# 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:** 17
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/321 "2012-06-28T19:02:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Were you privy to these meetings? > > It would be very interesting to hear (I guess in another thread–or in a reddit AMA even!) what kinds of decisions were typically made at such meetings… What kind of decision can \*be \*made in these circumstances? Nobody who’s uninsured can afford a million dollar medical bill. Nobody in their right mind would try to pay those kinds of fees. I imagine they would tell the patient to consult with a bankruptcy attorney at their earliest convenience (while the hospital recoups those costs through higher fees to every fucking one else who gets treatment). ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/322 "2012-06-28T19:06:48Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Looks like [Patrick Gaspard](http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/classy-dnc-director-new-media-outreach-director-react-to-obamacare-decision-constitutional-bitches-take-that-mothers/), executive director of the DNC, did As a Democrat, I have to agree that that was unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/323 "2012-06-28T19:06:57Z")
> [@](#): > > To a degree. John Roberts was appointed with the express purpose of not seeing things “my” way. To break from that speaks to his own personal conscience and erudition. > > And, for the record, conservatives would be right about Sotomayor had she done the same thing for a cogent legal reason. That really is a good definition of integrity. He didn’t really do it for a cogent legal reason. He did it for a cogent non-legal one: constitutional avoidance. It’s an established rule, but not really a legal one. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/324 "2012-06-28T19:09:47Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > You can opt out of car insurance entirely. Millions of New Yorkers do. Just don’t own a car. > > And many (most?) states allow you to post a bond to ensure financial responsibility in lieu of having car insurance. Never heard of that option under PPACA. Yes … just don’t own a car … so simple, in most parts of the US outside of New York City … an incredible argument … it will make so much sense to people who live in New York City … and no one else. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/325 "2012-06-28T19:12:06Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Yes … just don’t own a car … so simple, in most parts of the US outside of New York City … an incredible argument … it will make so much sense to people who live in New York City … and no one else. Hey, if conservatives can say “just move” or “just find another job,” why can’t liberals use this argument? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/326 "2012-06-28T19:16:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Everyone seemed pretty resigned to the idea that Congress _could_ impose such a tax. Everyone argued that Congress could impose an affirmative tax (on payrolls, income, etc.) and then subsequently provide health insurance. I don’t know that anyone argued that they could enact a “No Health Insurance Tax.” And even if they could, it never would have passed under that description. The President said it wasn’t a tax, and had it been called a tax it never would have passed. This smacks of the Simpsons and Mayor Quimby: Quimby: There is a, er uh, $200 tax on puffy director’s pants. Director: But I’m not wearing puffy pants. Quimby: I mean a, er uh, No Puffy Pants Tax. ---
**Author:** ![ArtHeart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aeb1de/32.png) [@ArtHeart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArtHeart)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/327 "2012-06-28T19:23:01Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > They do, in the form of high costs that they have to pay out of pocket. The trouble with 4 is that they can easily become 5 just by getting the wrong disease, or having the bad luck to be in the path of a drunk driver. Well, yes, but only if they actually have to use and pay for services. 1-3 pay regardless of use and so should 4. Agreed; 4 and 5 are essentially interchangeable but for the luck of the draw. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/328 "2012-06-28T19:28:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I wonder how soon we can expect apologies for calling Roberts a partisan hack who rules based on his corporate masters’’ will from the fringe left types? Right away. I predicted it yesterday on page one. > [@](#): > > Justice Stone’s splitting would require that corporate toady CJ Roberts would uphold the mandate so that his corporate masters could make greater profits. > > But let’s see what they do to standing and ripeness when the shoe is on the other foot. At the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court, Roberts had never made a ruling that was not in favor of corporations over rights of human beings. I haven’t followed his USSC rulings that closely, but I’d bet a buck at even money that is still true today. His vote was very predictable, and I probably said it in threads over the past two years also. In previous threads, a number of people stated that the taxing power would be a good basis for the mandate. Lobohan was one. > [@Jas09](#): > > It’s understandable, because apparently the opinion pretty clearly says that the mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Only then does it say that there are 5 votes upholding it under the taxing power. And that is useless dicta that the Court did not need to reach since it upheld the provision using the taxing power. It is standard construction not to reach a constitutional issue and overturn something if it can be ruled in favor of on other grounds. Since it is a legit use of taxing power, it does not need to even consider the commerce clause angle, and shouldn’t under settled principles of construction. Here is where this lefty predicted Roberts’ vote back in March 2012 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646331&highlight=commerce+roberts](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=646331&highlight=commerce+roberts) > [@](#): > > The commerce clause has been used since the 1930s in the way complained of and affirmed many times that it allows the government to regulate what goes on in one farm or shop. Does it allow the government to regulate the insurance industry? Without question. The question is whether it can require an individual to purchase health insurance and impose a tax on them if they do not. Even if this portion is rejected, the court is not going to strike down the entirety of the law, meaning that the insurers will have to take on people with pre-existing conditions, which is well within the power of Congress to regulate. The law overall will be upheld. The individual mandate may not be. But given that the individual mandate is a gift to insurers by the government from healthy people who do not have coverage (or political clout) I find it unlikely that the supposed conservatives on the court will strike it down. Roberts have never once in his career issued a final ruling against a corporate interest. Since the government clearly has the power to require insurers to take pre-existing condition patients, and since they will lose money if the mandate isn’t upheld, look to at least a 5-4 decision to uphold. As noted, Scalia has boxed himself in with his marijuana decisions, Kennedy is likely to vote with the liberals. Thomas will almost certainly vote against the law, with Alito in doubt. The most likely outcome is to uphold. The second most likely is to have the court abstain from ruling for any number of reasons. I am not surprised about the commerce clause, and predicted that in March 2010, and thought the tax argument was a long reach at the time, but a bit more likely. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556773&highlight=mandate+power&page=5](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556773&highlight=mandate+power&page=5) > [@](#): > > It’s been a long time since I studied the Commerce Clause ™ and I see that someone has cited Wickard v. Filburn, the wheat grown for a farmer’s own chickens case. That wheat reaches interstate commerce because it takes that demand off the market. I see the insurance mandate requiring that individuals enter the market, which is a step further. People have been entitled to leave any market they wished under federal labor laws. I don’t see the USSC’s conservatives going along on the Commerce Clause. Nor do I see them going along on the taxing power, although that seems a smidge (legal term) more likely to me. > > I’m a long way away from having reviewed constitutional law, and a lot may have changed, but if I were sitting on the court as a liberal democrat, I’d have trouble seeing where the US gov’t gets the authority to tell individual citizens that they must spend their money on a product. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/329 "2012-06-28T19:31:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Is Obama psychic, or something? Do you think he knew SCOTUS would deem it a tax? Precisely. The wording of the ACA, filed away in the archives of the Library of Congress, did not mystically and magically transmogrify on the page, when the ruling came down. The mandate is still funded the same way it always was, and the opinions of people before and after the ruling have absolutely nothing to do with that. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/330 "2012-06-28T19:31:58Z")
How does this decision impact waiting periods? My only worry is not having first choice of which doctor to see or how long it will take until I can get in. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/331 "2012-06-28T19:43:35Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > And even if they could, it never would have passed under that description. The President said it wasn’t a tax, and had it been called a tax it never would have passed. The President could have called it whatever he likes. He didn’t introduce it, didn’t debate it, and didn’t vote on it, and his comments are not part of the legislative history. Lots of people _in Congress_ did call it a tax. There are numerous references in the government’s briefs. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/332 "2012-06-28T19:46:23Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Wait a sec. Fox reporting IM is a tax and therefore upheld. WTF is the decision? That’s what you get for watching FOX. They first reported it was struck down, but they spoke too soon. (Okay, so did CNN). ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/333 "2012-06-28T19:47:24Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > How does this decision impact waiting periods? My only worry is not having first choice of which doctor to see or how long it will take until I can get in. No waiting periods - coverage begins immediately, no pre-existing conditions. If that’s what you mean. Your choice of doctor or waiting time shouldn’t be affected. It depends on your policy, as before. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/334 "2012-06-28T19:48:40Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No waiting periods - coverage begins immediately, no pre-existing conditions. If that’s what you mean. > > Your choice of doctor or waiting time shouldn’t be affected. It depends on your policy, as before. What I mean is literally being able to get in for an appointment – a matter of when I am able to see them. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/335 "2012-06-28T19:52:19Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > What I mean is literally being able to get in for an appointment – a matter of when I am able to see them. That would be up to the individual doctor. Find a doctor who will see you quickly and then purchase insurance that contracts with that doctor. If no insurance policy is available for that doctor, then exercise your right as a consumer to withdraw from the market and not purchase any insurance! Oops…can’t do that now. (Sorry, I had to say it). ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/336 "2012-06-28T19:55:38Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > That would be up to the individual doctor. Find a doctor who will see you quickly and then purchase insurance that contracts with that doctor. If no insurance policy is available for that doctor, then exercise your right as a consumer to withdraw from the market and not purchase any insurance! > > Oops…can’t do that now. (Sorry, I had to say it). The insurance market and the health care market are the same market. At least now people can’t choose to “withdraw from the market” when it’s time to pay up, and “enter the market” when they get sick, like roughly 50% of people in America who declare bankruptcy do. ---
**Author:** ![ArtHeart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aeb1de/32.png) [@ArtHeart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArtHeart)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/337 "2012-06-28T19:59:01Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > That would be up to the individual doctor. Find a doctor who will see you quickly and then purchase insurance that contracts with that doctor. If no insurance policy is available for that doctor, then exercise your right as a consumer to withdraw from the market and not purchase any insurance! > > Oops…can’t do that now. (Sorry, I had to say it). Not true! You do not have to purchase insurance; but, if you don’t, you’ll have to pay a penalty. The court said that upwards of 4M people would opt for the penalty and acknowledged that the gov’t’s aim was not to create 4M outlaws, but to cover the cost of healthcare. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/338 "2012-06-28T20:29:10Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I’ll take a bow: > Not exactly a “limiting principle,” but he upheld on the basis of an argument the government did not make. > > What do I win? 😃 ALL the internets! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/339 "2012-06-28T20:39:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There are numerous references in the government’s briefs. …and even OxyClean won’t lift them out! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/340 "2012-06-28T20:43:45Z")
But this is not a time to gloat, but to lift the battered and bruised bodies of our backward brethren from whence we crushed them, to offer our sincere condolences and assure them of the many opportunities that await them to hinder everything that is good and decent in our nation. Let us extend the hand of bi-partisan comity, even as we raise the digital salute, and assure them that we stand ready to cooperate in the spirit of national unity, or kick their sorry asses from here to Wednesday, whichever they choose. We remain flexible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=18)