SCOTUS's decision on The Health Care Law 6/28/12

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Kevbo

Absolutely not. The court’s majority came up with that on their own.

For the 10th time, no. See post 150.

@Morgenstern

Question.
If the law is implemented, can it still be challenged on con law grounds as it’s applied to a specific individual? Say for instance, someone who had a religious belief against medical care, and chose, on those grounds, not to participate by refusing to obtain the coverage or pay the “tax” (fine).

The law already includes a religious exemption.

[magellan01]

@Frylock

I have to be missing something here.

Has Obama ever said it was a tax?

I don’t think so. But he has his lawyers defend it as a tax (among other things).

[Iggy]

Curiously the question answered regarding the individual mandate was the constitutionality of the penalty for not having qualifying health insurance.

No one argued that payment of insurance premiums to a private insurance company is not a tax and therefore cannot be upheld under Congressional taxing power.

Are there any other taxes that are not paid to a governmental agency (federal, state, local, or whatever level) and instead paid directly to a private company?

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Frylock

Why do people say a 5-4 reversal of the individual mandate would have made the public unhappy? It was the most unpopular part of the bill, after all. Wouldn’t it have been good for the court’s image? (If “good” means “making the public happy with its decisions” anyway…)

Of course it was most unpopular because a large number of folks felt ACA didn’t do enough, that it was a poor substitute for UHC.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@furt

that means its legally allowable, not that its principled.

Fair enough.

[Marley23]

@Iggy

Another gem from further down the ruling:

I’m not trying to be obstinate here, but again, “may be read” is not the same thing as “is.” An interpretation or analogy is not the same as a declaration. I understand the similarity and that we need to use shorthand, but based on these excerpts (I haven’t had time to read the thing yet, obviously) complaining that the Supreme Court says it’s a tax or what this means about Obama’s intentions is taking the shorthand literally.

[magellan01]

@Marley23

I’m not trying to be obstinate here, but again, “may be read” is not the same thing as “is.” An interpretation or analogy is not the same as a declaration. I understand the similarity and that we need to use shorthand, but based on these excerpts (I haven’t had time to read the thing yet, obviously) complaining that the Supreme Court says it’s a tax or what this means about Obama’s intentions is taking the shorthand literally.

Are you saying it’s not a tax? If so, what is it?

[Fear_Itself]

@Iggy

No one argued that payment of insurance premiums to a private insurance company is not a tax and therefore cannot be upheld under Congressional taxing power.

Are there any other taxes that are not paid to a governmental agency (federal, state, local, or whatever level) and instead paid directly to a private company?

SCOTUS did not rule that paying a premium to an insurance company is a tax. They ruled the financial penalty for not paying a premium to an insurance company is a tax. Your premium is not a tax, because you get health coverage from the private insurance company, not the government.

[UltraVires]

@magellan01

Are you saying it’s not a tax? If so, what is it?

It’s clearly a penalty, the statute calls it such.

Would anyone read a speeding law and say with a straight face that the law doesn’t impose a fine or a penalty but is simply a tax on speeding?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Is the speeding fine collected by the IRS?

@Iggy

No one argued that payment of insurance premiums to a private insurance company is not a tax and therefore cannot be upheld under Congressional taxing power.

For fuck’s sake, people. Read the briefs before claiming they don’t say things.

II. The Individual Mandate Is Not A Valid Exercise of Congress’ Taxing Power.

[Iggy]

@Fear_Itself

SCOTUS did not rule that paying a premium to an insurance company is a tax. They ruled the financial penalty for not paying a premium to an insurance company is a tax. Your premium is not a tax, because you get health coverage from the private insurance company, not the government.

Of course you get insurance in return. I’m not saying this is an unconstitutional taking without due process.

But SCOTUS ruled that Congress does not have authority under the Commerce clause nor under the Necessary and Proper clause to implement the PPACA.

So how does Congress have authority to mandate the payment to the private company under its taxing authority? As best as I can tell (I’m still reading), this question was not asked and was not answered in today’s decision.

[Iggy]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Is the speeding fine collected by the IRS?

Of course not, but it is collected by a government agency. Not federal, but state or local.

[UltraVires]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Is the speeding fine collected by the IRS?

So that’s what our constitution is, huh, just smoke and mirrors?

Justice Roberts [on the commerce clause argument] said the government’s arguments on this point would fundamentally change “the relation between the citizen and the federal government.”

Ooh, that sounds bad, so we have to strike it down. No? There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Just call it a tax.

So even though it fundamentally changes the relation between the citizen and the federal government, its fine if you tax it.

So, if speeding fines were collected by the IRS, we could have a federal law against speeding?

[Marley23]

@magellan01

Are you saying it’s not a tax? If so, what is it?

I’m saying the court held the penalty is Constitutional because it’s covered by the Congressional authority to levy taxes. It is comparable to a tax in that respect. But that’s not the same as “the Court ruled it’s a tax” or “the Court said it’s a tax so Obama lied when he said it wasn’t.”

[UltraVires]

@Iggy

So how does Congress have authority to mandate the payment to the private company under its taxing authority? As best as I can tell (I’m still reading), this question was not asked and was not answered in today’s decision.

Congress is not mandating the payment to a private company. They are simply “taxing” you if you don’t make the payment.

ETA: Yes, it’s absurd. It’s like saying that the state does not mandate that you don’t rob banks. You are free to rob a bank as long as you spend your 10 years in prison.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Iggy

Of course not, but it is collected by a government agency. Not federal, but state or local.

@jtgain

So that’s what our constitution is, huh, just smoke and mirrors?

I don’t there’s anything particularly cloudy about the notion that assessments collected by the government agency responsible for tax collection are taxes. To put it as you might, I can’t think of anything else the IRS collects that is not a tax.

[WillFarnaby]

@Leaper

From the link:

Why do you believe the circumstances will be different this time around?

I don’t think it will happen. It is being tried, though.

[Gangster_Octopus]

If they force me to buy broccoli I am moving to Canada…wait…I am moving to … someplace else…

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@jtgain

So even though it fundamentally changes the relation between the citizen and the federal government, its fine if you tax it.

He said the arguments changed the relationship, not the enactment.

[Fear_Itself]

It should be noted, the law does not require you to pay an insurance premium to a private insurance company. The law says you must have health insurance; if your employer pays for your health insurance, you are not required to pay any tax. The tax only occurs if you do not have health insurance.