Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court: Affordable Care Act Is Constitutional
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. The health insurance mandate, also known as "Obamacare" was found to be "permissible under Congress's taxing authority." The full ruling (PDF) is now available, and the court's opinion begins on page 7. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog summarized the ruling thus:
"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."
Further coverage is available from CNN, the NY Times, and Fox.
I already have health insurance. It's expensive and overly complicated, but I do have it. So, will this actually change anything for people like me? Hopefully I won't be picking up the tab for so many others who opted not to buy insurance before getting sick. But otherwise I don't see a huge impact.
The whole problem with this is the insurance angle. This becomes a guaranteed income stream for private insurance companies. They have so many ways to hide their finances, people will pay ever higher costs for reduced care. There are a thousand studies saying health care costs will increase in the future, not including inflation. There are many ways the government could improve health care and reduce the cost of it, but this is not it. If the government was the insurance company that would be different, all they would have to do is add .5 % to the current medicare deduction. Simple. Let anyone that wants join a government health plan (with no existing condition clause). Simple.
What, you mean the OTHER Republican-originated plan that the Republicans blocked so that Obama couldn't look good by doing his job? What the hell do you think happened to it? It went the way of other Republican-originated ideas that are now demonized by the Republicans once a Democrat signs onto it, like cap and trade, etc.
Big mistake to have that removed. Your health care system now looks a little like ours in the Netherlands, and we are seeing what one would expect to see with mandatory health care insurance: premiums go up every year, and not just because of a greater overall demand. The cold truth is that insurers, collectively, have zero interest in keeping healthcare cost down. On the contrary, they'd rather charge you $600/month rather than $300 to cover the same package, unless there is some real competition amongst insurers. Over here, there really isn't.
I'm no fan of our social-democrat party, but I do agree with an idea they floated the other day: as insurance is mandatory, the insurers add no value whatsoever. They do add a considerable amount of overhead and a staggering amount of red tape and bureaucracy in health care. Cut them out of the deal, let the government handle health care payments and collect premiums (as they already do for part of the basic package).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Justice Roberts had this little gem hidden in his commentary.
"The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.
But in the odious 1942 Wickard V Filburn case the Court ruled exactly the opposite. The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
In essence, they ruled that he can't grow wheat for his own use he MUST BUY IT IN THE MARKET.
I wonder if this ruling can be used as precedent to challenge Wickard v Filburn?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
You will note that in his Ruling, Roberts said that the conservative wing made the same argument as you did, namely, that the law was labeled incorrectly.
And as Roberts wisely stated, it's pretty silly to argue that you should strike down a law because of it being mislabeled, rather than for the effect of the law.
It was disconnected until 1973 (or so) when the government required large businesses to offer it. Over the years "large business" was redefined to be 50 or more employees. My employer presently has 49 employees and has no interest in increasing by even one employee... that 50th employee will be an expensive chap.
Yes, and car insurance mandates are pretty worthless. You still have people ignoring the law. The mandated minimums are grossly inadequate while being a large financial burden for those that are high risk.
I still need to have my own coverage to insure that my own interests are looked after.
Based on the stated purpose of the mandate, it is a total failure.
That's not even getting into the basic separation of powers issue here and the fact that I can avoid cars and car insurance entirely if I so choose.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
No, you can't. That's the entire point. That's why all the teabaggers were so upset. You can't, any more, blow off getting insurance without penalty. If you don't get insurance, you'll pay a tax used to cover the costs of your "freeloading" (to use the term used earlier in the thread.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Inadvertent my ass. CJ Roberts is playing the long game. He's playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers, to bastardize a quote from Erick Erickson. This is exactly what he wanted; he keeps the Supremes out of the political arena and galvanizes people to do what they should've done in the first place; repeal the freaking thing. Don't make the Court do the dirty work.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
No, you don't. If you're in a low enough income bracket, you don't have to pay the penalty, and in fact get a subsidy to purchase insurance.
a subsidy for the poor? where does the subsidy come from, taxes?
where do taxes come from? everybody else.
so... everybody else is paying more money because some people can't afford health care. That sounds familiar... awfully familar... wait, I know where I've seen that phrase before!
Please explain how that isn't EXACTLY the same problem that the individual mandate was supposed to fix? the only difference I see is that the money goes to the government, then to the poor, then to the health care industry, whereas before it went directly to the health care industry. also please explain how it could possibly be less expensive in the long run now that there is at least one extra level of beuracracy (that must be paid for) in the middle.
I am surprised and disappointed by this ruling. But not for the reasons you might expect.
I want the US to have universal health care, but I think the mandate was a back-asswards way of getting it and I dont think it will be successful.
It would have been far better to just make it a tax. This mandate only helps the health insurance industry slow its inevitable downward spiral.
Accoding to a 2007 study by Kaiser Permanente, http://www.kff.org/insurance/7692.cfm
Healthcare spending has risen steadily and has outpaced wages. This means that less and less people can afford healthcare, and in turn less people will be purchasing insurance. Of course this is cyclical, since with less people buying insurance, the insurance sompanies will ahve to increase their premiums.
And so the health insurance industry is already in a downward spiral that will eventually collapse.
I fear that the health insurance mandate will not stop this downward spiral, since it will be less expensive for healthy people to just pay the fine than to buy insurance. Eventually, the US government will have to intervene.
Taxpayers already pay for a large percentage of the populations medical services. If you count Medicare, Medicaid, Federal, State, and Local governments, that makes up over 100 million users, or 30% of the population. As less people can afford healthcare, the government will be shouldering a higher percentage.
Dont fool yourself. You are paying for this one way or another. Either by taxes, or by rising insurance costs. If your company is paying the premiums, you may want to ask them why you did not get a raise this year and they will tell you it was eaten up by premiums. insurance is after all a 'tax' that you pay in order for 'services' to be available when you need them. The healthy people end up paying for the sick people with chronic problems caused by obesity, diabetes, heart disease, lung and liver diseases, all could be prevented by good diet, exercise, and staying away from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, fat, and sugar. How does that make you feel when your hard earned dollars are going to pay for someones lung cancer treatment who has chain-smoked for 20 years?
Not that I am bitter or anything. i paid more for health care in the last 5 years than I did in taxes. The last 2 years I paid more in health care than I did for my mortgage. And that is with an employer sponsored plan and a healthy family. But the good news is that this will HAVE to change. We know it and there is a clear path to where we need to go. In the next 5-10 years we will have universal healthcare whether we vote for it or not.
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
What should concern everyone, and the reason John Roberts supported the mandate, is that it sets a precedent to allow privatization of taxation.
The "Left" supported it because the mandate was attached to health care, but this is a step towards corporatism much bigger than Citizens United.
>Otherwise, it's pretty much like car insurance, so was the game already over decades ago
No. It's not pretty much like car insurance. You can choose not to drive, use public transportation or hired private transportation. In fact, many aspects of government action are in this direction.
You cannot choose not to have health problems.
This legislation is making us similar to UK, where people pay tax to get care. We will get taxed too, but we will have a choice of "IRS" - insurance company, that's extra for us.
From the other hand, obligatory giving money to a private company without public option is also quite corrupting.
There are many factors that can sway cost of insurance both ways:
1/ obligation can incrrease price
2/ since now government will subsidize the poor, not hospitals, that could lead to reduction of cost
Time will tell. Or not.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"General welfare" does not equate to 'personal welfare'.
General welfare is supposed to be achieved by ensuring that States do not create barriers to entry against each other, so one state shouldn't be able to prevent a person from driving in the State unless that person got a driver's license from that specific State.
Unfortunately the federal gov't not only failed to uphold and protect the Constitution at least since 1900, but it also is clearly incapable of carrying out its direct duties - preventing States from erecting barriers to entry to businesses.
So a State declaring that a lawyer or a financier or a doctor or an engineer, etc.etc., needs a professional license FROM THAT STATE even if he already has a professional license issued in any other State - well, that's a direct failure of the Federal gov't to discharge its duties.
You can't handle the truth.
Well, the thing is Obama believed his rhetoric about working with the Republicans to move the country forward. That's why Gitmo is still open - rather than forcing a state to accept the prisoners, he tried to work with the (largely Republican) state governments to do it, and they wouldn't have it. The Republicans also kept asking for modifications to the single-payer plan, which were largely accepted, and then didn't vote for it anyway.
He's grown some balls since then, but it took him being burned a lot. Not sure why he didn't give up on them sooner, especially when they started off with "let's not do anything at all in order to make him a one-term President". But, again, I think he actually believed what he said in the campaign... he seemed to make a pretty honest effort to cooperate when he could've just railroaded stuff through.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The belief in free markets?
In the Netherlands, they are running an experiment where dentists were allowed to set their own prices (I have no clue how this worked before). Goals were to have better care, to have more efficient care, and to reduce prices for consumers. Noticeable effects so far: prices are up about 6% (on average), and dentists are flat-out refusing "partial" jobs (if you need drilling in two teeth and setting a bridge to fix your one broken tooth, you cannot go to a cheap "driller" and a cheap "bridger").
The intermediate results of the experiment are so egregious, that parliament called for ending the experiment prematurely.
I think free markets work well when buyer and seller have equal power. When you're broken, and the other guy is not broke, there's no way you're at an equal power level.
This is good.
With tests for risk coming about, it destroys the effectiveness of insurance. The individual mandate is a requirement due to technology (along with the flattening of rates across people).
Without it, either:
1) insurance companies are allowed to look at an individuals risk, leading to people being excluded, and weakening the whole risk spreading idea of insurance for certain predictable diseases.
2) insurance companies cannot run said tests, putting the power in the hands of the people to test themselves, and high-risk individuals to dis-proportionally get insurance. This will drive up rates for everyone, leading to a feedback loop.
Technology pretty much requires the new law.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg