Obamacare wins major victory

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/index.html

 

For me this is excellent news but I am more interested in our American friends views on Obamacare. Do you like it, is it working ? What don't you like 

 

I have only a high level knowledge of it so I am keen to get different perspectives on the overall state and predictions around Obamacare 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Excellent news? Are you coming over here or something? The decision itself is just another in the long line of examples of judicial tyranny; "the law means whatever we say it means". The rule of law has been dead since about 1930.

[Oerwinde]

Excellent news? Are you coming over here or something? The decision itself is just another in the long line of examples of judicial tyranny; "the law means whatever we say it means". The rule of law has been dead since about 1930.

Isn't that what the role of the judicial branch is? I was always taught the role of the judicial branch was to interpret law and set precedent.

[Tsuga C]

Isn't that what the role of the judicial branch is? I was always taught the role of the judicial branch was to interpret law and set precedent.

To interpret the law as written, yes. It is not within its Constitutional purview to re-write the law or read into the law things that are not there to begin with. The SCOTUS has, once again, exceeded its Constitutional authority.

[Enoch]

 

Excellent news? Are you coming over here or something? The decision itself is just another in the long line of examples of judicial tyranny; "the law means whatever we say it means". The rule of law has been dead since about 1930.

Isn't that what the role of the judicial branch is? I was always taught the role of the judicial branch was to interpret law and set precedent.

 

Well, one man's "interpreting" is another man's "re-writing."  (And "re-writing," of course, is a job for the Legislature.)

 

Ultimately, the Chief Justice is a pragmatist in matters of statutory interpretation.  The money quote from his majority opinion:

 

 

 

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

 

He understands that sloppy drafting sometimes happens, and doesn't think that it should be the Court's role to scream "Gotcha!" when Congress shoots itself in the foot.  If a clear overall plan is evident, Roberts would give it effect, despite some problematic drafting.

 

Scalia's dissent takes an alternate view-- he would say that "legislative plan" is "jiggery-pokery" nonsense that courts use to usurp legislative power.  Congress doesn't make "plans" or have a clearly articulable "purpose" or "intent" for its legislation-- it merely writes words that become Law, and the Court's role is to read those words and give them effect, even if the end result would be contradictory.  If Congress screws up, and ends up with a law that doesn't do what it wanted to do, it can fix it with new legislation. 

 

(Of course, that last point applies equally well to a Robertsian interpretation-- if the Court misconstrues Congress's "plan," Congress can fix it with a new law.  And, if the Court is any good at all at figuring this stuff out, it has the advantage of not requiring further Congressional action and not creating a period of major disruption and uncertainty for every little drafting whoopsie.)

Edited June 26, 2015 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

I guess I have a case of Congressitis. I should've said "the law means what we want it to mean", although I was also referring to what Bill Moyers asked Sandra Day O'Connor, but that's too subtle a reference. As for the decision, they've now extended jurisprudence to "what the law plainly says is not what it actually means", which of course allows all kinds of retconning. And the overall plan isn't evident, one of the main architects Gruber said many times the provision was intentional, it's only evident now when most states refused to set up their own exchanges. But fixing bad laws isn't the job of the courts, a law being vague is all the more reason to strike it down.

 

The more things change, the more they remain the same, this is from 1947!

 

Edit: Btw, if they passed the law without even reading it, how can we talk about what their "intent" was?

Edited June 26, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gromnir]

the only surprise we got were from kennedy.  some similar issues were addressed in NFIB, wherein kennedy joined the dissent which observed that redefining a mandate-with-penalty as a tax to save legislation from itself were beyond the scope o' judicial authority. "we must, if "fairly possible", construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). but we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not."  (pardon us if we misquote)

 

today, the Court, or perhaps the solicitor general, were allowed to fix otherwise broken legislation.  is the kinda thing that is gonna make any textualist scream in fury,  but right or wrong, the Justices all acted consistent with previous opinions, save for kennedy... who is notoriously unpredictable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Mr. Magniloquent]

"The context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase," Roberts wrote

 

That's a blatant admission of declaring the law to what the Justice (sic) willed it to be, rather than what was written. Then again, what else is new?

 

People are wrong though when they say that the ACA is a government take-over of healthcare in the USA. That happened way back in the early 1970s at the latest. Healthcare in the USA is >70% dominated by The State anyhow.

 

The ACA is a Fascist's Dream. It's State violence compelling serfs to enrich corporations. The rant that this thread is threatening to provoke out of me is immense. For example, one of the trumpeted aims of the ACA, was that "some people" possessed health insurance that was "too good" and needed to pay more for it while receiving less. That was an actual argument made on many occasions. Nacy "pass the bill to find out what's in it" Pelosi was particularly fond of that one. Congress exempted themselves from it as well--there is always that.

 

I was in medicine for six years and did everything from admin, advanced diagnostics, and emergency care. The ACA was the final straw which made me not pursue medical school. Before it, there were ways where I would be able to practice medicine "outside" of the system to practice medicine as I wished at prices so low insurance would not be necessary. The ACA closed every last one of the loopholes I needed to do so, and forced an entire nation onto the corporate plantation. The only crime greater than the existence of the ACA, is that the people who created and passed it aren't hanging from a bridge.

[BruceVC]

So there is another angle to Obamacare, the reality is it part of his legacy

 

If you are a supporter of his, like me, and everything he has done for the USA then of course you want it to succeed. I understand the majority of Americans on these forums don't seem to like Obama too much but I think history will definitely regard him favorably

 

Another important point  is I know the Republicans have promised to repeal Obamacare if they come to power in 2016...but  these wins in the Constitutional Court just ensure that Obamacare becomes more trenchant and harder for the Republicans to repeal. What alternative would they offer for the millions of Americans now benefiting from Obamacare if they want to get rid of it?

[BruceVC]

I guess I have a case of Congressitis. I should've said "the law means what we want it to mean", although I was also referring to what Bill Moyers asked Sandra Day O'Connor, but that's too subtle a reference. As for the decision, they've now extended jurisprudence to "what the law plainly says is not what it actually means", which of course allows all kinds of retconning. And the overall plan isn't evident, one of the main architects Gruber said many times the provision was intentional, it's only evident now when most states refused to set up their own exchanges. But fixing bad laws isn't the job of the courts, a law being vague is all the more reason to strike it down.

 

The more things change, the more they remain the same, this is from 1947!

grinandbearit.png

 

Edit: Btw, if they passed the law without even reading it, how can we talk about what their "intent" was?

 

That cartoon made me laugh....the reality is I live in a country where that really happens sometimes ...you guys don't really

 

Last week South Africa allowed Omar Al-Bashir, the current dictator of Sudan, to leave our country during an AU conference  despite the fact he is on the wanted list of the ICC (International Criminal Court ) and we are signatories of the Rome Statute  which meant we should have arrested him. The issue is our courts said he needs to be detained but he still managed to slip out the country 

 

There is a real accusation that the government still doesn't understand what its responsibilities are in regard to being committed to being aligned to organisations like the ICC 

[Orogun01]

So there is another angle to Obamacare, the reality is it part of his legacy

 

If you are a supporter of his, like me, and everything he has done for the USA then of course you want it to succeed. I understand the majority of Americans on these forums don't seem to like Obama too much but I think history will definitely regard him favorably

 

Another important point  is I know the Republicans have promised to repeal Obamacare if they come to power in 2016...but  these wins in the Constitutional Court just ensure that Obamacare becomes more trenchant and harder for the Republicans to repeal. What alternative would they offer for the millions of Americans now benefiting from Obamacare if they want to get rid of it?

History is written by the victors but it doesn't make it a fact.

[Enoch]

 

 

Congress exempted themselves from it as well--there is always that.

 

Of all the dumb things that get said about major pieces of legislation, this is one of the dumbest.  The primary point of the legislation was to apply to people who did not have health insurance.  Congress, and its employees, had employer-provided health insurance, just like other federal workers.  (And workers at big companies, etc.)  Of course the logical way to write the law would be to "exempt" Congress. 

 

That said, it wasn't written logically.  Some opponents of the bill managed to get an amendment in that required Members of Congress and their staff to get their health insurance from the PPACA exchanges.  This was silly legislative trolling-- it had no reasonable grounding in policy, the point was just to try to tempt the bill's supporters to make the bill look worse by voting against the amendment.  The amendment passed, which caused all kinds of confusion-- how should/would this provision mesh with the existing statutory health insurance benefits for Congressional employees?  They settled on the sensible (but still pain-in-the-neck) solution of allowing the money that the employer had been willing to pay for employee health insurance to be applied to the premiums of insurance policies purchased by the employees in the exchanges.  (And some mean-spirited jerks even objected to that!  They wanted to strip health benefits from their own employees to make a talking point for stump speeches!) 

 

So, in short, not only was Congress not "exempted"-- PPACA explicitly called Congress out to be treated differently than any other employer in the country. 

[cirdanx]

History is written by the victors but it doesn't make it a fact.

 

 

Thank you for that true statement.

 

Obamacare, is a joke for every country with a decent healthcare system. Which means pretty much most of the "west" and "east". Kinda funny.

[Meshugger]

I am still confused on how that thing even works. If you choose not to opt into it due to having a better one from before, you will have to pay higher taxes. However if you do not have any insurance, you have the option to get it, but still using the same system with high rates and weak coverage. 

 

Correct me if i am wrong, but it looks like this law was written by and for the insurance companies.

[Hurlshort]

The insurance lobby ain't no chump, that's for sure.  They made sure they will still get theirs.  But I am not sure about the paying higher taxes if you stick with your previous plan.  I believe that is only if your plan was previously lacking in some way and now you are incurring more costs.  The problem is every employer and every insurance company is different, and can dictate different rules depending on their strength.

 

 

Eh, all I know is that health care in this country is a mess and Obamacare seems to only make it messier.  

[cirdanx]

 

Correct me if i am wrong, but it looks like this law was written by and for the insurance companies.

Because it is, this is no "socialism" law. This only works for in favour for the companies. Thats the real funny part. America will never have a decent health/education/Prison/Police>"insert what you want"<"system until they get rid of their 2 party oligarchy system. Thats a fact supported by the last 50 years at least.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I am still confused on how that thing even works. If you choose not to opt into it due to having a better one from before, you will have to pay higher taxes. However if you do not have any insurance, you have the option to get it, but still using the same system with high rates and weak coverage. 

 

Correct me if i am wrong, but it looks like this law was written by and for the insurance companies.

If you have qualifying insurance, either from work or personally purchased, you don't have to opt in. Otherwise if you don't opt in penalty is withheld from your tax refund, if any. There are many gotcha's in this, as the law wasn't well thought out or even went through proper legislative process. All kinds of special interest groups of course got their 2 bits in, like with any piece of major legislation.

[kgambit]

 

I am still confused on how that thing even works. If you choose not to opt into it due to having a better one from before, you will have to pay higher taxes. However if you do not have any insurance, you have the option to get it, but still using the same system with high rates and weak coverage. 

 

Correct me if i am wrong, but it looks like this law was written by and for the insurance companies.

If you have qualifying insurance, either from work or personally purchased, you don't have to opt in. Otherwise if you don't opt in penalty is withheld from your tax refund, if any. There are many gotcha's in this, as the law wasn't well thought out or even went through proper legislative process. All kinds of special interest groups of course got their 2 bits in, like with any piece of major legislation.

 

 

I think Meshugger is referring to the 40% excise tax for the gold level plans with yearly premiums in excess of  $10,200 / $ 27,500 for individuals / families.  Most plans are actually at the bronze/silver levels.  But WoD is correct otherwise.  If your existing plan is ACA compliant, then you don't have to opt in.  And if it's not ACA compliant you still don't have to automatically opt in - as some non-compliant plans were grandfathered in.  A lot of major plans that were non-ACA compliant were subsequently modified to bring them into compliance (with an increase in premiums of course).