Republicans, what do you think happens to the uninsured?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There seems to be a general consensus that the poor should have some sort of health safety net, and thus I could see a role for insurance subsidies for those in bottom income tiers, provided that such subsidies match individual contribution (ensuring that the covered party has skin in the game) and that they are tapered off with increasing income (ensuring that the safety net exists without creating a marginal disincentive to acquiring a livelihood.)

So then we're talking about taxes to fund the subsidies, which is what the Individual Mandate is anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Literally no one believes that besides John Roberts.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There seems to be a general consensus that the poor should have some sort of health safety net, and thus I could see a role for insurance subsidies for those in bottom income tiers, provided that such subsidies match individual contribution (ensuring that the covered party has skin in the game) and that they are tapered off with increasing income (ensuring that the safety net exists without creating a marginal disincentive to acquiring a livelihood.)

So then we're talking about taxes to fund the subsidies, which is what the Individual Mandate is anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Literally no one believes that besides John Roberts.

It doesn't matter. It was supported by 5-4 majority even if 4 of the 5 wrote dissents. So it's the interpretation of the law at present.

And it accomplishes the same result as having a tax, whether or not it actually is one.

Except that by it's very nature it is a completely nonsensical and ineffective way to provide for insurance subsidies, since the more people who sign up for insurance and thus need subsidies, the smaller the amount available from the tax. The main reason for it was always as a penalty to get people to buy insurance, it's second use as one more revenue raising device among others almost an afterthought.

There is a shocking amount of Republicans who seem to believe because emergency rooms have to treat anyone who walks in, no one in America dies because they don't have insurance.

Anyone who earnestly believes that so out-of-touch with reality that they are unfit for public office.

Can't disagree with that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There seems to be a general consensus that the poor should have some sort of health safety net, and thus I could see a role for insurance subsidies for those in bottom income tiers, provided that such subsidies match individual contribution (ensuring that the covered party has skin in the game) and that they are tapered off with increasing income (ensuring that the safety net exists without creating a marginal disincentive to acquiring a livelihood.)

So then we're talking about taxes to fund the subsidies, which is what the Individual Mandate is anyway according to the Supreme Court.

Literally no one believes that besides John Roberts.

It doesn't matter. It was supported by 5-4 majority even if 4 of the 5 wrote dissents. So it's the interpretation of the law at present.

And it accomplishes the same result as having a tax, whether or not it actually is one.

Except that by it's very nature it is a completely nonsensical and ineffective way to provide for insurance subsidies, since the more people who sign up for insurance and thus need subsidies, the smaller the amount available from the tax. The main reason for it was always as a penalty to get people to buy insurance, it's second use as one more revenue raising device among others almost an afterthought.

I thought his argument was that the amount was so small that it could be seen as a tax, regardless of what Congress had in mind when they wrote it. Regardless, it doesn't matter if it's ineffective and nonsensical. I don't really agree that is is. But even if it is, that's the SCOTUS interpretation of the law. We're all bound to it.

A Circuit Court might be bound to that interpretation.  It shouldn't bind people generally in debate over policy or over the efficacy and justice of the law.