If the law requiring you to buy private corporation health insurance is constitutional then

less costly than the insurance if you don't buy it.

Nobody has to buy insurance under this plan. You just are better off if you do. That's the way I understand it anyway.

Do you have a link to the section in the statute in which the government tells you that you have to buy insurance?

At least the slime will finally wear off of the legislation and we will have a final answer, no matter what the outcome is.

If you cannot differentiate between them, you are not alone; however the law is quite specific on the matter.

have the anti-tax people so far up their butts that those miscreants do their thinking and speaking for them.

the insurance.

Includes International as well as Interstate Commerce. How could that affect us in future laws? I have not seen that mentioned. Most Commerce today the stream is International.

insurance is i believe exempted from the commerce clause and left entirely to the states to manage

(If you'd like me to save you some time, it's not)

so that exemption is not written in stone.

The reason why people do not have HC coverage is because they cannot afford it. It was a Right Wing meme that stated they are just irresponsible and want the government to pay, or want everyone else to pay for them. The truth is it's because they cannot afford it and they can't afford any penalties either. Those penalties would feed their children eg.

This is what Candidate Obama said about mandated insurance and one of the reasons I supported him:




McCain was for it of course, Obama was against it, as you would expect from a Democrat, but then he changed his mind. He gave the Repubs what they had demanded for so long, turned his back on his base who wanted a PO, and now the Repubs are attacking him anyhow. Which all goes to show you should never abandon those who helped you get to where you are, in order to appease those who hate you just because you are alive. You can never appease them. But had he remained true to his principles, we would not have lost the House in 2010 and people would not be holding their noses once again, when they go to vote in November.

All of this was predicted but we were told to STFU. However, I do not think the SC is going to rule against it. Why would they? It's good for the Corporations. And this SC loves its Corporate sponsors.

I'll bet I can find things that other people said that were different from what they are saying today, too.

I'm pretty sure Congress put this in to get (R) votes. I think he is just going with what cold get the votes and I am not aware of any statements that directly support the individual mandate.

no worth tomorrow?
somehow time excuses what was said?

It's already law.
And it is being discussed in the Supreme Court today.

Btw, why would someone who got it so right, change their minds so completely?

There will be almost no one in that situation anyway bcause of the Medicaid expansion and premium support. But if anyone is still unable to afford insurance, there is a hardship exemption.

Of course its going to apply to people who can't afford to buy insurance. There is a lot of distance between what the government defines as poverty and what actual poverty is in many places. People will have to choose between paying their rent or paying for insurance. The penalties will be a heavy burden for people who are struggling. Others won't be able to quit their jobs or start a business because they can't afford to leave their employer-provided insurance and pay the fines. The penalties will go up and the subsidies will go down when Republicans assume power. This was a terrible "solution" to the problem of high health care costs.

So a much larger group of people who are technically "not poor" will be covered by it.


Except the exchanges create an individual market at a group rate, meaning it's roughly the same cost as employer-provided insurance. And if they're actually anywhere near the poverty line, Medicaid covers them.


Yep, Unfortunately, Republicans and Blue Dogs made no other solution possible. On the plus side, it will eventually become single-payer.

force you to buy insurance for your car even if the free drivers license they gave you gets suspended, or make you pay assessments on your property just because everyone else on your street wants paved roads, and why pay a little for public education all the time when you could just cover the cost with one check while the kids are in school? And this damn infrastructure that lets trucks, trains and buses race across the country does about as much good as all those electric lines. With big enough tires on planes they wouldn't have to have airports either.

BUT what really ticks me off is all those people who aren't smart enough to think deny the existence of mental illness.

And, yea, I'm stupid.

And insurance for cars covers liability for damages to others.

Your arguments are seriously off the mark.

and there are many people today who cannot afford to drive because of insurance and fuel costs. In many civilized industrial nations, one's health is considered a "right."

We either are a nation that takes care of our own or we buy (like we've been sold for years) that we are rugged wild west individuals and we don't need no stinkin help. With the help of a very complicit media, the owners have sold us social darwinism, ayn randian ideas. These ideas to me, have hurt american families, workers and communities. And like a pack of jackals, they attack the weakest in our nation.

I'm with bernie sanders, with single payer, even businesses have a great deal not worrying about benefit packages. However, the business sociopaths even are cutting benefits and pensions.

I am concerned that for profit corporations have too much power in this country. and the more we privatize, the less power the american people have.

Hubby and I have insurance, the only insurance we can afford since he's lost his good paying job. It has deductibles, it has ceilings. If either one of us actually had a catastrophic illness, the insurance wouldn't even cover it all. My FIL was in the hospital and the bill was over 200,000 dollars. At least they had medicare and secondary insurance which cost them about seven hundred a month. They are on SS and a small pension.

If I was younger, I would honestly think about moving to a country that actually cares about its' people. Because, in today's climate, thanks to ronnie, it seems that the focus is on greed, screwing people, and how much obscene profits a corporation can make on the backs of their workers.

The fee varies by state, but in my state is $24 for 4 years (granted it will not break the bank but it is not free).

but thanks for the republican talking point.

So long and thanks for the drive-by non-argument.

Edit to add: And... Republican talking point? Hello, it was Mitt Romney who pioneered the mandatory health insurance purchase provision in Massachusetts. Your argument fails history, too.

it was the Heritage foundation (uber right wing group) who has been pushing this individual mandate. This is one fact supporters of the individual mandate would like you to forget.

I hope that clears it up for you.

You know, the Republican who first made this mandatory purchase law.

First off, lets get the damn context straight. Burying or cremating people has NOTHING to do with saving lives and the cost of saving those lives. That fact in and of itself completely obliterates your argument. When we are talking about making sure everyone is somehow insured, we are talking about increases one's chances of getting live saving medical attention and access to life saving preventative care. The purpose of the mandate is to increase the size of the pools so that they can support this effort.

Secondly, health care is an enormous economic force in this country that effects everyone's life experience in a major way. The coverage problem is one that is of tremendous national importance. On the contrary, the business of burying people is not an economic force of any significance. The costs involved are a whole lot less than the costs involved in healthcare... mostly because its a one time thing whereas healthcare is a lifelong issue for every living American. So no, its not the same thing, at all. And to compare these 2 realms with any amount of seriousness is laughable.

And before you start lecturing people about history, perhaps you should try learning some yourself. Mitt Romney didn't "pioneer" shit. The Mass health plan was WRITTEN and PASSED by a DEMOCRATIC state government and Ted Kennedy played a huge role in it as well. Mitt Romney attempted to veto 8 provisions of it and 6 of those vetos were overridden by the same Massachusettes Democrats that wrote and passed it in the first place.

opposed them and spoke eloquently as to why he opposed them. McCain supported them, naturally, he's a Republican. Did you accuse the President of using 'Republican talking points' when he debated McCain over mandates and stated so clearly his reasons for opposing them?

We are NOT Republicans who think what their party tells them to think. We are Democrats who have principles and do not throw them away for political expediency. Most Democrats always opposed Mandates. The hypocrites on the Right always supported them. They are suddenly opposed to them NOW, because they have no principles.

And I doubt very much that this SC will throw out this bill. It is a corporate court and will never rule against the Corporate powers imho.

If Republicans and insurance cos and coporolatiliticastocrats adore Obamacare so much, then why have they brought this case to the Supreme Court?

I'll tell you why

- it severely limits the abuses insurance cos can inflict on their customers and the profits they can make off suffering
- as more and more of it comes on line the more popular it will be be with people
- the more popular it is with people, the more likely it will lead to Medicare for all

to try to do it. But they have always supported Mandated insurance. Republicans were always in favor of 'making the lazy, poor pay their own way'. They loved mandates for that reason. Democrats otoh, as the President himself said, understood that many people could not afford to pay, they were not 'lazy and trying to get other people to pay their way'.

Which is why it was so disappointing to see Democrats turn around and support something that Republicans could use as a tool against them. And many of us predicted exactly what is happening right now. Republicans are very predictable and they have no principles.

They were for mandatory health insurance purchases before they were against it.

Story of their lives.

but most folks only die once in a single state. Generally there is no interstate commerce in death. If you were careful, planned it, and sat at exactly the right point at the moment, it could be possible to die in as many as 4 states at the same time. People don't seem to do this much.

Actually one case being used in the arguments found that growing your own wheat in excess of the government allotment, prevented a farmer from buying wheat on the market which affected interstate commerce. The penalty and requirement that he destroy the crop was upheld by SCOTUS. So they could mandate that he buy wheat on the market, not grow it himself, if he wanted to feed it to his livestock.

and what's to stop them from making you buy a ticket to mars?

once a Republican gets into office and uses that imaginary "constitutional" right to mandate you purchase stuff.

from something the government is obligated to provide to a mandate on the parent.

The repubs and new dems will charterize and privatize everything until you have a choice between a local charter school (privately run, but inexpensive), a religious school, and an upscale private school (costly enough to keep out the riff-raf).
You'll have a mandate to enroll your child at one of them. They'll the tax code as a method of providing vouchers (a long time goal of the GOP) to religious schools.

congress would love a wide-open precedent allowing mandates. what else would they like to "provide" without transparency or accountability for the costs?

I can see a Rick Santorum pushing that, after all its in the constitution but seriously I could see that restricting certain foods especially sugary and salty foods because now that they claim your unhealthy habit is driving the country into bankruptcy and they would be right

The step from "buying insurance to protect your physical health" and "investing to protect your financial well being" seems pretty small to me.

If they can make us give Aetna money then why can't they make us give money to Merril Lynch?



I would like to see the mandate struck down as a stand alone clause but I am still betting that they either uphold the entire law or delay judgement until 2015.

From Ezra Klein:

Private insurance companies will screw it up, and so there will be pressure for a public option. Especially when people in Vermont don't have worse health care.

That option should end up cheaper than anything else in the exchanges, because there's no profit-taking. Which will eventually mean they dominate the exchanges.

With the "Cadillac Health Plan" tax poorly indexed, businesses will gradually stop offering insurance, and put more people into the exchanges.

Result: a Rube Goldberg system that is single-payer. I estimate it'll take about 20 years.

And aren't you forced to buy that?

Are you against SS as unconstitutional?

SS funds are derived from taxes which everyone pays. The ability of the government to tax is well entrenched in constitutional law.

Yes, I'm also concerned about privatizing SS. Just what we need is WS to get more of our money to screw with. Also, before little boot's big pharma giveaway, medicare had the ability to arbitrate with pharma for reasonable prices. Now, it's a windfall for insurance companies, big pharma and the medical industry.

The repugs also want to privatize the VA. A corporation's only goal is to make profits, and they'll do it anyway they can; screwing their employees, cutting services, cutting care.

The reason why some of the state pension plans are in trouble, is not because those damn retired workers are making too much; but because some repug politicians, especially in florida and ohio took that money and invested it in companies like enron (and WTF old coins in ohio?). Actually, I think some of those cretins were funneling pension monies into repug coffers when little boot's and his band of greedy pals were in office.

Just think what they'd do with your SS money if they gave it to their friends on WS.

What you just said is why I cannot stand the arguement that what is going on right now is similar to SS. There are no similarities. Using SS to justify the health mandate is the same as supporting privatization.

I doubt it.

D'Oh....It seems some "Mandates" are quite acceptable for Republicans...

or for having kids.

I don't see how a tax break for carrying health insurance is a radical departure from those practices.

It was he who first passed this law in Massachusetts.

Jeez, doesn't anyone remember history?

As are all of the Republicans? They all want to repeal it. This case was brought to the supreme court by Red State Attourney Generals.

History is good, but conditions change.

The Republicans and their patrons n the healthcare industry fear Obamacare because they know that:

- it limits the abuses insurance cos can inflict on their customers
- it forces the insurance cos to pay 85 percent of what they take in on health care ( not CEO salaries, etc)
- as more of the law comes on line, it is going to be really popular with people
- the more popular with people, the less the "governmentrunhealthcare" talking point is going to work
- the less the talking point works, the more ineffectual Koch Bros style pro-insurance industry lies become
- the less the talking point works, the less threatening and more popular the idea of Medicare for all is going to become.

Seriously, I mean no offense, but your original post takes things to absurd extremes. It reminds me of posts I've seen on the wingnut boards re "Obama is outlawing sport fishing", "Obama will force you to circumcise your son", "Obama is going to make all cars white."

Those are the sort of questions that came up yesterday.

Thus, they are nothing whatsoever like health insurance. The cost of a one-time basic burial is not the equivalent of continued health care, and you cannot decide to apply for life insurance after you've found you're dead.

A mandate for buying food (hey, nice right wing talking point you've got there!) is also nothing whatsoever like health insurance. Again, there's no way you can retrospectively start eating healthy food when you find a junk food diet has given you a health problem.

It's very simple: the mandate is there to make it possible to say that people with pre-existing conditions must be accepted, while stopping people from not getting insurance until something major happens to them. Why do some people find this so complicated?

Any more questions?

On the other hand, they can end homelessness buy requiring you to buy shelter (own or rent).

You're saying that this is a good thing?

the repukes won't pass up the opportunity to use this to their advantage as well.

are actually enacted by the states not the federal govt. Nobody here is arguing that the states cannot enforce mandates.

not everyone HAS an ID and the state hasn't been willing or able to furnish everyone an ID for free (or mandate that everyone buy one). If the Federal government were to require the ID, then EVERY state could then skip that part of the ID debate.

Nobody is making you do anything. However, y if you refuse to sign in, there will be a small penalty. about 75.00 a year. You can even choose not to pay that if you feel it is unfair or won't be enforced. I don't think it will be rigidly enforced since there is no mechanism in the law to do that.

Our lawyers flubbed badly by not making that a stronger point. There is no mandate.

The annual penalty will start at $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater. It will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016.

This is a tax penalty. If you don't pay it, the IRS will come after you. They can garnish wages, put liens on your property and/or throw you in jail.

if that $695 seems onerous, then they should buy into the insurance and get something for their money, instead of being antisocial scofflaws.

Would it be considered constitutional then?

What is the difference for Medicare being considered constitutional?

Sure, it won't pay for a fancy burial. But it'll do just fine for a pauper's grave.

The law implements a tax. If you buy insurance you get relief from that tax.

We have many tax relief laws on the books. If you put solar panels on your roof, you also get tax relief. Same goes for thousands of other items in the tax code, all perfectly legal.

My portion of the plan cost is legally "pre-tax" and does not even show up as income on the w-2. So if I was crazy enough to refuse the coverage, I would be paid this money as income and be taxed on it. I guess that would be unconstitutional???

If I don't buy a house with a mortgage, I have to pay more taxes than a neighbor with a mortgage. Is that forcing people to buy houses? Not really, it's simply an incentive to buy a house.

I'd really like to see the ACA spun in this way - we're creating an incentive to buy insurance. If you don't buy insurance, then you're taxed more, just like with many other things in the tax code.

don't have health insurance.

It is in fact the invention of Mitt Romney. The Republicans were for it before they were against it.