Liberals: defend the mandate!

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Cite where they said "the mandate" was constitutional.

Oh, apparently you hadn't heard. Yeah, they came through with a 5-4 decision yesterday upholding the mandate as constitutional.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Marley23

This should do it:

That's my point. The mandate to purchase insurance was not held up. He turned it int a tax: (emphases mine)

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative ar- gument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the man- date as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Be- cause “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to inter-
4
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
Syllabus
pret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Honestly, I find this attitude disappointing. If you (plural) can't have you want by the correct methods, fuck it, you'll take what you can get by any methods. I think it's woefully shortsighted. Process matters. The Constitution matters. I'd be much more comfortable with a mechanism where taxes were simply raised to improve healthcare. Don't have the votes, too bad, that's the downside to living in a democracy. But you can eventually get the votes. And if you can't, again, you live in a democracy. You don't always get what you want.

I trust then that you think right to lifers should concentrate on an amendment outlawing abortion, and stop making it difficult for women to get one by various other means. You care about the Constitution, right, and as of now it seems to say abortion is legal. If you don't have the votes for an amendment, too bad.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I thought I understood you were saying, which is why in my response I said "you (plural)". I chose to respond to you because the think is very similar and I took it that you were of the opinion , as many are, that they'd be happy to have Obamacare in place regardless if was ruled constitutional or not.

I was not commenting on the Constitutionality of the law. I was talking about the process of getting a piece of legislation passed: a lot of people on the left would have preferred single payer or something else that got closer to universal health coverage, but politically, it was not going to happen. It took a ton of compromises and grinding to get this law passed, so it goes without saying that something like single payer was not going to get through Congress in 2009-10.

What's the difference?

The difference is that we were talking about different things. It sounds like you're discussing the Constitutionality of the law and I was discussing compromise as part of the political process.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Voyager

I trust then that you think right to lifers should concentrate on an amendment outlawing abortion, and stop making it difficult for women to get one by various other means. You care about the Constitution, right, and as of now it seems to say abortion is legal. If you don't have the votes for an amendment, too bad.

Actually, I do think that. And I also hope said amendment would fail.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I was not commenting on the Constitutionality of the law. I was talking about the process of getting a piece of legislation passed: a lot of people on the left would have preferred single payer or something else that got closer to universal health coverage, but politically, it was not going to happen. It took a ton of compromises and grinding to get this law passed, so it goes without saying that something like single payer was not going to get through Congress in 2009-10.

The difference is that we were talking about different things. It sounds like you're discussing the Constitutionality of the law and I was discussing compromise as part of the political process.

I'm not so sure. What I was objecting to (though I'm not longer sure you're of this mind) is the notion that since they couldn't get something ideal and had to compromise, that pretty much the hell with the right way of doing things.

Are you of that mind?

My opinion is that Proposal X may be the most wonderful thing in world, but if it can't be done through the proper procedures, it shouldn't be done.

[MOIDALIZE]

Originally Posted by magellan01

That's my point. The mandate to purchase insurance was not held up. He turned it int a tax: (emphases mine)

The mandate was upheld. It was not upheld under the Commerce Clause, but it was upheld under the Taxing Clause. Meaning it was upheld. It is constitutional.

You're desperately searching for a loophole that isn't there.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

In what possible way did the justices vote "based on party lines" today?

If you're actually a liberal, then throw out whatever the hell media sources you read today, because they apparently told you that John Roberts is a liberal, which is a straight-up lie. And then apologize and ask that this thread be shut down, since it was started on an obviously fallacious basis.

I certainly don't think Roberts is a liberal. What I do think is that, just as many a conservative member of the court has done in recent years, he crossed over to the other side. From my extremely casual observation of the SCOTUS, I think the conservative justices have crossed over a lot more than the liberal ones have. After all, even Clarence Thomas dissented in favor of Raich, who was convicted for growing medical MJ for his own use.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

I'm not so sure. What I was objecting to (though I'm not longer sure you're of this mind) is the notion that since they couldn't get something ideal and had to compromise, that pretty much the hell with the right way of doing things.

Are you of that mind?

A lot of the time, compromise is the right way to do things. That's the legislative process at work. I was talking about compromising on the components of the law, not compromising the Constitution or something.

My opinion is that Proposal X may be the most wonderful thing in world, but if it can't be done through the proper procedures, it shouldn't be done.

I agree with that, but I don't think anything improper was done here. I wish the law covered more people, but the law that was passed was more or less the full extent of what was possible at the time.

Originally Posted by magellan01

That's my point. The mandate to purchase insurance was not held up. He turned it int a tax: (emphases mine)

He did not and cannot "turn it into" anything. The mandate is Constitutional, and Roberts' exact words were "the individual mandate may be upheld." You are misunderstanding this, and you're kind of doing what CNN and Fox did when they said the Court had thrown out the mandate. Roberts says the mandate cannot be justified on the basis of the interstate commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause, but that it is Constitutional if it's considered an exercise of Congress' taxation powers. That does not turn the mandate into anything else. It is the basis for a legal justification, not a change to the law. The bit about "every reasonable construction" makes this clear. The mandate was upheld, period. It was not turned into a tax. It was upheld on the basis that it can be thought of as a tax.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by magellan01

My opinion is that Proposal X may be the most wonderful thing in world, but if it can't be done through the proper procedures, it shouldn't be done.

Well, wonderful or not, the ACA is done, and through proper procedures.

Unless you're claiming SCOTUS doesn't know how to apply procedures, in which case I'd like to know what Tier-1 university you've taught Constitutional Law at for 20 years, because something along those lines would be bare minimum as establishing you had authority on this issue even remotely comparable to SCOTUS.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by magellan01

That's my point. The mandate to purchase insurance was not held up. He turned it int a tax: (emphases mine)

He didn't turn it into a tax. He accepted one of the government's arguments, which I have pointed out to you in no less than three different threads.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by PandaBear77

wow.

Smh ...

Shake it all you like, And then when you get a pulled tendon and can't afford the doctor, come back and talk. I've got a finger that is permanently crooked and unable to fully close due to lack of health coverage a few years ago. Fixing it now that I DO have coverage would still be prohibitively expensive as it it will require non-essential surgery, something that would max out my contributions.

I'll repeat myself for extra clarity. Access to basic, preventative, and life saving healthcare options is, in my opinion, a basic human right; and the United States has been woefully behind on keeping up with the rest of the western world. Further, Americans have in general shown that they are more than willing to choose unhealthy, detrimental options when given them. We have laws against drugs for that reason. We restrict access to prescriptions for that reason, we ensure people are complying with food safety laws for that reason, we require vaccinations for that reason. All for the general health and well being of the public; something that is in everyone's best interest. If people made the logical, non societal harming choices more often than not, we wouldn't even have to consider such measures.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

He didn't turn it into a tax. He accepted one of the government's arguments, which I have pointed out to you in no less than three different threads.

If you defend something as a tax, as the administration did after it had to go to court, you're saying, "Okay, now look at a it as a tax and judge it on that basis."

[Really Not All That Bright]

That was one of two arguments. The administration's primary argument was that it was a valid exercise of the commerce power.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

The mandate was upheld. It was not upheld under the Commerce Clause, but it was upheld under the Taxing Clause. Meaning it was upheld. It is constitutional.

You're desperately searching for a loophole that isn't there.

The mandate was clearly and unambiguously ruled unconstitutional. The Court ruled clearly and emphatically that Congress cannot force you to buy insurance.

However the penalty for not buying insurance was upheld under the taxing powers of Congress.

The PPACA law does not not require you to buy insurance. It requires you to make a choice: buy insurance or pay a penalty.

[Really Not All That Bright]

No, the mandate was ruled to be beyond Congress' commerce power. It was ruled to be within Congress' taxing power.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus

I certainly don't think Roberts is a liberal. What I do think is that, just as many a conservative member of the court has done in recent years, he crossed over to the other side. From my extremely casual observation of the SCOTUS, I think the conservative justices have crossed over a lot more than the liberal ones have. After all, even Clarence Thomas dissented in favor of Raich, who was convicted for growing medical MJ for his own use.

ETA: As for defending the mandate, what I already said here, in another thread. Come to think of it, I should have waited for this thread to make that comment as it would have been more appropriate here.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

That was one of two arguments. The administration's primary argument was that it was a valid exercise of the commerce power.

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.

[ElvisL1ves]

Call it whatever the fuck you like; it doesn't change what it is one little bit. What does it matter, except for the purpose of rationalizing a result, or perhaps trying to score a cheap partisan point?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Call it whatever the fuck you like; it doesn't change what it is one little bit. What does it matter, except for the purpose of rationalizing a result, or perhaps trying to score a cheap partisan point?

Words matter. Especially in the legal realm. It matters in another way to—or would have it SCOTUS didn't treat it as a tax—the government doesn't get to mandate this expense (good as it may be) and then say it's not part of the tax burden of being an American. It is. So, your tax burden just went up from X to X + (the mandate).

That's the one good thing that has come out of this contorted ruling.

[MyFactCheckBounced]

I'll leave it to Tony Montana to explain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ7HZATMKBY

That's right, ultimately we want your women.

MWAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA

Ah, the mandate. Hatched by Gingritch & Co. at Heritage, as a rightist "personal responsibility" answer to Hillarycare. Adopted and applied by Mitt Romney as the law of the state of Massachusetts. And, when adopted by Obama in the Affordable Care Act... the source of rightist fear campaigns nationwide.

Gentlemen, with the mandate described by the SCOTUS as functionally a tax, there is simply no constitutional issue left. Granted, it is a tax only on those who would tax the rest of us by virtue of their inaction; but it is, functionally, a tax nonetheless. Thus spake the Brethren (and Sistren, I suppose).

"Defend the mandate?"

I live in Virginia. If you don't want to carry insurance in Virginia, you pay an uninsured driver fee. You're also liable for any damage you cause, of course, with your butt sort of hanging out there in the breeze. The large pool of $500 checks defray costs these "insurance-free" firebrands cause others by virtue of their mavericky nature.

If you present at an ER without insurance and with a dissecting aortic aneurism, they're not going kick you out on the street. They're going to take you to surgery, on the hospital's/everybody else's dime. "Defend the mandate?" Here's a defense: you're using everybody's resources. Pay the tax or buy the insurance. For Criminy's sake.

Part 2: Yes, I do think it's a good idea to make the insurance affordable to the middle class, even if they don't work for a very generous corporation or the gubmit.

Part 3: Yes, I do think it's a good idea for insurance to be cheaper if you're poorer.

I thought this was pretty much the most recent rightist view of taxation: It's terrible that there are some people who pay nothing! The most possible people should pay something so they have skin in the game.

[elucidator]

When it comes to health care, everybody has "skin in the game".

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Words matter. Especially in the legal realm.

Except if the word is "marriage", right?

It matters in another way to—or would have it SCOTUS didn't treat it as a tax—the government doesn't get to mandate this expense (good as it may be) and then say it's not part of the tax burden of being an American. It is. So, your tax burden just went up from X to X + (the mandate).

That's the one good thing that has come out of this contorted ruling.

The ruling is far less contorted than your syntax.

[Lobohan]

I just posted this in the other thread on the mandate, so I thought I'd x-post it here:

Originally Posted by Lobohan

They raised taxes on everyone and gave a discount to those with health insurance. Big whup.

Also, George Washington signed laws requiring mandatory health care and mandatory purchases of weapons and kit for militia use. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isla...ress-mandated/

[elucidator]

Yeah, well, in those days, "health care" was mostly mud and leeches.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Yeah, well, in those days, "health care" was mostly mud and leeches.

Not much better than what poor Americans get today.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by MyFactCheckBounced

I thought this was pretty much the most recent rightist view of taxation: It's terrible that there are some people who pay nothing! The most possible people should pay something so they have skin in the game.

Many will still pay nothing. That will not change.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Except if the word is "marriage", right?

You've not been playing close enough attention, especially if the word is marriage.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The ruling is far less contorted than your syntax.

Poor, yes. But so poor that you couldn't glean my meaning and eke out a response?

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Not much better than what poor Americans get today.

I'm willing to bet medical leeches cost way more than what the typical uninsured American can afford.

[MyFactCheckBounced]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Many will still pay nothing. That will not change.

Ah but the more who pay something instead of shirking their responsibility, the more responsible we make them. Isn't that the rightist project? It certainly was very important when Heritage was fighting against single-payer. No, no, we must come up with eleventy-seven strange gimmicks and make health care a maze of market-based regulations. Otherwise we'll be too much like those other countries with longer lifespans and lower infant mortality, etc., and God knows the pitiful state of health care there.

No, no national care for us, my friends! And in that we need market mechanisms, we certainly need to take care of those "free riders" who use up all the resources by getting sick but not carrying insurance.

Single payer would be better, granted. But since we've accepted the Heritage Foundation's gimmick for making those terrible and expensive uninsured folks pay, it seems strange for the right to now complain that it's unconstitutional.

Expanding the pool of the insured is not just a public policy argument. It's a personal responsibility argument. That's what blows my mind -- the backflips away from this stance on situational grounds.

[InterestedObserver]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

I understand that the mandate was ultimately barely passed as a tax, but what bothers me is that the four liberal judges were willing to pass it under the commerce clause, and that most of my liberal friends don't seem to have any problem with this. Or were you referring to something else?

Actually, Roberts' argument was that it COULD be "reasonably characterized as a tax" and that "Congress' choice of words...did not REQUIRE reading (it) as punishing unlawful conduct. It MAY also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.”

He went on: "...“[a] tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax …"


His argument and the ruling as a whole did NOT find that the individual mandate "IS a tax", only that, as written, it COULD be construed as one, and as a result, falls under Congress' constitutional taxing authority.


As a flaming liberal myself, I think the mandate (and the entirety of the law) is constitutional on multiple grounds, including the regulation of interstate commerce and the promotion of the general welfare.

The health insurance industry (which I agree is at the root of the "health care crisis" in the U.S., along with the for-profit health care industry) operates across state lines and is therefore subject to federal regulation.

And federal intervention to address the issues of uninsured citizens lacking access to health care and spiraling health insurance/care costs due to the uninsured and/or corporate gouging certainly falls under the constitutional authority to "promote the general welfare."

I don't think the mandate overreaches federal authority in any way and I find myself wondering exactly what "liberal" principles you feel I am violating.

BTW, I support a single payer model, and am fairly confident that we will see one eventually, probably within my lifetime. In the meantime, the current reforms are a huge step in the right direction, imo.

Of course, I'm biased, having watched my husband die at 44 without health insurance or the ability to afford the on-going care he needed for a "pre-existing" genetic condition diagnosed late in life.

[YogSosoth]

magellan01, it sounds like you feel that since the primary argument advanced by the Obama administration defending the mandate through the Commerce Clause was rejected, you believe that Roberts and the SCOTUS shouldn't get to review the mandate based on the secondary argument of the ACA being a tax. Is that an accurate summation of your point?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

magellan01, it sounds like you feel that since the primary argument advanced by the Obama administration defending the mandate through the Commerce Clause was rejected, you believe that Roberts and the SCOTUS shouldn't get to review the mandate based on the secondary argument of the ACA being a tax. Is that an accurate summation of your point?

Not exactly. My feeling is that the administration, after selling it—with great conviction and fervor—as a non-tax, should never have attempted its defense on those grounds. They were morally wrong to do so. And IF they did, and IF SCOTUS accepted that argument and deemed it a tax, then the law should be struck down because a tax is not what was voted on and passed. In fact, I maintain that it passed only because it was NOT a tax. So, what the people (congress) passed is not what SCOTUS says the law is. The old votes should be struck down and a new one held.

As far as the ruling itself, it's cartoon absurd. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so what do we have? Answer: a rocking chair. If it is a duck, then SCOTUS should not even be able to rule on it until it is in place and being paid.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by MyFactCheckBounced

Ah but the more who pay something instead of shirking their responsibility, the more responsible we make them.

Doing it through a tax does the same thing. And comports with the prior-to-Bizarro-World-interpretation-fabricated-by-Roberts Constitution.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by magellan01

As far as the ruling itself, it's cartoon absurd. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so what do we have? Answer: a rocking chair. If it is a duck, then SCOTUS should not even be able to rule on it until it is in place and being paid.

That's arguable, but all that would do is push back SCOTUS' determination that the ACA was constitutional for two years. The Court would rule that it didn't have jurisdiction and then uphold the mandate in 2014. What's the point?

[2ManyTacos]

Not sure if anybody has said this already in this thread, but here it goes, in simple terms:

Defend the mandate?

Easy, the mandate is the thing that pays for everything else in the bill that consistently polls extremely well. Without the mandate, the popular reforms aren't possible.

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Not sure if anybody has said this already in this thread, but here it goes, in simple terms:

Defend the mandate?

Easy, the mandate is the thing that pays for everything else in the bill that consistently polls extremely well. Without the mandate, the popular reforms aren't possible.

No, the mandate is what pays the insurance companies to keep their lobbyists and PR departments from tossing out any legislator who tries to make them irrelevant. Without the mandate, every other UHC scheme is still possible. This was mostly a pork barrel law to get health insurers more customers.

Medicaid expansion and forcing insurers to accept preexisting conditions were steps in the right direction. The mandate is what allowed the insurers to let those laws pass. I can't imagine healthcare policy will look like this for very long. This seems like a transitional system at best. If it gets Americans to accept real UHC, I'm all for it. It could also cause a backlash against the idea as well, but I think once all those poor Republicans get a taste of it, they will clamor for more. Look at all the senior citizens in the Tea party: "The government can't do anything right. Now get your hands off my Medicare!"

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by MyFactCheckBounced

Ah but the more who pay something instead of shirking their responsibility, the more responsible we make them.

I'd like to know how you figured that.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Not sure if anybody has said this already in this thread, but here it goes, in simple terms:

Defend the mandate?

Easy, the mandate is the thing that pays for everything else in the bill that consistently polls extremely well. Without the mandate, the popular reforms aren't possible.

100% wrong. The bill could have been paid for the way pay for virtually anything else: taxes. But if you recall, Obama swore up and down that it was NOT a tax.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by magellan01

100% wrong. The bill could have been paid for the way pay for virtually anything else: taxes. But if you recall, Obama swore up and down that it was NOT a tax.

I think you misunderstand, which is pretty much par for the course for conservatives who seem to have amnesia since they proposed this exact same plan several years ago. Having everyone purchase insurance is what lets the system work. The premiums of those who are currently uninsured pay for the expansion of coverage. The mandate is a mechanism to encourage people to purchase insurance.

Stop pretending that you want to fund UHC through taxes.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by fumster

I think you misunderstand, which is pretty much par for the course for conservatives who seem to have amnesia since they proposed this exact same plan several years ago. Having everyone purchase insurance is what lets the system work. The premiums of those who are currently uninsured pay for the expansion of coverage. The mandate is a mechanism to encourage people to purchase insurance.

Stop pretending that you want to fund UHC through taxes.

You may want to read more carefully. 2ManyTacos said that the mandate was necessary. Here: (emphasis mine)

Without the mandate, the popular reforms aren't possible.

I corrected that untruth.

The fact is that we have a ton of stuff we fund, and do it through zero mandates. We do it through a different mechanism: taxes. Feel free to look it up.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by magellan01

You may want to read more carefully. 2ManyTacos said that the mandate was necessary. Here: (emphasis mine)



I corrected that untruth.

The fact is that we have a ton of stuff we fund, and do it through zero mandates. We do it through a different mechanism: taxes. Feel free to look it up.

Well duh. Of course we could fund UHC through taxes. The reason we didn't is because conservatives insisted we use a market based approach instead. Of course that was before we had a black person as President. That changed everything.

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.

[jackdavinci]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Not sure if anybody has said this already in this thread, but here it goes, in simple terms:

Defend the mandate?

Easy, the mandate is the thing that pays for everything else in the bill that consistently polls extremely well. Without the mandate, the popular reforms aren't possible.

You're missing the point. The question isn't whether the mandate is defensible by any justification. The question is whether it's defensible under and consistent with liberal values. Obviously the aims of the ACA are a liberal gift basket, but does legislation which further liberal goals justify anti-liberal means?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by fumster

That is why the mandate is necessary.

Originally Posted by fumster

Well duh. Of course we could fund UHC through taxes.

Do you see a problem here?

Your post boils down to"well, the mandate is necessary, if we're going to make sure everyone has health insurance because, you know, it's mandated. The mandate is ONE mechanism by which to pay for broader and better health insurance. There is at least one other. One other so obvious that it funds virtually everything els we get as benefits from living in the U.S. and you appropriately referred to it with a "duh".

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.

How very odd.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is.

Some time recently - maybe a year ago - I started noticing a few conservatives saying the ACA should be scrapped in favor of a single-payer system. Of course, the only reason the ACA exists in its current form is that more expansive options like single-payer were even less palatable to conservatives. If conservatives had been on board with that idea in 2009-10, it could have gone in that direction. So those criticisms were entirely disingenuous. They did everything they could to block the law, failed, and then tried to rewrite history.

There is never only one way to pay for something, but the mandate is a necessary part of the law as constituted. The law extends health care coverage to more sick people (via health insurance companies) and that has to be paid for somehow. I don't think taxing people and turning that money over to health insurers would have worked - and certainly I don't think it would have worked politically.

The mandate is designed to encourage individuals to buy health insurance so the cost of their health care will not be pushed off to everybody else. That "personal responsibility" idea is the reason conservatives concocted and backed this idea in the '90s. Making everybody pay for health care for the uninsured was unfair; making individuals contribute something was fair. So the ACA has a provision that says you need to have health insurance if you can afford it, otherwise you have to pay a penalty. Could it be paid for other ways? Yes. This was deemed the most workable and equitable way.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by jackdavinci

I'm usually open to giving the benefit of the doubt, and am loathe to accept that lofty Supreme Court justices will actually render verdicts solely based on party lines, but it's not looking good. Not at all!

I'm a generally liberal Obama supporter. I long for universal health care, given a basis similar to social security. But I'm not one to accept a victory at any cost.

I used to be of the persuasion (hope) that Supreme Court Justices should retire when a Democratic President is in office, because that was the surest way to insure personal freedoms were sacrosanct.

But now I'm wondering if the 4-4 deadlock with one swing vote might not be prudent.

I'm all for universal health care, but not at any cost. Do other liberals really believe that attaining this is worth any cost? Do you really not understand that there would be consequences for getting UHC by methods involving overreaching government power?

I'm truly flabbergasted that liberals would give up their basic principles in order to achieve a particular outcome.

Am I alone in this?

I want UHC. This design is a cluster fuck.

Why cannot we just adopt one like Germany. Great UHC system.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by 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.

How very odd.

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?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Why cannot we just adopt one like Germany.

Because there is nowhere near enough political support for it right now.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

I want UHC. This design is a cluster fuck.

Why cannot we just adopt one like Germany.

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

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Not exactly. My feeling is that the administration, after selling it—with great conviction and fervor—as a non-tax, should never have attempted its defense on those grounds. They were morally wrong to do so. And IF they did, and IF SCOTUS accepted that argument and deemed it a tax, then the law should be struck down because a tax is not what was voted on and passed.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by magellan01

In fact, I maintain that it passed only because it was NOT a tax. So, what the people (congress) passed is not what SCOTUS says the law is. The old votes should be struck down and a new one held.

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? 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. They could have called it the Puppies and Kittens Act and it would still work the same way, and probably get more votes, but so what?

Originally Posted by magellan01

As far as the ruling itself, it's cartoon absurd. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so what do we have? Answer: a rocking chair. If it is a duck, then SCOTUS should not even be able to rule on it until it is in place and being paid.

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"