General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDid John Roberts Throw A Wrench In Major Argument Against ‘Obamacare’?
In a little-noticed exchange Monday, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts may have tipped his hand that hes entertaining the possibility that the health care laws individual mandate can be upheld on a constitutional basis thats different from the one supporters and opponents have made central to their arguments.
-SNIP-
In an exchange with a plaintiffs attorney, Roberts suggested hes skeptical that the mandate and its penalties can be treated separately and may have opened the door to finding that Congress power to impose the mandate springs from its broad taxing power.
The idea that the mandate is something separate from whether you want to call it a penalty or tax just doesnt seem to make much sense, Roberts said, over strong objections from attorney Gregory Katsas. Its a command. A mandate is a command. If there is nothing behind the command, its sort of, well what happens if you dont file the mandate? And the answer is nothing. It seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime.
Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless? You know, buy insurance or else. Or else what? Or else nothing.
That wasnt what the challengers wanted to hear. A key feature of their argument is that the individual mandate is distinct from the fine the government will assess on people who fail to purchase insurance. They say the case isnt about Congress power to tax or penalize people but rather about its power to force people to take actions they may not want to take. Roberts dismissed this distinction.
The rest: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/did-john-roberts-throw-a-wrench-in-major-argument-against-obamacare.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
matmar
(593 posts)to purchase a profit-driven insurance product is right down his alley.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)progressoid
(49,991 posts)Bandit
(21,475 posts)None..Zip..Nada..No Penalty what-so-ever....
hughee99
(16,113 posts)What happened to the $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015 and $625 in 2017 or 2.5% of net income, whichever is greater? I thought that was there when the law passed?
progressoid
(49,991 posts)If one can simply refuse without penalty, there is no harm done and therefore no basis for a lawsuit.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)That's leaves 15 percent overhead. This is why they hate the law and are paying the wingnuts to get rid of it.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Since it was originally a Republican idea.
As to why Democrats think it is so great...that's a whole nother can of worms.
BlueDemKev
(3,003 posts)...but it was so politically-expedient for the Republicans to simply oppose Obama's health care reform efforts so they just call the law "socialized medicine" and other garbage in the hopes that enough people are stupid enough to believe them.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)I didn't realize they were trying to make this case: "A key feature of their argument is that the individual mandate is distinct from the fine the government will assess on people who fail to purchase insurance."
Like Roberts said, not it's not. Don't be silly.
louis-t
(23,295 posts)throw the whole thing out. I think it will be a strict party-line vote.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)The current SCOTUS is conservative.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)If the penalty is a tax then they can't rule on the unfairness of the tax until someone is harmed by it.
I have no idea why they would take the case now if only to punt but this court makes no sense to me anyways. Maybe it was just a way to look like they tried to overturn it but couldn't at this time. It gives the (R)s something to continue to campaign against this year.
I think the law will be upheld but if they do punt then this must have all been political theater from the Supreme Court and that would be a new low, even for them.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)If they decide that they can't rule on the mandate until someone is affected by it, which I think is the proper position, they still need to take the case in order to establish that.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)it makes sense now