Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[muon2]

The individual mandate has fallen.

[muon2]

The individual mandate has fallen.

I'm hearing on the radio that it is standing as a tax.

CNN initially reported it as fallen, but they are also backtracking now.

[muon2]

I believe that the Fed carrot for employer plans doing what the Feds want, is that the benefits are not treated as income to the employees even thought the cost to the employer is deductible. Again it is done through the tax code. Yes I appreciate folks don't like the distinction between coercion through taxation, and coercion through regulation under the interstate commerce clause.  But there is a method to the madness and the reason heretofore Congress structured their laws they way they did - except this time with the mandate.

So it looks like SCOTUS jumped to Torie's claim of a tax, and simply ignored much of the way the case was argued.

[muon2]

The media is still parsing the part that is overturned in relation to Medicaid.

[muon2]

I'm so happy that on one day, one judge was able to make a decision that wasn't based on his/her politcal ideology. This is supposed to be how the system works. I know that liberals have also won key battles through unelected courts as well. Law is supposed to be made by elected officials.

Actually from what I've read in the opinion so far, it is very much about Robert's ideology. At his confirmation he stressed judicial restraint and opposed judicial activism. The opinion reflects that view in deferring to the legislature where he could.

[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.

[muon2]

I'm so happy that on one day, one judge was able to make a decision that wasn't based on his/her politcal ideology. This is supposed to be how the system works. I know that liberals have also won key battles through unelected courts as well. Law is supposed to be made by elected officials.

Actually from what I've read in the opinion so far, it is very much about Robert's ideology. At his confirmation he stressed judicial restraint and opposed judicial activism. The opinion reflects that view in deferring to the legislature where he could.

*cough* Citizen's United *cough*

SCOTUS had ruled for unlimited expenditures by an individual back in the 70's. When someone can explain how SCOTUS can distinguish between expenditures from an individual as opposed to a group of individuals of any size, then I can understand why CU is activism. Or do you suggest SCOTUS should have reversed on their holding for a right to association?