# SCOTUS's decision on The Health Care Law 6/28/12 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499 "2012-06-27T19:56:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Green\_Cymbeline](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_cymbeline/32/9244_2.png) [@Green\_Cymbeline](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Cymbeline)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/181 "2012-06-28T15:50:57Z")
I am overjoyed at the decision, and I fully support Obamacare. However, I am a little conflicted over the concept of having to buy something from a private corporation. Here are some quotes from people in a thread on Reddit – Dopers, please explain to me how to counter these arguments: [QUOTE=People on Reddit] Sweet. Can’t wait to be forced to buy health insurance at inflated rates! So… my government can force me to buy shitty for-profit health insurance. Lovely. Because I love being told to pay private companies money for a service I don’t particularly want or need. I guess they have ruled that the government can force you to buy anything under threat of excessive taxation. That doesn’t exactly feel like freedom to me. This just in: Congress to force all Americans to pay for (%ANYTHING\_IT\_F-ING-WANTS\_VARIABLE%). Refuse, and be punished with a “tax”. This ACA case is a huge win for insurance companies in case you dummies haven’t figured that out yet. How would people like for the Government to force everyone to buy an American made car. Or pay a penalty!! (TAX) Now the government can order you to buy something, and tax you if you don’t. [/QUOTE] Also, here’s another quote, how do we respond to this? How will very low income people, who don’t qualify for Medicaid, afford private insurance? I understand there are subsidies, but they will still be having to pay something, right? Is there anywhere that has a real-life example of how this might play out? > [@](#): > > “Could someone PLEASE explain to me how I am supposed to buy health insurance? I have only a part time job. My unemployment ran out last July. I have car insurance, phone bill and 2 utility bills to pay every month and I can just cover that. WTF? Thanks Supreme Court…” ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/182 "2012-06-28T15:50:59Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Because Obama _ **is** _ the liar. The ACA doesn’t stand because of the commerce cause, but because it’s a tax, which Obama flatly said it wasn’t, even though it is. But you can keep grasping at straws there. He disagrees. He isn’t a liar. As luck would have it, the disagreement worked in his favor. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/183 "2012-06-28T15:51:28Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > A freeloader? I beg to differ. If I get sick and go to the doctor, I pay the full fees. Now you know and you’re welcome. > > BTW\> Obama’s a flat out liar. Glad to see you didn’t even try to deny it. My accident cost over a million, got that much socked away? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/184 "2012-06-28T15:51:42Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Question. > If the law is implemented, can it still be challenged on con law grounds as it’s applied to a specific individual? Say for instance, someone who had a religious belief against medical care, and chose, on those grounds, not to participate by refusing to obtain the coverage or pay the “tax” (fine). Not exactly sure that this challenge would pertain, as the law doesn’t require anyone to get medical care. I don’t much like wars in foreign countries, but I don’t get to opt out of paying for the military. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/185 "2012-06-28T15:51:49Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You are having trouble understanding his argument. He’s saying that several justices agree with Obama. So obviously highly trained people can differ over this. > > That doesn’t make Obama a liar, and maybe you shouldn’t characterize him as such when it isn’t warranted. Are you fucking kidding me? You, sir, are some kind of extreme partisan hack. Are you saying that unless SCOTUS decisions come down 0 - 9 against some person (in this case Obama) that he’s prevented from being deemed a liar because “highly trained people can differ”? Because that would be silly. Here’s the deal. Obama said it wasn’t a tax. He insisted it wasn’t a tax. He blamed his critics from trying to state it was a tax. But guess what? It is a tax. That makes him a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/186 "2012-06-28T15:52:19Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy weren’t telling the taxpaying voters that they wouldn’t raise taxes and that Obamacare was not a tax. They just told the world that, in their esteemed opinion, the mandate penalty is not a tax. Do you think they are wrong? Look, I think Obama was wrong when he said that the penalty isn’t a tax. I always considered that stupid political word games, and it still is. That doesn’t make him a liar - just a politician and wrong in the opinion of 5 SCOTUS justices. If you ask him today he will probably still say he doesn’t think it’s a tax. > [@](#): > > Do you think the Obamacare “Tax” will have an effect on the upcoming elections? Of course it will - as it should be. I personally support taxing the freeloaders rather than paying for them via higher medical expenses. The voters may well disagree. And if Romney ends up winning than at least we can say that the American people decided what they want their health care system to look like, not 9 folks in robes. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/187 "2012-06-28T15:53:33Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Are you fucking kidding me? You, sir, are some kind of extreme partisan hack. Take this kind of commentary to the Pit. It doesn’t belong in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/188 "2012-06-28T15:54:34Z")
Likely it won’t. There’s only a small in-play group and that won’t be what they vote on. And calling Obama a lar because SCOTUS disagreed with his reasoning is foolish. He said it wasn’t a tax. They disagreed. That doesn’t mean he was lying. He may still believe its not a tax. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/189 "2012-06-28T15:54:51Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Don’t forget to make them armed. And wearing jackboots. Let’s give the IRS black helicopters, so they can get around faster. And armed unmanned drones, to look for tax cheats. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/190 "2012-06-28T15:54:55Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy weren’t telling the taxpaying voters that they wouldn’t raise taxes and that Obamacare was not a tax. > > Obama did just that. > > Do you think the Obamacare “Tax” will have an effect on the upcoming elections? Are you equally upset about the Not-Buying-a-House-Tax? If you don’t buy a house, you pay more in taxes than someone who does buy a house. ZOMG!!!111one ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/191 "2012-06-28T15:55:22Z")
Kudos to Roberts for threading the needle. I think reasonable people can disagree one whether the Commerce Clause would cover this - some consider it to be regulating ‘inactivity’, but the counterpoint is that NO ONE is ‘inactive’ in the health care system, which is what the law addresses. It essentially prohibits you from taking part in the health care system without paying (the penalty, or the insurance premium). That said, the Commerce Clause does need a backstop - it obviously can’t do everything, and upholding the ACA on its basis may not have been sliding down the slippery slope, but you could have seen the slope from there. So cheers to Roberts for finding the middle path, which is all too rare these days. And jeers to the four dissenting jagoffs who bent out of their way trying to explain why it wasn’t a tax. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/192 "2012-06-28T15:55:42Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Are you fucking kidding me? You, sir, are some kind of extreme partisan hack. Are you saying that unless SCOTUS decisions come down 0 - 9 against some person (in this case Obama) that he’s prevented from being deemed a liar because “highly trained people can differ”? Because that would be silly. So, simple question: is Scalia a liar, since he doesn’t think it’s a tax? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/193 "2012-06-28T15:56:48Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Are you fucking kidding me? You, sir, are some kind of extreme partisan hack. Are you saying that unless SCOTUS decisions come down 0 - 9 against some person (in this case Obama) that he’s prevented from being deemed a liar because “highly trained people can differ”? Because that would be silly. No, it would be looking at something intelligently. > [@](#): > > Here’s the deal. Obama said it wasn’t a tax. He insisted it wasn’t a tax. He blamed his critics from trying to state it was a tax. But guess what? It is a tax. That makes him a liar. No it doesn’t. The SCOTUS offers final decisions, not necessarily correct ones. If you say that you aren’t wearing shoes and the SCOTUS decides that your flippy-floppies count as shoes, it doesn’t make you a liar. It makes you poorly dressed. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/194 "2012-06-28T15:58:20Z")
At first glance, this seems like the WORST possible ruling that could have happened. They upheld the individual mandate, but ruled against the expansion of medicaid. I was listening to NPR the other day and they were saying that the expansion of medicaid was going to be a key way that many individuals who would not normally be able to afford health care get it. So, if I’m understanding this ruling correctly, the federal government can now tax anyone who doesn’t get healthcare insurance, but now millions of people who genuinely can’t afford it aren’t going to be able to apply for medicaid. I hope I’m wrong, but this just seems like a huge fucking win for insurance companies, and a huge fucking loss for the poor. ---
**Author:** ![Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fool\_in\_the\_Rain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fool_in_the_Rain)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/195 "2012-06-28T15:59:28Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > So the example of a health care bill being passed despite the intense lobbying of PAC-backed conservative interests shows that the system doesn’t work? I agree, in this example, the system did work. Doesn’t necessarily stop an amendment attached to a budget bill (I know hasn’t been one passed in three years now) being passed. > [@](#): > > And what exactly is it you want stopped, the adoption of UHC which has been shown to work in every other industrialized country in the world? Actually, I don’t want anything stopped. As I said before, there are many parts of the law I agree with, and think they are important, and in some cases a long time coming. I may be worried over nothing, and you may be proven true, that the Individual Mandate will not lead to my concerns and elections will correct any future proposed idiotic bills… My concern is simply that A could lead to B > [@](#): > > or is it just the threat of mandatory broccoli? Actually I like broccoli, especially with cheddar melted on top 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/196 "2012-06-28T15:59:35Z")
> [@Green\_Cymbeline](#): > > I am overjoyed at the decision, and I fully support Obamacare. However, I am a little conflicted over the concept of having to buy something from a private corporation. Here are some quotes from people in a thread on Reddit – Dopers, please explain to me how to counter these arguments Well, for this one: > [@](#): > > Sweet. Can’t wait to be forced to buy health insurance at inflated rates! One of the big wins in the ACA is that the insurance companies have to spend some percentage (80?) of premiums on actual medical care. I believe there were news articles about some insurers already having to send refund checks. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/197 "2012-06-28T16:00:02Z")
> [@Green\_Cymbeline](#): > > Also, here’s another quote, how do we respond to this? How will very low income people, who don’t qualify for Medicaid, afford private insurance? I understand there are subsidies, but they will still be having to pay something, right? Is there anywhere that has a real-life example of how this might play out? The subsidies are pretty large for low-income folks. And for very low-income folks the expansion in Medicaid will allow them to join medicaid for free. [Here’s](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/buying-insurance-vs-paying-fine-whats-tradeoff) a post that works through some numbers for an “average family”. There’s a link in there to a calculator that allows you to figure the subsidy for various income levels and family types. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/198 "2012-06-28T16:02:47Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > So, if I’m understanding this ruling correctly, the federal government can now tax anyone who doesn’t get healthcare insurance, but now millions of people who genuinely can’t afford it aren’t going to be able to apply for medicaid. A few governors might showboat for a while, but in the end I have trouble imagining the States will turn down the extra Medicaid money. And of course the system of subsidies will still be in place. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/199 "2012-06-28T16:06:26Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Question. > If the law is implemented, can it still be challenged on con law grounds as it’s applied to a specific individual? Say for instance, someone who had a religious belief against medical care, and chose, on those grounds, not to participate by refusing to obtain the coverage or pay the “tax” (fine). They are already exempt under Section 5000A(d)(2)(A) of the law: _“[The term “applicable individual”] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/200 "2012-06-28T16:08:07Z")
I’m confused about something about the ACA now that it is a tax and some comments I heard on the news this morning. Is it a case where everyone gets a refund for having health insurance OR you pay extra tax for not having it. For example Person A has insurance and Person B does not. Both have a tax liability of $5000 in 2014. Is it: #1 Person A pays $4500, Person B pays $5000 or #2 Person A pays $5000, Person B pays $5500 ($500 in incresed tax) or #3 Both A and B have a new tax liabilitity of $5500 but Person A pays $5000 ($500 credit), Person B pays $5500 Question 2: If #2, how is it a tax on income? I understand how paying less tax is used to control behavior, but that is different than taxing NOT doing something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=11)