Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[Governor Maxwell]

I didn't count on Chief Justice Roberts, he agrees with Alito some kind of amazing percentage.

[Gravis Marketing]

This is bad, as it's the first step towards Universal Single Payer healthcare as in Britain. So enjoy all the corruption, waste, inefficiency, bureaucracy, incompetence and high taxes that it is accompanied by.

NHS has got its issues, but it costs about half as much as U.S. healthcare. Whatever waste and inefficiency Brits experience are dwarfed by what we have in the U.S. without universal coverage. We have an extensive bureaucracy but it's private.

[BritishDixie]

One more thing. Why do people who already have healthcare give a sh*t about those who don't. Why, why!!!!!!!!

[Stranger in a strange land]

This is bad, as it's the first step towards Universal Single Payer healthcare as in Britain. So enjoy all the corruption, waste, inefficiency, bureaucracy, incompetence and high taxes that it is accompanied by.

NHS has got its issues, but it costs about half as much as U.S. healthcare. Whatever waste and inefficiency Brits experience are dwarfed by what we have in the U.S. without universal coverage. We have an extensive bureaucracy but it's private.

^^^^^^^^^^^

One more thing. Why do people who already have healthcare give a sh*t about those who don't. Why, why!!!!!!!!

1) Human empathy
2) the well-being of society

[mokbu]

Alright my question now is, what does "denying coverage mean."

If you are someone who has had back problems or diabetes, what is an insurance company allowed to do in 2014?

1) Give you coverage, but not for back/diabetes related problems.
2) Give you coverage for the ailments, but charge more.
3) Cover the ailments at the same price as everyone else.
4) Something else?

If number #3, is someone allowed to get health insurance at the same cost as everyone else right (provided they paid the tax) after being diagnosed with a terminal or highly deadly disease?

[t_host1]

Beet is vindicated. The mandate is a tax!  Who knew?    Yes, it is not appealing to put something into a different box for a lawyer when the economics is exactly the same. In this case, Roberts stripped away the label to get to the substance. SOCTUS did however surprisingly toss out the Act's stick that states lose all their medicaid subsidies if they don't expand their programs, presumably because it was viewed as unduly coercive. That sounds rather fuzzy to me.  

Justice Roberts' majority opinion was not completely signed on to by any other justice. I wonder if that's kind of rare. Anyways, the fuzziness was what Roberts felt like doing.

..well, I find it oddly comforting that the sum of all wisdom and power comes down to the Chief Justice, taking the American people back to school, reminding them, the terms and definition of a 3 integer word, T A X.  


a_troll

[The Mikado]

One more thing. Why do people who already have healthcare give a sh*t about those who don't. Why, why!!!!!!!!

Because the uninsured aren't an abstraction, but are usually relatives of the insured?

[The Mikado]

Well now, hold on; I do finish last, but I get a few points...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

"b.)  Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal- ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay- ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un- lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct."

Isn't this a truism though?  People don't have to follow the law, they can choose a fine or prison sentence instead, depending on the law.

You don't have to get insurance, you can pay the fee...in the same sense as how you don't have to put quarters in the parking meter, you can pay the parking ticket instead.

[Beet]

There's some subjectivity to the exact difference between something that is unlawful and something that is merely disincentivized by the law. To some degree, the difference is only that the former is categorized as a crime while the latter is not. But from a substantive functional standpoint, other factors must come into play-- for example, with unlawful behavior, the intent of the law is to eliminate all such behavior, whereas merely disincentivized behavior, the intent of the law is to reduce such behavior, but not necessarily eliminate all of it. Since Congress anticipated that millions of people would choose the pay the penalty and were fine with that, it can't be said that Congress intended to eliminate all uninsured in the U.S.

Another factor is simply how burdensome the incentive is. A tax on cigarettes that raises the cost by 100% from $3 a pack to $6 a pack disincentivizes smoking. A tax on cigarettes that raises the cost to $1,000 a pack effectively bans it. In this case, the tax penalty in ACA's case for not purchasing health insurance is relatively modest and based on the individual's ability to pay.

[pbrower2a]

the supreme court had everyone fooled. I even thought it was going to be struck down.

So did I. I expected a ruling based on 'freedom to contract' that the Right has been seeking to push.

[anvi]

To be honest, Mikado, I don't know.  Tax evasion and filing false returns are felonies and not filing any taxes when they are owed is a misdemeanor.  In contrast, not paying the "penalty," what we have to call a tax now, for failing to have insurance carries no legal implications.  Roberts found some significance in that, although, in thinking about it now, I'm not sure what kind.  Torie, can you help?  I don't want to claim points I didn't earn.  

I'm reading through Roberts' opinion, and I'm really impressed.  He protects federalism and gives Congress all the latitude to tax that precedent allows.  Really, I'm not very smart and I'm not a lawyer, but reading through this makes me wish I'd gone to law school.  Really impressive.  

[anvi]

It's also an object lesson: when defending yourself, always make more than one argument!    Wish I'd thought of that in my first marriage. 

[J. J.]

A win is a win

But now the GOP will argue that Obamacare is a "secret tax" and that Obama lied when he said it wasn't a tax, but now it is officially a tax.

This. 

Still, it is better politically than it being found totally unconstitutional.

A tax that his opponent supported. Before he opposed it.

Yeah, Republicans on here seem to be forgetting who they are depending on to sell this message.

You really don't need to sell this message too much; people understand tax increases.

People also understand what the phrase "pre-existing condition" means.

Most people don't have them (I'm the exception).

[Emperor SJoyce]

One more thing. Why do people who already have healthcare give a sh*t about those who don't. Why, why!!!!!!!!

Because most people, even those who already have healthcare, aren't amoral dickheads who don't give a damn about other people. That's why.

[Likely Voter]

A win is a win

But now the GOP will argue that Obamacare is a "secret tax" and that Obama lied when he said it wasn't a tax, but now it is officially a tax.

This. 

Still, it is better politically than it being found totally unconstitutional.

A tax that his opponent supported. Before he opposed it.

A tax that will only be paid by people who a) don't have insurance now, b) don't want to buy insurance, and c) have a relatively high income that takes them out of subsidy range.

While this is entirely accurate that this is a tax that will likely only apply to 1% or less of Americans, that wont stop the GOP/Romney/Superpacs from running ads with..
 

[Ominous music] Obamacare has been exposed as a secret tax. In 2014 Americans will be faced with paying up to $2000 a year unless it can be stopped.

Look at how they have convinced people to be against the Estate Tax, which effects like 0.01% of Americans or even convinced people that Obama has already raised their taxes (he lowered them) and wants to raise them even more (he only wants to raise taxes on high incomes).

[Landslide Lyndon]

A win is a win

But now the GOP will argue that Obamacare is a "secret tax" and that Obama lied when he said it wasn't a tax, but now it is officially a tax.

This. 

Still, it is better politically than it being found totally unconstitutional.

A tax that his opponent supported. Before he opposed it.

Yeah, Republicans on here seem to be forgetting who they are depending on to sell this message.

You really don't need to sell this message too much; people understand tax increases.

People also understand what the phrase "pre-existing condition" means.

Most people don't have them (I'm the exception).

Which makes you even more of a misanthrope.

[Grumps]

Which makes you even more of a misanthrope.

Worry about your own f[inks]ed up country.

[mokbu]

(Sorry posted this in the wrong thread.)

Alright my question now is, what does "denying coverage mean."

If you are someone who has had back problems or diabetes, what is an insurance company allowed to do in 2014?

1) Give you coverage, but not for back/diabetes related problems.
2) Give you coverage for the ailments, but charge more.
3) Cover the ailments at the same price as everyone else.
4) Something else?

If number #3, is someone allowed to get health insurance at the same cost as everyone else right (provided they paid the tax) after being diagnosed with a terminal or highly deadly disease?

[Senator Sbane]

Mokbu, that is why the mandate is important. So that people will have to keep paying into the system even if they are healthy and that they won't show up to buy insurance just after being diagnosed with a disease. AFAIK, number 3 is what is required now.

[shua]

(Sorry posted this in the wrong thread.)

Alright my question now is, what does "denying coverage mean."

If you are someone who has had back problems or diabetes, what is an insurance company allowed to do in 2014?

1) Give you coverage, but not for back/diabetes related problems.
2) Give you coverage for the ailments, but charge more.
3) Cover the ailments at the same price as everyone else.
4) Something else?

If number #3, is someone allowed to get health insurance at the same cost as everyone else right (provided they paid the tax) after being diagnosed with a terminal or highly deadly disease?

I think they are not supposed to discriminate at all based on prior health - same rate and guaranteed issue. I don't know if the insurance companies can charge differently based on age or other factors, or if it's supposed to just be one flat rate for everyone. I imagine people without preexisting conditions will see their insurance premiums rise to balance it out.

[muon2]

(Sorry posted this in the wrong thread.)

Alright my question now is, what does "denying coverage mean."

If you are someone who has had back problems or diabetes, what is an insurance company allowed to do in 2014?

1) Give you coverage, but not for back/diabetes related problems.
2) Give you coverage for the ailments, but charge more.
3) Cover the ailments at the same price as everyone else.
4) Something else?

If number #3, is someone allowed to get health insurance at the same cost as everyone else right (provided they paid the tax) after being diagnosed with a terminal or highly deadly disease?

I think they are not supposed to discriminate at all based on prior health - same rate and guaranteed issue. I don't know if the insurance companies can charge differently based on age or other factors, or if it's supposed to just be one flat rate for everyone. I imagine people without preexisting conditions will see their insurance premiums rise to balance it out.

Some premiums have increased in part due to pricing in the ACA. Premiums are expected to rise again as certain populations come into the coverage pool.

[Senator Sbane]

I was reading today that premiums for those aged 18-34 will rise the most, with modest increase for those from 35-55....didn't mention anything about those older though. There is certainly a cross subsidy from the young to the old but I think it is necessary to keep the system afloat. Also prices need to be reduced overall somehow....

[anvi]

Never mind my own bs above.  Roberts was talking about the fact that not buying insurance is not a crime under the law; he wasn't talking about the lack of enforcement provisions on the tax.  My bad.  No points for me.  I'm going to desist from making observations about legal issues from now on, since I clearly don't understand them. 

[Beet]

Never mind my own bs above.  Roberts was talking about the fact that not buying insurance is not a crime under the law; he wasn't talking about the lack of enforcement provisions on the tax.  My bad.  No points for me.  I'm going to desist from making observations about legal issues from now on, since I clearly don't understand them.  

I'm pretty sure you know more about this than 99% of the people opining about this on Facebook.

Also, no one is arguing that Obamacare is the last word here. The issue of rising costs still needs to be addressed, and a compromise may still be reached replacing the mandate, so long as it is replaced by something that provides for effective universal coverage.

[I left.]

Which makes you even more of a misanthrope.

Worry about your own f[inks]ed up country.

For all the troubles Greece has, their healthcare isn't quite as (Inks)ed up.