Supreme Court upholds Individual Madate (Healthcare Law)

Interesting that the Chief justice sees the individual mandate as a "tax".


With the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the health care law’s individual mandate, we thought it was time to revisit the many exaggerations, distortions and outright lies surrounding it.

The key provision that the court preserved was the individual mandate, a requirement that every American have health insurance coverage of some type. The court said the requirement was permissible because, at its heart, the individual mandate is a tax. People are free not to buy insurance and simply pay the tax.

Critics of the law said the mandate was government overreach. But we have sometimes found they exaggerated with some claims, such as when they said the law meant people would be jailed if they didn’t by insurance.

"The federal law compels American citizens to contract for health insurance they do not want, do not need, or find morally objectionable," wrote Bob Marshall, a state legislator in Virginia. "Persons who decline to buy the coverage face fines and imprisonment."

We rated the claim that people could be imprisoned as Pants on Fire. In fact, the law specifically states that people who don’t pay the fine cannot be charged criminally. It also forbids liens or levies placed on property for failure to pay.

That incorrect claim, though, was repeated often. When Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly denied that the charge was said on Fox, we fact-checked that, too, for another Pants on Fire rating.

Still, the mandate has never been popular. Rick Santorum, a Republican candidate for president, said "Polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare, especially the individual mandate." We rated that Mostly True: Polls do show people oppose the mandate. We deducted a notch on the Truth-O-Meter because opposition to other parts of the law were not quite as strong.

In some ways, the furor over the mandate was ironic: President Barack Obama had actually opposed the mandate in the 2008 Democratic primary. We gave him a Full Flop on our Flip-O-Meter when he changed position in July 2009 and said he would accept a mandate.

Another bit of irony: Some Republicans had supported a plan with a mandate in the early 1990s as an alternative to a health care plan proposed by then President Bill Clinton. Liberal commentators pointed out that Sen. Orrin Hatch co-sponsored a 1993 health care bill that had an individual mandate. PolitiFact rated that True.

One Republican supporter who changed his position was former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. During the Republican primary, candidate Michele Bachmann charged that Gingrich "first advocated for the individual mandate in health care. And as recently as May of this year, he was still advocating" for it. We rated that Mostly True; Gingrich had expressed flexibility on the details of health care.

Still, some claims about Republican support for the mandate exaggerated. A Facebook post claimed that "In 1993 the Republicans embraced a health platform that proudly features an individual mandate as its main component." Actually, only some Republicans embraced it -- there was always a contingent of Republicans (particularly libertarian-leaning ones) who opposed it. And, the Republican mandate tended to kick in only if certain benchmarks for health coverage weren’t met. We rated the statement Half True.

More accurate were some claims about the current Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, who signed a bill into law in Massachusetts that enacted a statewide mandate. We looked at a statement from Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty who said that "Obamacare was patterned after (Mitt Romney's) plan in Massachusetts." We rated that True. The laws were highly similar in their structure, and both had a mandate.

 

Well the thing is intacted instead of detached or repealed. The fools on the right are touting the tax thing but,they will not get anywhere. Besides the July 11th vote would be a joke a sign for sore losers.

 

[YOUTUBE]dcumf-XSe3E[/YOUTUBE]

 

do we finally get universal healthcare or what?

that's all i need to know

:-?

 

Not quite universal, but a lot of positive steps to reform the system.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/health-care/?page=1

 

No. But, the law is bound to be expanded and improved upon in the near future. It just requires a super majority of progressive leaning people (which is unlikely at this time) to implement or vote on a measure like the Public Option.

 

id personally be relieved if the price of healthcare came down, while still maintaining some admirable quality of medicine.

my healthcare is covered by my employer currently, but imagine if it wasn't. I looked at some private quotes and the monthly premiums were like a fucking rent payment. I wouldn't mind a premium but dayum, knock that price down a bit lol.

 

Wow, Justice Roberts vote was unexpected.

Fucken Fox and CNN reporting the individual mandate has been struck down as unconstitutional, b4 they heard the entire ruling is ridiculous.

I guess it appears the Supreme Court held the Obama care as entirety.

Does anyone read the entire thing? I was told it was 2200 pages in ’09, now some media outlet is saying 15, 000 pages?? Are u serious??

I think today's ruling might have a mix outcome for Obama-it is a great win for him as this is going to be his legacy but on the flipside might energizes the repuks base, the tea party and the independent & other nonpolitical folks who like Obama but do not want Obama care like 2010. It appears this might be one of the major deciding factor for Nov ’12 election. The funny thing is, the guy who is running around and telling Americans that he is going to strike down Obama care when he gets in office is actually in an indirect way was the brain behind the whole Obama care movement (i.e. Romney care)


Ah, America, politics as usual, lol.

 

This, y'all, is the beginning of the end of the right-wing Repugnants. The Repugnants are just a bunch of whiney, over-privileged, wealthy, white-male geezers who cry when they don't get there way. Well, guess what??? You're done!

 

privilege is no joke

it's amazing how people can be so caught up in their own well-being/success, to be able to ignore the plight of others

individual greed indeed

 

Fellas,
European socialized medicine is so close to you now that if you blow your nose clean, you can smell it coming.........My best insurance will always be my discipline diet and love for the gym, but I still like the idea of selecting my own physician.......

 

You still have that if you already have health insurance.

 

basically

living a healthy lifestyle is one of the best things you can do for yourself

 

Interesting exchange regarding the "tax" issue of the individual mandate. Obama was right on point here...

Did Obama say the individual mandate wasn’t a tax?

Given how unpopular taxes are, it’s understandable why Obama would not trumpet the notion that the mandate was a tax. But has he said it was not a tax?

We could find only one example after Obama was president in which he or a top aide explicitly stated that the mandate wasn’t a tax. (When we asked, the Republican National Committee couldn’t come up with any other examples, either.) The one instance came on Sept. 20, 2009, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Here’s an excerpt:

Stephanopoulos: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

Obama: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

Stephanopoulos: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

Obama: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

Stephanopoulos: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

Obama: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. … What if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

Stephanopoulos: I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

Obama: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

Stephanopoulos: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

Obama: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

Stephanopoulos: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.

Sliced up into brief sound bites, the back-and-forth between Stephanopoulos offers some clear evidence of Obama arguing that the mandate is not a tax, most obviously when he says that the mandate "is absolutely not a tax increase."

Still, it’s worth noting that Obama made the case that the alternative was worse -- that not having an individual mandate would be unfair and inefficient. The absence of an individual mandate, Obama argued, means passing on the costs of treating Americans uninsured to people who are insured, which amounts to a "tax" on those with coverage, even though it may not be literally fit the dictionary definition of a tax. In essence, Obama was brushing off complaints that he was imposing a tax by contending that a "tax" was already in place under the status quo.

 

Kid,I could not said it better myself.

 

Well, I'm not as astute as all of you in politics. I just know what I like about some of the ideas and what I don't like about others.
Making sure people have affordable access to medicine that keeps them healthy=not evil.
Forcing me to keep a baby I don't want to have because you read a "book" that says not having the baby is against your religion=evil.

I've been in accidents with people who weren't insured. Neither of those accidents were caused by me. I carried comprehensive collision coverage because I know there are people out there who drive and regardless of whether they could afford an accident, drove anyway.

In both cases, I was forced to pay for the deductible on my auto insurance bc the people who hit me were irresponsible douchecakes who wouldn't carry insurance. I didn't carry the insurance for myself, I carried it bc if I got into accident, I could not afford medical care or repair bills for someone else.
It's not fair. But neither is forcing the middle class (ha!) to shoulder all the burden of the poor in the country.

There is nothing wrong with passing along responsibility to people for their own well being. If the right makes no stink about all the ways the system constantly shuffles responsibility to those not at fault (my accidents..or even better..BAILOUTS) then they have very little room to caw about obamacare.

And yet they still do.

 

Bullshit. If you don't want a baby then practice responsibility with one of the 82579283479348 forms of birth control out on the market. Might I also add FREE birth control. YOU CHOOSE to have sex that might end up with the result of a kid.

 

Bullshit

Let's get something straight right now.
I DON'T have unsafe sex. It is physically impossible for me to get pregnant with an unwanted child.
Why? Because the very last child I had before I had my tubes tied was unplanned. I DID not want to have another child. While I believe in pro-choice for OTHER woman and believe that a woman's right to do with her body should remain with a woman, I CANNOT personally go through with an abortion. Just because I can't do it though doesn't mean I believe that the ability to have one PERIOD should be revoked by an ANCIENT, sperm over-loaded, more money that what's good for him, Sexually repressed and wouldn't know what to do with a woman even if she drew him a map white MAN. and I'm not bashing white men. I'm bashing politicians who believe that just because they can, they do.

Responsible sex having is where it starts. It's also exactly where it ends. People will have sex whether they have protection or not. It's asinine for republicans to bitch and moan about welfare or 99%ers and then turn around and DENY coverage for a female soldier to have an abortion after say, rape.

Or would you like to be extra pompous and have said politician sit down with said soldier and explain his religion and perhaps hand out a church sanctioned pamphlet on abstinence?

Or maybe you would like the honor?

 

typical woman response...

how quickly do you all forget that what's growing inside of you, also belongs to the guy. Or do you only want us around after the baby comes out of your vaginas?

it's your body but that developing fetus isn't yours

it really irks me to hear about women getting abortions, against the wishes of the would-be fathers. how selfish.

 

It really irks me to hear about men who get women pregnant and then decide after the woman have *thier* baby that it isn't really "for him" and so he drops both mother and child and the only father that baby has comes in the form of a court ordered check.

I'm not being bitchy to like, piss you off, I'm simply saying that before she consider the rights of the father, she has to FIRST consider the impact of her decision on her life. Because in the end should the daddy leave..she gets the brunt of almost everything when it comes to that baby and raising it.

She has every right to be selfish if it means less suffering in the long run for a child.