EPTThe Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
inzaneone
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:32 tree.hugger wrote: THE TAX ARGUMENT WINS! Who was the third party attorney who argued that point on day one? EDIT: Via ScotusBlog Republicans, look on the bright side -- now Romney can convincingly argue that in a round about way, Obama raised taxes on the middle class. Romney was already saying that, but he was talking out of his ass. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
Amy Howe: In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. YESSSSS! | ||
|
zerglingrodeo
United States910 Posts
| ||
|
ghost_403
United States1825 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
Benny boy was right. | ||
|
Quintum_
United States669 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
 | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:35 inzaneone wrote: My two cents for what is worth How could one of the justices that before she was a on the court. She worked for the govermanent arguing for Obamacare rule on this. Is this not a breech of ethics? If you think the government knows how to run or can run heath insurance. Think again as a veteran that goes through the VA for his medical. I can tell you that is the worst thing that they you could have. The only thing its good for is a annual physical and that it. If you are sick or need something good luck getting the treatment you need since it is always at least 2 weeks before you can get in to see a medical person. What? The government doesn't run health insurance. It's still privatized. I think you're confused on what Obamacare entails. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:25 Thorakh wrote: - government makes people buy a product that's useful to everyone - slippery slope argument "next time the government will make us buy a product that's not useful to everyone!" - this hasn't happened in other countries where health insurance is mandatory (never has such a thing been proposed even) - therefore it's just scaremongering Explain how we're missing the point when I responded to the exact things which were said? I'd also point out that this ruling hasn't established a precedent for government to make people buy something that's not useful for everyone. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:22 xDaunt wrote: I did repeatedly. I'm tired of wasting my breath on people that aren't interested in learning anything. Wait.....I don't understand. If the original person who started this is saying it sets a bad precedent because they could use this tax policy to force people to buy something not as useful.....and the people are saying that it's unlikely to happen...how are they missing the point? | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:35 inzaneone wrote: My two cents for what is worth How could one of the justices that before she was a on the court. She worked for the govermanent arguing for Obamacare rule on this. Is this not a breech of ethics? If you think the government knows how to run or can run heath insurance. Think again as a veteran that goes through the VA for his medical. I can tell you that is the worst thing that they you could have. The only thing its good for is a annual physical and that it. If you are sick or need something good luck getting the treatment you need since it is always at least 2 weeks before you can get in to see a medical person. It's two weeks because there are other people that have to be admitted during those two weeks. They don't intentionally make you wait for two weeks for no reason at all. Queues are obviously not ideal and can even be fatal in a number of cases, but there is literally no other way for everyone to get the medical attention they need. | ||
|
inzaneone
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Looks like they bought the argument that choosing to opt-out of commerce is not considered commerce. But that basically does not matter because the government can tax you anyway. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
Important paragraph from the written ruling. Fearmongerers, you can take a breath. "(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40." Another important one explaining how it can be viewed as a tax. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:41 inzaneone wrote: Obamacare makes me have to buy insurance or face a penalty. It's not a pentalty anymore... It's a Tax. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
Finally some progress. | ||
|
rredtooth
5464 Posts
| ||
| ||
