How is HC Mandate substantially different from SS, wrt the constitution?

[Schema Thing]

I'm sure I'm missing something here?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Social Security is held in trust by the government, without insurance corporations making a profit.

Is the difference.

[Schema Thing]

3. How specifically does that affect the constitutionality?

Medicare premiums are paid to corporations and Doctor practices and medical device manufactures and etc that all make a (healthy) profit. Did this recent ruling make Medicare unconstitutional?

[Fleshdancer]

4. Medicare premiums are not paid by the citizen, but by the govt...

this is different from the HC mandate because the mandate requires that citizens pay a corporation (not govt and therefore not a tax) or be penalized. This is unconstitutional.

On edit: This is one of the many reasons why we should have medicare FOR ALL. ;)

[Schema Thing]

6. well actually if you refuse to pay an insurance corporation, the HC law only

requires that you instead pay the government.


So it seems to me you are talking about a distinction without a (substantial) difference.

[Fleshdancer]

9. So if I don't pay a for profit company, then my govt will penalize me...

by making me pay them instead of the for profit company? And if I don't pay them, then what?

[JoePhilly]

15. Think of it this way ... there is a new tax ... and you can avoid it

by purchasing insurance.

If you don't have insurance, then you can't avoid the tax.

Think of it like the home mortgage deduction ... you go to a private company, get a mortgage, and you avoid some taxes. If you rent, you don't get the deduction.

[Fleshdancer]

2. SS is a govt program....

The HC mandate forces Americans to pay for insurance provided by for profit companies.

[Sinistrous]

5. I wondered the same thing earlier this evening.

The thought was triggered when reading Begala's put down of Rick Perry.

[Schema Thing]

7. now I have to go re-read that

and see if that's what triggered my thoughts too. :)

[Schema Thing]

8. yep.

[TheKentuckian]

10. One is a tax to fund a benefit program the other is a penalty for

not buying a publicly sold good ones or service from a for profit business that is primarily selected by ones employer.

I'm wondering what is the same?

[xchrom]

11. +1

[KG]

12. there's nothing the same. there's just rhetorical gymnastics meant to polish a turd.

[Schema Thing]

13. Actually there are very real similarities

especially between HCR and Medicare.

Both are purchasing a government designated benefits insurance policy as mandated by the government, to pay private companies for healthcare.

[JoePhilly]

14. Its not really ... but I'd say its more like the Home Mortage deduction

As I understand it ... there is basically a new tax that we all might have to pay.

It exists basically to cover the medical expenses of those who have no coverage. But it is a tax.

And so ... you can avoid that tax, by purchasing insurance.

And if your income is below certain amounts, you get subsidies to help pay for the insurance, or to exempt you from the tax.

Bottom line ... the structure of the mandate allows one to avoid a tax. So the claim that one myst purchase insurance is false. You don't have to. But you can avoid the new tax by purchasing insurance.

So again, I'd say its more like the home mortgage deduction. If you have a mortgage, you get a tax deduction as a result. No mortgage, no deduction.

And where do most mortgages originate ... with private companies. So again, very similar.