Rand Paul

[Berserker]

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional". - Rand Paul

His dad is running for president, and he goes around saying stupid things like that...

[Fritz]

Brace for impact. For the next 24 hours, everyone is a constitutional scholar.

[MorGrendel]

In general, its his opinion, and he's welcome to it in America. And though the Supreme Court ruled, it doesn't mean he has to cowtow with his tail between his legs. Should he pitch juicy softballs? No, probably not. He could have phrased his statment better, or better implied that it was a close vote, but people send him money everythime he says the word "constitution". I know, I'm on the mailing list. However, If there wasn't any validity to his belief, then the bill wouldn't have gone all the way to the supreme court.

I'm not well-versed on this issue, but I am a bit lost how the Supreme Court continues to rule that penalties are taxes. Does this mean I can deduct speeding fines on my taxes? Probably not. IMHO the Constitution puts people before the Gov't.

In any case, he and half a dozens other Republicans are sure to write new legislation to chip away at the parts they don't like.

[Berserker]

Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but he's a congressman. People listen to him, he has credibility. He's the voice of his constituents in congress. So it matters far more what he says.

All cases that get to the supreme court are controversial, otherwise they wouldn't get there. What bothered me about his statement was that he said that you shouldn't listen to the supreme court. He tried to invalidate the decision. The whole point of the supreme court is that they are the ultimate say on intepreting law. By his logic, I should only follow the decisions that I agree with, because it's just a couple of people's decision so what do they know.. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if the supreme court decisions were not followed?

They are the checks and balances on what the Congress does. And the congress has the power to repeal any law it makes at any time.

As for your question about penalties and taxes, I don't understand what that is all about, so I won't comment on it. The supreme court statement probably explains more why they chose to do as they did. Might be a good read.

[Fritz]

The long and short of it is that the "individual mandate" is enforced by levying a tax on those that are considered financially able to afford insurance, but choose not to. In Robert's opinion, he wrote that while Congress does not have the constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of an item, it has the authority to levy a tax. The difference in this case is that a "mandate," as interpreted by Roberts, would make it against the law not to buy health insurance (ie punishable through the penal code). The healthcare law does not do this, but instead encourages the purchase of health insurance by levying a tax on those that make the choice not to buy health insurance. It comes down to making not purchasing something illegal vs making not purchasing something taxable. It is a very fine difference, one that is trademark Roberts.

And actually Jeff, Roberts' opinion makes that exact distinction between a tax penalty and a fine. A speed ticket, for example is not a penalty. It is a fine, which is levied for breaking the law. You did something you are not free to do. In many cases fines increase in severity and could escalate into further punishment if you continue to exercise that behavior. A tax penalty, on the other hand, is something that the government wants to discourage, but you are free to do since it is not against the law. A tax penalty generally remains constant. While the health care tax penalty has a phased implementation, it does cap out in 2017. Think of it as the inverse of a tax benefit. The government wants to encourage donations to charity, so they give you a deduction from your taxes for doing so. The health care law does the opposite of that.

[Berserker]

Thank you for the explanation Fritz. =)

[Thomas Fitzcharles]

Good Day, Fritz.

Very well said! My believe is that the government should not be trying to influnce our behavior through penalties and benifits if it is not illegal. I give to my church and charities not because I can write them off, but because I feel it is the right thing to do.

Sincerely

Thomas

[Fritz]

And Roberts punted on that more philosophical question, saying that it was his job to determine whether Congress could do what they did, not not whether or not they should. He said that judgement is reserved for legislators and the people by which they are elected. I find myself rather impressed with our latest chief justice. During his confirmation hearing he said he was an advocate for judicial restraint. Thus far he has displayed just that, even when it came to a law he clearly did not agree with. All of his opinion thus far have made very fine distinctions and are filled with nuance, just like we saw here. For someone like myself, who enjoys watching the court and reading the full opinions, Roberts was clearly a very good pick for Chief Justice.

[Thomas Fitzcharles]

Good Day, Fritz.

Once again very well said. I really do feel he did this because he did not want the president to lose his signature legislation to what would be viewed as an activist court. However, By saying it was a tax and not upholding it under the commerus clause. I believe it will be easier to vote out, by simple majority in the house and senate that is if Romney is elected in Nov. Also it may have a limiting effect on the use of the commerus clause in the future. I wish I could write as well as the rest of you.

Sincerely

Thomas

[MorGrendel]

I'll have to read the full opinion, but like thomas said and from the snippets I saw it seemed like there were already presedents in place that made sense. Kinda like the Holder and killing Americans thing. I general I prefer my govt with more carrot and less stick. in general I am wary of the insurance lobby, who to me is the primary beneficary of this bill. This ruling is not the first to come out with this kind of verbage, I don't care for this slippery slope, even if it works in this case. But hey, I think we should cut spending rather than create another tax.

[Fritz]

I'll have to read the full opinion, but like thomas said and from the snippets I saw it seemed like there were already presedents in place that made sense. Kinda like the Holder and killing Americans thing. I general I prefer my govt with more carrot and less stick. in general I am wary of the insurance lobby, who to me is the primary beneficary of this bill. This ruling is not the first to come out with this kind of verbage, I don't care for this slippery slope, even if it works in this case. But hey, I think we should cut spending rather than create another tax.

Have a look at the stock prices. The insurance companies dropped initially and recovered gradually. They get pretty much a wash with the bill. They are getting more customers, but they're also being forced to accept pre-existing conditions, they're not allowed to drop someone when they get really sick, and they have to spend a certain percentage of their incoming fees on actual care (I think it's 70%, but I'm not sure).

The primary benefitiaries are hospitals. As of right now 1/4 of all the medical coverage that a hospital provides goes unpaid. It's the main reason hospital costs are so high: they eat it and pass it on to the paying customers. Getting more people on insurance will lower the average cost per customer simply because more people are going to be actually paying through insurance.

[Thomas Fitzcharles]

Good Day, All.

I believe the stock market will do fine, the hospitals will do better, the insurance companies will pass on the cost everyone who has insurance in the form of rate rasise, to cover the increased cost. You can't really add 20 to 30 million people (I am not sure they really know the true number). who don't have insurance now because they can't afford it to the insurance roles without someone paying for it. I am sure we could afford healthcare for all, which would be great. if they would fix the waste fraud and over spenditures of a boken system before this goes through. But they won't which will leave the middle class holding the bag once again. I have not looked into it but I have heard the German system works very well for them.

Sincerely

Thomas

[Fritz]

if they would fix the waste fraud and over spenditures of a boken system before this goes through

A lot of that waste and fraud comes from the insurance companies themselves. One of the things I very much like about this bill is forcing those ass holes to spend 80% of their fees on actual healthcare. If there's one thing I can't stand is an insurer refusing to pay for treatment or dropping someone when they get sick from a plan they've paid into while they were healthy just so that the company's bottom line looks better.

To go along with my earlier point that hospitals and providers gain the most from this law and insurers are very lukewarm about it, here's an interesting bloomberg article:

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capit ... ault-line/

Insurers apparently don't like that they can't drop patients when they get sick or that they have to spend 80% of their fees on actual healthcare.

[Fritz]

I have not looked into it but I have heard the German system works very well for them.

I don't know a whole lot about the German system, but I know that they have a multi-payer universal mandate system. In fact, based on what I'm reading right now, it sounds pretty damned close to what the ACA is attempting to set up. From wikipedia (so take it with a grain of salt):

Health care insurance in Germany is split in several parts. The largest part of 85% of the population is covered by a basic health insurance plan provided by statute, formally insured under the legislation set with the Sozialgesetzbuch V (SGB V), which provides a standard level of coverage. The remainder of 15% opt for private health insurance, which frequently offers additional benefits.

The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers, whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for private insurance. This may result in substantial savings for younger individuals in good health. With age and illness, private premiums will rise and the insured will usually cancel their private insurance, turning to the government option.

Reimbursement is on a fee-for-service basis, but the number of physicians allowed to accept Statutory Health Insurance in a given locale is regulated by the government and professional medical societies. Co-payments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization.

...

Standard insurance is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies on a scale determined by income level. Higher income workers sometimes choose to pay a tax and opt out of the standard plan, in favor of 'private' insurance. The latter's premiums are not linked to income level but instead to health status.

Here's a link to the full wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany