Liberals: defend the mandate!

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by fumster

...
It is possible to use for-profit insurance companies to achieve UHC, but only if everyone buys insurance. If they don't, then we have the "free loader" problem . That is why the mandate is necessary.

So if the free loader problem is the justification for a mandate then why shouldn't Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or someone financially capable be able to post a financial responsibility bond or otherwise demonstrate he has the assets to pay his own health care and opt out of the insurance mandate without penalty?

States (example from Ohio) often allow just such a bond in lieu of auto insurance.

Under any reasonable or unreasonable hypothetical people with such assets have the money to pay for their own health care needs and those of their family. There is no reasonable argument that they are/would be a free loader.


Or is the issue not really the free loader problem and instead a desire to forcibly redistribute payment for health care?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by fumster

Look at the areas shaded red on this picture. That's why.

LOL. Really? You mean the Blue states wanted a Germany like system and were forced to put in this piece of crap?

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

...

Consider this: they didn't lie about what the content was. The bill, long as it may be, was available for each congressman to read. Please don't bring up the misleading lie about Pelosi saying we had to pass it to see what was in there. The whole quote is less stupid than that one soundbite. The fact is the entire bill was available for them to read. So given that, the congressmen who feel tricked should have done a better job of reading....

The reality is the Congress did not even vote on what services would be covered under PPACA. They voted to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make that determination and decide a whole bunch of other details that ultimately affect what PPACA really is.

In a sense, yes, they would have to pass it and wait for the Secretary of HHS to make decisions to know what is in it. She has already put forth certain proposed regulations which have raised opposition. (e.g. Birth Control)

Of course this offers a back door by which a Republican president could appoint a new Secretary of HHS who could then, by regulation, gut the law.

This is not entirely unique to the PPACA. Congress authorizes various agencies to make decisions all the time without going into detail.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

LOL. Really? You mean the Blue states wanted a Germany like system and were forced to put in this piece of crap?

What answer are you looking for exactly? It's a federal law.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Iggy

So if the free loader problem is the justification for a mandate then why shouldn't Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or someone financially capable be able to post a financial responsibility bond or otherwise demonstrate he has the assets to pay his own health care and opt out of the insurance mandate without penalty?

States (example from Ohio) often allow just such a bond in lieu of auto insurance.

Under any reasonable or unreasonable hypothetical people with such assets have the money to pay for their own health care needs and those of their family. There is no reasonable argument that they are/would be a free loader.


Or is the issue not really the free loader problem and instead a desire to forcibly redistribute payment for health care?

Presumably anyone, even Gates or Buffet, can chose not to get insurance and pay the penalty instead, thus no special provision is necessary. As far as redistribution is concerned, I don't know, is that the goal? Do you have a good reason for thinking this is the case?

[2ManyTacos]

Do all of the ACA detractors even realize just how few people the penalty is actually going to reach? Just over 1% of the fucking population, or 4 million people.

Complaining that the penalty is obtrusive, or some kind of overreach, is fucking absurd.

[magellan01]

So, by your own logic there is another mechanism by which broader and better health care could be paid for. Yet, you claim that the mandate is necessary.

Originally Posted by Marley23

It is.

<snip>

There is never only one way to pay for something...

<snip>

Could it be paid for other ways? Yes.

So, it follows that the mandate was NOT necessary. Agreed.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by fumster

I think you are being disingenuous, but I'll pretend this is a serious comment. The mandate is necessary for the current law which uses private, for-profit insurers. If there was a different form of UHC that was funded from the general fund, then a raise in taxes would be necessary and the mandate wouldn't be needed. Is that really hard to understand?

I'm absolutely serious. The idea was to create a system that extended coverage to those who didn't have it, make it more affordable and to fix a bunch of shitty things insurance companies were doing. There was more than one way to do that. They chose a solution that included a mandate. So, as far as the mandate being necessary to the solution that included a mandate, yeah, it was necessary. The same way that me finding the best way to climb to the top of Mount Everest necessitates that I have a parrot on my head.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

Presumably anyone, even Gates or Buffet, can chose not to get insurance and pay the penalty instead, thus no special provision is necessary. As far as redistribution is concerned, I don't know, is that the goal? Do you have a good reason for thinking this is the case?

Of course Gates and Buffet can afford the penalty. That is not the issue I raised.

The "free loader" (or "free rider" depending on preferred terminology) problem is oft cited as the reason we need a mandate. The mandate is a tax penalty shared responsibility payment that requires a person to pay some money if they do not have health insurance.

The rationale is that government has an interest in protecting the masses from having to pay medical bills as the insurer of last resort for someone who could have purchased health insurance.

But if someone is clearly in financial condition to demonstrate financial responsibility for a worst case scenario absent purchasing health insurance then by what rationale should government be able to force them to buy insurance? Why does it make sense to require Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to pay a tax penalty shared responsibility payment if there is no way they could conceivably end up a free loader on the public purse?

I would argue that the underlying goal is not necessarily to avoid the free rider problem, even though that is what was argued at the Supreme Court. I would argue that the underlying motivation is to force redistribution of medical costs. I just don't think it would have played as well in the public eye if they stated that from the beginning.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Do all of the ACA detractors even realize just how few people the penalty is actually going to reach? Just over 1% of the fucking population, or 4 million people.

It has very little to do with ACA detractors. The states did not independently have standing to challenge the mandate; that's why they had to find a patsy to serve as a co-plaintiff. That said, I don't think breadth is a particularly good argument (for all that I am in favor of the mandate and its constitutionality); 4 million people is quite a lot.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

Let's say they are morally wrong, that the Obama administration knew it was a tax, but sold it as a penalty. They lied, basically, to get it passed. Why should that be struck down? The law works the same whether you believe it to be a tax or a penalty.

Easy: It should be struck down because the votes that were cast were not cast for a new tax. That's not what each vote was assessing.

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

Consider this: they didn't lie about what the content was. The bill, long as it may be, was available for each congressman to read. Please don't bring up the misleading lie about Pelosi saying we had to pass it to see what was in there. The whole quote is less stupid than that one soundbite. The fact is the entire bill was available for them to read. So given that, the congressmen who feel tricked should have done a better job of reading.

I think you're engaging in some very wishful thinking, Here is a fuller version of her quote:

Originally Posted by One Dumb, Arrogant Bitch

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

If I'm missing something, you'll have to point it out to me. The fact is that her comment is not only stupid, it may be THE most stupid, most arrogant thing ever uttered by a congresscritter. And that's saying' sumthin! And how is pointing that out misleading?

The final bill was I think, in excess of 2,700 pages. How much time do you think is reasonable for congress people to be able to read the bill? How about the American people. How mush time should they have to read the bill? I'm assuming here that Obama's campaign promise to post bills for 3 days had at its intent that the American people could read that bill. Do you think that is a fair assumption? If not, what do you think his intent was? If so, do you think that an extraordinarily long bill should be posted for longer than the 3 days? The fact is that Obama is simply full of shit, as he broke that particular campaign promise the first week in office. And for no reason.

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

I agree. With so much Republicans in the House, it would have been near impossible to get enough of them to agree to a new tax. But so what?

So what? SO WHAT?!! Don't you think it matters not how we wind up with new taxes? I think you're skipping over the part where a bill is put forth and then the people we elected to speak on out behalf VOTE FOT IT. But you seem to want to allow for taxes being instituted that would not or do not get enough votes to past. You'll have to explain that one to me.

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

The ACA doesn't really work any differently 2 years ago when it was passed compared to now when it has been upheld. The "tax" epithet is irrelevant to the function of the law.

It is not. Because with out the semantic sleight of hand it would have been deemed null and void. So it matters greatly. And the differences is not the name of the bill. It's how it functions. But nice try with your own semantic sleight of hand.

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

I don't get your analogy. The "duck" in this case is the penalty, right? Because the SCOTUS declared it to be a tax, the "rocking chair". But its just a label because they both work the same way. A more apt analogy would be that it walks and quacks like a duck, but its a mallard. Its still a duck, but its a specific kind of duck, more accurately a mallard instead of the all encompassing descriptor of "duck"

The only way SCOTUS found this to be Constitutional is under the government's power to tax. Therefore it is a tax. Therefore, SCOTUS should not have entertained that particular argument until the the tax was actually levied in 2014. Therefore, no mandate. At least for now.

A) It looks like a tax.
B) It smells like a tax.
C) Because of A and B, SCOTUS finds it Constitutional
D) Because of C, Scotus can't rule until 2014 — Oh wait, it's not a duck (tax) it's a rocking chair!

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Do all of the ACA detractors even realize just how few people the penalty is actually going to reach? Just over 1% of the fucking population, or 4 million people.

Can you help me understand the thinking that says it's okay for the government to overstep it's bounds if it's just a minority that's being affected?

Thanks.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

And how is pointing that out misleading?

Because it's a misrepresentation of what she was saying. Other than that, though, spot on. You make an astute point about Rep. Pelosi's dumbness and bitch-being.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Can you help me understand the thinking that says it's okay for the government to overstep it's bounds if it's just a minority that's being affected?

Well, seat belt laws, for one. A small, small minority of people in accidents would actually be better off if they hadn't been wearing seat belts. That doesn't trump the overwhelming majority that would be better off having worn them or the overwhelming advantage to society, in general. Some people (among them little-l libertarians) definitely consider seat belt laws an overstepping of government power over individuals.

It's not been absolutely proven one way or the other whether or not the individual mandate will have the same impact, but the argument that a similar justification applies is certainly there.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Because it's a misrepresentation of what she was saying. Other than that, though, spot on. You make an astute point about Rep. Pelosi's dumbness and bitch-being.

HOW is it a misrepresentation? I supplied the fuller quote. How does that help the case of the Dumb Bitch?

[elbows]

For the same reason people are mandated to insure their cars.

If not mandated, some people will drive uninsured, and we will all have to pay those costs.

Those costs, health insurance, are keeping us in the poor house. Mandate them.

Mandating car insurance did not lead to socialism and standing in line for bread. Neither will mandating health insurance. And it will save the country gzillions of dollars.

How is it anything but self evident?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

Well, seat belt laws, for one. A small, small minority of people in accidents would actually be better off if they hadn't been wearing seat belts. That doesn't trump the overwhelming majority that would be better off having worn them or the overwhelming advantage to society, in general. Some people (among them little-l libertarians) definitely consider seat belt laws an overstepping of government power over individuals.

It's not been absolutely proven one way or the other whether or not the individual mandate will have the same impact, but the argument that a similar justification applies is certainly there.

Uh, no. That's not a good analogy at all. Wow. Not even close. The small minority in your example are the ones that would benefit. The small minority I was discussing are those who get penalized. and the question is, if you'd look back at the exchange I was having, what thinning supports the principle that the government can do something extra-Constitutional as long as it affects only X number of Americans?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

HOW is it a misrepresentation?

I am sure this is not the first time you've had an argument about this two-year-old quote. Are you saying nobody has ever explained why your interpretation is wrong, or are you saying you don't accept any other interpretation and intend to keep banging the drum no matter what? Not to say you might not be fair to someone you keep calling a dumb bitch, but, you know.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The small minority in your example are the ones that would benefit. The small minority I was discussing are those who get penalized. and the question is, if you'd look back at the exchange I was having, what thinning supports the principle that the government can do something extra-Constitutional as long as it affects only X number of Americans?

A reading is that you claimed it was extra-Constitutional. My take is that there are certainly libertarians who likewise claim the same for a lot of things, whether or not they affect (positively or negatively) 1%, 10%, or 100% of the people.

But fine. There are always state-level insurance mandates.

And there's still the example of 18th century private sailors mandated to pay a tax for health care insurance.

Maybe the people who wrote the Constitution did not fully understand the Constitution themselves, but that's a bit of a reach. At the very least, they certainly did not see a problem with mandating a behavior that 'penalized' a small, though vital, portion of the population.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by elbows

For the same reason people are mandated to insure their cars.

Nope. If you don't want to pay car insurance, don't buy a car. Millions of people take this route. Plus, as another poster pointed out, in some states you can provide a financial responsibility bond.

Originally Posted by elbows

If not mandated, some people will drive uninsured, and we will all have to pay those costs.

Not really. The mandated insurance (which is just minimal personal liability insurance) does not protect the driver, but people he may hit. And only to a very limit extent, usually $10,000.

Originally Posted by elbows

Those costs, health insurance, are keeping us in the poor house. Mandate them.

Confusing. Please restate.

Originally Posted by elbows

car insurance did not lead to socialism and standing in line for bread. Neither will mandating health insurance. And it will save the country gzillions of dollars.

The last part is highly questionable and open to debate—to say the least. And since I just explained how car insurance (mandated by the state, by the way) is unlike health insurance, this has no bearing on the discussion.

Originally Posted by elbows

How is it anything but self evident?

How is what self-evident? And whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's not. But let's hear it.

And if you think that at this point in the discussion your superficial treatment of the issues—"It's self-evident!"—is moving the debate forward, you are mistaken.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Easy: It should be struck down because the votes that were cast were not cast for a new tax. That's not what each vote was assessing.

They were, though; as I've pointed out repeatedly, the legislative history is full of references to the mandate as a tax, on both sides.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Easy: It should be struck down because the votes that were cast were not cast for a new tax. That's not what each vote was assessing.

The vote was assessing a penalty as it was called at the time. That's what most people believed it was. The SCOTUS differed and called it a tax. Is this the first time a law was passed using one justification but eventually upheld using another? Circumstances change. There are politicians who run as one party, win, then change political affiliations for one reason or another. Should there be a redo because the voters weren't voting for this new party and rather for the old?

Another thing to consider. Suppose we assume that Obama really did believe this was a penalty. He didn't lie, he really believed it wasn't a tax. The SCOTUS called it something else. Would a revote need to happen for that too?

Can you give an example of a law at the state or federal level in which the law was passed, then challenged and upheld using different criteria, and a revote was required?

Hey I know it sucks to be tricked, if that's what really happened. But nothing about the law changes just because they call it something different

Originally Posted by magellan01

I think you're engaging in some very wishful thinking, Here is a fuller version of her quote:

If I'm missing something, you'll have to point it out to me. The fact is that her comment is not only stupid, it may be THE most stupid, most arrogant thing ever uttered by a congresscritter. And that's saying' sumthin! And how is pointing that out misleading?

Its been discussed before. Here and on this Slate.com article. There was nothing misleading or arrogant about it. She might have said it inelegantly, but nobody's accusing her of being Oscar Wilde.

Originally Posted by magellan01

The final bill was I think, in excess of 2,700 pages. How much time do you think is reasonable for congress people to be able to read the bill? How about the American people. How mush time should they have to read the bill? I'm assuming here that Obama's campaign promise to post bills for 3 days had at its intent that the American people could read that bill. Do you think that is a fair assumption? If not, what do you think his intent was? If so, do you think that an extraordinarily long bill should be posted for longer than the 3 days? The fact is that Obama is simply full of shit, as he broke that particular campaign promise the first week in office. And for no reason.

I think that the 2 years of argument and discussion of the bill was more than enough time. The fact that only the final reconciled bill was this so-called rushed version doesn't change the fact that the bill was up for anyone to read. Reconciliation changed a bit of it, do you think it would be proper to give time to reread a whole 2000+ page document if only a few pages were changed?

As far as how much time, I don't know. I would say as much time as they usually get. This wasn't put together in the dead of night and dropped into the mailbox 5 mins before business closed though. This was dissected and discussed for years. So no, I don't think that you're assumption is a fair one. Obama gave people plenty of time to read the bill. And let you forget, bills come from Congress. Obama didn't write it and put it up on the White House blog or something, this was done by Congress.

Originally Posted by magellan01

So what? SO WHAT?!! Don't you think it matters not how we wind up with new taxes? I think you're skipping over the part where a bill is put forth and then the people we elected to speak on out behalf VOTE FOT IT. But you seem to want to allow for taxes being instituted that would not or do not get enough votes to past. You'll have to explain that one to me.

I think it does matter how we wind up with new taxes. But I don't think this is a "how" question. Rather, this is how taxes would be voted on anyways. A bill is drafted, amended, then voted on. It matters little how it was sold. As elected officials, as long as there was no deliberate prevention of people reading the bill, Pelosi, Reid, and Obama did what was necessary. If Republicans felt deceived, they should have read the bill better. That's why I said "So what?", because even to me, it seemed like a tax, but I didn't care because I have no problems paying legitimate taxes.

Originally Posted by magellan01

It is not. Because with out the semantic sleight of hand it would have been deemed null and void. So it matters greatly. And the differences is not the name of the bill. It's how it functions. But nice try with your own semantic sleight of hand.

What pages in the ACA have changed due to the SCOTUS ruling? Were the Supremes rewriting parts of the law before voting on it? Will they rewrite parts of it now that they've ruled it a tax?

[jasg]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

What pages in the ACA have changed due to the SCOTUS ruling? Were the Supremes rewriting parts of the law before voting on it? Will they rewrite parts of it now that they've ruled it a tax?

Good question. To add another: What federal taxes exist that have no consequences if they are not paid?

I can think of any and it seems to me that if the ACA penalty is really a tax (as opposed to "may reasonably be characterized as a tax", there should be something that happens to you if you fail to pay it to the IRS.

[Bryan Ekers]

So it's a tax. Big deal.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

What pages in the ACA have changed due to the SCOTUS ruling? Were the Supremes rewriting parts of the law before voting on it? Will they rewrite parts of it now that they've ruled it a tax?

Don't you see? It was all part of Obama's cunning plan to label it as commerce, knowing full well that J. Roberts would come to his rescue and label it a tax, thereby retroactively lying about it being commerce. Or something.

[jshore]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Yes, but the argued it both ways. You can't argue for it as a tax and then when that argument and only that argument is accepted is accepted say that it's not a tax. Come on.

You apparently haven't read Roberts' opinion very carefully. Here, as I have pointed out in another thread is the most relevant part with bolding added:

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.

So, no, Roberts did not say it was a tax. He did not even say that the most natural interpretation is that it was a tax. He just said that it was "fairly possible" to interpret it as a tax and it turns out that, at least in his reading of the case law, that is all that is necessary to find it to be constitutional.

[Marley23]

Call me crazy, but I think Roberts (and the justices who joined his opinion) know the Constitutional requirements for creating a tax.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Nope. If you don't want to pay car insurance, don't buy a car. Millions of people take this route.

If you don't want to pay for health insurance, don't have any income.

[jshore]

Originally Posted by magellan01

The only way SCOTUS found this to be Constitutional is under the government's power to tax. Therefore it is a tax. Therefore, SCOTUS should not have entertained that particular argument until the the tax was actually levied in 2014. Therefore, no mandate. At least for now.

You have multiple errors here, once again.

(1) Roberts clearly explains the different standards that are applied in different cases. For the Anti-Injunction Act, the standard is a very strict one: it has to be specifically called a tax in the act. For the purposes of constitutionality, the standard is much weaker; it only has to be "fairly possible" to interpret it as a tax to pass constitutional muster . You may not like this but this is the way the law works...such distinctions are made all the time... and you can't throw out a couple centuries of law and precedent and replace it by silly, simplistic arguments just because it gives you the result your conservative heart desires.

(2) If SCOTUS had found it was a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act then in fact the mandate would have survived until such time (2014) as its constitutionality could legally be challenged.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Iggy

But if someone is clearly in financial condition to demonstrate financial responsibility for a worst case scenario absent purchasing health insurance then by what rationale should government be able to force them to buy insurance?

To insure that they pay into the system and not be able to "free ride". Same as anyone else. It would take time, effort, and money to force even a rich person, who decided he didn't want to pay for emergency care, for instance, and for whatever reason, to pay up. A penalty gets rid of this need. In a federal republic such as we have here, why would you want to rich to be treated differently?

I would argue that the underlying goal is not necessarily to avoid the free rider problem, even though that is what was argued at the Supreme Court. I would argue that the underlying motivation is to force redistribution of medical costs. I just don't think it would have played as well in the public eye if they stated that from the beginning.

I have no idea if this is the case. I'm not saying it isn't. But why do you feel this may be the case? And how much redistribution would actually take place since it is estimated that such a small percentage of the populace will be paying the penalty?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Marley23

What answer are you looking for exactly? It's a federal law.

I didnt question whether it was law.

I asked why we have this piece of legal shit and someone pointed the finger at the red states.

I responded to the knee jerk blame conservatives meme. This is Obama's baybee, not the Conservatives. Its a piece of rotting shit on a shingle.

Why could we not just look around the world, see what is working (Germany), and say, hey! Lets copy that one.

Instead, we get this cluster fuck

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Easy: It should be struck down because the votes that were cast were not cast for a new tax. That's not what each vote was assessing.

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everyone who voted for the law was completely fooled into believing this wasn't a tax. When did it become the job of the Supreme Court to protect the populace from the constitutional stupidity of the legislature?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Why could we not just look around the world, see what is working (Germany), and say, hey! Lets copy that one.

Because the conservatives wouldn't agree to it.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Instead, we get this cluster fuck

Welcome to the legislative process! Support from moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats was needed to get the bill passed. That's why it looks like it does. Those moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats did not want the kind of system that exists in Germany and would not have voted for it under any circumstances, so there was no way that was going to happen. That's how compromise works, annoying as it can be. Obama supported this law because this was the only thing that could pass. He was heavily involved with it, but he did not write the law because presidents can't submit laws to Congress. He acknowledged that if he were creating a health care system from scratch, this wouldn't be it. That not being the case, he (and the Democrats who supported this law) worked with what already exists.

Also, the letter e does not appear anywhere in the word "baby."

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that everyone who voted for the law was completely fooled into believing this wasn't a tax. When did it become the job of the Supreme Court to protect the populace from the constitutional stupidity of the legislature?

It's not. But it is their job (I thought) to simply follow the rule of law. By the very language in the bill and the President's guarantee and insistence that the mandate was not a tax, congress did not draft and vote on a new tax for the American people. Therefore, a new tax cannot be assessed.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by magellan01

It's not. But it is their job (I thought) to simply follow the rule of law. By the very language in the bill and the President's guarantee and insistence that the mandate was not a tax, congress did not draft and vote on a new tax for the American people. Therefore, a new tax cannot be assessed.

You've been asked this several times, and if you've addressed this specifically, please point me to where you did so: what legal significance is there in what the President claim the mandate is (as opposed to purely political significance)? (I assume you're claiming it has legal significance because of your "rule of law" statement - if I'm incorrect, please clarify what sort of significance you're actually saying it has.)

I'd think you'd have more success with this argument concentrating on "the very language of the bill" (the very thing that our Congresscritters should be solely basing their decision on), rather than insisting that what Obama said in public has any weight that could be taken to a Senate chamber or courtroom.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by magellan01

It's not. But it is their job (I thought) to simply follow the rule of law. By the very language in the bill and the President's guarantee and insistence that the mandate was not a tax, congress did not draft and vote on a new tax for the American people. Therefore, a new tax cannot be assessed.

So... the President tells Congress what to do?

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by magellan01

It's not. But it is their job (I thought) to simply follow the rule of law. By the very language in the bill and the President's guarantee and insistence that the mandate was not a tax, congress did not draft and vote on a new tax for the American people. Therefore, a new tax cannot be assessed.

Do you agree that the President can guarantee anything he wants in the media, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so in the bills submitted by Congress (and not him)? If Obama tricked everyone and sold it through the media as a tax cut for everyone and free kittens for all, does that have any legal bearing on what the SCOTUS decides later? I still would like to know if, by the SCOTUS's rule, any actual words in the ACA was changed, and if the SCOTUS itself was changing them. By your new avenue of debate, you seem to have given up on that, implying that you agreed the SCOTUS didn't change anything.

However, your new words are puzzling. You essentially said that Obama tricked Congress into voting for it. Do you know if there is some provision in the Constitution which says that votes and laws can be invalidated if people claimed they were tricked? Would you support the creation of such a provision for all laws?

Obviously, my point is clear. If Congress was tricked, the vote still stands. If the SCOTUS declares that a bill sold as a non-tax was a tax, the vote in Congress still stands.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

To insure that they pay into the system and not be able to "free ride". Same as anyone else. It would take time, effort, and money to force even a rich person, who decided he didn't want to pay for emergency care, for instance, and for whatever reason, to pay up. A penalty gets rid of this need. In a federal republic such as we have here, why would you want to rich to be treated differently?

But this mandate just kicks the can down the road to the insurance company for collection. The hospital could have difficulty collecting from Bill Gates if he decides he doesn't want to pay. Bill Gates certainly has the money to hire lawyers to make it difficult. But so does the insurance company. They could put up huge roadblocks as well.

The reality is many states allow a driver to post a cash deposit with the state in lieu of buying car insurance. Typically the deposit amount is the amount of the minimally legal liability limit if insurance was purchased. If a person has the money and thinks that putting down such a deposit is in his/her best interest he can do so.

So if I can deposit, say $30,000 and get a "guaranteed" return of whatever my liability insurance premium would have cost then I might come out ahead if I don't get in an at-fault accident. This is particularly so for these low-interest-rate times.

I have no idea if this is the case. I'm not saying it isn't. But why do you feel this may be the case? And how much redistribution would actually take place since it is estimated that such a small percentage of the populace will be paying the penalty?

So many conservatives screamed "SOCIALISM!" (rightly or wrongly) at the mere mention of this bill. Some still do. I think that scaremongering would have been much more effective if, instead of the the free rider justification, Congressional supporters just stood there and said we want to make you pay someone else's medical bills.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

So... the President tells Congress what to do?

No. Of course, I never said otherwise. You seemed to miss the "and" in my third sentence. My point would stand even if Obama had been mum on the subject. But, the President does frame the debate for the American people. And representatives cast their votes, in part, on how their constituents feel about it.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Leaper

You've been asked this several times, and if you've addressed this specifically, please point me to where you did so: what legal significance is there in what the President claim the mandate is (as opposed to purely political significance)? (I assume you're claiming it has legal significance because of your "rule of law" statement - if I'm incorrect, please clarify what sort of significance you're actually saying it has.)

I'd think you'd have more success with this argument concentrating on "the very language of the bill" (the very thing that our Congresscritters should be solely basing their decision on), rather than insisting that what Obama said in public has any weight that could be taken to a Senate chamber or courtroom.

See my previous response to RNATB. We basically agree here, but I don't think the President's selling of the bill has zero weight. Not with the degree of salesmanship he brought and made the legislation his. Bu to be clear, my main point has nothing to do with him other than to demonstrate that everyone thought they were voting on a non-tax. Unless they all think the President is a liar and that his Constitutional Law credentials aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

Do you agree that the President can guarantee anything he wants in the media, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so in the bills submitted by Congress (and not him)? If Obama tricked everyone and sold it through the media as a tax cut for everyone and free kittens for all, does that have any legal bearing on what the SCOTUS decides later? I still would like to know if, by the SCOTUS's rule, any actual words in the ACA was changed, and if the SCOTUS itself was changing them. By your new avenue of debate, you seem to have given up on that, implying that you agreed the SCOTUS didn't change anything.

However, your new words are puzzling. You essentially said that Obama tricked Congress into voting for it. Do you know if there is some provision in the Constitution which says that votes and laws can be invalidated if people claimed they were tricked? Would you support the creation of such a provision for all laws?

Obviously, my point is clear. If Congress was tricked, the vote still stands. If the SCOTUS declares that a bill sold as a non-tax was a tax, the vote in Congress still stands.

Forget "tricked". There is no need to hypothesize about motivation. The fact is that the bill was written as a penalty, NOT a tax. It is not called a tax in the bill at all. And on it's non-tax status it was deemed Unconstitutional. It was deemed constitutional oily when viewed under Congress's power to TAX. So, it is a tax. But congress did not write a tax bill or vote on imposing a tax on the American people. Therefore: new vote on Obamacare with the tax language inserted.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

And on it's non-tax status it was deemed Unconstitutional. It was deemed constitutional oily when viewed under Congress's power to TAX. So, it is a tax.

There's your misunderstanding. It was not deemed a tax. It was determined Constitutional under Congress' power to tax. If you're saying Roberts made some kind of big error and didn't know what is required for creating a tax- I have to say that's kind of silly on the face of it. There's no loophole here and there is not going to be a revote.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Forget "tricked". There is no need to hypothesize about motivation. The fact is that the bill was written as a penalty, NOT a tax. It is not called a tax in the bill at all. And on it's non-tax status it was deemed Unconstitutional. It was deemed constitutional oily when viewed under Congress's power to TAX. So, it is a tax. But congress did not write a tax bill or vote on imposing a tax on the American people. Therefore: new vote on Obamacare with the tax language inserted.

So were any actual words or pages inserted into the bill now that it was deemed constitutional under Congress's power to tax? Or can the ACA move forward as written?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by magellan01

It's not. But it is their job (I thought) to simply follow the rule of law. By the very language in the bill and the President's guarantee and insistence that the mandate was not a tax, congress did not draft and vote on a new tax for the American people. Therefore, a new tax cannot be assessed.

It's everyone's "job" to follow the rule of law, but that isn't relevant here. Now, one job of the Supreme Court is to decide whether a law is constitutional. They have no right to get rid of a legitimately passed law just because the Congress might have voted differently given a different interpretation of it.

[adaher]

The tax power does not grant the power to make anything legal or illegal, so that means not having insurance is not against the law. If you pay the fee or whatever people call it, you are in full compliance.

A penalty implies that you did something wrong. If you pay a parking ticket, you still have to move your car. Most other offenses involving fines escalate, you can't just keep on doing it and pay the fine.

The fact that the mandate is justified only under the tax power means that Congress will never be permitted to attach criminal sanctions to it.