Tobin wrote:Obamacare was sponsored by Senator Harry Reid, a Mormon. In fact, he was celebrating the victory in a speech to the on the Senate floor not long ago. I'm happy to see this upheld by the Court since it will provide insurance for those without the possibility of having insurance so they can get the medical care they need.
Then saith He to Thomas... be not faithless, but believing. - John 20:27
National Federation of Independent Business et al. v Sebellius, Supreme Court No. 11-393, decided today addressed three arguments against ObamaCare:
1-The individual mandate to buy health coverage (or face a tax penalty) if not provided by an employer,
2-States risked losing 10% of current Medicaid funding if they did not accept the expanded Medicaid coverage to all individuals whose income is at or below 133% of the poverty level (no longer just with regards to the an individual 'need' determination by the State's Medicaid agency), and
3-All of ObamaCare should be thrown out if ##1 or 2 are struck down because an early version had a severability clause (an instruction by Congress to the courts to only invalidate the Constitutionally odious portions, not all), but the severability clause was taken out of the final version that was passed into law--indicating Congress wanted the courts to keep all or none of ObamaCare if the courts found any part of it to be unconstitutional.
As to #1, the individual mandate of coverage (or face tax penalty) was upheld as constitutional by the Court focusing more on the tax aspect and less on the penalty aspect of it. Of note, however, the Court only agreed with the Obama Administration that the individual mandate was a proper exercise of Congress' Taxing Authority, and would not be if depending only on either or both the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.
As to #2, the Court struck down as unconstitutional the part of ObamaCare that would have cost a State 10% of current Medicaid funding from the federal government unless a State accepted the expansion of the Medicaid program in that State from those found to be in need, to all that have income under 133% of the poverty level. Basically the Court found the 10% take away made it unrealistic for a State to not choose the expansion, and was thus tantamount to a bribe (my word, not the Court's--which called the 10% take away 'economic dragooning').
So, having struck down part of ObamaCare as unconstitutional, the Court then also had to deal with the question of whether the whole of ObamaCare was unconstitutional or just the Medicaid expansion portion. The Court ignored the fact that as the ObamaCare bill was being modified its severability clause, once there (so not merely omitted as an oversight) and then removed before garnering the votes in Congress to enact it, and instead did some fancy footwork (straining legal credulity in my opinion) and seizing on the old, already existing Medicaid Act's severability clause to sever just the unconstitutional Medicaid expansion (#2 above) and salvage the rest of ObamaCare. Regardless of the outcome of #3, this reasoning does not, in my opinion, stand up to intellectual integrity scrutiny.
In short, all of ObamaCare except the Medicaid expansion has survived the first legal challenges to get to the Supreme Court.
Wow, all my full-tithe paying Facebook friends and family are up in arms about this one. Some are pretty mad at Obama right now. It appears that most of the anger stems from the idea of increasing taxes.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by the President.
A: Yeah.
Q: ... about that, the individual mandate is not a tax. This is something that constitutional lawyers are always addressing. Is this the position of the administration today, that the individual mandate is not a tax?
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.
I am so totally not following this whole thing. :( I feel sort of bad... like I have sinned. Growing up, I was taught that I should follow politics because it was my duty as a patriarch of my family and upholder of my religious ideals. But... life gets in the way. I have kids to take care of and things to do. I am getting ready for a nice dinner with my wife this Saturday. I'm pulling all the stops! I have to stay on top of reading with the kids and cleaning the kitchen and lots of other things. I read books, look at pictures, and work with fabrics on the side.
I have chosen not to take the time to research the details of the healthcare debate. Maybe that is a sin.
Anyway, I don't plan on repenting any time soon.
Might I ask an uneducated question?
Will this reform help more people get healthcare that could not get it before? That's all I really want to know.
Thank you, beautiful people.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
zeezrom wrote:Will this reform help more people get healthcare that could not get it before? That's all I really want to know.
Thank you, beautiful people.
Nobody knows either way. That's also not relevant to whether it is constitutional.
lostindc wrote: Yes it will, and I know, I crunch the stats. That is all I can say.
You have statistics about things that have not happened yet? Are you sure you're not taking statistics from other events that have already happened and extrapolating them, like this study? Whether what is true of Massachusetts proves true of the entire United States is something that can only be guessed at. Unless we have someone who can see the future, like a stake patriarch or Thomas S. Monson or a person like that.
Did the statistics you crunched take into account the inability of the federal government to cut Medicare funding for states that opt out?
ETA: And none of this is relevant to whether the various provisions of the Act are constitutional.
