# 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:** 20
**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 29, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/381 "2012-06-29T02:32:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > When you dye, it doesn’t go to your hairs, and Republicans already oppose the death tax. [![](https://i.imgur.com/wcveI.jpg) ](https://i.imgur.com/wcveI.jpg) ---
**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 29, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/382 "2012-06-29T02:34:15Z")
Fine. I’ll admit it. Obama is President Mr. Liar McPoopypants. He was totally lying all along about what this thing was. Liar liar liar liar liar! And that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of this particular tax or pseudotax or whatever it is. The Supreme Court is not a tool to punish politicians for making arguments you find deceitful. The law’s function is precisely equivalent to the mortgage deduction in real-world behavior. In both cases, one behavioral choice results in a smaller tax burden than the other behavioral choice. What politicians label those behaviors is completely irrelevant when determining the law’s constitutionality, as I’ve been saying all along, and as the SC has confirmed. ---
**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 29, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/383 "2012-06-29T02:34:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do nothing (don’t buy a house) you pay the _normal rate_. Buy a house and you get a _deduction_. > > Do nothing (don’t buy insurance) you pay a _penalty_. Buy a house and the penalty (tax?) doesn’t kick in. > > Obama could have structured it like the mortgage deduction, but he decided to NOT do that. He could have said, “Okay, everyone has to pay a $5,000 healthcare tax. But if you buy insurance or get it from your employer, you get a $5,000 deduction.” That would have clearly made it a tax, which he swore up and down it wasn’t. Do you really need another link to the Stephanopolous interview? He rejected the “notion completely.” Make no purchase, pay more. Make purchase, pay less. This isn’t that hard. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/384 "2012-06-29T02:39:43Z")
Is there a joke thread? Tomorrow’s headline: “Single Black Man Sends Millions to Hospital in One Day” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/385 "2012-06-29T02:52:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Make no purchase, pay more. > Make purchase, pay less. > > This isn’t that hard. The law can’t be treated so cavalierly. That’s why we have actual legislation carefully written. Process matters. As both a matter of practicality and constitutionality. But I don’t blame you for finding it more comfortable to couch you’re position with such imprecision. I I will admit being a bit surprised at **LHOD** casual approach to the issue. As much as we disagree on things, I got the impression that he enjoyed arguments with more precision. ::shrug:: Maybe it’s just excitement of a win, which is fine. ---
**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 29, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/386 "2012-06-29T02:54:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I will admit being a bit surprised at **LHOD** casual approach to the issue. As much as we disagree on things, I got the impression that he enjoyed arguments with more precision. ::shrug:: Maybe it’s just excitement of a win, which is fine. I do enjoy arguments with precision. My argument is precise; it’s yours that’s sloppy, in its misunderstanding of what determines an issue’s constitutionality (hint: it’s not what things are named, it’s what they do). My argument is informed by my understanding of linguistics, and this latest decision by the SC bolsters my beliefs. But I understand, maybe it’s just the bitterness of defeat that’s leading to the imprecision in your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/387 "2012-06-29T03:05:06Z")
Amusing, in retrospect: [Would it be constitutional for the feds to require you to get health insurance? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448505) ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/388 "2012-06-29T03:28:48Z")
Here’s a nice site that steps you through what the law changed. Probably won’t answer every question you have, but should get a lot of them. > **[About the ACA](https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/index.html)** > > Regulations and guidance about the current health care law. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/389 "2012-06-29T03:30:12Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I do enjoy arguments with precision. My argument is precise; it’s yours that’s sloppy, in its misunderstanding of what determines an issue’s constitutionality (hint: it’s not what things are named, it’s what they do). My argument is informed by my understanding of linguistics, and this latest decision by the SC bolsters my beliefs. > > But I understand, maybe it’s just the bitterness of defeat that’s leading to the imprecision in your argument. Please. The one thing you can’t argue is that my argument is not one of precision. You can fairly argue that I’m insisting on an unnecessary degree of precision and order, but not impression. I’m the one arguing for greater precision and consistency. As well as greater precision _in_ consistency. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/390 "2012-06-29T03:33:33Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Because of the mortgage deduction. You pay more taxes if you don’t have a mortgage, right? So the government is \*forcing \*you to buy a house or pay additional taxes. These are two different things. For the mortgage deduction, all that is happening is that the government does not collect tax on income that goes _entirely_ to paying interest on your home loan. This was the _Republican_ solution, and mine: to extend the existing tax deduction on employer-funded health insurance to self-funded health insurance, meaning the government does not collect tax on the money you earn to pay for your health insurance payments. ---
**Author:** ![twhitt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@twhitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twhitt)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/391 "2012-06-29T04:34:11Z")
> [@Jake\_Jones](#): > > First of all, what happens with the revenue generated by the fines/taxes collected from uninsured parties? Is there a specific method for injecting those funds into healthcare? Specifically such that those that are privately insured feel less of a burden from non-payment to private hospitals? Or does all that money collected by the IRS just wind up in the general fund? This revenue would probably be going into the general fund. It’s not earmarked, as such, for any purpose. The idea is that there’s some revenue collected that helps to offset some of the increased outlays the Federal government would have to states and individuals. There’s no specific mechanism driving this money into hospitals, no, but the system is set up in order to greatly reduce the number of those cases to begin with. > [@](#): > > Secondly, a hypothetical. Let’s say I’m barely scraping by, underemployed at two part time jobs with no health insurance benefits, but with financial obligations that prohibit me from being able to afford an individual insurance plan, which are ungodly expensive. I’m barely above the income level necessary to qualify for Medicaid, but I just can’t afford an insurance plan. Now I have a minor accident that leaves me with a $2000 ER bill. Being the upstanding guy that I am, I work out a payment plan and agree to pay the hospital $100 a month for the next two years. Is that deductible against my annual fine for not having health insurance? There’s a few possibilities. The first is that you make so little at your two part time jobs that you’re eligible for Medicaid. In that case, you have serviceable coverage for your accident. The next possibility is that your state opts out of the Medicaid expansion, in which case you’re exempt from the mandate and the tax, but you’re on the hook for your bills. Talk to your state legislators to ensure that this gap won’t exist in your state. The next possibility is that you make between 100% and 133% of the federal poverty level. In this case, you’ll receive a rebate with which to purchase some inexpensive private insurance. It’s likely that this rebate won’t completely nullify the cost of the insurance, but it would still make it affordable enough that you have coverage. One estimate I saw today has the insurance costing $40 per month at the most generous rebate level. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/392 "2012-06-29T05:25:27Z")
> [@twhitt](#): > > The next possibility is that your state opts out of the Medicaid expansion, in which case you’re exempt from the mandate and the tax… SNIP. Is this true? If so, why wouldn’t a state now (say Wyoming, a red state against this law) refuse the Medicaid expansion and refuse to set up exchanges. If that happened, would Wyoming residents be exempt from the mandate, but still have protection against pre-existing conditions and price discrimination? If so, that’s a win-win. I’ll do my “Health Insurance Application Filled Out and In Pocket” trick with a check made for the first month’s premium. When I feel a heart attack coming on, I’ll have a friend mail it in. Once I come home from the hospital, I’ll cancel the insurance. ---
**Author:** ![phxjcc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8491ac/32.png) [@phxjcc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phxjcc)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/393 "2012-06-29T05:45:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > First, it’s Trebek. Second, the government is immune from suit unless it waives its immunity. So, yes. That’s what it means. That’s why Congress had to authorize reparations to Japanese-Americans who were arbitrarily stuffed in concentration camps during WWII, for example. Thank you. I did not know about the GOVT’s immunity. ---
**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 29, 2012, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/394 "2012-06-29T09:58:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What’s your point? Auto insurance is required for people who own cars. Health insurance is required for people who own bodies. Now, if you choose, like so many New Yorkers, to become a disembodied consciousness, I fully support your right to not purchase health insurance. And, to be honest > [@](#): > > The law can’t be treated so cavalierly. That’s why we have actual legislation carefully written. > I will admit being a bit surprised at LHOD casual approach to the issue. This surprised me as well, not LHOD, but Roberts deciding that the law’s text doesn’t matter, just the effect. If the effect is that of a tax, then it doesn’t matter that they’re calling it something else, it’s a tax for constitutionality purposes. There is actually precedent for that, and it makes sense, the constitutionality shouldn’t depend on the “descriptive words” it should depend on “practical operation”. [Link](http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/359/case.html) ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/395 "2012-06-29T12:50:09Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Because of the mortgage deduction. You pay more taxes if you don’t have a mortgage, right? So the government is \*forcing \*you to buy a house or pay additional taxes. I suppose that the government is also _forcing_ me to have kids, gouge out my eyes, drive a hybrid, add weather stripping to my house and contribute to the Westboro Baptists or pay additional taxes. ---
**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 29, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/396 "2012-06-29T13:24:34Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Seriously though, I highly doubt that any governors will be turning this money away out of spite knowing that their poorer citizens will then be facing a mandate without the benefit of the Medicaid expansion. I could be wrong, but I hope I’m not. You should know by now that there’s nothing the right wing won’t do these days. It happens. For example, in the 1990s, Virginia Gov. George Allen rejected federal education funds, claiming (falsely) that there were too many strings attached. ---
**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 29, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/397 "2012-06-29T13:25:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Because of the mortgage deduction. You pay more taxes if you don’t have a mortgage, right? So the government is \*forcing \*you to buy a house or pay additional taxes. So is the government forcing me to quit my job because it taxes income? ---
**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 29, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/398 "2012-06-29T13:27:24Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So is the government forcing me to quit my job because it taxes income? That is the conservative argument, yes. Any tax is coercive. ---
**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 29, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/399 "2012-06-29T13:33:05Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So is the government forcing me to quit my job because it taxes income? > [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > I suppose that the government is also _forcing_ me to have kids, gouge out my eyes, drive a hybrid, add weather stripping to my house and contribute to the Westboro Baptists or pay additional taxes. I think you two need to read the thread closer. I was showing Magellan that his histrionics over the GOVERNMENT FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT!!1111 were misplaced. The government incentivises many activities. The mandate is no different. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/400 "2012-06-29T13:51:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Obama could have structured it like the mortgage deduction, but he decided to NOT do that. He could have said, “Okay, everyone has to pay a $5,000 healthcare tax. But if you buy insurance or get it from your employer, you get a $5,000 deduction.” That would have clearly made it a tax, which he swore up and down it wasn’t. Well, to be _precise_, if it was Obama who actually wrote the legislation, he could have. But that was done by Congress. Which is why the mandate was held to be constitutional under Congress’ taxing authority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=21)