I would draw the attention of conservatives who today seem to feel Roberts is a traitor to the cause to these two articles:

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/commerce-361220-mandate-court.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

In the first, George Will's first line is "Conservatives won a substantial victory on Thursday." In the second, Sean Trende says, "Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives."

Simplifying: by restricting the applicability of the Commerce Clause and limiting the ability of Congress to coerce the states - two separate and powerful rulings - the USSC has severely hamstrung the ongoing liberal agenda that's based on the belief that Washington knows best about anything and everything. Obamacare has been damaged (many states will opt out of the Medicaid expansion) and conservatives have been energized. Roberts deserves better than short-sighted vilification.

rickyp wrote:.

If those same Republicans now try to claim it isn't a tax they are going to look pretty foolish

Almost as foolish as stating that the Supreme Court ruling was unconstitutional?

Well, it is now the law of the land . . . for now.

Here's what was interesting: the justices ruled 7-2 that the primary ground used to justify the non-tax (now a tax), the Commerce Clause, was unconstitutional. In other words, what the Democrats said was a no-brainer was, in fact, a brainer. Congress could not create commerce in order to regulate it.

However, they also ruled that Congress can tax inactivity. So, there is no limit. Congress passes a law that every American earning $50K or more a year has to buy a Chevy Volt every five years or pay a fine? Not a problem--it's a "tax."

Thats the whole point of the ruling, to define the constitutionality of the law...
And they've now settled the arguement. (star decisis is that right?)

Stare decisis. Does Canada not have google?

However, it's not like the USSC never reverses previous decisions of its own.

Obama care is still pretty crappy. Perhaps the debate can now move past the constitutional debate to improvements?

That's exactly what President Obama would like. Now that a lousy bill is the law of the land, he will argue Republicans should help make it good. Maybe he should have tried that before ramming it through Congress? You know, that whole "bipartisan" thing?

Instead, the Democrats are spiking the football ("It's constitutional, b******"), proclaiming a great victory "for the American people," etc. It's not a popular bill. It is a tax hike. This is an election year. The President has been all about politics for months. So, the Republicans are supposed to commit political suicide and help him? Not going to happen. Why would it? Democrats ignored the Republicans, mocked them and still are, but the Republicans are going to improve a bill they had no input on and the public does not like?

Purple wrote:I would draw the attention of conservatives who today seem to feel Roberts is a traitor to the cause to these two articles:

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/commerce-361220-mandate-court.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

In the first, George Will's first line is "Conservatives won a substantial victory on Thursday." In the second, Sean Trende says, "Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives."

Simplifying: by restricting the applicability of the Commerce Clause and limiting the ability of Congress to coerce the states - two separate and powerful rulings - the USSC has severely hamstrung the ongoing liberal agenda that's based on the belief that Washington knows best about anything and everything. Obamacare has been damaged (many states will opt out of the Medicaid expansion) and conservatives have been energized. Roberts deserves better than short-sighted vilification.

With all due respect to Mr. Will, Kennedy's dissent would have been a major victory for the Constitution. Roberts' majority opinion is a major political victory for Republicans with massive downside--there is no limitation whatsoever on Congress' ability to tax. If they can tax inactivity, what can't they tax?

I'm not so much a partisan that I don't care more about the Constitution than the Party. The Party won; the Constitution lost.

And, I'm not so sure "many" states will opt out of the Medicaid expansion. Democrats will lard it up, you can bet on that.

Doctor Fate wrote:there is no limitation whatsoever on Congress' ability to tax. If they can tax inactivity, what can't they tax?

I'm not insensitive to this argument, but I wonder just how unique and new this new tax is. What if Congress had said "we will increase your general tax load by $100, but among the actions you can take to earn a $100 tax credit..." The tax code includes thousands (?) of different tax credits. If you don't do the things to earn the credit, you end up paying the tax. Don't own a home and have a mortgage? You don't get the mortgage tax credit. Don't buy an alternative-fuel vehicle? No tax credit. Businesses are especially subject to these sorts of tax "incentives".

Granted, the ACA isn't set up the same way as the mortgage tax credit. But are the differences all that critical?

Or is the real issue the way the government uses its taxing power to incentivize us in this direction and that in so many ways that taken all-in-all it amounts to a gross violation of our freedoms? If so, the issue here becomes one of two possible ones:
• For libertarians: is the ACA outrageous because it takes the taxing power one step beyond previous uses (regardless of what's accomplished thereby in any practical sense)?
• For everyone else: can the government's use of the taxing power in this case be justified by the merits of the program?

I'm concerned about both - I don't mean to imply that you can only care about one. But I'd like to hear a libertarian explanation of how the ACA's incentive-via-tax feature differs in any critical way from the mortgage or hybrid car (or whatever it is they give a credit for this year or last - I'm no tax accountant) credit.

For GOPers who are not radical libertarians: Bear in mind that many or most Republicans at one time had no problem at all with the idea of an individual mandate. Now you can still accept the need for such but see the ACA as a lousy piece of legislation. Republicans have never been fans of people who act as parasites on society. Health insurance is a peculiar animal and there's an argument to be made that it will work best when everyone is in the pool. If you agree, the question becomes how to set up the "mandate", meaning the form of coercion to be used. If you don't like the ACA's method, suggest something better. (Maybe you already have!)

As one of those Libertarians (Yes, I have even voted that way), I would say that it is NOT the responsibility of the US Government to provide health care.

It is not listed in the US Constitution.
I do not agree with the expansive use of the Commerce Clause.
I do acknowledge the US Governments right to levy taxes against the people for the rights expressly listed in the US Constitution.

How does this differ? It doesn't. That is the issue. If the Government can do this as a tax based item, what can they not do? I think they need to stick to the Constitution.

To specifically answer you Purple, I do not think there should be a mortgage credit, I do not think there should be a hybrid car credit. Have a balanced budget, charge tax based upon the VERY limited scope of the US Government, and leave the rest to the states.

Just to be sure I have this straight...

Purple wrote:I'd like to hear a libertarian explanation of how the ACA's incentive-via-tax feature differs in any critical way from the mortgage or hybrid car (or whatever it is they give a credit for this year or last - I'm no tax accountant) credit.

bbauska wrote:As one of those Libertarians...
How does this differ? It doesn't.

So as an admitted libertarian sees it, the ACA's "tax" is no different than a mortgage tax credit. Would anyone here disagree with him?

I hope you saw the intent of my post. The tax is no different in the respect that I do not acknowledge the Governments right to levy them, as it is not expressly written in the US Constitution.

Side bar: (Please forgive me, Danivon)
What would people think if George Bush and the Republican controlled congress passed a law stating that all families needed a protection listed in the Constitution.

[hypothetical]Every family needs to own a firearm with a caliber .45 ACP or higher. If this firearm was not purchased and maintained at the residence, then the US government could levy a tax of $2000 because of the added need for security at and around your home.[/hypothetical]

The left would be up in arms! (and rightfully so, IMO) This is the same thing. The left passed a law saying that there is a right in the Constitution saying that the government can charge you for not having health insurance not at a certain level due to the fact that you will incur costs that need to be picked up by the US Government. Isn't this the same?

bbauaska

The tax is no different in the respect that I do not acknowledge the Governments right to levy them, as it is not expressly written in the US Constitution

.
When the SCOTUS says that they have right to tax under the constitution - and they are the final authority - it makes you wrong.

bbauska

What would people think if George Bush and the Republican controlled congress passed a law stating that all families needed a protection listed in the Constitution.

Why deal in fanciful situations. You have one from the past that was a use of force...
Under Ron Reagan Congress passed a law mandating that all emergency wards had to accept all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. DO you support that B or are you for tunring away the indigenous no matter what their health issue?
How should the hospitals feel about this use of force back in 83?

You've affectively had socailized medicine through the emergency ward since then. (Effectively but not very effective). Doesn't it make sense to deal with the problem of nonfunding this forced liability back then?
Essentially the tax penalty for not getting health insurance is simply a way to stop people from gaming the system. Imagine if you could drive a car without insurance. Then, at the scene of your next accident you whip out your smart phone and buy insurance.
Thats pretty much what the uninsured in health care do....
The one thing about the tax penalty is that it helps fund the law. The history in Massachussetts is that the numbers who choose to be unisured and pay the tax penalty goes down annually.

When listening to Romneys plans, the stuff he's specific upon, are included in Obama care. The stuff he's not - how to pay for it all.....

Purple, its doubtful states will opt of Medicare. Initially all the additional funding (up to 2020) comes from the Federal government. The political fall out from ending Medicaid in a state, when its essentially free, would be enormous.

First off, RickyP:
Get the name right. I type yours correctly. Please make an effort.

Secondly,
Deal in the fanciful. You ask us to do that all the time. Remember Gay Marriage debate? We have to consider something that is against the current law of the land because you "feel" that it is unequal treatment. YOUR position is hypothetical until DOMA changes.

Reagan was wrong for that as well. Are you saying that you agree with something that Reagan did? Talk about sending me to the emergency ward...

Change how the uninsured are dealt with. Don't change the way the rest are managed.

Ricky:

DO you support that B or are you for tunring away the indigenous no matter what their health issue?

Third of all, why muddy the waters by bringing Native Americans into the discussion?

bbauska

Deal in the fanciful. You ask us to do that all the time. Remember Gay Marriage debate? We have to consider something that is against the current law of the land because you "feel" that it is unequal treatment. YOUR position is hypothetical until DOMA changes.

Do you really think Gay marriage is fanciful when its the law in a number of US states (7?) ...never mind the dozen or so countries around the world.. Sorry to digress.

Reagan was wrong for that as well. Are you saying that you agree with something that Reagan did? Talk about sending me to the emergency ward...

Oh there are some things I agree with Reagan on...
And I agree that emergency wards shouldn't send people away based on their inability to pay....
However, passing the law without providing a way for hospitals to be compensated seems egregious.
Now, in most western nations, everyone is insured so thats not an issue. But Reagan picked on Hospitals and made them losers .

Change how the uninsured are dealt with. Don't change the way the rest are managed.

Well, thats happened. In order to ensure that those who choose not to insure cannot take advantage of everyone else and the system they face a tax penalty. Which will pay for their eventual use of service. Meaning that NOW when someone turns up at a hospital emergency ward they can say either: I have insurance OR I'm a tax payer!!!
And finally the Reagan injustice towards hospitals is corrected!

ray

Third of all, why muddy the waters by bringing Native Americans into the discussion?

Sorry indigent...
I guess turning away indigent indigenous would be doubly bad...

Will you answer my hypothetical? Does the US Government have the same right to charge people for not having a quilifying firearm in the home?

Quit sidestepping, please.

bbauska, was there not a similar law early in the history of the US that mandated the keeping of weapons? And was not ruled unconstitutional at the time when many of the founding fathers were alive to object?

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:there is no limitation whatsoever on Congress' ability to tax. If they can tax inactivity, what can't they tax?

I'm not insensitive to this argument, but I wonder just how unique and new this new tax is. What if Congress had said "we will increase your general tax load by $100, but among the actions you can take to earn a $100 tax credit..." The tax code includes thousands (?) of different tax credits. If you don't do the things to earn the credit, you end up paying the tax. Don't own a home and have a mortgage? You don't get the mortgage tax credit. Don't buy an alternative-fuel vehicle? No tax credit. Businesses are especially subject to these sorts of tax "incentives".

Granted, the ACA isn't set up the same way as the mortgage tax credit. But are the differences all that critical?

One is meant to encourage behavior; the other, to punish a lack of behavior.

You're skipping the bigger picture: this is the first time our government has said, in essence, "Buy (this) or else."

• For everyone else: can the government's use of the taxing power in this case be justified by the merits of the program?

Here's the funny thing: Democrats are still insisting it's not a tax. Soooooooo . . . is it because Roberts says it is?

For GOPers who are not radical libertarians: Bear in mind that many or most Republicans at one time had no problem at all with the idea of an individual mandate.

True, then you start looking for Constitutional support and, until one justice invented it (or accepted the Solicitor General's argument), there was none.

Now you can still accept the need for such but see the ACA as a lousy piece of legislation. Republicans have never been fans of people who act as parasites on society.

The ACA doesn't stop the parasites. It will fine them, er, tax them--maybe. However, if they choose not to buy it, then get sick, guess what? Parasite City! Furthermore, where do the doctors come from? Obama's back pocket? The Doctor Tree?

Health insurance is a peculiar animal and there's an argument to be made that it will work best when everyone is in the pool. If you agree, the question becomes how to set up the "mandate", meaning the form of coercion to be used. If you don't like the ACA's method, suggest something better. (Maybe you already have!)

There have been several alternatives suggested.