Dear Supreme Court: An existing precedent you should examine

[berni_mccoy]

This precedent is a law that requires people pay for a product, a service,...actually...a medical insurance in fact, for which they may never use.

There is indeed a penalty for not paying the premium, which is actually called a tax.

Anyone who receives a paycheck must enroll and they pay for this product before they can ever use it. Furthermore that product only covers a selected subset of the population.

That precedent is called Medicare.

If you undo the ACA, you are effectively undoing Medicare. It does not matter that the insurance is a public or private policy. The decision you make could preserve both or undo both.

[zbdent]

1. "If you undo the ACA, you are effectively undoing Medicare."

isn't that the intent of the Republicans?

Of course, that would piss off all those TEAhadists who are ON Medicare ...

[atreides1]

2. It seems to be the intent

As for the TeaBaggers...just like all blind idiots...it won't register until it's too late!

[TheKentuckian]

3. The penalty is a penalty not a tax. You may consider it semantics but if was supposed to be

a tax then it would have been written as such.

Any penalty is for tax evasion, not a penalty for not paying premiums.

Congress refused to fund the healthcare system through taxes, you don't get to go back and pretend they did to make an argument. A penalty for inactivity in for profit commerce is not a tax, even if it spends the same to you. I think you are flirting with Republican re-labelling tactics, twisting agreed upon terms until they fit your agenda.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Sorry, poor choice of words

I said there was a penalty for not paying the premium, which is a tax (the premium is a tax, not the penalty).

The penalty is a penalty, yes, and you will still have to pay the premium (FICA, a payroll tax) on top of the penalty, which is more than what the ACA does.

[Bandit]

5. Not exactly true

Most people will already have insurance and they get a tax CREDIT for that. If you won't purchase insurance you will have to pay that tax. There is no real penalty because the way the Law is written if one chooses not to pay any "Penalty" nothing can be done to them for refusing to pay.. So in essence there is NO Penalty at all.

[TheKentuckian]

10. There is no tax, it is a penalty. It isn't a deduction but rather a penalty for not paying your

tithe to the insurance cartel and yes something can be done because most of us have our taxes deducted, if we are due a refund they will deduct the penalty. I am not clear whether that liabilty eventually translates into a tax liability or not but regardless it will pile there and eat up refunds.

You are being penalized for inactivity, it isn't regulating freely entered into commerce either.

You aren't regulating how I grow wheat, you are compelling me to produce wheat if I even want to farm or not.

In fact, it is worse because they don't actually tell you what to produce, that is left to your employer. You could actually just produce food, according to Uncle Sam but rather than let people sign up (on a system being set up for the unemployed and self employed to pick what crop or livestock they wanted), they let your boss man decide if you are going be a moonlight dairyfarmer, grow some tomatoes, fish, or whatever. Dictating your out of pocket costs and time investment.

Nor is it even akin to conscription, unless you think that to protect a particular industry we can be ordered to knock out some shifts at the bank or be made to do a tour with Haliburton.

[Snake Alchemist]

6. Who provides your medicare? Is it BCBS or United? nt

[berni_mccoy]

7. Can you explain...

what difference that will make if ACA is turned over by the Supreme Court? Medicare will be unconstitutional for the same reasons.

[Snake Alchemist]

8. Answer my question and it will be obvious.

I do not think they will overturn it.

[berni_mccoy]

9. Interesting point...

I wonder why the SC decided to hear the case then... do you think it is so it looks like they tried?