Given recent decisions about federal power, by pretty good majorities, I'd say the odds are that it will be struck down, at least partially. Though I was under the impression that there was no severability clause, and that any part deemed unconstitutional would void the entire law.
The decision is that you don't need to buy anything but we can tax you if you don't. Pretty long line of precedents for this, first mandate was that anyone employing sailors had to provide them with health insurance. Second one was that all citizens had to keep a musket an ammunition in the home even if it was against your religious beliefs to own one. If you did not have one and could not borrow one then you had to buy one.
"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."
But the mandate is specifically NOT a tax in the language of the bill. It is a penalty for not buying insurance. The Chief Justice needs to have his head examined.
First time in my life I am truly concerned for the future of our Republic. I was certain that the SCOTUS would knock this one down. Now, nothing is off limits if it is dressed in the right verbage.
Easy racerx, it isn't the government's place to do those things. We have a secular government. Christians and Republicans can, and do, give to charity, and in much greater amounts than Democrats and atheists do. The left, it seems, wants to leave charity to the government where it doesn't belong.
Government controlled health care, the so-called single payer system, has always been the goal and now it is a virtual inevitability as tens of millions of workers lose their health care benefits and are shunted into and overwhelm the exchanges. The United States will now accelerate into a bureaucratic morass a hundredfold over the mess that it already is.
Worse than that, the US Constitution is as of today, a meaningless document written on disintegrating, fading paper. The Beast has been released today. He is hungry and will take everything from you that he unjustly considers his.
Obama will probably be reelected and the so-called Taxmegeddon has a good chance of occurring on Jan 1. The economy will falter.
This is a sad day. Celebrate you liberals and progressives. You will regret this day that YOU made happen. I spit on you for facilitating the ruin of our once great country.
And they laughed at those who hoarded physical metals.
This, I confess, is weirder than I'd ever dreamed it might get.
Folks so willing to surrender rights, fooled by the false hope that the government is going to "do something for you".
These are the same folks who consider a tax refund, accurately YOUR money which the feds had held at o% and are simply returning to you, as a "bonus".
We look neither very smart nor well led at the moment.
I feel sorry for the millions who, as a direct result, will loose health insurance.
Most the unions, including mine, have sought (it was easy considering the millions we donated) and go exemptions.
Many other firms are already simply dropping healthcare insurance. It's less expensive to pay the penalty .. . . er "tax" . . than to by insurance.
Those who seek the weakening of this country but surely be fill of glee. At one point they thought they'd have to do it through currency manipulation, luring jobs with cheap labor and addicting us to their loaned money.
Who'd have guessed a fellow, working pretty much his first paying job as President, would pipe up and assure them "no worries, I'll handle it from inside".
"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."
A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe explains the reasoning further. "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax."
We have actually reached the place where people believe this.
Well . .he's told enough lies that one more won't make a difference.
I found this on another forum, explaining in detail how the new healthcare will work, but in laymen terms.
quote:
Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( [4] Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( [6] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: [7] http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!
I don't agree with everything the bill does, but I do see it overall being a positive change that was needed. Now my girlfriend will be able to get affordable healthcare, which she needs desperately to treat her asthma.
as this thing as been pushed by the IRS since day one; they finally just admitted that indeed it is a 'tax' and as the reps / senators never read the bill before they signed it.... it sure as F*ck is taxation without representation.
the happy happy synopsis above forgets major points... that there is a FIVE YEAR premium freeze that goes into affect 1/1/2014.....despite what inflation, technology, or incidental costs of policies are Tell me what job you do - where you agree that you will not get a raise for five years... AND the government stipended payments that you are 'required' to accept without balance billing (because if you accept ANY CMS patients you cant) where that money will decrease because of grandfathering and 'sunshine' horizon rules.
You just cut revenue from both ends. Applying it so we all understand The new Buell would be priced at the same price as the Buell from five years ago, there would be no more dealer packs, incentives, or finance allowances - further, you will be told EXACTLY what you have to sell the bike for, the cost of all the ancillaries, and you will have to disclose them to the IRS and the customer....
Wanna bet how many dealers would go out of business ? What stretch of the imagination do you have that Doctors wont do the same.
In the town I live in - the hospital looses 3 to 5 MILLION a month in unrecoperated funds - and since it is union - it still has to meet the same payroll despite actual activity of what is billed, who is seen, who is actually on staff. .... how long before they are closed ?.... I bet they are off sold to a foreign interest before 2014 .... and guess who is buying small regional hospitals ? 'Concerned' interests from overseas in oil rich nations- hell the get a bail out to do it with our money.
there are ways out of this bill - but they require more than tea in the harbor.
Racer X please show us some evidence of these statements being true, in particular the one about exporting jobs...
We have been sold out, plain and simple as the money for health care evaporates the care will be rationed, those who can foot the bill will be able to get private HC those who cant, well too bad... =( this situation exists in canada and england now...
Theft is theft, Im with reindog & co bad things..... the left has failed to learn the lessons of history
Thanks for that post, Froggy. I'm mostly indifferent to much of it as it doesn't really impact me. There are, however, some things I like, and some I REALLY like. There are, however, 1 or 2 points that I find GLARINGLY evil (like the market share tax).
>>>Racer X please show us some evidence of these statements being true, in particular the one about exporting jobs...
Yeah. . . I was gonna call bullshit on that too.
Sounds a lot like Eric Withholder . . . he had "never heard of Fast & Furious" . . . oh, until he was handed a letter he wrote about it.
Obama . . swore up and down, promised and assured us there would be no taxes.
Then . . the moment it was obvious there was no way this was flying constitutionally, he appears before the Supreme Court arguing . . :"it's not a penally, it's simply a tax".
The saving grace is that it's rekindling the creativity and innovative Americans . . . I've insulated myself, as best I can, and could, in all candor, care less what Obama (or any successor) does.
But it's true shame to see proud American shorting America.
