Obamacare lawsuits by states: Judge rules

[RobinFinderson]

A mandate that we buy something that we may or not may want? I don't want nukes, but I am ultimately compelled to pay my share for them. The problem here is that the cost was originally presented as something other than a TAX.

Obviously the government can tax people, and this is obviously a kind of tax, however, since the government rolled it out as something other than a tax, they find themselves in this stupid legal situation.

[Uncle Ted]

A mandate that we buy something that we may or not may want? I don't want nukes, but I am ultimately compelled to pay my share for them. The problem here is that the cost was originally presented as something other than a TAX.

Obviously the government can tax people, and this is obviously a kind of tax, however, since the government rolled it out as something other than a tax, they find themselves in this stupid legal situation.

Yes, this ruling is a bunch of crap...

I think the government should be able to make everyone buy an iPhone instead of those damn canadian crackberries. Apple is a Californian company and California has a lot of debt. The additional tax revenue would definitely help. Also, the BlackBerry torch is starting to catch up with the iPhone in sells. We, as americans, can't let that happen. We must levy an iPhone tax on every American! Besides my IRA, with its AAPL stock, is depending on it. So call up Pelosi and get her on this before the lame duck session is over.

[Borderline Divine]

Auto Insurance

The judge in Virginia got it right. If the government can mandate that we the people buy something that we may not want, it opens the door for it to mandate that we buy other things.

This is a victory for freedom.

Ever hear of Auto Insurance? Are you aware there is a penalty if you don't have it? Are you aware it is the state who enforces the law and collects the penalty?

I just thought I'd ask

[Uncle Ted]

Ever hear of Auto Insurance? Are you aware there is a penalty if you don't have it? Are you aware it is the state who enforces the law and collects the penalty?

I just thought I'd ask

What if I don't drive?

[creekster]

Ever hear of Auto Insurance? Are you aware there is a penalty if you don't have it? Are you aware it is the state who enforces the law and collects the penalty?

I just thought I'd ask

You are only required to buy it if you choose to drive. Wlak, run or ride your bike as much as you like, but no one will tell you that you must buy insurance.

[LA Ute]

Ever hear of Auto Insurance? Are you aware there is a penalty if you don't have it? Are you aware it is the state who enforces the law and collects the penalty?

I just thought I'd ask

You don't have the right to drive a car. You must qualify for a license as a condition to getting driving privileges. in order to get and keep a license you must have insurance. IOW, no one is requiring you to drive a car, but if you choose to drive one there are standards you must meet, including purchasing insurance.

In Obamacare the individual mandate requires that you purchase a product.

That's the difference. No Supreme Court decision has ever held that the government can require individuals to engage in commerce, let alone purchase a product or service.

Brief discussion of the Constitutional issue here.

[il Padrino Ute]

Ever hear of Auto Insurance? Are you aware there is a penalty if you don't have it? Are you aware it is the state who enforces the law and collects the penalty?

I just thought I'd ask

If I don't own a car, I don't have to buy insurance.

Next question?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Instead of a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty, couldn't Congress pass an across the board tax hike of $x per person (where x=the penalty currently in place), and then provide a deduction of up to $x for health insurance premiums paid by that individual? I'm not recommending this by any means, but it seems like it would be fairly easy to get around the constitutional objection. Those not entitled to the deduction could still argue they're being forced to buy the insurance, but that argument wouldn't be all that different from renters claiming the mortgage deduction forces them to buy a house.

Having not read this point anywhere else I assume it's a stupid one, but I thought I'd give it a try.

[Moliere]

Instead of a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty, couldn't Congress pass an across the board tax hike of $x per person (where x=the penalty currently in place), and then provide a deduction of up to $x for health insurance premiums paid by that individual? I'm not recommending this by any means, but it seems like it would be fairly easy to get around the constitutional objection. Those not entitled to the deduction could still argue they're being forced to buy the insurance, but that argument wouldn't be all that different from renters claiming the mortgage deduction forces them to buy a house.

Having not read this point anywhere else I assume it's a stupid one, but I thought I'd give it a try.

This is a very unstupid point and would be different than the current structure of Obamacare. However this is already done as long as your health insurance is paid for by your company. If you buy an individual plan then you don't get the deduction.

[LA Ute]

Instead of a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty, couldn't Congress pass an across the board tax hike of $x per person (where x=the penalty currently in place), and then provide a deduction of up to $x for health insurance premiums paid by that individual? I'm not recommending this by any means, but it seems like it would be fairly easy to get around the constitutional objection. Those not entitled to the deduction could still argue they're being forced to buy the insurance, but that argument wouldn't be all that different from renters claiming the mortgage deduction forces them to buy a house.

Having not read this point anywhere else I assume it's a stupid one, but I thought I'd give it a try.

Not stupid at all. There are a number of alternative solutions to the problem of pre-existing conditions (which is the primary objective of the individual insurance mandate that the VA federal judge struck down). If we are going to outlaw denying insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions (a very popular idea) then we also have to deal with the problem of people waiting until they are sick before purchasing insurance, which would make actuarial soundness impossible. Simply requiring everyone to buy insurance is the Obamacare solution (and Romneycare's, to Mitt's everlasting political detriment). Other ways to address the problem of pre-existing conditions include risk pools and all kinds of ideas, some fancy, some simple.

[Goatnapper'96]

A mandate that we buy something that we may or not may want? I don't want nukes, but I am ultimately compelled to pay my share for them. The problem here is that the cost was originally presented as something other than a TAX.

Obviously the government can tax people, and this is obviously a kind of tax, however, since the government rolled it out as something other than a tax, they find themselves in this stupid legal situation.

I don't know if modern history can find an opportunity squandered like that of the Democrat Party 2008-2010. They have one relevent accomplishment, I think financial reform is useless wrt to stopping wall street elites from making more and more money, which they went about so stupidly that they were able to piss off the majority of the electorate ramming it through their own supermajority and it might not even have sticking power.

I guess perhaps SMU screwing up its football program in the 80s.

[RobinFinderson]

I don't know if modern history can find an opportunity squandered like that of the Democrat Party 2008-2010. They have one relevent accomplishment, I think financial reform is useless wrt to stopping wall street elites from making more and more money, which they went about so stupidly that they were able to piss off the majority of the electorate ramming it through their own supermajority and it might not even have sticking power.

I guess perhaps SMU screwing up its football program in the 80s.

No doubt. A lot of us mistook Obama for our own Tea Party movement, and not the cowering pussy he has proven to be. If the Republicans can run a HALF-decent candidate (not Mitt, Palin, Jindal, McCain or Huckabee), 2012 will belong to them. I'm hoping the Dems will be able to read the writing on the wall and that Obama will step out of the way for someone with balls (Hillary?).

[Jacob]

Instead of a mandate that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty, couldn't Congress pass an across the board tax hike of $x per person (where x=the penalty currently in place), and then provide a deduction of up to $x for health insurance premiums paid by that individual? I'm not recommending this by any means, but it seems like it would be fairly easy to get around the constitutional objection. Those not entitled to the deduction could still argue they're being forced to buy the insurance, but that argument wouldn't be all that different from renters claiming the mortgage deduction forces them to buy a house.

Having not read this point anywhere else I assume it's a stupid one, but I thought I'd give it a try.

It would have to be a credit rather than a deduction so that you get the money into the hands of the lower classes. Other than that, we'll probably end up there.

I find it absurd that employer provided insurance gets such favorable tax treatment compared to individual plans.

[Jacob]

Ever hear of Auto Insurance? Are you aware there is a penalty if you don't have it? Are you aware it is the state who enforces the law and collects the penalty?

I just thought I'd ask

The US Congress has no law respecting automobile insurance, which solves the constitutional problem. A state, whose state constitution allows it, could do a mandate with no problem.

[Goatnapper'96]

No doubt. A lot of us mistook Obama for our own Tea Party movement, and not the cowering pussy he has proven to be. If the Republicans can run a HALF-decent candidate (not Mitt, Palin, Jindal, McCain or Huckabee), 2012 will belong to them. I'm hoping the Dems will be able to read the writing on the wall and that Obama will step out of the way for someone with balls (Hillary?).

Democrats screwed the tax issue by not having any realistic grasp of the economic situation. They pissed people off by ignoring the economy and the fact that they kept waiting to deal with the tax issue highlights their incompetence at understanding the economic issue. My guess is they kept waiting for the summer of recovery to ignite and once Americans were fat, fed and happy they could then move to bleed the rich. Well, sooooo-prize soooo-prize soooo-prize. The electorate got pissed and when the Democrats chose to address the tax issue they had themselves boxed in to the point where the Repub filibuster in the Senate held all the power. Obama caved because he had no choice. If taxes go up, result of nothing happening, it would have been death to him. Republican filibuster in the Senate = no change = death to President Obama. If the Democrats would have taken up the issue 16 months ago, when they were pissing off the electorate with their dubious health care bill, I think they could have won a deal similar to the one Chuck Schumer sponsored. But maybee that isn't really enough bleeding for the Progressives. It appears to me that not only do they want to bleed the real rich but they want to bleed the real rich's Lieutenants who do the things to keep the real rich rich. The endstate for the Democrats is right now they have an electorate who questions their competency and ability to hear what I hear, and a base that is demoralized and fit to be tied. Brilliant management of a once in a lifetime opportunity. Trully, Brethren can we question that the Hand of God still leads this inspired Country!?

I wonder what issue the President is going to make a Custerlike stand to remobilize his base. His own deficit commission came back in a way that "makes nobody happy," but makes progressives the least happy - I interpret somewhat a reflection of the historical "center-rightedness" of the electorate or at least of our bi-cameral system. I doubt Republicans dig in too much for DADT, gay marriage or various other social issues that have no real impact on the economy or the deficit. I think the last decade is going to have a generational impact that Vietnam had in keeping the US out of conflict for a while. What else is there for the President to try to re-convince the liberals that he has some balls?