Medicare provision is limited but not invalidated. States were suing over new Medicare expansion that is part of ACA as undue coercion because there's a bunch of rules states have to follow.

CNN just reported the mandate was unconstitutional

 

lol@CNN

Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read

Mandate is found to be a tax, which is a power of Congress

 

Roberts joins the liberals of the Court.

Wait, so all those times I said it was a tax...I wound up right?!?!?!?

 

I'm almost more excited about that. The Chief Justice agreed with me!

lol@CNN

CNN.com's homepage right now says in bold print "Mandate struck down"

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER! REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!

So it's unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insurance, but it's constitutional to levy a tax on people who choose to not do so?

 

Sounds like a loophole, albeit a legal one. Kinda like how congress couldn't force states to have a 55mph speed limit, but could withhold highway funding to those who didn't.

Wait, so all those times I said it was a tax...I wound up right?!?!?!?

 

I'm almost more excited about that. The Chief Justice agreed with me!

 

I remember both of us arguing against that, which is also what people challenging Randy Barnett's legal objections have said all along. A rose by any other name...

So it's unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insurance, but it's constitutional to levy a tax on people who choose to not do so?

 

Sounds like a loophole, albeit a legal one. Kinda like how congress couldn't force states to have a 55mph speed limit, but could withhold highway funding to those who didn't.

I'd say yes. Because "Buying health care" is an economic activity, you can put a tax on everyone and give a tax rebate to people who purchase a product that meets a standard that the feds decide upon. I don't see it as any different than tax credits for any other purchase except in the choice of language.

Amy Howe: The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

I'm shocked. Legitimately shocked.

 

I'm not at all. Individual rights have been getting demolished for generations now. I'm shocked so many people bought the talking points.

So it's unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insurance, but it's constitutional to levy a tax on people who choose to not do so?

 

Right, it's a tax incentive.

 

However:

Amy Howe: The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.

 

Sounds like a loophole, albeit a legal one. Kinda like how congress couldn't force states to have a 55mph speed limit, but could withhold highway funding to those who didn't.

 

That's what the whole Medicaid challenge was about, more or less. Not speed limits, but other restrictions tied to the funding.

CORRECTION: THE SUPREME COURT BACKS ALL PARTS OF OBAMA'S SIGNATURE HEALTH CARE LAW

 

they will not live that down soon.

Edited June 28, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

CORRECTION: THE SUPREME COURT BACKS ALL PARTS OF OBAMA'S SIGNATURE HEALTH CARE LAW

 

they will not live that down soon.

I only realized to get that screenshot thanks to you .

Lyle: The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55)

Ok, so let me get this clear. People are not REQUIRED to buy insurance, but if you do not, you'll be taxed and you still wont have insurance, correct? Just understanding the semantics.

Ok, so let me get this clear. People are not REQUIRED to buy insurance, but if you do not, you'll be taxed and you still wont have insurance, correct? Just understanding the semantics.

Yes, that's what the law's always been. It was a huge semantic quibble over whether it was a "fine" or a "tax." The word "mandate" is not anywhere in the bill.

That's how I understand it, though I can't say that all my years of undergraduate and graduate math courses adequately prepared me to interpret SC decisions.

Ok, so let me get this clear. People are not REQUIRED to buy insurance, but if you do not, you'll be taxed and you still wont have insurance, correct? Just understanding the semantics.

Think of it as:

 

1. A tax of $700 or so applied to everyone.

2. Minimum requirements applied to insurance plans

3. A tax rebate of $700 or so given to anyone who purchases an insurance plan that meets the standards in 2.

 

You can still choose not to purchase insurance, but you will pay a small additional tax that reflects the mandate penalty/fact that you're able to receive health care anyway/fact that if you get sick you can go and buy insurance at that time.

Yes, that's what the law's always been. It was a huge semantic quibble over whether it was a "fine" or a "tax." The word "mandate" is not anywhere in the bill.

ok, thanks

Lyle: Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.

I'm not at all. Individual rights have been getting demolished for generations now. I'm shocked so many people bought the talking points.

 

I'm shocked it's 5-4 completely upholding, with Roberts voting to uphold as a tax. I thought that if it was going to be upheld, it'd be 6-3 for sure with Roberts joining Kennedy so that he got to write the opinion.

Think of it as:

 

1. A tax of $700 or so applied to everyone.

2. Minimum requirements applied to insurance plans

3. A tax rebate of $700 or so given to anyone who purchases an insurance plan that meets the standards in 2.

 

You can still choose not to purchase insurance, but you will pay a small additional tax that reflects the mandate penalty/fact that you're able to receive health care anyway/fact that if you get sick you can go and buy insurance at that time.

This is for people who dont get insurance thought an employer, correct?

It doesn't matter how you get insurance, just that you get insurance. Employer-provided coverage is ok, as is Medicare/Medicaid or individual plans.