but improving it is a matter for congress and the president, not the supreme court.
its constitutionality is transparently obvious, if only as an income tax, though i rather doubt this court will put the politics aside.

that said, politically, a defeat at the hands of the supremos might be a huge win for democrats. it would cement that argument that obama needs to be re-elected to keep the court from getting any worse, and it may also lay the groundwork for legitimate improvements in health care/health insurance law. eventually, anyway. we're not likely to get much through as long as the house is in republican hands.

Amend the Constitution to allow the mandate, and I'll agree that it's constitutional.

Until then ... the mandate was a bad, Republican idea in the 1990s, when it was first proposed, and it's a bad, Republican idea now.

-Laelth

if you don't make enough income, you don't have to pay the penalty. that makes it an income tax, even if they call it a mandate, even if they call it a penalty. no matter the name, it IS a tax on income, coupled with a credit for qualifying health insurance.

in substance, it is virtually identical to many, many income tax provisions over the years. income is being taxed at a higher rate than it otherwise would be in order to allow deductions and credits for a boatload of various things the government wants to encourage us to do.

for political reasons, i suppose, they've decided not to call it an income tax, but that's exactly what it is.


if there weren't a poverty exemption, i would agree that it's not an income tax. but there is, so it is.

... has the Federal government forced its citizens to pay an extra "tax" just because said citizens refused to purchase a product from a private company. Never before.

The mandate is unprecedented. I hope the SCOTUS finds it unconstitutional.

-Laelth

many of them by purchasing products from private companies, such as energy-efficient windows or solar panels or hybrid cars.

there's absolutely NOTHING fundamentally unconstitutional about hiking everyone's income tax, requiring everyone to pay an extra $800 or whatever, provided they have enough income to owe taxes.

and there's absolutely NOTHING fundamentally unconstitutional about offering a 100% tax credit for the exact same amount if you purchase a qualifying product from a private company.

x is not unconstitutional and y is not unconstitutional but somehow x + y IS unconstitutional?

nope. sorry, the mandate may be bad law, but it's not unconstitutional, nor is it remotely unprecedented.
the only thing remotely unusual about it is that they avoided calling it an income tax hike with an optional, offsetting income tax credit.
but the name doesn't matter, or at least shouldn't (of course we can't rule out the supremos taking a political pot shot and using the name as its basis.)

The 20-somethings are getting higher tuition costs with low job expectations. Without the current temporary adjustment they would pay the highest percentage of for SS of any generation. With the mandate- a foolish right-wing idea- they will help pay for health care "for all".

If we want universal health care, we need gov't hospitals & clinics paid for out of the government's general revenue.

Aside from mandating insurance companies' obscene profits, it undermines employer provided insurance, something that few talk about but which I think will become more and more problematic over time. After all, the mandate requires most Americans to carry health insurance, so employers will increasingly perceive that requirement as letting them off the hook-- after all, they need not provide insurance to employees who are required by law to buy their own if need be. Smart companies will realize that they can get all the benefits of insuring employees-- a healthier, more productive work force-- without having to pay the costs of insuring those employees.

...more and more onto employees.

In any event, I want the health insurance industry to wither and die. Piss on 'em. The mandate insures that they remain profitable. I want to bury them.

based on the "burden" that would otherwise fall on the employees were the company to offer coverage that meets the law's standards to their employees.

There is no mandate that the minimum health benefits of the law be charged in a progressive fashion based on employees' wages, in a like-manner to income taxes which are progressive... and so the "progressive" answer to low wage employees is to simply give the companies a waiver so they don't have to provide, and neitherwise does an insurer have to provide, "full" benefits to low-wage employees... but employers who provide sub-minimum benefits with a waiver do not have to pay a penalty.

Likewise, if an employees has "health insurance" (sub-minimum benefits provided by virtue of a waiver), then that employee does not qualify for any government subsidized programs.

Voilá — shitty sub-minimum benefits for the "wage slave" working class, and if you are laid off or what have you— and find yourself desperate enough to take one of those shitty jobs... then you are mandated to pay whatever the insurance company (in collaboration with your employer) charges. If you try to "opt out" of the sub-minimum benefit plan, then you will not qualify for a government run system... you will pay a tax penalty on your already anemic pay.

Bejesus, what a brilliant system...

Many companies are already making plans to do just that. Between the hassles of administering their company health plans, paying an administrator (or several administrators depending on company size), and the per employee cost of that plan - its cheaper for the bigger companies to drop it and pay the fine.

Small businesses won't have to offer it at all and I predict that virtually ALL of them will drop that benefit.

PB

It could be the beginning of the end for Medicaid and even Medicare.

to subsidize profits for an industry.

you know they WANT more than anything to hand Obama a setback, but the bottom line is sooooo stark. what conservative judge could resist fluffing these robber-barons?

receiving that kind of compensation for contributing absolutely nothing to society, is somehow justified and that they deserves such obscene salaries.


Sick greedy A$$HOLE$!


And the idea of making them richer by forcing us to purchase their bull$hit coverage, is some demented shit!

if it will ensure Obama wins and we get single payer before the end of 2012 to protect all the people who would have been helped by the health care law.

No, if the above is a ridiculous notion.

is to stop the RW from screaming that a mandate is unconstitutional related to Medicaid (a program they despise)?

Children's health insurance is mandated.

"They can scream, but if they want to take it up with the courts they should have done it over 40 years ago. "

...a challenge to expanding Medicaid is a big part of the RW case against the law

Supreme Court unlikely to strike Medicaid expansion from Affordable Care Act
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/28/1078611/-Supreme-Court-unlikely-to-strike-Medicaid-expansion-from-ACA

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

Piece by piece.

Adequate severability language was not built into the legislation, and insurance companies will sue to overturn pre-existing condition protections.

Do you know what it's like when you can't buy coverage for your sick child? Not at any price?

I do.

It's terrible.

due to agreement with $$$$ insurance companies. If they strike it down, the whole thing falls apart. Not that I agree with the mandate.

Healthcare for All!!!

while the mandate keeps on ticking and the ACA will most likely will become even more favorable to the for profit "health" insurance industry as that now institutionalized industry has more time and profit to bribe or lobby future Congresses with the peoples' money.

I don't want a verdict unfavorable to the president and/but, this is the wrong way to proceed. We don't need any more legislation that shifts our money and our power to private interests.

the for profit "health" insurance industry will be flush with cash for unlimited propaganda purposes to affect the ACA or health care in general to that industry's advantage.

Perhaps this is one reason that Obama was so upset with the Citizens United decision as to call them out during his State of the Union address?

Politicians have for decades played around with "adjustments" to federal programs...

It's gonna create a pile of money. Piles of money attract people who want the biggest share of that pile that they can squeeze out of it.

I can't shake the feeling that sooner or later the cowboy capitalists will demand cost adjustments that will 'alter' all the promises.

ruling could be bad for "HCRR" (Health Care Reform Reform) plans (we can hope that some get seriously considered in our lifetimes).

This is the best we're gonna get, and I don't want to see it scrapped and give the TeaOP a victory.

It represents an unprecedented power grab by the Federal government. It was a bad, Republican idea in the 1990s, when it was first proposed, and it's a bad, Republican idea now.

-Laelth

PB

thing to do -- which tells me that it probably won't come from this SCOTUS.

here's why i see it as a possible net good: it's bad law. it was a Heritage Foundation policy proposal. striking it down would open the door for Medicare For All which wouldn't have Constitutional issues, and this would be demanded by Americans who've received a taste of the freedom that non-employer based healthcare provides. and lastly...such action would outrage and motivate Democratic voters on the issue that's the strongest for reelection, which is maintaining control of SCOTUS nominations.

having said all that, i will be very surprised if they hand Obama this sort of political capital.

It might be crappy insurance, but it's better than nothing.

coverage. I don't have health insurance and haven't had it for almost four yrs now. Can't afford it.

Who really thinks that Congress will fund the subsidies for ACA for those who can't afford to purchase for profit health insurance?

... I hate the mandate, but I appreciate the fact that so many are benifiting from this. I want a public option, but seeing as to how greedy, selfish and remarkably brainwashed people are in this country, I don't see it happening until people really feel pain in the upper eschelon of society. So while I hate the mandate, I do not wish to see folks lose what they have now. Empathy vs Apathy