# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/221 "2012-06-28T16:33:01Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > 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. Looks like you have read that right. Under today’s ruling states can opt out of the medicaid expansion. If a state does opt out, its citizens will still be paying federal taxes which will go, in part, to supporting newly eligible medicaid recipients in other states. The state is then left with what to do about the medical needs of those persons who would have qualified but are not getting coverage due to the opt out. That state’s citizens then end up holding the bag. If all states opt out then arguably they could all then deal with the issue of how to handle those who would have newly qualified without also paying federal taxes to support other states’ medicaid expenses. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/222 "2012-06-28T16:33:06Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Oh, look. A question posed in a way to elicit a certain response. Surprising. > > Anyway, it did answer your question. Do you not know what a lie is? Did Scalia say anything about the ACA not being a tax in the past? No, he did not. Did Obama said anything about the ACA not being a tax in the past? Yes, he did. > > This is so simple to understand, the fact that I’m even having this discussion with you is mind-boggling. Apparently, in your world, if two people say the same thing at point X then either both are liars or neither can be liars, as what they’ve said in the past is irrelevant to whether or not they’re deemed to have lied. Look, I’m not trying to dig at you, but you are looking at two widgets and saying it’s three. If someone says something he believes to be true it isn’t a _lie_. If it is later shown that what the person (who believed something to be true) is incorrect, it doesn’t make what he said a lie. It makes what he said _wrong_. This is absolute. This is not up for discussion. You are not reasoning properly. I don’t know why you can’t see this, but you are not using logic to form your conclusion. 2+2=4, no matter how much it upsets you. ---
**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, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/223 "2012-06-28T16:33:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is Obama psychic, or something? Do you think he knew SCOTUS would deem it a tax? Weren’t his lawyers arguing it was a tax in court? Come on. The lengths you guys and gals are going through to defend his statements is comical. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/224 "2012-06-28T16:35:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not really. That’s a function of constitutional litigation; for rational basis review, SCOTUS has deemed that the government interest asserted need not be the actual basis for an enactment. that means its legally allowable, not that its principled. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/225 "2012-06-28T16:35:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Isn’t it oversimplifying a bit to say “the Supreme Court said it’s a tax?” Not at all. It’s in the ruling. > [@John Roberts](#): > > Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/226 "2012-06-28T16:38:12Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Behaving as though these are two separate and distinct possibilities strikes me as so much semantic quibbling. The actual real-world consequences of your choice were made clear in the law, and whether imposing such consequences is constitutional cannot possibly depend on what words you use to describe exactly the same set of consequences. Of course it can. Lawyers quibble about semantics all the time. It walks like a tax, swims like a tax, and quacks like a tax, but if the lawmakers decide to call it a penalty, it’s not unthinkable to rule on it like a penalty until the lawmakers decide to call it a tax. Am I wrong in thinking if they initially crafted this as a tax and a tax rebate, this issue would have never gone to the SCOTUS? What would the opponents say, you can’t levy a $700 tax and give a $700 credit if the person buys a qualifying health plan? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/227 "2012-06-28T16:40:31Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If someone says something he believes to be true it isn’t a _lie_. > > If it is later shown that what the person (who believed something to be true) is incorrect, it doesn’t make what he said a lie. It makes what he said _wrong_. > > This is absolute. This is not up for discussion. You are not reasoning properly. I don’t know why you can’t see this, but you are not using logic to form your conclusion. 2+2=4, no matter how much it upsets you. [Oh, that old chestnut!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15192424&postcount=105) ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/228 "2012-06-28T16:42:59Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Not at all. It’s in the ruling. No, I think I’m right here. ‘Under such an analysis, X maybe be considered Y’ is not the same as ‘X is Y.’ What I’m seeing is the majority found the mandate Constitutional because it’s covered by Congress’ power to tax. Saying “it’s a tax” seems to be a blurring of the actual ruling (or a grab for a straw). ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/229 "2012-06-28T16:43:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Oh, that old chestnut!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15192424&postcount=105) You realize everyone you debate in the SDMB are not all the same person using a hundred different screennames, right? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/230 "2012-06-28T16:43:36Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Weren’t his lawyers arguing it was a tax in court? Come on. No, they were arguing it was not a tax. And SCOTUS says it is a tax. Where are you seeing a lie? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/231 "2012-06-28T16:44:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by John Roberts, SCOTUS CJ > Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. See? He didn’t say it \*was \*a tax. He said it could be _considered_ a tax “for constitutional purposes.” For political purposes we can still consider it a mandate. ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/232 "2012-06-28T16:45:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Oh, that old chestnut!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15192424&postcount=105) Well, I guess that shows me… or… something… Are you okay? Maybe you should lie down. Can I get you a biscotti and a Fresca? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/233 "2012-06-28T16:47:31Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No, they were arguing it was not a tax. And SCOTUS says it is a tax. Where are you seeing a lie? It is all semantics, because they didn’t say it was a tax, they said it was upheld under taxing provisions. Who cares though. I found it funny on CNN when one of the anchors asked the guy from SCOTUSblog why Roberts went with the majority, like it was some huge riddle, and the guy said, “Likely because he thought it was the right decision.” In fact there is evidence from Roberts himself that he does not like to overrule the “will of the people”. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/234 "2012-06-28T16:49:04Z")
One aspect of the ruling that has not gotten a lot of attention, buried under the indivdual mandate part, is the mandatory expansion of Medicaid, which was struck down. You would have to think that most of the governors who were part of that successful lawsuit will follow through and refrain from expanding Medicaid. (Otherwise their lawsuit would have been pointless.) This could have a huge impact. It would reduce the cost of the Medicaid for the federal government. OTOH, it would increase the cost for employers, because more lower paid people will fall under the employer mandate since they would not be eligible for Medicaid. Some employers would then respond by sending them to the exchanges, where they would get picked up by federal subsidies, offsetting the Medicaid savings. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/235 "2012-06-28T16:49:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not really. That’s a function of constitutional litigation; for rational basis review, SCOTUS has deemed that the government interest asserted need not be the actual basis for an enactment. But the administration did offer that defense. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/236 "2012-06-28T16:49:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, I think I’m right here. ‘Under such an analysis, X maybe be considered Y’ is not the same as ‘X is Y.’ What I’m seeing is the majority found the mandate Constitutional because it’s covered by Congress’ power to tax. Saying “it’s a tax” seems to be a blurring of the actual ruling (or a grab for a straw). The penalty being a tax is what they hung the whole constitutionality of the individual mandate on. The logic was penalty = tax. Congress has the constitutional authority to tax. Therefore penalty = constitutional. They already said the penalty 1) was not permissible under the Commerce clause and 2) it was not “proper” under the Necessary and Proper clause. I can see why CNN got it wrong at first. It looked like it was going down hard until you get to the tax argument. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/237 "2012-06-28T16:49:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Oh, that old chestnut!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15192424&postcount=105) And here I thought you were going to go Bush and WMD. ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/238 "2012-06-28T16:49:24Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > In fact there is evidence from Roberts himself that he does not like to overrule the “will of the people”. Yup. You might even say it sounds like Roberts took a conservative view of using the power of the court. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/239 "2012-06-28T16:49:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well, I guess that shows me… or… something… > > Are you okay? Maybe you should lie down. Can I get you a biscotti and a Fresca? Me? I’m fine. What are you worried about me for? You’re wasting time with me when you should be scurrying over to that thread and correct that old chestnut, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/240 "2012-06-28T16:50:19Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No, they were arguing it was not a tax. And SCOTUS says it is a tax. Where are you seeing a lie? Obama swore up and down it was not a tax. The administration then defended it as a tax to the court. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=13)