So after today our Constitution means absolutely NOTHING.

 

Why because you don't like the bill? It was passed in the Legislative branch, signed into law by the Executive branch and ruled Constitutional by the Judicial branch. I'm no Constitutional lawyer but it seems to me that is exactly how the founders drew it up.

It was passed in the legislative and executive branches as a mandate and then Judge Roberts just decided to change it to a TAX? Really? Obama doesn't even know what to do now. This will be the biggest tax of the century from a President that said he will not create new taxes.

It was passed in the legislative and executive branches as a mandate and then Judge Roberts just decided to change it to a TAX? Really? Obama doesn't even know what to do now. This will be the biggest tax of the century from a President that said he will not create new taxes.

 

It was presented as a tax. Not to the media, which was definitely part of the plan, but Justice Roberts didn't come up with the taxation argument out of nothing.

 

Merits Brief from the Office of the Solicitor General

 

I'm pretty sure that's the right one. It's the brief filed by the Solicitor General prior to oral arguments. There's something about taxation very early on if I remember correctly.

The rush to bash our government and Obama for this has been laughable.

 

The sky is truly falling down.

 

 

In 2014.

One immediate impact. We are all funders of abortion now.

One immediate impact. We are all funders of abortion now.

 

Possibly largest tax increase in history of this country AND we all fund abortion........

There was a great deal of talk before the decision that if the AHCA was struck down that it would be a blow for Obama come November. Now that it has been upheld I'm hearing that it will be a blow for Obama. Hot air? Valid double talk?

 

I think it has to be read as a win for Obama. At the worst, it was unfortunate for him that this ruling would take place so close to the election and get people riled up again. But, it might have been devastating if the the law weren't upheld.

 

There's an argument to be made that now this law can be characterized as a tax with all of the rhetoric that brings along. But the opposition has already been characterizing this as a big spending, taxing bill. Part of the reason the CBO said it would reduce the deficit is because it paid for itself through other means. So, I don't think much changes on that front. Secondly, many thought overturning the bill would force people to recognize all the benefits of the bill (coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage for children, coverage for basic care, etc.) and then realize Obama had made a good decision. But, that's a stretch and Obama can still make that the conversation this fall.

 

What hurts Obama is that conservatives/Republicans are fired up. The economy is the major issue, and the middle of the road voters will decide the election, but having your base ready to go is never a bad thing. Some people argued that if Obama lost the ruling it would force Romney to come up with his own alternative - which considering his difficulty in merging both bases of the party as well as his general distaste of sticking to his opinions - might have given Romney some trouble. But, if that were the case Obama would have no ground to stand on, and new proposals would sound disingenuous and half-baked. With this ruling Obama can still push Romney on that point because Romney's offering a "repeal and replacement" strategy. It just might be more difficult, but not nearly for Obama as excruciating as having his signature law overturned.

 

The other angle is that this is a short-term win for Obama, but a long-term win for conservatives. I think this is mostly true. I think Roberts legitimized himself and the Court, while also scoring a victory for conservatives. Perhaps if this decision had been overturned on a partisan ruling it might have been seen as such by voters - as just another extension of partisan politics. While the law's been validated, Roberts gave conservatives a bone with the Commerce Clause interpretation. However, that would still require a future conservative majority to rely on it, and they could still overturn precedent in the future without this ruling. So, I think Obama would have taken that gamble since its not anywhere near a certainty this decisions will become future precedent. And from a non-electoral perspective, I think Roberts' opinion was on point. Even if it was done with this in mind, I still think he got it right.

 

So, in the end this is the best ruling Obama could have hoped for. It gives him the perception of "victory" and he can still leverage the conciliatory advantages over Romney he might have gained if that law were struck down.

There is not an unlimited supply of money. Adding folks that have not had health insurance and all of their ailments will undoubtedly increase the costs for everyone. It is simple supply and demand. The government will exclude themselves from participating and then subject all of us to this nonsense. Boon for the uninsured. I hope the laws are tougher for those that don't buy now, than the laws for not carrying auto insurance. (Those are a joke and rarely enforced.)

 

This is the argument I don't understand. You say folks without insurance are being added but they aren't. They get health care. Everyone gets health care now when they need it. All those services and costs are already in the system and those of us with insurance are paying their costs. Now there will be more people paying in to the system. If there is more money being paid in, then that should help all of us good paying customers. More money in is better, right?

This is the argument I don't understand. You say folks without insurance are being added but they aren't. They get health care. Everyone gets health care now when they need it. All those services and costs are already in the system and those of us with insurance are paying their costs. Now there will be more people paying in to the system. If there is more money being paid in, then that should help all of us good paying customers. More money in is better, right?

 

That's what I always thought, but I never pretended to be an economist.

 

The population pool stays the same size; there's just some more money in the kitty.

I think it has to be read as a win for Obama. At the worst, it was unfortunate for him that this ruling would take place so close to the election and get people riled up again. But, it might have been devastating if the the law weren't upheld.

 

There's an argument to be made that now this law can be characterized as a tax with all of the rhetoric that brings along. But the opposition has already been characterizing this as a big spending, taxing bill. Part of the reason the CBO said it would reduce the deficit is because it paid for itself through other means. So, I don't think much changes on that front. Secondly, many thought overturning the bill would force people to recognize all the benefits of the bill (coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage for children, coverage for basic care, etc.) and then realize Obama had made a good decision. But, that's a stretch and Obama can still make that the conversation this fall.

 

What hurts Obama is that conservatives/Republicans are fired up. The economy is the major issue, and the middle of the road voters will decide the election, but having your base ready to go is never a bad thing. Some people argued that if Obama lost the ruling it would force Romney to come up with his own alternative - which considering his difficulty in merging both bases of the party as well as his general distaste of sticking to his opinions - might have given Romney some trouble. But, if that were the case Obama would have no ground to stand on, and new proposals would sound disingenuous and half-baked. With this ruling Obama can still push Romney on that point because Romney's offering a "repeal and replacement" strategy. It just might be more difficult, but not nearly for Obama as excruciating as having his signature law overturned.

 

The other angle is that this is a short-term win for Obama, but a long-term win for conservatives. I think this is mostly true. I think Roberts legitimized himself and the Court, while also scoring a victory for conservatives. Perhaps if this decision had been overturned on a partisan ruling it might have been seen as such by voters - as just another extension of partisan politics. While the law's been validated, Roberts gave conservatives a bone with the Commerce Clause interpretation. However, that would still require a future conservative majority to rely on it, and they could still overturn precedent in the future without this ruling. So, I think Obama would have taken that gamble since its not anywhere near a certainty this decisions will become future precedent. And from a non-electoral perspective, I think Roberts' opinion was on point. Even if it was done with this in mind, I still think he got it right.

 

So, in the end this is the best ruling Obama could have hoped for. It gives him the perception of "victory" and he can still leverage the conciliatory advantages over Romney he might have gained if that law were struck down.

 

I'm unsure. A lot of what you said I agree with--especially the short-term vs. long-term positives/negatives for Obama. But I think major damage can be done to him on the Tax vs. Not A Tax issue. When he needed the legislation to become a law, it wasn't a tax. When he needed the law to be upheld, it was a tax. The GOP can & should highlight that fact over & over again until November.

 

What is unfortunate, IMO, for the GOP is that Mitt Romney is the guy who needs to be leading the charge, since he's the party's Presidential nominee. But with his own similar health care past in Massachusetts, I don't see how he can make a non-hypocritical argument.

 

Concerning John Roberts...my personal opinion of him has not changed, even though I don't agree with the health care plan. He's a good justice & I think his desire to have the SCOTUS viewed as non-political played a huge part in his decision. From the Arizona decision to this one, the Court seems to be telling America, "If you want different legislation, elect different leaders."

It was presented as a tax. Not to the media, which was definitely part of the plan, but Justice Roberts didn't come up with the taxation argument out of nothing.

 

Merits Brief from the Office of the Solicitor General

 

I'm pretty sure that's the right one. It's the brief filed by the Solicitor General prior to oral arguments. There's something about taxation very early on if I remember correctly.

Not by Obama it wasn't. He flat out lied and said it wasn't a tax.

Maybe, but if so I'm confident that it will be at a much slower rate than they were increasing prior to the ACA. I've mentioned on here before, that my premiums increased by 15,16 and 15 percents 3 years running. This was before Obama was even running for office. Since ACA they've went up 4% and 0% this year.

 

I lack your confidence. I don't see how a company can be forced to add coverage and add pre-existing conditions at the same or lower cost. I know the argument is it is spread across a larger premium base but how much of that premium base would formerly be the un-insurables that creates massive claims? There is a huge expansion in services and costs associated with those who were not paying in before. It just goes against what I've seen in working with insurance companies for 30 years.

I'm unsure. A lot of what you said I agree with--especially the short-term vs. long-term positives/negatives for Obama. But I think major damage can be done to him on the Tax vs. Not A Tax issue. When he needed the legislation to become a law, it wasn't a tax. When he needed the law to be upheld, it was a tax. The GOP can & should highlight that fact over & over again until November.

 

You might be right, but the main reason I don't think it will make a huge splash is because nothing really changed. The individual mandate has always worked by requiring people without insurance to pay the government a "penalty" or a "tax" or whatever you want to call it. Roberts didn't require anything to change, he just said taxes like this are allowable. I think it's rare for the public at large to really break down the nuances of a Supreme Court argument. "Obama won" will likely come away as the prevailing narrative and that's the best Obama can ask for. Maybe it will become a "read my lips" moment for him, especially with some savvy work from the Romney campaign, but it's been law for two years, the individual mandate has been hotly debated, and his opponents have already been slamming the whole bill as a tax increase, so it might be harder to make this a new narrative. But, still, the videos of him saying it isn't a tax might prove damning, I just think if that were going to get traction it already would have.

You might be right, but the main reason I don't think it will make a huge splash is because nothing really changed. The individual mandate has always worked by requiring people without insurance to pay the government a "penalty" or a "tax" or whatever you want to call it. Roberts didn't require anything to change, he just said taxes like this are allowable. I think it's rare for the public at large to really break down the nuances of a Supreme Court argument. "Obama won" will likely come away as the prevailing narrative and that's the best Obama can ask for. Maybe it will become a "read my lips" moment for him, especially with some savvy work from the Romney campaign, but it's been law for two years, the individual mandate has been hotly debated, and his opponents have already been slamming the whole bill as a tax increase, so it might be harder to make this a new narrative. But, still, the videos of him saying it isn't a tax might prove damning, I just think if that were going to get traction it already would have.

 

You don't think that the election of a lot of Tea Party candidates in 2010 has anything to do with ObamaCare? I sure do. I think there has been plenty of traction, make that slippage, as a result of ObamaCare being passed.

 

If a majority of Americans felt it was their duty to obtain health insurance in order to bring down the cost of health care for everyone and/or a majority of Americans felt it was right for the govt to force every American to obtain health insurance against their will, then I'd agree with you. But I don't think that is accurate.

 

The US Supreme Court's decision will do nothing to change the thoughts of a whole lot of Americans on ObamaCare. Yes the law is constitutional. So was the Iraqi War. It is still widely unpopular.

You don't think that the election of a lot of Tea Party candidates in 2010 has anything to do with ObamaCare? I sure do. I think there has been plenty of traction, make that slippage, as a result of ObamaCare being passed.

 

If a majority of Americans felt it was their duty to obtain health insurance in order to bring down the cost of health care for everyone and/or a majority of Americans felt it was right for the govt to force every American to obtain health insurance against their will, then I'd agree with you. But I don't think that is accurate.

 

The US Supreme Court's decision will do nothing to change the thoughts of a whole lot of Americans on ObamaCare. Yes the law is constitutional. So was the Iraqi War. It is still widely unpopular.

 

I'm only talking about the effect of the Supreme Court decision. I don't think it's damaging to Obama.