inadequate and frustrating.

3 Replies

One of Sullivan's readers pointed out,

Quote:

"As a long term legal matter, Chief Justice Roberts: (a) now has himself a previously non-existent limit on Congress's Commerce clause power, and (b) a previously unrecognized limit on Congress's Spending Clause power. He will have these limits at his disposal over his next 20+ years as leader of the Roberts Court."

In the long run, this could really work out to the advantage of a limited-government conservative...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

why so? you really think that Romney has an idea for universal health care on his list of promises?

The GOP . in this arena, (sorry Georgeob) sounds to me like OJ Simpson who is offring big rewards to help him find his wifes killer.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

While I agree with you that Roberts did that, I don't really find it that interesting. Roberts merely applied a well-accepted principle of statutory construction: Courts should go out of their way to construe statutes so as to conflict with the constitution. Even Scalia, in his dissent, agrees with this principle in the abstract. He merely thinks that Roberts applied it incorrectly in practice.

Well neither of us knows for sure just what were Robert's motives here. I had thought that the oral argiuments had made it quite clear that, whether the penalties associated with the mandate were considered taxes or fines, upholding this element of the legislation meant that the Federal Government has the ability to compel or punish any action under the commerce clause. The principal you cite is merely a suitable rationalizatio, but alone did not - in my view at least - compel that the mandate survive. Apparently four other justices agreed.

Perhaps I'm reading the ruling wrong, but my understanding is that the court did not in fact use the commerce clause to justify the legality of the mandate.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

uness Congress overturns Remember, after the 13th amendment, Dred Scott was nevr invoked again

0 Replies

Candidate Obama explains to Hillary Clinton why the mandate is a bad idea...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

What other statutes levy taxes for non-compliance? seems that all others levy "fines" or prison time.

If you pollute the air, you may pay pollution tax. If you bill your health risks to the public purse rather than insuring yourself against them, you pay a health-risk tax. Lots of taxes intend to discourage, even penalize people for activities that public policy doesn't like. Obamacare's noncompliance penalty is hardly unique.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

why so? you really think that Romney has an idea for universal health care on his list of promises?

No, but the dissenters from the left are unlikely to vote for Romney, whereas the dissenters from the right probably will. Today, all TV networks cited undifferentiated "opposition to Obamacare" as a disadvantage for Obama and an advantage to Romney. If a large part of the dissenters dissent from the left, that's nonsense.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps I'm reading the ruling wrong, but my understanding is that the court did not in fact use the commerce clause to justify the legality of the mandate.

You're getting the ruling right (at least on this point). Roberts struck down the commerce-clause rationale, but upheld the welfare-clause rationale.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

If you pollute the air, you may pay pollution tax

A violation of the Clean AIr act is a fiine or a criminal ckarge (if its willfully done and can be proven so). Not a tax . Cause each day of the violation is a separate charge.
You consider fines as taxes?? we are then a few miles apart on definitions.

Selling redits of air pollution IS a tax, but not a penalty.

As far as your "Billing health risks to the public purse levies a health rosk tax" Unfortunately,s ince noone can be denied coverage many young people will possibly pay a penalty and go without cause they know that, should they develop some catastrophic illness at a young age, they can still get coverage.

To me thats only a fair exchange to keep health costs down on all folks.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

remember thats todays media hype. There are several major sections in the law that are very popular

coverage for up to 26 for students under their parents policies

pre-existing conditions dont block you anymore

donut hole will be gone by 2013 for seniors

Dr practices will be gradually losing requirements to do massive testing

The" wahts not to like" areas will be creeping out of the newsblogs as the weeks and months role on.

This, like NEPA, will create a whole huge batch of industry and heath care options.

I saw that, today,after the decision was out, INSURANCE CARRIERS were on the losing side of equities. Perhaps their days at the wheel of health care, will be trimmed

This

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

As far as your "Billing health risks to the public purse levies a health rosk tax" Unfortunately,s ince noone can be denied coverage many young people will possibly pay a penalty and go without cause they know that, should they develop some catastrophic illness at a young age, they can still get coverage.

To me thats only a fair exchange to keep health costs down on all folks.

I dunno. Many young folks will be on their parents insurance till 24 or 26. After that, many will be employed and get some sort of insurance through their employers. Those who aren't, in many cases, will fall below the line and pay hardly any penalty at all.

But, you can't get insurance while unconscious in the back of an ambulance, on the way to the ER. You can really get screwed by accidents. I think the incentive to get some sort of insurance will be a powerful one, no matter what the penalty is.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

dont deny that at all. Its good sense, but I was a kid once and I was incredibly immune to anything. I only got health insurnce at college because my folks paid, and then when I got a job, the company paid. Only When I ws severely wounded and returned to the US and after spending several months in rehab, I saw what health insurance could save me from becoming.

However, those days of reasonabe premiums are gone because of litigiousness, "protectyour asses" etc. My feeling is that the health care isnt comprehensive enough.

0 Replies

Listening to the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare. . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know