ACA upheld!

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 121 - 140 of total 413 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Jun 28, 2012 - 04:26pm PT

John Roberts:

In sum, Congress passed the minimum coverage provision as a key component of the ACA to address an economic and social problem that has plagued the Nation for decades: the large number of U. S. residents who are unable or unwilling to obtain health insurance. Whatever one thinks of the policy decision Congress made, it was Congress’ prerogative to make it. Reviewed with appropriate deference, the minimum coverage provision, allied to the guaranteed-issue and community-rating prescriptions, should survive measurement under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.

. . .

yosguns

climber

Durham, NC

Jun 28, 2012 - 04:33pm PT

John Roberts:

. . .

Uuuh, Norton, that was in the Ginsburg dissent. The majority didn't find that.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jun 28, 2012 - 04:38pm PT

Now ask yourself from Ginsburg's dissent on the Commerce Clause holding: What objective limit would there be on congressional ability to legislate under the commerce clause?

Then ask yourself what objective limit there is under the majority opinion to congressional power under the taxation clause?

I'm beginning to have second thoughts about my criticism of Ginsburg's dissent. Maybe there really is no objective limit under the power to tax, so it doesn't matter if there is a limit under the power to regulate interstate commerce. As long as the regulation has the effect of a tax, with merely monetary rather than criminal consequences, congress can do it.

While I doubt the founders would approve of a lot of what congress has done, I find Roberts' opinion on the taxation clause rather compelling as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence.

John

yosguns

climber

Durham, NC

Jun 28, 2012 - 04:38pm PT

Uuuh, I will cut no one slack when it comes to the Commerce Clause.

Apparently, John neither. :)

Well, Due Process was mentioned in there, in the dissent (as a limit)? and the Lopez thing--the regulation still needs to be related to economic activity. There are lots of things that clearly aren't.

John, I agree, though, that the implication of the opinions could be pretty drastic for future interpretation. Ginsburg said elsewhere (I don't think I quoted this) that Roberts had left no way to discern whether taxation was reasonable and what the bounds of that was.

What about the argument that Congress can determine the bounds of a market?

Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber

I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!

Jun 28, 2012 - 04:40pm PT

suck it up blue cross and blue shield you rip off motherf*#kers,

100 a month kaiser, heck yeah, now we are getting sane again,

atchafalaya

Boulder climber

Jun 28, 2012 - 04:49pm PT

Might be a good time to just stfu, instead of needing to voice an opinion without knowing what it is you are talking about. Lets check back in a couple years and see how this plays out. If history is any indication, we will be screwed by our government no matter which party is in power.

Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber

I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!

Jun 28, 2012 - 04:58pm PT

they wouldn't insure me after i told them how much weed i smoke,

they said i should pound wine with bleach blonds, try to fit in,

don't make waves, you should have just faked it boy, faked it boy,

yosguns

climber

Durham, NC

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:00pm PT

Uuuh, Fattrad, sort of like the recently increased climbing fee on Denali? or the entrance fee to Yosemite? The authority to charge fees is actually left up to the superintendent of each park and is governed by several vague objectives put forth in a few federal acts (that were mostly passed before the 70s). Congress delegated its authority to manage the specifics of parks' budgets to executive agencies (e.g.: NPS), which then also has its own rules regarding that. But, you know all that.

What do you mean by your question? Would I be angry if there were a tax on climbs on federal land?

I wrote a paper about the Denali fee increase. Yes, if there weren't any reasonable rationale for the increase or the amount. Some of the proposed increases were WAY high, like 800% and there was no way to construe the budget and expenses of the park to justify that sort of increase. However, the 75% and 150% increases that were approved--while still too high--were more justifiable when you looked at expenses for the mountaineering program.

nature

climber

SoSlo, CO

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:08pm PT

at least fatty admits to being a mental speculator.

where's werner?

yosguns

climber

Durham, NC

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:09pm PT

yosguns,

I'm just specualting on the potential ability of congress to "tax". How about a special climbers tax for just entering YNP, an additional "tax" if you have equipment with you.

That's sort of what the Denali fee is (not a tax by Congress, but the effect is the same). And it was a central point in the paper I wrote. I don't have a problem with people paying a regulating agency for their specific use of a resource. I do have a problem--in some instances--with people paying more than is fair. E.g.: when climbers have to pay a tax that covers more than the resources they use--the Denali fee is borderline here--because the park operates in the red and can target climbers to make up its budget shortfalls, since climbers are a minority user group. That is a really specific example. I wouldn't mind paying taxes for a service I didn't receive if that service benefited the society as a whole, but I see this as different than targeting a minority group to pay to cover more than their share of resources in order to make up for overall budget shortfalls. Maybe this is what ACA does, in which case I'll have to reconsider my logic.

I support the ACA, since I trust the statistics that on average, families pay $1000 more for health insurance premiums in order to cover the expenses of the uninsured.

It's funny to me that so many people who so quickly use the argument that they don't want to pay for other people to have X, Y, Z (medicare, welfare, etc.)--any multitude of social programs they feel they are paying for by paying taxes--don't mind that people who want insurance would have to pay more for their premiums in order to cover the uninsured.

In my lifetime, I have not witnessed a better example of the free rider problem.

yosguns

climber

Durham, NC

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:20pm PT

yosguns,

The law which requires hospital to treat the uninsured could be changed. Changed to read "only in emergency cases, as deemed by a PA or Dr.".

Yeah, let them eat cake. And who decides what an emergency is? A PA or Dr? I can think of a whole bunch of economic ramifications of a rule like that. Drs' liability insurance cost might skyrocket. Not sure, but when I think about our tort system... Do you want to change that, too? I bet you do, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Turtles all the way down.

There are many ways to solve this problem, but as I said, I've never seen a better example of the free rider problem. When you do a chess-like play-by-play analysis, I think this is one of the most efficient solutions. The coordination required to solve the problem when you consider market forces--I think Ginsburg gave a good example of this with states competing against their neighbors--makes this problem the type of one that governments were created to address. Also, there are a couple positive outcomes: 1) people who have health insurance pay lower premiums because millions are encouraged to buy health insurance and 2) more people have health insurance, making it less likely they will impoverish their families in a catastrophic event.

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:32pm PT

Fattass thoughtlessly blurted:

The law which requires hospital to treat the uninsured could be changed. Changed to read "only in emergency cases, as deemed by a PA or Dr.".

that is exactly what the law right now says

clue: that is why the uninsured can only go to the emergency room for open wound or life stabilizing "treatment"

clue: guess who makes the call?

clue: the on staff DOCTOR

moron

yosguns

climber

Durham, NC

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:34pm PT

The law which requires hospital to treat the uninsured could be changed. Changed to read "only in emergency cases, as deemed by a PA or Dr.".

Ha ha...and I played right along. Sh#t, how does that work, exactly?!?

Apparently, it works because people's insurance premiums pick up the slack. Aaaahhhh.

Curt

Boulder climber

Gilbert, AZ

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:42pm PT

NOW every lazy unemployed 300lb alcoholic smoking diabetic has the right to live to be 95-years-old by implementing endless, heroic medical procedures that will cost 6.75 million dollars per individual, as Federally mandated!

Did someone else who is wrong tell you that - or did you make it up all by yourself?

Curt

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:44pm PT

Apparently, it works because people's insurance premiums pick up the slack. Aaaahhhh.

correct

and that is another good reason why have 30 million more insured will lessen the burden
on both the taxpayers and also those who have insurance premiums in the ACA

thanks for pointing that out

nature

climber

SoSlo, CO

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:49pm PT

Articulate, focused, sincere, compassionate, victorious

No wonder rightwingers hate him

yes!

from the Roberts link:

Roberts is "a disappointment," said conservative radio host Bryan Fischer, who plans to devote his entire show to the ACA today. "He is gong to go down in history as the justice that shredded the Constitution and turned it into a worthless piece of parchment."

I guess Mr. Fischer failed to recall the Shrub already stuck the Constitution in a paper shreader.

nature

climber

SoSlo, CO

Jun 28, 2012 - 05:57pm PT

As an aside I'm stuck today trying to decide what to do for the next year on my health insurance plan. I'm sure fatty will blame this on the ACA, libs, pinkos, whatever. So you need not bother your input. Or go for it and I'll just do the opposite cuz you are always wrong.

right now I pay $107 per paycheck (paid every two weeks) for $1000 deductible, $25/$40 PCP/Specialist copay.

This is going up because I just went up in age bracket. Probably other things at play here too (it went up last year as well).

My choices are:

$134 per pay check - $1500 deductible $30/$45 PCP/Specialist copay
or
$183 per pay check - $0 deductible $20 PCP and specialist.

plan B means my health insurance costs almost $10K/year (half paid by my employer). WTF?!?!

my network does consider acupuncturists and chiro's as specialists. I need to get in to both. I may also need an MRI on my shoulder to figure out why the pinched nerve won't go away.

the final piece is since it's all pre-tax that's about $2K less per year in gross income which I figure means $500 or so less in taxes.

If I get the MRI I meet the deductible and thus plan B is the right choice. Last year I had $0 paid towards the deductible. I'm really healthy and lead a similar lifestyle as Kris S. It's all structural thank goodness.

I probably just thought myself through the decision making by writing this.

I'd like to know about this rebate my President speaks of for those of us qualify (do I)?

monolith

climber

albany,ca

Jun 28, 2012 - 06:01pm PT

The rebate was a one time thing for about 13 million people whose insurance company did not spend enough on health care. I wouldn't count on it for anything.