Healthcare decision rolling out now
xmacro
Posts: 3,402 ✭
So far, seems the mandate is upheld as well as the rest of the law is upheld, but not in the way some lefties were hoping
During the HC debate, Obama/Pelosi kept saying the mandate was under the Commerce clause; but then in court suddenly argued it was a tax. The Supreme Court decided that the mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, but legal as a tax - so the indiv mandate is upheld as a tax, the reasoning being that Congress can tax people as it pleases, including taxing people who don't buy insurance, but Congress cannot compell people to buy insurance as an extension of their power. You'll recall that the Dems kept insisting all along that no one's taxes were going to be raised
For those interested in the legal aspects, this is actually rather heartening news; it means a rollback of Federal power, and a retreat from Wickard v. Filburn.
I won't go into the rest, it's a hodgpodge of finely parsed legal distinctions that would bore most people, but I suppose it's gonna be seen as a win for Obama. The USSC upheld the rest of the law, but limited it in select ways that will have large effects, such as saying the feds cannot terminate medicaid funds to the States if they aren't spent as the feds dictate
Oddly enough, John Roberts was the swing vote that upheld the individual mandate, 5-4 decision. I wonder how the lefties will claim this is an illegitimate and partisan court now? I'm sure they'll find a way
During the HC debate, Obama/Pelosi kept saying the mandate was under the Commerce clause; but then in court suddenly argued it was a tax. The Supreme Court decided that the mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, but legal as a tax - so the indiv mandate is upheld as a tax, the reasoning being that Congress can tax people as it pleases, including taxing people who don't buy insurance, but Congress cannot compell people to buy insurance as an extension of their power. You'll recall that the Dems kept insisting all along that no one's taxes were going to be raised
For those interested in the legal aspects, this is actually rather heartening news; it means a rollback of Federal power, and a retreat from Wickard v. Filburn.
I won't go into the rest, it's a hodgpodge of finely parsed legal distinctions that would bore most people, but I suppose it's gonna be seen as a win for Obama. The USSC upheld the rest of the law, but limited it in select ways that will have large effects, such as saying the feds cannot terminate medicaid funds to the States if they aren't spent as the feds dictate
Oddly enough, John Roberts was the swing vote that upheld the individual mandate, 5-4 decision. I wonder how the lefties will claim this is an illegitimate and partisan court now? I'm sure they'll find a way
0
Comments
It's disheartening that the indiv mandate was upheld, but I can understand the reasoning; it's a big victory for Obama, but not for the reasons he was hoping for - Obamacare is constitutional as a tax; States can opt out of Obamacare funding for medicaid. There are consequences that you're not seeing.
If you wanna fist pump over the victory in Obamacare, go ahead and do it, but don't try to bullsh1t me that you understand jack about the legal aspects; stick to the political gloating, don't tread into things you don't know about.
On another note, I think this may well turn into a Pyrrhic victory for Obama
What I'm afraid will not be addressed are the very real issues of how much of the taxed money is overspent, for a wide variety of reasons sure to inflame all sides in some fashion. We need a health care system. What we have is a diagnose/intervene system that assumes the answer is always intervene, even when that is no longer a viable or realistic option.
The other problem is a sense of entitlement that assumes that someone else should pay for every last dime of ones "healthcare", right down to aspirin for aches and pains, tampons, and contraceptives. If you have a hard time believing that any significant portion of our public thinks this way, spend some time in ER triage. It's frightening!
As with most hotly contested issues, there are points to be made on both sides. If the two (or more) sides are unable to discuss and consider the others points of view, and the related side issues that may come up, then the public will continue to pay far more than their health care really costs. Here's hoping the new era doesn't simply become business as usual.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The Commerce clause hit it's peak in the last century under Wickard v Filburn; since then, the Court has been winding it down, reading more and more limits into it, returning it closer to its original form. It's a relief to me that they found it unconstitutional under the Commerce clause - it means the Court is likely to continue winding down the excesses.
I don't have a problem with the individual mandate as a tax - I really don't, it's perfectly fine with me. Congress can tax as much as it wants and they can tax whatever they want, but their powers under the Commerce clause are limited to commerce, not compelling individuals to enter a market by decree - that possibility truly frightened me as an American; it would have rendered the Constitution almost useless.
The individual mandate is well within Congress' power to tax, and now that the Court has said it is a tax, we can at least have an honest debate about it, instead of all this ball-and-cup with mandate vs tax crap.
Secondly, with regard to medicaid, the USSC allowed States to opt out of the medicaid portions of Obamacare; you're forgetting that 26 States sued - if the States can opt out, then they don't need to cover the uninsured that Obamacare mandates, which means at least half the States will probably do so. The politics and future of Obamacare is just beginning; this is gonna be fought in every Statehouse in the nation.
EDIT - The bill as a whole was only upheld due to a small form of judicial activism - the bill never once mentions "tax" in regards to the individual mandate - for the court to uphold the mandate as a tax means they're essentially re-writing a portion of the bill, reclassifying the mandate in a way Congress didn't intend. If it hadn't been for this, the bill would have been struck down in its entirety due to a lack of a severability clause.
Its hard to get any work done with all these juicy sound bites rolling in, Vulch. LOL.
And now that I read the decision a bit and the dissents, it seems I was initially correct - the Justices in dissent think it's judicial activism for the Court to find the mandate is a tax when the actual bill never mentions "tax" at all.
CutleryBarn
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"Long ashes my friends."
"Long ashes my friends."
AND yes Amos, the bill for our military is whats bankrupting us, plain and simple. We forget that thought and want to put more into military and if you speak against it people portray you as wanting to take money out of soldiers pockets.
btw the mandate was a GOP idea that the dems adopted since they didn't have the balls to push/open up medicare to all citizens. And even though it was a GOP idea they turned it around on the dems and made it into a big deal.
And macro, what kind of attorney are you? You keep toeing the GOP line then you may be out of a job.