# 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:** 6
**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, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/101 "2012-06-28T14:38:56Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > I wonder how soon we should expect calls for the impeachment of Roberts from Tea Party types. 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? ---
**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, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/102 "2012-06-28T14:38:57Z")
> [@furt](#): > > What do I win? 😃 You get to keep your health insurance if you get sick. 😉 I’m surprised, but I’ll take it since it’s been a while since I was pleasantly surprised by something in poiltics. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/103 "2012-06-28T14:40:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Seems profoundly unlikely, given similar tax exemptions that have been allowed; I essentially pay taxes on my lack of charitable giving, for instance. No. You get a deduction for giving to charity. Less tax for desired behavior =/= more tax for lack of desired behavior. Look up [inverse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(logic)). ---
**Author:** ![gravitycrash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/104 "2012-06-28T14:40:41Z")
> [@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. > > The lesson, as that cramming college student knows, is read the whole Cliff’s Notes before taking the quiz. Yeah but the president and the Democrats never called it a tax and ran away from any suggestion that it was a tax. And I bet they still won’t call it a tax. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/105 "2012-06-28T14:41:13Z")
> [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > A tax one doesn’t have to pay. If I don’t pay it, what happens? I believe the IRS will penalize you. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/106 "2012-06-28T14:41:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Seems profoundly unlikely, given similar tax exemptions that have been allowed; I essentially pay taxes on my lack of charitable giving, for instance. Right, and now you’ll pay taxes for not being a Christian Scientist. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/107 "2012-06-28T14:41:38Z")
I’m confused… everyone’s saying unequivocally “it stands because it’s a tax”. But I thought the crux of the tax argument was just that it couldn’t be challenged until 2014, when the “tax” actually takes effect. Is that still the case or not? ---
**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, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/108 "2012-06-28T14:41:54Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > No. You get a deduction for giving to charity. > > Less tax for desired behavior =/= more tax for lack of desired behavior. Look up [inverse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(logic)). They’re exactly equivalent, so your =/= is wrong; it should be =. ---
**Author:** ![Mdcastle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/958977/32.png) [@Mdcastle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mdcastle)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/109 "2012-06-28T14:42:23Z")
Coming next: “taxes” on buying hamburgers and brownies instead of tofu and broccoli. ---
**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, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/110 "2012-06-28T14:42:45Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > So if it is just a tax then how did the SCOTUS justify that it was ripe for a ruling? I thought they cannot rule on validity of a tax until it has been paid and challenged? Finally got the judgement and… It is a tax, but not a tax for the purposes of The Anti-Injunction Act which otherwise would bar the suit unitl the tax is paid and appealed. Nice logic. :dubious: > [@](#): > > 1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit. > \*\*The Anti-Injunction Act provides that \*\*“no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that \*\*those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. \*\*The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. **The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act.** The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11– > 2. \*\*bolded \*\*emphasis ismine, of course ---
**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, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/111 "2012-06-28T14:43:39Z")
> [@gravitycrash](#): > > Yeah but the president and the Democrats never called it a tax and ran away from any suggestion that it was a tax. > > And I bet they still won’t call it a tax. 😛 So? And to **HMS** - no. There were pretty solid arguments for why, even if it was a tax, they could rule today. Which they did. I don’t recall those arguments exactly, but I do remember hearing them and seeing pretty strong precedents. The court today ruled the AIA didn’t apply. ---
**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, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/112 "2012-06-28T14:44:42Z")
> [@Mdcastleman](#): > > Coming next: “taxes” on buying hamburgers and brownies instead of tofu and broccoli. …and on alcohol and tobacco. How dare they? :mad: ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/113 "2012-06-28T14:45:36Z")
> [@gravitycrash](#): > > Yeah but the president and the Democrats never called it a tax and ran away from any suggestion that it was a tax. And that, my friend, is how you play poker. ---
**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, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/114 "2012-06-28T14:44:46Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Right, and now you’ll pay taxes for not being a Christian Scientist. Do Christian Scientists get to refuse to pay taxes and get away with it? If they did, then yeah, it would be precisely equivalent in effect. But since they don’t, I’m unsure about your point. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/115 "2012-06-28T14:45:33Z")
> [@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? And all **Bricker** sees in this decision is ‘liberal hypocrisy’. A rather sad myopia. ---
**Author:** ![Clu-Me-In](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@Clu-Me-In](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clu-Me-In)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/116 "2012-06-28T14:44:41Z")
It is written specifically into the law that nothing happens if one doesn’t pay it so we head to the courts again to decide that and if anyone goes to congress to change it, then we have another major fight on our hands. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/117 "2012-06-28T14:46:14Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Italics, mine. > > This is the most accurate analogy in the entire history of ever. It’s also an unfortunately accurate summary of the state of news reporting in modern America, where being FIRST! is more important than being right. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/118 "2012-06-28T14:46:56Z")
Just reading the summary. Seems like Roberts did a good job of walking the fine line here. Striking this law down would have been a huge PR disaster for the court, but I can see the hesitancy to expand the commerce clause powers, even if it is a logical extension. By upholding the law based on the power to tax, they get the right ruling without giving an unwanted precedent. ---
**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, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/119 "2012-06-28T14:47:22Z")
It’s certainly a fine parsing, **Iggy**. The Chief is basically saying that the AIA only applies to things explicitly called a tax. But that the word “tax” is not required for the penalty to fall under Congress’s taxing power. So the AIA doesn’t apply (because the ACA doesn’t call it a tax) but mandate stands because the IRS-enforced penalty is functionally the same as a tax and Congress has the power to create something that is functionally the same as a tax under their taxing powers even if they decline to call it a tax. At least that’s what I’m reading… ---
**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, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499/120 "2012-06-28T14:48:37Z")
> [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > It is written specifically into the law that nothing happens if one doesn’t pay it so we head to the courts again to decide that and if anyone goes to congress to change it, then we have another major fight on our hands. I’ve never heard this. I don’t see why this penalty wouldn’t the same as any other IRS penalty. So, cite? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotuss-decision-on-the-health-care-law-6-28-12/626499.md?page=7)