ACA Individual Mandate Struck Down!
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() What does it mean-- for the US and for Obama? Discuss! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() not according to what I am seeing. |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Dewey defeats Truman? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read. http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/ |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() and Who is John Galt?
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Wow... just wow. So apparently the US government can now force private citizens to buy a product. This country is hosed. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Weird, the mandate survives because the SCOTUS considers it a TAX, which Obama and the Democrats consistently insisted it was NOT while supporting its passage. This is going to be play very oddly. Looks like a win for Obama in that it survives, but its a loss for him because it directly contradicts the idea that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle-class. This will amount to a huge increase in taxes on the middle-class. Very, very odd. |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bizarre. cnn.com headline was initial "struck down," now "upheld." Whoops.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Resident Curmudgeon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-06-28 9:26 AM That has been the case for years. You can't (legally) opt out of national defense or public education even if you wanted to. The difference here is that it's at the individual, rather than the collective, level.Wow... just wow. So apparently the US government can now force private citizens to buy a product. This country is hosed. |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The mandate was upheld as a tax penalty against individuals who do not carry insurance, or companies (over 50 employees) that don't provide a plan to employees (as an option). This is grossly different than raising taxes on Americans. For so many of the uber-right people who've sent me countless emails/posts complaining about poor people getting a free ride in health care, this should be something that they will say is a good thing - either buy insurance, or pay a tax penalty (which can help offset any stress they put on the health care providers/system). In the end, though, it is not a tax increase on Americans. And no one is forcing you to buy insurance, the reality is that you will just pay a tax penalty if you choose not to buy insurance (and that penalty will grow each year). |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() scoobysdad - 2012-06-28 9:27 AM Weird, the mandate survives because the SCOTUS considers it a TAX, which Obama and the Democrats consistently insisted it was NOT while supporting its passage. This is going to be play very oddly. Looks like a win for Obama in that it survives, but its a loss for him because it directly contradicts the idea that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle-class. This will amount to a huge increase in taxes on the middle-class. Very, very odd. Yes, and appears to open the possibilities of Congress to regulate Commerce via tax penalties. Basically, if you don't buy X, then you will pay a tax because you didn't. To me, slippery slope and all... |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Conservatives are gonna be going crazy with Roberts voting with the Liberals. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() pilotzs - 2012-06-28 9:39 AM scoobysdad - 2012-06-28 9:27 AM Weird, the mandate survives because the SCOTUS considers it a TAX, which Obama and the Democrats consistently insisted it was NOT while supporting its passage. This is going to be play very oddly. Looks like a win for Obama in that it survives, but its a loss for him because it directly contradicts the idea that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle-class. This will amount to a huge increase in taxes on the middle-class. Very, very odd. Yes, and appears to open the possibilities of Congress to regulate Commerce via tax penalties. Basically, if you don't buy X, then you will pay a tax because you didn't. To me, slippery slope and all... That already exists on a state level with car insurance. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Well the upside is I can now drop my HC insurance and save money by paying the tax because I am guaranteed to get insurance when I get cancer or have any serious health issues. And at least I will beat my employer to dropping my coverage so they can force me onto the government system and pay less as well. Oh I am so glad we have the rich to do something, I mean as soon as they start paying their fair share life well be great for all us middle class people. We can have our big houses and our smartphones and our $300 a month data plans and new $40K cars every 5 years and not have to pay for our own HC. I mean why should I have to give up all the good things in life just to be responsible for my family.
And we wonder about why kids behave the way they do. What else have we taught them other than it is someone else's fault, someone else's responsibility. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() crowny2 - 2012-06-28 9:42 AM pilotzs - 2012-06-28 9:39 AM scoobysdad - 2012-06-28 9:27 AM Weird, the mandate survives because the SCOTUS considers it a TAX, which Obama and the Democrats consistently insisted it was NOT while supporting its passage. This is going to be play very oddly. Looks like a win for Obama in that it survives, but its a loss for him because it directly contradicts the idea that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle-class. This will amount to a huge increase in taxes on the middle-class. Very, very odd. Yes, and appears to open the possibilities of Congress to regulate Commerce via tax penalties. Basically, if you don't buy X, then you will pay a tax because you didn't. To me, slippery slope and all... That already exists on a state level with car insurance. Notice that I said Congress to regulate, not the states. There is a difference, no? I'm no lawyer here. And Car Insurance is not the same thing. No one is forcing you to purchase a car and buy car insurance, or taxing you if you do not. On the other hand, you have no choice in being born. You just are.... I don't have a choice, unless you consider offing myself as an alternative to buying health insurance and paying a tax associated with not. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() trinnas - 2012-06-28 8:44 AM Well the upside is I can now drop my HC insurance and save money by paying the tax because I am guaranteed to get insurance when I get cancer or have any serious health issues. And at least I will beat my employer to dropping my coverage so they can force me onto the government system and pay less as well. Oh I am so glad we have the rich to do something, I mean as soon as they start paying their fair share life well be great for all us middle class people. We can have our big houses and our smartphones and our $300 a month data plans and new $40K cars every 5 years and not have to pay for our own HC. I mean why should I have to give up all the good things in life just to be responsible for my family.
And we wonder about why kids behave the way they do. What else have we taught them other than it is someone else's fault, someone else's responsibility.
I can't believe the mandate was upheld, kind of in shock here.
But Trin has it right. Pay the penalty which will be much less than the ridiculous prices this will drive insurance to, then when you get deathly ill they have to take you. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() the bear - 2012-06-28 10:37 AM TriRSquared - 2012-06-28 9:26 AM That has been the case for years. You can't (legally) opt out of national defense or public education even if you wanted to. The difference here is that it's at the individual, rather than the collective, level.Wow... just wow. So apparently the US government can now force private citizens to buy a product. This country is hosed. And that's a big difference. Based on this ruling the government could charge you a tax for buying a non-US vehicle. Or a non-electric vehicle. Or if you don't put solar panels on your home. Where do you draw the line...? Oh yeah, this thing called the Constitution.... they circumvented it by calling this a "tax". Which Obama has said all along that it is not.. Edited by TriRSquared 2012-06-28 10:06 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This makes my decision about my vote in November more difficult. Being "in the middle", someone who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative...I've really been leaning towards voting for a 3rd party candidate to make a point. I don't like Romney at all. But I am 100% against the health care mandate. I almost feel like I HAVE to vote Republican now. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() hamiltks10 - 2012-06-28 10:10 AM This makes my decision about my vote in November more difficult. Being "in the middle", someone who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative...I've really been leaning towards voting for a 3rd party candidate to make a point. I don't like Romney at all. But I am 100% against the health care mandate. I almost feel like I HAVE to vote Republican now. I don't think you're alone. Ironically I think this decision is politically the worst thing that can happen to Obama's reelection campaign. If it would have been shot down he could have energized his base to give him 4 more years to fix it, but now he can't do that. On the flip side the republicans will be out in force to vote Obama out of office and repeal the law. If the law would have been shot down then the motivation wouldn't be as great. It will also trickle down to Senate and House races. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Can we just make Congress add into the bill that they have to fall under the law as well and they do not get some special treatment for themselves when they are making everyone else follow this? I know the likelihood of them doing that is equal to the likelihood that they pass a bill with term limits for themselves, but I have to make the rhetorical point... We have a Political Class and everyone else. That goes for both parties by the way. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() sulross - 2012-06-28 9:39 AM The mandate was upheld as a tax penalty against individuals who do not carry insurance, or companies (over 50 employees) that don't provide a plan to employees (as an option). This is grossly different than raising taxes on Americans. For so many of the uber-right people who've sent me countless emails/posts complaining about poor people getting a free ride in health care, this should be something that they will say is a good thing - either buy insurance, or pay a tax penalty (which can help offset any stress they put on the health care providers/system). In the end, though, it is not a tax increase on Americans. And no one is forcing you to buy insurance, the reality is that you will just pay a tax penalty if you choose not to buy insurance (and that penalty will grow each year). How is a tax penalty different than a tax? That's just semantics. This decision will put ACA front and center for the November election, spotlighting two direct contradictions of Obama's '08 campaign platform: 1) ObamaCare will NOT mean higher taxes for most Americans, and 2) "If you like your current plan, you can keep it", which will be increasingly shown to be not the case as time goes on. Plus, the stock market is already reacting negatively. I honestly think this decision could be a good thing for Romney's chances. |
|