Obamacare VS The Constitution

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of "Obamacare", supporting most provisions in a 5-4 decision. The so called individual mandate has been narrowly ruled as legal as a tax passed by Congress.

Great news for President Obama, but it will make for a more spirited presidential campaign and renewed efforts by opposition groups.

[Guest American Woman]

Great news for President Obama....

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm now questioning my vote.

The idea that the mandate is a "tax" is ludicrous; taxes are set by the government, and the citizens have a voice in the government; not so regarding insurance companies, who can charge whatever they like.

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm now questioning my vote.

Sure.....but I never voted for Mr. Obama, so no biggee!

The idea that the mandate is a "tax" is ludicrous; taxes are set by the government, and the citizens have a voice in the government; not so regarding insurance companies, who can charge whatever they like.

Very true and a watertight interpretation, but the court must have considered passage by Congress as tantamount to the same thing, without calling it a tax. As was discussed at the hearings, it would have been better to actually have a plaintiff with standing to challenge the so called "tax", equal protection clause, etc., etc. Maybe that will happen down the road.

I personally admire your integrity on this, self reporting as being without health insurance.

[Shady]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of "Obamacare", supporting most provisions in a 5-4 decision. The so called individual mandate has been narrowly ruled as legal as a tax passed by Congress.

Great news for President Obama, but it will make for a more spirited presidential campaign and renewed efforts by opposition groups.

You're definitely right about the renewed efforts of Obamacare opponents. I just read that the RNC raised over 1 million dollars in less than an hour after the decision was announced.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure.....but I never voted for Mr. Obama, so no biggee!

Very true and a watertight interpretation, but the court must have considered passage by Congress as tantamount to the same thing, without calling it a tax. As was discussed at the hearings, it would have been better to actually have a plaintiff with standing to challenge the so called "tax", equal protection clause, etc., etc. Maybe that will happen down the road.

I personally admire your integrity on this, self reporting as being without health insurance.

Thank you. It's just not right, for so many reasons.

As for this comment:

The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

It's not "like buying gasoline" because one need not buy gasoline if one chooses; it's more like fining someone for not owning a car/not buying gasoline - and of course it's nothing like taxing earned income - I can't even imagine where that comparison is coming from. It's not as if people who don't earn an income are fined for it. Perhaps the government should mandate that we give to the presidential elections, too, and if we don't - pay a fine. Wouldn't that be just another tax?

I agree with what I've read, that the decision says 'either live with it or get a new government,' and since the Republicans are vowing to overturn it, I just may be voting Republican. I know this for sure - I will neither buy what I don't choose to buy - nor pay the fine. Doesn't sound as if there's a heck of a lot they can do to enforce it. At any rate, I'm no longer so sure of an Obama win come November.

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

[punked]

It is just what Mitt Romney wanted. Right Shady?

[dre]

Thank you. It's just not right, for so many reasons.

As for this comment:

The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

It's not "like buying gasoline" because one need not buy gasoline if one chooses; it's more like fining someone for not owning a car/not buying gasoline - and of course it's nothing like taxing earned income - I can't even imagine where that comparison is coming from. It's not as if people who don't earn an income are fined for it. Perhaps the government should mandate that we give to the presidential elections, too, and if we don't - pay a fine. Wouldn't that be just another tax?

I agree with what I've read, that the decision says 'either live with it or get a new government,' and since the Republicans are vowing to overturn it, I just may be voting Republican. I know this for sure - I will neither buy what I don't choose to buy - nor pay the fine. Doesn't sound as if there's a heck of a lot they can do to enforce it. At any rate, I'm no longer so sure of an Obama win come November.

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

Problem is Americans all have health insurance anyways because of the free rider problem and the EMC act. You will probably pay MORE to treat all these people without the bill than you will with it.

[August1991]

It's not "like buying gasoline" because one need not buy gasoline if one chooses; it's more like fining someone for not owning a car/not buying gasoline - and of course it's nothing like taxing earned income - I can't even imagine where that comparison is coming from. It's not as if people who don't earn an income are fined for it. Perhaps the government should mandate that we give to the presidential elections, too, and if we don't - pay a fine. Wouldn't that be just another tax?

It seems to me that the US Constitution gives Congress to tax as it wants. Moreover, if we are to have a legitimate government, it must be able to impose taxes.

-----

I think that Roberts has taken a wise decision that oddly is even partisan. It limits the commerce clause, reaffirms the power to tax, puts Obamacare properly into the court of public opinion and finally gives Romney a decent shot at winning in November.

It looks like this will be a referendum-election. We had one of those in 1988.

[bush_cheney2004]

It seems to me that the US Constitution gives Congress to tax as it wants. Moreover, if we are to have a legitimate government, it must be able to impose taxes.

Got no problem with that, as "tax" was always the correct technical interpretation. How that plays out politically remains to be seen.

Edited June 29, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

It seems to me that the US Constitution gives Congress to tax as it wants. Moreover, if we are to have a legitimate government, it must be able to impose taxes.

That's not entirely true. The constitution spells out specifically how congress may tax. Anyways, it isn't a tax, at least it wasn't up until today. But what this amounts to is the federal government being allowed to tax inactivity.

[dre]

That's not entirely true. The constitution spells out specifically how congress may tax. Anyways, it isn't a tax, at least it wasn't up until today. But what this amounts to is the federal government being allowed to tax inactivity.

Not inactivity. A tax on the burden that the uninsured place on others. When you dont get regular medical care and you end up in the ER getting treated under the EMA then your peers have to pay.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not inactivity. A tax on the burden that the uninsured place on others. When you dont get regular medical care and you end up in the ER getting treated under the EMA then your peers have to pay.

What if you don't end up in the ER? What if you just drop dead...do we get a refund?

[August1991]

Got no problem with that, as "tax" was always the correct technical interpretation. How that plays out politically remains to be seen.

I dunno. I have a suspicion that calling it a "tax" rather than a "penalty" won't matter much. I also figure that the niceties of the Constitution (power to tax vs. Commerce clause) won't matter much either.

The intrusion of more (federal) bureaucrats will matter, along with the specifics of Obama's health plan for individual voters. This is a fight for the independent, swing voters in borderline states.

IOW, there's a good chance that this will be the deciding factor. The TV debates in October between Obama and Romney may become very arcane - while at the same time being debates about government and individual liberty.

----

The more I think about this, the more I think that Roberts made a very wise decision: he interpreted the Constitution correctly, he put the Supreme Court in its proper place and as a partisan, he threw a buoy to the Republicans/Romney. We'll see now whether Romney can more than dog paddle.

Edited June 29, 2012 by August1991

[jbg]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm now questioning my vote.

The idea that the mandate is a "tax" is ludicrous; taxes are set by the government, and the citizens have a voice in the government; not so regarding insurance companies, who can charge whatever they like.

That's not entirely true. The constitution spells out specifically how congress may tax. Anyways, it isn't a tax, at least it wasn't up until today. But what this amounts to is the federal government being allowed to tax inactivity.

We have now had the luxury of a few months to think about the decision. Since the 1930's, the Court has rarely struck down Federal legislation unless it was clearly unconstitutional. For a lot of reasons state legislation is more often struck down.

During the late 1930's the Court, in a famous decision United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153, 58 S. Ct. 778, 784, 82 L. Ed. 1234 (1938), in Footnote 4 the Court stated:

Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, (citations omitted) , or racial minorities (citations omitted); whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.

United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153, 58 S. Ct. 778, 784, 82 L. Ed. 1234 (1938)

The point that the Supreme Court made is that it intervenes to strike down legislation where the affected group is a minority group for whom the political process does not and cannot work. At that point, unless legislation is totally in "left field" the Court finds a way to validate it.

That does not mean that the U.S. Supreme Court supports the legislation. Its function is to rule on constitutionality, not wisdom.