SCOTUS-HealthCare Reform

[youngterrier]

What gets me is that people think health insurance cuts health care costs. That makes no sense at all.

For profit healthcare insurance doesn't necessarily cut costs, but in general, spreading the risks cut costs.

As for your previous post, the constitution has failed ever since we came to the realization that whites also descended from apes.

and once we realized black people were indeed people and women should be able to vote.

[CitadelGrad]

Women were given the right to vote through a constitutional amendment process. It wasn't an act of Congress, regulatory agency or the courts.

[Seahawks08]

I disagree with the people who think this is a loss for Obama in the fall election "as of today." Sure, upholding the law will fire up the GOP base, but I don't think it will affect the independents as much. Unless of course, Romney comes up with an alternative plan. I'm going to guess that most of the country will not want to go back to before Obamacare even if they don't like it. If Romney can come up with a solid alternative plan, then I think he can take Obama on. Until then, he should stick with the economy. Just my two cents...

[Gil Dobie]

This will create a lot of jobs, but will also create higher costs to pay for these jobs, which will lead to higher insurance premiums to cover these cost. My friend in Korea pays $3 per month, wonder what the mandate tax will be in the USA. There are enough government incentives to keep the cost down for the next 4 years, but when that money runs out, cost will go up.

[GannonFan]

I disagree with the people who think this is a loss for Obama in the fall election "as of today." Sure, upholding the law will fire up the GOP base, but I don't think it will affect the independents as much. Unless of course, Romney comes up with an alternative plan. I'm going to guess that most of the country will not want to go back to before Obamacare even if they don't like it. If Romney can come up with a solid alternative plan, then I think he can take Obama on. Until then, he should stick with the economy. Just my two cents...

The thing is, Romney doesn't even have to do that. Obviously there are plenty of people (though not always on these boards) who recognize the power and the moral positive of ensuring that everyone has access to health care and that we spread the cost of health care around as much as possible. However, in an election and a campaign cycle, people don't delve too deep into issues. Romney doesn't have to campaign against health care, he can campaign now against taxes, and taxes hikes in the middle of a major recession that has led to an anemic economy. It does always come back to that - the economy - and now Romney can say, with the stamp of approval from the SCOTUS, that Obama instituted a massive tax increase in the middle of a recovery and he can say (and it's up to us to judge) that that tax increase is just one of the reasons why the economy hasn't fully rebounded yet. And he has the extra bonus of Obama trying to avoid calling it a tax increase when really it was. Romney doesn't need to talk about the health care part, per se, just the tax that wasn't billed as a tax when it was passed.

[DSUrocks07]

[andy7171]

GD I love DSU's signature.

[kalm]

GD I love DSU's signature.

Anyhoo, it will be interesting to see whether voters buy into the tax increase nuance or not. Nuance doesn't typically sell, and they very well just read this as 'SCOTUS' upholds Obamacare.

[GannonFan]

GD I love DSU's signature.

Anyhoo, it will be interesting to see whether voters buy into the tax increase nuance or not. Nuance doesn't typically sell, and they very well just read this as 'SCOTUS' upholds Obamacare.

Well, the SCOTUS just said it was Constitutional - they didn't say it was good policy. The GOP has made decent ground in elections since Obamacare was passed so it's hard to say that they won't benefit somewhat by now looking hard at the tax increases associated with it. Frankly, though, it only matters in the bigger picture of the economy - if people think the economy isn't very good, they'll likely see Obamacare as just one more thing causing the economy to be bad. And if the economy's good, well, Presidents don't lose elections when the economy is good.

[BDKJMU]

SCOTUS upholds mandate. Roberts sides with the Left in his decision. THis is definetly a game changer. So, what else can the Gov't force us to buy?

I guess it really was Bush's fault. Huh...

Yep. God da** you Bush. His daddy nominated Souter, and W nominated Roberts. At least W got one out of 2 right with Alito. Roberts is no liberal, but he's no conservative either- no conservative would vote to uphold this.

[Grizalltheway]

I guess it really was Bush's fault. Huh...

Yep. God da** you Bush. His daddy nominated Souter, and W nominated Roberts. At least W got one out of 2 right with Scalia. Roberts is no liberal, but he's no conservative either- no conservative would vote to uphold this.

Say what?

[BDKJMU]

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

Everyone will as costs rise. No, it won't be a "tax" tax, but it will function as a tax from an economic perspective.

That is the point. If a private insurance company can't turn someone down for a pre existing condition that costs say 50-100k a yr to treat on avg, yet can only charge that person 10k a yr in premiums (or whatever the cap is) then that insurance company has to make up the loss from elsewhere- and that is by charging the younger (20s,30s) healthier folks more in premiums than they cost as a whole.

The younger healthier folks are the ones really being screwed in this- they are going to be forced to pay more $ (be it taxes or premiums) towards health care than they consume as a whole in order to subsidize the older, less healthy that use far more health care resources than they pay in.

The younger folks tend to be more for Obama, but they should realize they are the ones being screwed the most by Obamacare.

[BDKJMU]

Yep. God da** you Bush. His daddy nominated Souter, and W nominated Roberts. At least W got one out of 2 right with Scalia. Roberts is no liberal, but he's no conservative either- no conservative would vote to uphold this.

Say what?

God da** it. I was thinking of the 3 conservative justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and typed in Scalia instead of Alito.
Brain fart- got the 2 Italian conservative justices confused. Maybe I was thinking "Scalito" Fixed it.

[kalm]

Everyone will as costs rise. No, it won't be a "tax" tax, but it will function as a tax from an economic perspective.

That is the point. If a private insurance company can't turn someone down for a pre existing condition that costs say 50-100k a yr to treat on avg, yet can only charge that person 10k a yr in premiums (or whatever the cap is) then that insurance company has to make up the loss from elsewhere- and that is by charging the younger (20s,30s) healthier folks more in premiums than they cost as a whole.

The younger healthier folks are the ones really being screwed in this- they are going to be forced to pay more $ (be it taxes or premiums) towards health care than they consume as a whole in order to subsidize the older, less healthy that use far more health care resources than they pay in.

The younger folks tend to be more for Obama, but they should realize they are the ones being screwed the most by Obamacare.

Or someone like Bill Mcquire could make somewhere south of a billion over his tenure and we could keep the premiums down.

[Ivytalk]

I've stayed out of this thread until now. Saw nothing surprising from either Donk or Conk camps. I just want to say one thing:my friend and classmate, the Chief Justice of the United States, is intellectually honest and an amazingly smart guy. Whatever you may think of the tax argument -- he was right on the Commerce Clause -- he reached his result in a rational way. And he's forgotten more constitutional law than all of us azzwipes on this silly little board will ever learn.

[danefan]

I've stayed out of this thread until now. Saw nothing surprising from either Donk or Conk camps. I just want to say one thing:my friend and classmate, the Chief Justice of the United States, is intellectually honest and an amazingly smart guy. Whatever you may think of the tax argument -- he was right on the Commerce Clause -- he reached his result in a rational way. And he's forgotten more constitutional law than all of us azzwipes on this silly little board will ever learn.

Amen

[kalm]

I've stayed out of this thread until now. Saw nothing surprising from either Donk or Conk camps. I just want to say one thing:my friend and classmate, the Chief Justice of the United States, is intellectually honest and an amazingly smart guy. Whatever you may think of the tax argument -- he was right on the Commerce Clause -- he reached his result in a rational way. And he's forgotten more constitutional law than all of us azzwipes on this silly little board will ever learn.

Ivy, my issues with Roberts not withstanding, I respect you for this post.

[Grizalltheway]

I've stayed out of this thread until now. Saw nothing surprising from either Donk or Conk camps. I just want to say one thing:my friend and classmate, the Chief Justice of the United States, is intellectually honest and an amazingly smart guy. Whatever you may think of the tax argument -- he was right on the Commerce Clause -- he reached his result in a rational way. And he's forgotten more constitutional law than all of us azzwipes on this silly little board will ever learn.

Yeesh, talk about friends in high places! So, what's he like drunk?

[CitadelGrad]

I've stayed out of this thread until now. Saw nothing surprising from either Donk or Conk camps. I just want to say one thing:my friend and classmate, the Chief Justice of the United States, is intellectually honest and an amazingly smart guy. Whatever you may think of the tax argument -- he was right on the Commerce Clause -- he reached his result in a rational way. And he's forgotten more constitutional law than all of us azzwipes on this silly little board will ever learn.

I wonder what your friend and classmate thinks about the Obama administration claiming that the mandate is not a tax one day after the ruling, when their argument before SCOTUS was that it is constitutional because it is a tax.

I wonder if the amazingly smart guy realizes that he got played. Even Kennedy didn't fall for that predictable gag.

[BDKJMU]

I've stayed out of this thread until now. Saw nothing surprising from either Donk or Conk camps. I just want to say one thing:my friend and classmate, the Chief Justice of the United States, is intellectually honest and an amazingly smart guy. Whatever you may think of the tax argument -- he was right on the Commerce Clause -- he reached his result in a rational way. And he's forgotten more constitutional law than all of us azzwipes on this silly little board will ever learn.

I wonder what your friend and classmate thinks about the Obama administration claiming that the mandate is not a tax one day after the ruling, when their argument before SCOTUS was that it is constitutional because it is a tax.

I wonder if the amazingly smart guy realizes that he got played. Even Kennedy didn't fall for that predictable gag.

Yep. The role of the Supreme Ct is to interpret the law as it is written, not to rewrite it as Roberts did.

[danefan]

I wonder what your friend and classmate thinks about the Obama administration claiming that the mandate is not a tax one day after the ruling, when their argument before SCOTUS was that it is constitutional because it is a tax.

I wonder if the amazingly smart guy realizes that he got played. Even Kennedy didn't fall for that predictable gag.

Yep. The role of the Supreme Ct is to interpret the law as it is written, not to rewrite it as Roberts did.

Again.....the penalty is in the tax code. Roberts didn't pick it up and move it there.

[CitadelGrad]

Yep. The role of the Supreme Ct is to interpret the law as it is written, not to rewrite it as Roberts did.

Again.....the penalty is in the tax code. Roberts didn't pick it up and move it there.

As Kennedy and the other dissenting justices pointed out, it never referred to as a tax. It is always referred to as a penalty.

[Chizzang]

Is it working in Massachusetts..?
This is actually a sincere question - I mean what if it actually is better than what we have now..?
Is that possible..?

It'll be interesting to see it unfold
Frankly I never thought it would get this far - but - here we are
And Romney delivering the message about the evils of this is going to be prime-time-comedy
How do you reconcile that in a debate..?

[Cap'n Cat]

GObamacare!!!!

[Gil Dobie]

Is it working in Massachusetts..?
This is actually a sincere question - I mean what if it actually is better than what we have now..?
Is that possible..?

It'll be interesting to see it unfold
Frankly I never thought it would get this far - but - here we are
And Romney delivering the message about the evils of this is going to be prime-time-comedy
How do you reconcile that in a debate..?

There are parts that are better than what we have now, and there are parts of Obamacare that are not. I'm sure the politicians can see that, but they continue to force this all-or-nothing policy per their political parties agenda. We know it's not going to change under Obama, he is a great finger pointer. I'd like to see if Romney can tweak Obamacare enough so that the entire package is better than what we have now, but I doubt it. Politics will get in the way.