Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with the entire ruling since the law strengthens private insurance, but I do like the other parts which require coverage for Pre-existing conditions. Honestly, I’ve not closely followed the issue, but it is good the discussion can continue during an election year so that we can all settle down after the votes are counted.
The GOP has already gone on the war path against a health care program they created 20 years ago in response to President Clinton’s single-payer proposal, and until 2007 openly and actively promoted it. This goes to show the heart of a Republican is founded on doing the opposite of the Democrats, even when the Democrats accept and advance their ideas.
What is interesting to me is that they held that the mandate was not valid as a regulation of commerce, but was valid as an exercise of Congress’ taxing powers. Now, although Obama won this round, he is open to the charge that he has raised taxes on the poor and the middle class. Sort of a Pyrrich victory, it seems.
Court’s decision, whilst upholding the law, also says Obama was wrong to say it was not a tax increase. In fact, that is the ONLY valid basis that it was found to be constitutional. Obama and Dems will have to concede they increased taxes on everyone which Obama repeatedly said, he wouldn’t. Just like, all other aspects of Obama legacy, his life story, his biography, his promises…. all lies.
Court’s decision, whilst upholding the law, also says Obama was wrong to say it was not a tax increase. In fact, that is the ONLY valid basis that it was found to be constitutional. Obama and Dems will have to concede they increased taxes on everyone which Obama repeatedly said, he wouldn’t. Just like, all other aspects of Obama legacy, his life story, his biography, his promises…. all lies.
You are quite predictable, Celal. First your party forces Obama to concede to a health care plan they championed for 20 years, then when the Democrats implement their plan they declare their idea unconstitutional. And when they lose in court they claim Obama is to blame for implementing a Republican tax raising plan. I’ve known teenage girls with more integrity in admitting to a loss or being wrong.
Romney is in a bit of a bind, too, since Obama’s plan is modeled after Romney’s, so Romney will need to explain why he approved of a tax raising program that he flip-flopped on that has proven legal. But I predict the True Believers™ will turn a blind eye to that breach of dogmatism. Evidently John Roberts explained his vote by saying that the court’s job is to decide what is constitutional and not what is politically popular, so he tossed the issue back to the people and Congress to decide. At least in this case he can’t be accused of being an activist judge.
My crystal ball says the Republicans will implement Plan B, which is to Starve The Beast, meaning to make the program full of paperwork, Byzantine rules and procedures (much like the health care system we have today), and cut funding to hobble it as much as possible so that when the people are fed up with another government agency that is more trouble than it is worth decide that instead of fixing it they would rather eliminate the whole thing. And who do you guess will be there to say their own legal, tax raising scheme is a boondoggle enriching the insurance companies at the tax payers’ expense and detriment?
The Republican Party - impetuously leading ahead to the 19th Century’s Gilded Age!
Court’s decision, whilst upholding the law, also says Obama was wrong to say it was not a tax increase. In fact, that is the ONLY valid basis that it was found to be constitutional. Obama and Dems will have to concede they increased taxes on everyone which Obama repeatedly said, he wouldn’t. Just like, all other aspects of Obama legacy, his life story, his biography, his promises…. all lies.
Except that you get a choice of either buying insurance through a new premium tax credit or receive a lower tax refund. The choice is left to the consumer and either choice satisfies the mandate. Moreover, the mandate actually lowers costs. As Roberts wrote in today’s opinion describing the government’s argument:
”[T]he health care market ischaracterized by a significant cost-shifting problem. Everyone will eventually need health care at a time and to an extent they cannot predict, but if they do not have insurance, they often will not be able to pay for it. Because state and federal laws nonetheless require hospitals to provide a certain degree of care to individuals without regard to their ability to pay, hospitals end up receiving compensation for only a portion of the services they provide. To recoup the losses, hospitals pass on the cost to insurers through higher rates, and insurers, in turn, passon the cost to policy holders in the form of higher premiums. [...] By requiring that individuals purchase health insurance, the mandate prevents cost-shifting by those who would otherwise go without it. In addition, the mandate forces into the insurance risk pool more healthy individuals, whose premiums on average will be higher than their health care expenses. This allows insurers to subsidize the costs of covering the unhealthy individuals the reforms require them to accept.”
What is interesting to me is that they held that the mandate was not valid as a regulation of commerce, but was valid as an exercise of Congress’ taxing powers. Now, although Obama won this round, he is open to the charge that he has raised taxes on the poor and the middle class. Sort of a Pyrrich victory, it seems.
That’s how the Republicans will frame it. However, the Individual Mandate is based in the Republican belief in self-reliance and not allowing anyone a free ride. Right now the law says hospitals must provide care regardless of one’s ability to pay, which allows for a lot of freeloaders, so the Republicans decided to make paying for health care a tax on those who won’t get their own insurance so the rest of us don’t have to cover for the freeloader, and, as the Supreme Court just ruled, a tax is perfectly legal. So while the original idea was to tax freeloaders to cover the cost of freeloading it will be repackaged as an assault on every American and another example of how the Democrats want only to raise taxes for needless government programs.
I think the Republicans are miffed the Democrats took credit for passing a Republican idea, and unfortunately for the Republicans they don’t have an alternative health care plan, except maybe what we have today, which is widely reviled by the public. It looks like the Democrats out-played the Republicans by forcing the Republicans to attack the only health care plan the Republicans had and leaving them with the only option available which is to sing songs of repeal.
Actually, the more I learn about this, the better it sounds. The court found that the government cannot force me to buy health insurance, it can only tax me for not having it. Therefore, I can choose between buying health insurance or paying the tax. Since the tax will apparently be a small fraction of the cost of buying health insurance, it’ll be cheaper to just pay the tax.
And, since the law also requires health insurance companies to insure people with preexisting conditions, if I ever do get sick or injured I can buy health insurance after the fact. Pay the less expensive tax now, then buy the more expensive health insurance when I need it. I’ll vote for Obama if he promises to “mandate” home and automobile insurance, too!
The penalty will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per person, OR a percentage of your taxable income. For dependents under 18, the penalty is half the individual amount.
The annual penalty is capped at an amount roughly equal to the cost of the national average premium for a qualified health plan — in other words you cannot be forced to pay more than it would have cost to buy a plan in the first place.
...
Percentage of individual taxable income: fixed percentage of household income in excess of tax filing threshold – 1% in 2014; 2% in 2015; 2.5% in 2016.
For example (again courtesy Blue Cross Blue Shield): An uninsured, non-exempt individual with household income of $50,000 would be forced to pay 1 percent of the difference between $50,000 and the tax threshold (let’s say $10,00 for an individual in 2014), or roughly $400. Since $400 is greater than $95, this individual would have to pay $400.
Originally, the bill had a provision for prison sentences for people who refused to buy health insurance for more than a few years. But I guess that won’t happen now—unless you also refuse to pay the tax.
In my case, the tax (at the maximum, 2.5% rate in 2016) would probably be around $2,000. Which is probably about 1/3 to 1/5 of what health insurance would cost me for a year. Maybe even less, given that health insurance costs will probably go up in order to cover the costs of insuring people with preexisting conditions.
Your so called free-market health care is why you guys are in teh bind you are in. A universal health care scheme, not based on profit and publically funded has proved to be the cheapest and most efficient system there is. Look at Europe, Australia etc. Most civilised countries settled this issues decades ago. The problem in the USA is ideological. You need to get over it.
