Obamacare decision

[ouch]

Okay, get it out of your systems. But be warned that the tolerance level for this thread will be less than zero,

[Pebcak]

Okay, get it out of your systems. But be warned that the tolerance level for this thread will be less than zero,

Can we start a betting pool or a poll as to how many posts they get into it before the hammer falls?

[MilesTeg]

In before the lock, and I don't trust the SCOTUS any more than the POTUS to actually read and follow the COTUS.

[Easttexasman]

If I post what I want to post the hammer would fall pretty quickly so I will just keep it to myself and my coworkers.

[COHunter]

In the spirit of keeping it civil let's just say I disagree with the decision that was made.

[mikeschu]

The "individual mandate" logic is a head-turner. Calling a fine a "tax" and saying it's legal under Congressional tax authority could have very intriguing effects for future legislation. I wonder how much of a brake this will be on the economy in 18 months when it goes into effect.

[WickedSwde]

Force people to get an insurance and make sure they get back to work asap. Sickdays are expensive for all parts included. Lower or no production and the Gouvt wont get any tax income.

[ridnovir]

Oh what the hell I will say it. I do not like the law in its current form (although the original plan that included free government insurance for all was a step in the right direction. We have higher taxes than Canadians do so should afford Canadian type government coverage). The current law only favors big insurance companies (so much for Obama the fighter for the little guy). Now you will have to purchase a health insurance or face penalties (so much for land of the free) in return the insurance companies will have to accept all (which they will gladly do - it helps the bottom line). Oh, and almost all insurance companies increased their prices (mine went from $60 (ok coverage) to $300 (lousy coverage) a month.

[mayhem]

The "individual mandate" logic is a head-turner. Calling a fine a "tax" and saying it's legal under Congressional tax authority could have very intriguing effects for future legislation.

The Court decided that the individual mandate could be upheld under the government's power to tax, but course, it will never be labeled as a tax - that would cause it to be wildly unpopular.

[Obsessed]

All I'll say is that CNN looked pretty bad this morning. For several minutes, their website reported that the mandate was struck down. Oops.

[OccamsBadger]

I don't trust the SCOTUS any more than the POTUS to actually read and follow the COTUS.

That, and the fact that Congress has quit trying to follow the COTUS, does seem to be the problem, doesn't it.

[nole1]

The Court decided that the individual mandate could be upheld under the government's power to tax, but course, it will never be labeled as a tax - that would cause it to be wildly unpopular.

+1. Don't really get their logic on the ruling and I'm a little disappointed in Justice Roberts but it is what it is. At least we have a decision and can make plans accordingly.

[Obsessed]

Here's the decision. There will be a quiz tomorrow.

[Thundering Bear]

"...The current law only favors big insurance companies (so much for Obama the fighter for the little guy). Now you will have to purchase a health insurance or face penalties (so much for land of the free) in return the insurance companies will have to accept all (which they will gladly do - it helps the bottom line). Oh, and almost all insurance companies increased their prices (mine went from $60 (ok coverege) to $300 (lousy coverege) a month.[/QUOTE]



I'm curious to hear why this favors any insurance company? There is a large amount of newly mandated coverage. Sibelius reports it won't raise costs more than a small amount which is ludicrous.

[mikeschu]

The Court decided that the individual mandate could be upheld under the government's power to tax, but course, it will never be labeled as a tax - that would cause it to be wildly unpopular.

That's what I meant to say. I had "tax" in quotes specifically because it isn't a tax - if you have insurance, you won't be assessed.

I think my concern is if we have some creative lawmakers that will write more legislation in this way - we'll be required to do/have X or we'll have to pay up.

[jazzman]

The "individual mandate" logic is a head-turner. Calling a fine a "tax" and saying it's legal under Congressional tax authority could have very intriguing effects for future legislation. I wonder how much of a brake this will be on the economy in 18 months when it goes into effect.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that would prevent this law--passed by Congress and signed by the President, of course--from going into effect. The Commerce Clause versus taxing authority debate looks like pure politics to me, something that the Court should be avoiding. As for the wisdom of the law and its future effect on the economy, everyone has an opinion and time will tell. That's why we have a representative form of government: we vote for congressmen and senators and presidents, they create laws, and we can vote for other people if we want to. Not so complicated.

[ridnovir]

"...The current law only favors big insurance companies (so much for Obama the fighter for the little guy). Now you will have to purchase a health insurance or face penalties (so much for land of the free) in return the insurance companies will have to accept all (which they will gladly do - it helps the bottom line). Oh, and almost all insurance companies increased their prices (mine went from $60 (ok coverage) to $300 (lousy coverage) a month.

I'm curious to hear why this favors any insurance company? There is a large amount of newly mandated coverage. Sibelius reports it won't raise costs more than a small amount which is ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

May be because they will get 30+ millions of new costumers who will have to pay a handsome coin for the lousy coverage! And offer nothing in return!

[ouch]

If I post what I want to post the hammer would fall pretty quickly so I will just keep it to myself and my coworkers.

Thank you. What a nice and simple way to handle it.

Wasn't that easy?

[daverasi]

I don't see anything in the Constitution that would prevent this law--passed by Congress and signed by the President, of course--from going into effect. The Commerce Clause versus taxing authority debate looks like pure politics to me, something that the Court should be avoiding. As for the wisdom of the law and its future effect on the economy, everyone has an opinion and time will tell. That's why we have a representative form of government: we vote for congressmen and senators and presidents, they create laws, and we can vote for other people if we want to. Not so complicated.

Big +1!

Any comments on the actual impact of the law are purely speculative. For SCOTUS watchers the split within the 5-4 decision is also interesting. I have yet to read the actual opinion so I'll refrain from additional comments.

[mayhem]

That's what I meant to say. I had "tax" in quotes specifically because it isn't a tax - if you have insurance, you won't be assessed.

I think my concern is if we have some creative lawmakers that will write more legislation in this way - we'll be required to do/have X or we'll have to pay up.

I understand and agree. We'll just have to vote the buggers out of office!