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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?