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).
As a Democrat, I have to agree that that was unacceptable.
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.
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? 
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.
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.
Right away. I predicted it yesterday on page one.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
That’s what you get for watching FOX. They first reported it was struck down, but they spoke too soon. (Okay, so did CNN).
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.
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.
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.
ALL the internets! 
…and even OxyClean won’t lift them out!
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.