Post by secretlyevil on Jun 28, 2012 9:23:17 GMT -5
FYI - This shit is mostly going way over my head. I feel really dumb.
Lyle: The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55)
Post by secretlyevil on Jun 28, 2012 9:25:27 GMT -5
So am I understand this right? The states sort of won too because the Federal gov't isn't allowed to take away Medicaid funds if a state doesn't comply with new program? So isn't that more of a standoff? No one won on this point. I'm really confused.
Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.
Amy Howe: The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.
I need this explained to me like Im 5. I can refuse to pay taxes? huh?
Per the Today Show, there is no penalty for not paying the tax if you fail to have insurance. Whereas, if you fail to pay the income tax, you can be prosecuted. So, its my understanding that the law says you have to pay a mandate, if not, pay a tax, but is slient about what happens if you do not pay the tax.
Post by ChillyMcFreeze on Jun 28, 2012 9:27:32 GMT -5
(I haven't read all the responses.) It makes more sense if you're watching CNN. The producer was inside the court relaying news to Kate Baldwin who broadcast it. At the same time, Kate was reading through the 3-inch thick opinion to get to the good stuff as fast as possible. I can't imagine trying to keep up with their Twitter account!
Seriously guys, check out Fox News' coverage. It's kind of hilarious.
Thanks for the heads up, it's awesome. A quote was that the big takeaway is that as a presdient you never know how your appointed justices will rule. That's the takeaway?
I know we're all excited, but can someone please explain the "upheld as a tax" thing?
This is what I wrote on facebook about this question.
I think the opposition argument was that it was not a tax and therefore it was unconstitutional to force people to engage in commerce. So they could either say it's a tax and we're not hearing this because it hasn't been levied, or it's a tax and therefore it's not forcing anyone to engage in commerce
And I've had this window open for like three minutes so this has probably already been answered, refuted, disprove, and answered correctly.
The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.