Today, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Directly after this decision was handed down, conservatives around the country went even more batshit than they are already are and took to Twitter and Facebook to scream about the federal government.
"What doesn't the federal government have the power to tax?" one of my FB friends asked? Xanax? Therapy?
Anyhoozles, here are my thoughts on the decision.
As I noted yesterday, everyone wins. The president's signature bill is Constitutional. The Democrats can now run with a very large win under their belt as there will be no more legal challenges to the ACA. Mitt Romney wins because now he can now energize the base for this election with promises of repeal. I know he is saying "Repeal and Replace" but I have yet to see the "Replace" part of that equation. In fact, is there a solution from anyone on the right other than "Do Nothing?" Regardless, there are a lot of Armageddon shelter builders out there that will now turn out to vote.
The main thing I keep thinking about is how this was originally a GOP plan. It originated at the Heritage Foundation and does, in essence, what the right bitches about all the time-ELIMINATE THE FREELOADERS. Since the law states that we must treat everyone, then everyone should have health insurance. If you choose not to (that's right, no one is forcing you), you have to pay a penalty.
Now the GOP were all for this until January of 2009 when Obama and the Democrats got behind it in the completely hilarious hope that the Republicans would support it as well. That ended up going something like this.
"What?!!!? Dad and Mom support it now??!! Fuck that noise!"
And then they hated it.
Toss in all the feelings and emotions they have about the other side winning and you have all the usual.
I'm sadly disappointed in Anthony Kennedy for not siding with Chief Justice Roberts and the other four justices in the majority. For being a "swing voter," he certainly does seem to fall on libertarian grounds more often than not. The fact that he couldn't see it as a tax shows how his personal ideology interfered with his supposed blind judgement. That's also true of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.
Speaking of taxes, wasn't it great how Chief Justice Roberts did the Democrats job for them? The fact that they were so chicken shit back in 2009-2010 that they couldn't call it a tax says a lot. Now, of course, it's fine to talk about raising taxes on the wealthy after the OWS movement but where were they back then when it took real guts?
Doing a piss poor job of effectively communicating why this bill is needed while allowing the right to panic monger the shit out of it.
I guess I'm happy, mostly, though with the outcome today. It's the best option we have right now for dealing with this problem and I'm grateful that John Roberts saw this in a larger picture rather than his personal ideological lens.
31 comments:
You don't think Democrats are going to be called out as passing a giant tax on the middle and lower class in the middle of a recession?
Odd reasoning from Roberts if you ask me. He recognized that if Congress can force you to engage in commerce based on the Commerce Clause, then Congress can compel pretty much anything. He found that bad. Instead, he found that Congress can compel something as long as you call the penalty for not doing that thing a tax. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me - he may as well have signed onto the Commerce Clause = anything goes line of thinking.
You don't think Democrats are going to be called out as passing a giant tax on the middle and lower class in the middle of a recession?
Ah, the panic mongering again. We have had how many straight quarters of growth? A recession is negative growth. Our economy is sluggish but not in recession. If you are going to give me shit about facts, then you are going to have to make sure that you employ them yourself.
Since most people have health care and those that don't will likely get it, I don't think the number of voters pissed off about paying a fine will be that high. Use common sense and think about this for a moment.
he found that Congress can compel something as long as you call the penalty for not doing that thing a tax
Except they aren't compelling you because you can simply pay the fine and move one. But, really, who is going to go without health insurance? And why would they?
>Except they aren't compelling you because you can simply pay the fine and move one.
So let me get this straight. The govt says "you have two choices. one is to pay us money, the other is to buy something. Pick one." You're saying I'm not being compelled to do anything? What if I don't want to do either? Try applying this question to yourself - give me $10 dollars or I punch you in the nose. No compulsion involved in that scenario?
>But, really, who is going to go without health insurance?
Now now Mark, don't elide. You know as well as I do that your question requires an addendum: "..without health insurance that doesn't meet the requirements set forth by the ACA?" Younger people that consume very little medical care and just want a cheap, no frills catastrophic coverage, for one thing. People who prefer to pay for their medical care with cash, knowing that they can negotiate lower prices, and doctors that want to keep their costs low by cutting out middleman. But perhaps the more relevant point - if you don't think anyone would go without health insurance, why do you think it is important to force them to buy it?
Actually, the Right has an excellent alternative, but one must embrace a modicum of capitalism. 1) Allow the availability of insurance across state lines, and 2) tort reform. (Imagine if you will, the Lending Tree of health insurance and a world w/o John Edwards suing every other doctor...can't you just imagine the costs saved? Whoa...sorry...not enough coffee yet...a little slap happy to expect that type of free thought from the left.)
I do agree with you that, in a manner of speaking, it is a win for both Obama and Romney. The election will now pit the challenger against an incumbent's hallmark achievement; rather a best-on-best scenario.
Note: you still don't get that having to pay a penalty IS forcing. What if I don't pay that penalty? Major breakdown in communication... (oops...Haplo9, as always, quicker on the draw than me.)
Well,perhaps you and "Quick Draw" haven't read the brief yet.
"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."
Further...
"The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certainthreshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e)."
So, as usual, Hap's example of nose punching or 10 dollars is a false equivalency. There are nuances to this law that both of you have missed in that the IRS does not have, as Roberts notes, its ordinary enforcement tools.
Here is a link to the full brief.
http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/06/11-393c3a2.pdf
>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.
Feel free to correct, but my reading of that is "there are no legal consequences to not buying health insurance except the requirement to make a payment to the IRS." In other words, none of the above isn't an option, and the examples I gave are valid.
Beyond that, yes, some people are exempt because their income might be too low. That's hardly going to be the norm.
(Though again, as we're talking about the proper role of government in society - the discussion is largely pointless, because the probability of hearing a trite banality like "partner!" from you is rapidly approaching 1.)
No this doesn't solve the free rider problem. It will be cheaper to pay the tax then buy insurance for anyone who is healthy (i.e. young single people). When they do develop a major health problem, then they get to buy insurance at the rate everyone else pays. This will collapse the insurance industry which in turn will lead many morons to conclude that we must have fully nationalized healthcare.
In other words, none of the above isn't an option, and the examples I gave are valid.
I gave you chance to back off your comparison but now I have to say that you are being quite juvenile (what a shock). The simple fact that you would equate the option of buying health care/paying a penalty with being punched in the nose/paying an asshole 10 dollars is completely childish. It says a lot about your irrational perception of the government. So, please, enough with the adolescent behavior.
In addition, why do you care about people who don't have health insurance and may have to pay a fine? After all, you wouldn't be one to dictate what's in someone else's best interest, would you? I mean, I know you have health insurance as does likely everyone here. So why is it your problem what other people do?
Read the brief, Hap. I know it's long so maybe skip the Medicaid section and focus on the tax part (Section C, pgs. 33-44). Here's something else of pertinence.
The payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation—except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See §5000A(g)(2). The reasons the Court in Drexel Furniture held that what was called a “tax” there was a penalty
support the conclusion that what is called a “penalty” here may be viewed as a tax.9
So, if the IRS is not allowed to use its normal punitive functions under this law, doesn't that simple fact make you relax a little? Or are federal men with guns still coming to your house? Or something else?
(Imagine if you will, the Lending Tree of health insurance and a world w/o John Edwards suing every other doctor...can't you just imagine the costs saved? Whoa...sorry...not enough coffee yet...a little slap happy to expect that type of free thought from the left.)
I hope you realize, dave, that this statement betrays a massive ignorance of what has been going on this country and perpetuates a myth that corporations are constantly under attack from ambulance chasers. So, my question to you is this: when is it OK for someone to sue a company?
>The simple fact that you would equate the option of buying health care/paying a penalty with being punched in the nose/paying an asshole 10 dollars is completely childish. It says a lot about your irrational perception of the government. So, please, enough with the adolescent behavior.
Juvenile! Irrational! Mark, this isn't hard. Regardless of how much of a meanie I am, either a person can choose to not buy insurance and not pay the penalty, or they can't. Which is it? Yes, there are hints of "softer" enforcement, whatever that means, but I don't quite buy it - surely you understand the rationale behind forcing people (especially younger ones) to join the insurance market.
>In addition, why do you care about people who don't have health insurance and may have to pay a fine?
Er, because I might be one of those people one day? Especially if the ACA does nothing to reduce health care costs? The second reason would be principle, but again, that gets out in left field with you. I think there are very few principles you wouldn't break if you could convince yourself that doing so was The Right Thing To Do. Suffice it to say that some principles are important to me.
Soft enforcement huh?
Is it billed separately from your income tax? Is it a completely different account with the IRS?
If not, what's to stop them from applying your tax payments to the health care account prior to any other taxes? In that case there would be no way to not pay it except by not paying any of your taxes. And that means having guys with guns show up.
And that means having guys with guns show up.
No, it doesn't because the under the law, the IRS is not allowed its usual tools of enforcement. If you want to play make believe and pretend that's going to happen, well...not much I can do about that except to say that I think you should stop letting your emotions about the federal government interfere with your reason.
Speaking of feelings....
Yes, there are hints of "softer" enforcement, whatever that means, but I don't quite buy it
Of course you don't. That's because you are irrational about the federal government. Can you honestly say that your exercising your critical thinking skills here?
surely you understand the rationale behind forcing people (especially younger ones) to join the insurance market.
At this point and now that SCOTUS has upheld the law, I wonder how many people are actually going to go without health insurance. What are you going to do if people willingly buy it before it comes to the choice?
The second reason would be principle, but again, that gets out in left field with you.
This is a perfect example of why the right is very dangerous. Stand by your principles no matter how detrimental they may be. Stick to your guns come hell, high water and facts and never give in despite the obvious and logic and truth. History is littered with people who just as ridiculously stringent as you are, Hap. How did things turn out for them?
>Can you honestly say that your exercising your critical thinking skills here?
Er, yes. Ask yourself what is more likely:
-the authors of the bill knew that their scheme required the participation of everyone, or else it would have a huge free rider problem, so they set up a mechanism to avoid it.
-the authors were too dumb to realize that if they didn't force people to have insurance, then they would have a free rider problem, especially now that insurance companies can't deny them signing up
-the authors were unwilling to actually force people to have insurance, in which case they gave themselves a free rider problem
In case you weren't clear, a free rider would be someone who goes without health insurance knowing that they can't be denied purchase of insurance when they need it. So they defer paying premiums until they get sick.
>History is littered with people who just as ridiculously stringent as you are, Hap.
Totally dude. Stuff like due process? Totally detrimental sometimes. Stuff like freedom? Who needs it? Like I said - I don't think theres anything you wouldn't sacrifice for your greater good. Which ideology is more dangerous, again?
That's a nice redirect on me but none of the things you say are true.
And you're not really talking about freedom or due process. You're talking about a political ideology based on feelings about government. You just say those things to justify your intransigence.
the authors of the bill knew that their scheme
Scheme, eh? Were they twirling their black moustaches when they came up with this "scheme?"
You keep saying people are being force to buy insurance. They aren't. If they don't buy the insurance, they pay a penalty. If they do neither, the IRS can't criminally prosecute them. So where's the force? But you are missing the bigger issue. Why would anyone NOT want to have insurance now?
What's likely going to happen is that the number of people that don't have insurance will be considerably less than the 4 million person estimate. In the final analysis, people are going to end up saving money on this. I'm certain, however, that you and some others on the right will pretend that's not the case, get angry, make something up, wave the flag, and foam at the mouth about economic ruin.
No, it doesn't because the under the law, the IRS is not allowed its usual tools of enforcement.
So how exactly is this tax supposed to be collected?
Personally, I think this is Congress fucking up because they claimed it wasn't a tax. It will be interesting a few years down the road when someone hasn't paid this and how the dispute with the IRS plays out. Then you might just see the law over-ruled by SCotUS saying that if it is a tax it has to be treated like a normal tax.
Even as a tax on income think about this - what other part of the tax code is even remotely like this? No, M won't think about that because it doesn't matter to him. Consequences never matter - only good intentions.
Were they twirling their black moustaches when they came up with this "scheme?"
Yes, of course, only cartoonish capitalists and evil right-wingers (who are usually clean shaven) have moustaches to be twirled when thinking up stupid systems (i.e. "schemes").
>You keep saying people are being force to buy insurance. They aren't. If they don't buy the insurance, they pay a penalty. If they do neither, the IRS can't criminally prosecute them.
So lets assume this is true. Why wouldn't people not buy insurance, refuse to pay the penalty (knowing there is no consequences to refusing), and simply buy insurance once they get sick, knowing that insurance companies can't refuse them? Using your deep understanding of human nature, I'm sure you can explain why people wouldn't do this, which is very obviously in their self interest.
I'm happy to be wrong, but if I am, then you've just created a colossal mess in the insurance market. Which is it?
>And you're not really talking about freedom or due process.
Correct on due process - I mentioned that one because I'm pretty certain that you would happily throw that principle out in order to do your "good works." You sure didn't seem to care about due process when you were calling for bankers you thought caused the crash to be ass raped in jail.
As for freedom, that most certainly applies. Mark, if the government says "you must do one of a or b" and doing neither is not an option, is your freedom increased or decreased? Do try to avoid making Orwell proud with your answer.
>You're talking about a political ideology based on ..
let me finish this for you: the historical reality of how governments tend to operate - lots on coercion and force, little of freedom and leaving people to their own devices. Unfortunately, in the relatively rare periods of peace and prosperity in human history, there are always creatures like you who seek to go backwards - desiring greater control over peoples lives and choices. (Only to better them, of course!)
>Why would anyone NOT want to have insurance now?
Maybe you missed the answers above:
-if they want to be cash only consumers of health care
-if they don't like the type of insurance that the ACA forces them to have. (ie insuring things costs money. The fewer things you insure, the cheaper your policy can be, which the ACA now constrains)
-if they want to free ride off the ACA's rules that prevent insurance companies from refusing them coverage
Btw teacher:
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+scheme&qpvt=definition+of+scheme&FORM=DTPDIA
I was using the 2nd definition, not the first. However - if the planners of this bill really did make the mandate toothless, then I might use the secret plot definition, because that will likely kill the private insurance industry.
So, Mark, you're actually arguing that this penalty that isn't a tax (except when it's before the Supreme Court), actually can't be collected and has no enforcement provisions? I can tell you how long that state of affairs will last. That will be "fixed" faster than Mark can mangle the meaning of a word, and the size of the penalty/tax will be significantly increased, unless of course the whole damned thing is thrown out by Congress next year. If it's not repealed, and the so-called penalty remains an optional "will you please donate" type of deal, I'll have to go with Haplo9 that the real goal is to drive most private insurance out of business and get everybody under a nationalized single-payer scheme (that will of course be "administered" by whatever favored insurance conglomerate has survived and spent enough money to have the "juice" in Washington).
No, it doesn't because the under the law, the IRS is not allowed its usual tools of enforcement.
Dude, I just presented a pseudo-legal and bureaucratically likely scenario for the IRS to indeed utilize its usual tools of enforcement. You answer is to dismiss it out of hand? That's utilizing your thinking cap for sure......
Again, the communication process breaks down... You see, the issue is that I'm not quoting Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh...I'm quoting you. You said, “If you choose not to (that's right, no one is forcing you), you have to pay a penalty.”. That's you. So either you're wrong and the bill doesn't require penalties for failure to comply or you have a remarkably loose grasp of the English language.
Tort reform? Far be it for me to say who should or shouldn't sue their doctors, however the New England Journal of Medicine (that conservative rag) states that upwards of 40% of lawsuits are without merit and the US Dept. of Health & Human Services (that Republican mouthpiece) found that excessive damages added upwards of $125 billion to costs. All this culminating in skyrocketing malpractice insurance and doctors performing defensive medicine. Seem to me there's room for improvement here.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa054479
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/medliab.htm
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&CONTENTID=27807&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
You see, the issue is that I'm not quoting Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh...I'm quoting you.
Right-wing media complex baby. I'm laughing imagining M sputtering (and drooling) indignantly.
Why wouldn't people not buy insurance, refuse to pay the penalty (knowing there is no consequences to refusing), and simply buy insurance once they get sick, knowing that insurance companies can't refuse them?
There will likely be some people that flaunt the law but I don't think the numbers are going to be that high and here's why. People are pretty lazy but now that it's going to be easier to get insurance, some will get it. Others won't want to pay the penalty. Still others will be too paranoid to not have it. If there's one thing we can always bank on, it's people being afraid of the unknown.
Remember, too, that the fine is so minimal that people are likely just to pay it. Interestingly, the majority of people are honest about paying their taxes.
Mark, if the government says "you must do one of a or b" and doing neither is not an option, is your freedom increased or decreased?
It depends on what they are asking you to do. If the government asks me to not trespass on private property or I will go to jail, am I less free? No, because my actions are infringing upon the freedom of others. Now, what other ways could my actions or inactions affect the freedom of other people and ultimately my own freedom? Hmm...
desiring greater control over peoples lives and choices. (Only to better them, of course!)
(yawn)...don't feel like managing your fantasies today on this one...
I'll have to go with Haplo9 that the real goal is to drive most private insurance out of business and get everybody under a nationalized single-payer scheme (that will of course be "administered" by whatever favored insurance conglomerate has survived and spent enough money to have the "juice" in Washington).
Has this happened with auto insurance? Based on the tirades of my very liberal friends, I'd say the insurance industry is going to be just fine:)
You answer is to dismiss it out of hand?
Yes, I am because we don't know how this is going to play out. I know that you guys like to pretend that you know exactly what the future may hold but the truth is that no one does. There's a lot of fun made of Democrats who said that we have to pass it to find out what's in it but we all know what they meant. We can't always tell how laws are going to play themselves out. Seemingly, in your world, that means we should rarely pass laws.
So either you're wrong and the bill doesn't require penalties for failure to comply or you have a remarkably loose grasp of the English language.
The central problem here, dave, is you just don't like being told what do to...hence why I compare you and the others to junior high schoolers. You don't like taxes, penalties or anything else that grown ups have to pay in order to make our society a better place.
So, when I try to have a rational discussion with you about this new and now Constitutional law, you throw a fit, go into your room, and pound on the wall with your Justin Bieber poster. You can buy health insurance, pay the penalty or not do so which will result in no arrest. Now, I know you already have health insurance, so why do you care about what others do? Unless, you are assuming what is in their best interests...:)
Far be it for me to say who should or shouldn't sue their doctors
Really?
and a world w/o John Edwards suing every other doctor...can't you just imagine the costs saved?
To me, that says that you have a very large bias towards anyone who sues their doctor or other private entity. I recently watched this film...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBKRjxeQnT4
I think you should as well although you will likely do your usual cynical dance and call it liberal garbage. The central premise of the film is quite valid: the corporate owned media (liberal?) has socialized us to believe that ordinary citizens are money grubbing fiends who want to take away from the poor corporations who are constantly under attack. It's a massive lie that has resulted in less power and freedom for the individual.
Now, you say you are for individual freedom in the face of power. Yet you shit all over the one entity that can support that (the government) in favor of the one entity (the private sector) that actively works against it.
Here's a link which is a little more current than your links.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751009
Premiums indeed rose dramatically in the early part of the new century, but in 2011, they declined for the fourth straight year for 3 representative medical specialties, according to a publication called Medical Liability Monitor (MLM). Its annual rate survey, highly regarded in the field, was published this week.
Those laws, Karls said, have led to fewer malpractice claims being filed, which in turn has lowered premiums — a pattern attested to by a number of academic articles. However, premiums also have decreased in states, such as Oregon, that do not cap noneconomic damages.
"So caps can't be the only reason," Karls said. "I think the push for patient safety and risk management also has played a role" in reducing claims and premiums.
Here's another link that shows that tort costs as a percentage of GDP dropped between 2001 and 2009, and are now at their lowest level since 1984.
http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/3424/Towers-Watson-Tort-Report-1.pdf
People are pretty lazy but now that it's going to be easier to get insurance, some will get it. Others won't want to pay the penalty. Still others will be too paranoid to not have it. If there's one thing we can always bank on, it's people being afraid of the unknown.
I was right - drooling. Seriously - you think you are any kind of observer of the human condition?
Has this happened with auto insurance?
Utter non-sequitir. You just have no tools to build an argument except furious hand-waving and incessant whining.
Seemingly, in your world, that means we should rarely pass laws.
It means we should pass laws when we have a good understanding of the consequences, not just so little boys can masturbate about their good intentions.
you think you are any kind of observer of the human condition?
Of course I am. And so are you.
Utter non-sequitir. You just have no tools to build an argument except furious hand-waving and incessant whining.
Hauling out all the ol' chestnuts in one tidy sentence, aren't we, juris? Double RWBD points for saying "non-sequitir" and "hand-waving" in the same phrase.
But that still doesn't answer my question. People are forced to buy auto insurance if they have a car. If they don't buy the insurance, they pay a fine. The auto insurance industry has not collapsed and the government has not taken it over. I know it blows that you don't have that as an example to shout about but that is reality.
BTW, what exactly happens if our country does go to a Medicare for All option? Boiling pit of sewage? Obviously, there are problems with single payer given the uniqueness of our market and, indeed, our country as a whole but Heritage (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) ranks Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland as the top five "free" countries in the world. Canada is sixth. Don't some (all?) of those have single payer systems?
People are forced to buy auto insurance if they have a car.
No they aren't and I have posted the CA code on it. Nor are they required to own a car - and if they don't, they sure as hell aren't going to have auto insurance.
I would be happy if health insurance was handled like auto insurance: it wouldn't be tied to employment and there would be many companies competing for my business. Hell yeah - let's use auto insurance as the model!
You see - you still don't have an argument. You had a stupid question that you "thought" would stump me.
Your auto insurance analogy is so flawed that it seems pointless to even try to converse with you about health care.
Post a Comment