Before everyone slams the "partisan court"

[TR1982]

Maybe, but that assumes that people will be motivated solely by cost. You can pay some money to the government and get essentially nothing for it (only emergency care that hospitals could not refuse) or you can pay more money to an insurance company and get health insurance for it.

I'm not convinced that if people now have to pay somebody that they won't want to at least get something for their money. I believe that there are currently about 50 million people uninsured in the US. The CBO has projected that only 4 million will elect to pay the tax instead of buying insurance

That's a valid point, but it would only be convincing if the tax were the same as the cost of the average premium. As it is, the people who don't think they need insurance aren't any more likely to think they do need it just because the government is begging them to get it. Yes, their savings from not buying health insurance after the bill versus before the bill will be less, but it will still be savings none the less. It will absolutely convince some people for whom 2.5% of their household income is less than the average premium to buy insurance, but that incentive falls dramatically as household income decreases, up until the point where a household qualifies for government insurance programs. Assuming those CBO numbers are correct, of which I am doubtful, that doesn't take into account the fact that more of those 50 million people will receive coverage simply due to the expanded coverage provided by the bill. So the 4 million number may sound insignificant, but compared to the number of people the mandate will actually apply to under the new provisions provided by the bill, it is likely that it is a much larger proportion.

At the end of the day, if you want everyone to buy insurance you have to institute a prohibitive tax against deferring. The fact that the bill doesn't do that neuters the force of the mandate to a relatively significant degree. The reasoning is understandable; they don't want to penalize less wealthy people if they decide to opt out, but that comes with the territory when you force someone to buy something. A lot of times it will hurt them.

 

[deac29]

I believe that there are currently about 50 million people uninsured in the US. The

Only if you include those eligible for Medicaid and illegals. The real number is actually much smaller.

 

[mfdeacs99]

A) The partisan court issue is gone.

B) These opinions were very well argued.

 

[mfdeacs99]

And the original point of this thread has been completely confirmed.

 

[PhDeac]

True. You've been redeemed by this week. Well done.

 

[RJKarl]

Only if you include those eligible for Medicaid and illegals. The real number is actually much smaller.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm

 

[Shooshmoo]

A) The partisan court issue is gone.

B) These opinions were very well argued.

That was as political an opinion as you'll find.

 

[ProfessorDeac]

My mistake. Pages 47-50 in the reader I was using, 41-44 of the actual opinion.


While I recognize the concern about misfeasance taxes, I doubt they're suddenly going to become all the rage due to this opinion. Voting for higher taxes, particularly when those taxes are for simply failing to comply with some government policy, doesn't strike me as a good path to reelection.

Indeed, which is why Obama argued so strenuously that this tax is not a tax. You think that's a one-time trick?

 

[DeacWatcher]

There is still a little voice in the back of my head that is saying to the cynical side of me that Roberts did it in a "thinking outside the box" effort to hurt Obama's reelection chances in November.

Its funny you say that but in my opinion as an independent voter this whole healthcare deal (which has been a substantial waste of the governments time and money) will have no effect on who I vote for this fall. I still believe Romney is a rich two faced liar that will say anything to get elected and Obama....well he's Obama. He not great but not horrible either.

 

[Billy Mitchell]

bobknightfan's razor:

When there are two competing theories, the more melodramatic one is probably right - provided it somehow brings up George Bush.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I totally agree with you. And, actually, I think that this is the more likely reason behind Roberts' decision:

It's Bush's fault.

FIFY

 

[DeacWatcher]

It has to absolutely kill McConnell & Boehaner that Roberts crossed a so called "line" by supporting this. Its a good thing Roberts is a judge and untouchable otherwise Grover Norquest, Rove and others like him would be calling for his head in the next election. Again this will have no effect on the fall election. You're either gonna vote for Romney or Obama because of what they believe is best for the country.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

It has to absolutely kill McConnell & Boehaner that Roberts crossed a so called "line" by supporting this. Its a good thing Roberts is a judge and untouchable otherwise Grover Norquest, Rove and others like him would be calling for his head in the next election. Again this will have no effect on the fall election. You're either gonna vote for Romney or Obama because of what they believe is best for the country.

And most people do not believe that Obamacare is what is best for the country.

 

[PhDeac]

Most people believe parts of Obamacare are best for the country. They just don't believe people without insurance should pay for it.

 

[TR1982]

Most people believe parts of Obamacare are best for the country. They just don't believe people without insurance should pay for it.

Uh, no. They believe that they shouldn't be paying for people without insurance.

 

[Ball State Deac]

Here are the actual votes on cases this term. As you will see 5-4 is not very common. If you see a few 5-4 votes next week and you decide to buy into the "hack court" arguments, here are the actual votes this term to show that you are wrong.

mf on the Catholic Church thread:

Actually, I believe in exeuction for child rapists. Unfortunately we can no longer do this in our country. A man who raped a 3 year old and split her from her vagina to anus was spared by a liberal court. The only four justices to dissent to say this wasn't a capital offense were all Catholic.

Spead some more lies bigot. Get together with Rj, Olive Garden and Moon and enjoy.

 

[PhDeac]

Uh, no. They believe that they shouldn't be paying for people without insurance.

They're already paying for people without insurance. The problem is with the individual mandate that requires people pay for their own insurance either directly or through a tax.

 

[Shorty]

There is still a little voice in the back of my head that is saying to the cynical side of me that Roberts did it in a "thinking outside the box" effort to hurt Obama's reelection chances in November.

I would imagine there are a lot of little voices in the back of your head.

 

[TR1982]

They're already paying for people without insurance. The problem is with the individual mandate that requires people pay for their own insurance either directly or through a tax.

No, they're only paying for emergency room care, not prescriptions, long-term treatment, etc.

 

[PhDeac]

Uh yeah. They're already paying for people without insurance.