Which, of course, is complete nonsense. (From him, not you.) So, we have a penalty for breathing that the IRS can collect like those other things they are empowered to collect. What’s that word again…?
But it is consistent with the constitution. <cue Star Spangled Banner> Well, you can say what you want about us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you bad mouth…the the Constitution of the United States of America. Gentlemen!"
I will be very interested to see if the poll numbers change on the ACA during the next cylce of polling once this sinks in.
Sorry…as Mr. Tribeck would say: I should have put this in the form of a question.
- A law is passed by GOVT demanding specific performance from Party A.
- In compliance with this law, Party A incurs costs (IOW a net loss).
- Law is declared unconstitutional, ab initio.
- Is Party A not entitled to relief from GOVT to recover the net loss?
And if no relief is possible–does that mean that GOVT is generally indemnified from all laws that GOVT makes that are later declared unconstitutional? REALLY?
Thanks.
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.
You’re penalized for not having a home mortgage.
What are some of the major (realistic) pros and cons of ACA? Hard to cut through all the BS. Is there any (good) reason to be against it? Why has it taken so long to get put into effect?
We’ve had like a hundred thousand threads on the actual merits of the law. Here’s one.
I already looked through that thread – too much BS to sift through. Looking for some hard points, here.
It’s a big law and I’m sure you can find a lot of the key provisions listed in any news story about the ruling today. A lot of the law has already gone into effect in the two-plus years since it was passed. A few others won’t go into effect until the start of 2014. It was designed to be phased in because it creates a lot of rules for insurance companies, for example, and it made sense to implement those over time.
But are there any serious reasons to oppose it?
I haven’t seen any mention of it here, but the wording of the dissent makes it appear that it was originally drafted as the majority opinion. If that’s true, then something made Roberts change his mind at the last second. Perhaps it was the specter of 4 justices being willing to scrap the entire legislation.
That’s a very vague question. You can see a lot of people opposed it (including four justices) on a variety of different grounds, and of course even a lot of people who supported the bill wish it were different either because they wanted it to do more or do it in a different way. I have to admit I am still processing what happened today, but I think I’m satisfied with how the court handled this.
Pardon my ignorance here, but since many of you are much more informed on this topic than I am, I was hoping someone could explain a few things. These are sincere questions. I don’t have a strong opinion for or against the individual mandate. These are not “gotcha” questions.
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?
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?
For the record, I do have insurance, but I have gone for extended periods of time without. I currently have an HDHP through my employer. I just don’t use healthcare much and file simplified tax returns, so I haven’t been inclined to educate myself on this topic. The only difference I’ve noticed since ACA passed has been that my employer makes its contibution to my deductible allowance to an HSA now, where previously if I did not reach my plan deductible, my employer just didn’t contribute a percentage. That is, they contribute $1700 a year against a $2600 deductible. Previously, if I had no expenses, they contributed nothing. (They do pay for the plan itself, though.) Now I get the $1700 in an HSA whether I use it or not.
Please explain…
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.
No, they don’t penalize you for not having a mortgage, they reward you for having one! It’s TOTALLY different!
Pay me ten bucks. But if you dye your hair blue, you don’t have to pay me anything. Don’t you see how totally different that is from your having to pay me ten bucks if your hair isn’t blue?
This tax is highly regressive, because I can’t afford hair dye. 
When you dye, it doesn’t go to your hairs, and Republicans already oppose the death tax.
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.”