President Obama's healthcare laws upheld by Supreme Court

[Damien]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18630837



Really thought it would get struck down. Big victory for Obama and the Americans who will now be able to get medical insurance, and their children who will now be covered for longer.

---------- Post added at 15:55 ---------- Previous post was at 15:48 ----------

How many more people in the USA that will have healthcare insurance:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-care-law.html

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Damien

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18630837



Really thought it would get struck down. Big victory for Obama and the Americans who will now be able to get medical insurance, and their children who will now be covered for longer.

---------- Post added at 15:55 ---------- Previous post was at 15:48 ----------

How many more people in the USA that will have healthcare insurance:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-care-law.html

I wonder how much it will push up costs. My family & friends are really worried about that aspect of it.

[nomadking]

Were the penalties that are now classed as taxes, classed as taxes at the time of passing the legislation? If not, isn't the basis for original legislation, false? People would have been voting in Congress on the basis of penalties and not taxes. The only link to the IRS, is that is where the penalties end up. The penalties are not based upon income but are a fine. In this country, is a fine for not having car insurance, a penalty or a tax?

The Government was arguing that it was about "interstate commerce" and not tax. Therefore it appears the Judges concocted their own new grounds, just so that they could approve it. If the issue of whether it is a tax or not was not raised during the hearing, the issue was not allowed to be properly explored and argued by both sides. Is that principle fair, at any level or type of legal hearing?

[Damien]

I think they ruled that the extra charges, i.e having to buy medical insurance, is acceptable when considered a tax. It's not changed how this will be implemented or charged. It's a rather weird technicality as far as I know.

[nomadking]

But was it considered as a tax before, during, or after this hearing had taken place? They clearly didn't accept the Government stance relating to "interstate commerce", or they would have used that "reason" in their decision. If the final decision is made on the basis that it is classed as a tax, then both sides should have the opportunity to argue, for or against that proposition.

Did Congress decide the issue on the basis that it was a tax? If so, wouldn't the matter have been settled long before now? It is only now being classed as a tax, because the fines are paid to the IRS and for no other reason.

How would you feel if a legal decision was made against you, on the basis of something that was not presented at a hearing/trial? You may have been able to easily disprove that basis, if you had known it was going to be used. But as you didn't know, you are denied a fair hearing and can probably do little about it.

Just because certain people might like the decision, doesn't mean the decision was fairly and correctly arrived at.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But was it considered as a tax before, during, or after this hearing had taken place? They clearly didn't accept the Government stance relating to "interstate commerce", or they would have used that "reason" in their decision. If the final decision is made on the basis that it is classed as a tax, then both sides should have the opportunity to argue, for or against that proposition.

Did Congress decide the issue on the basis that it was a tax? If so, wouldn't the matter have been settled long before now? It is only now being classed as a tax, because the fines are paid to the IRS and for no other reason.

How would you feel if a legal decision was made against you, on the basis of something that was not presented at a hearing/trial? You may have been able to easily disprove that basis, if you had known it was going to be used. But as you didn't know, you are denied a fair hearing and can probably do little about it.

Just because certain people might like the decision, doesn't mean the decision was fairly and correctly arrived at.

But nothing has changed in the bill, they've just argued it constitution because it's covered under tax laws. The Government's existing implementation is constitutional. (To be clear it's the penalty for not having insurance, the fine, which is being considered a tax). The Republicans themselves don't seem to be challenging it on that basis yet either. It doesn't seem important enough to throw out the bill.

It's been fairly arrived at. It's been passed by both houses of congress, the President and has now survived a challenge at the Supreme Court.

[nomadking]

But it has to be Congress that decided if it was a tax or or not. If Congress NEVER considered it as a tax, it cannot be ruled a tax afterwards. If it is declared a tax and Congress didn't decide the matter as a tax, then the Congress vote was invalid. Did the people voting for proposal, vote for a tax or a penalty?

If Congress made a decision on a tax matter, and later it was decided it wasn't really a tax matter, would the vote have been valid, or would it depend on whether certain people liked the original decision?

[Maggy J]

I've read this thread and the articles and I still can't see what the hell they are all arguing about..

[Damien]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But it has to be Congress that decided if it was a tax or or not. If Congress NEVER considered it as a tax, it cannot be ruled a tax afterwards. If it is declared a tax and Congress didn't decide the matter as a tax, then the Congress vote was invalid. Did the people voting for proposal, vote for a tax or a penalty?

If Congress made a decision on a tax matter, and later it was decided it wasn't really a tax matter, would the vote have been valid, or would it depend on whether certain people liked the original decision?

Again. Nothing has changed with relation to the fine. It's not being called a tax, although it likely will be from now on, but the Court found that the existing rules were covered by the right for congress to charge taxes. In other words Congress were allowed to make that decision.

It is not the case that a new fine or tax has been opposed.

We'll have to see once it's all calmed down, and the final stages of implementation are considered. It's going to be important to make sure people pay since now that pre-existing conditions will be covered you can't have people waiting until they are ill to take out insurance.

The vote is valid. It's gone though every single element of the US system at this point. Even the Republicans are not desperate enough to claim that a bill which was been passed by all three houses and upheld by the Supreme Court is invalid.

---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I've read this thread and the articles and I still can't see what the hell they are all arguing about..

The Republicans argued that the individual mandate forcing people to pay health insurance was unconstitutional and therefore the rest of bill (insurance companies can't deny people coverage if they have pre-existing conditions, children must be covered under their parent's policies until 26, etc) was a nonsense.

The Supreme Court has today, surprisingly, decided that isn't the case. That the fine or fee for not taking out health insurance (the fine goes into a pot to help pay anyway) wasn't unconstitutional because Congress has the right to levy a tax. This was surprising because the Government had tried to get the whole thing deemed legal as interstate commerce and failed in that regard. However as long as the fine stands then the mandate stands and if that stands then the whole bill does.

So now, unless Obama loses the White House and Congress stays Republican, an extra 30 million Americans will have health insurance.

[Hugh]

Over 50 million are uninsured....

Link

Even then, the insurance doesn't cover all the costs - I have a friend who is a keen cyclist, and he came off his bike and smashed his leg up badly.

Even with his company's medical plan (and he was the CIO), his contributions and payments for stuff not covered by the medical plan was over $75k over a period of 18 months.

[nomadking]

Nobody had argued that it was a tax, in the period before the Supreme Court decision was made. How can anybody have had the opportunity to dispute whether is is or not, as it wasn't up for discussion. The Supreme Court effectively said the basis on which Congress etc voted for it, was invalid. Did any of those that voted for the proposals consider it a tax? Nobody else seemed to consider it a tax or the Government would have used that in their defence.

Try being on the receiving of this manner of decision making, ie coming to a decision beforehand, and then concocting a brand new "reason" for justifying that pre-judged decision. You have no possible way of being able to present your case.

[Hugh]

Strange how the Republicans think the Supreme Court is absolutely non-partisan when it supports them (as in the case of the 2004 election ruling), but not when they don't........

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange how the Republicans think the Supreme Court is absolutely non-partisan when it supports them (as in the case of the 2004 election ruling), but not when they don't........

Even this time they can't complain about partisanship. The deadlocked was broken by a Republican who was appointed by President Bush.

---------- Post added at 22:35 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Nobody had argued that it was a tax, in the period before the Supreme Court decision was made. How can anybody have had the opportunity to dispute whether is is or not, as it wasn't up for discussion. The Supreme Court effectively said the basis on which Congress etc voted for it, was invalid. Did any of those that voted for the proposals consider it a tax? Nobody else seemed to consider it a tax or the Government would have used that in their defence..

I don't really think this discussion can progress. It's not that the fine is being considered a tax or not. It's that Congress' right to issue that fine is covered by their right to impose a tax. It's a technicality about the constitutional rights of Congress. It's not the basis for which Congress voted for it, it's the basis for their legal right to pass it.

The nature of what Congress voted for, at least with respect to the mandate, is unchanged. Congress can't complain that they didn't vote for this because they did, it's hasn't changed.

[Maggy J]

Nope still don't get it..Either Congress can make rules/laws or they can't.If they can't who can?

[Hugh]

They (Congress) can - but they can be challenged (in this case by a number of states).

If challenged, the final adjudication (after State courts) is the Supreme Court.