Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ACA ruling by the SCOTUS

roman_mir (125474) writes | more than 2 years ago

User Journal 46

The SCOTUS passed its ruling on the ACA and a large number of people are confused about parts of it, what is really in it substantively one way or another?

The SCOTUS passed its ruling on the ACA and a large number of people are confused about parts of it, what is really in it substantively one way or another?

Is the ACA mandate really Constitutional? Well, 5 out of 4 justices said that it is, of-course it would be a bad outcome if such a close call was made upon a case deciding whether it is Constitutional for the government to execute people without a trial on a hunch of a president, but that can never happen, or ?

There are many interesting questions raised about ACA, but one is particularly intriguing, how is the mandate to buy insurance from a private company or face a penalty (tax under the SCOTUS ruling) Constitutional?

Also how is ACA Constitutional at all, given that this is a Senate bill and it did not originate in Congress as all bills are supposed to? Well, let's just leave that for later.

So let's examine the interesting points of the ruling:

1. The majority opinion is that the mandate is only Constitutional as a tax. The reason for this is that as a fine, this is unconstitutional, because it is an admission of an attempt to legislate by punitive taxation. The other reason is that the opinion also states that the government cannot use the commerce clause to force people to buy something that they are not buying otherwise. Now, there is a legal precedent for an opposite ruling actually, AFAIC regardless of what SCOTUS said in Wickard v. Filburn, that ruling was wrong and allowing the government to force a farmer to buy wheat when he is not interested in buying it is unconstitutional. But then again, so many people are excited about the ruling of 4 to 5 justices this way, though it clearly could have gone the opposite direction. The question of-course is: should there be so much room given to the SCOTUS justices to maneuver that they could rule one way or another basically on a whim and also because of public pressure? Does this really defend the Constitution or does it actually do something completely opposite?

2. The majority opinion is that this tax is only Constitutional because it is a small tax and ACA does not give authority to the IRS to enforce it by force (garnishing wages or imprisonment). The reason for this is that if the tax was punitive, then the SCOTUS would have to declare it unconstitutional, because it would mean that the government is trying to legislate by taxation what it cannot legislate directly, and this cannot be done. There are plenty of precedents as to why this is illegal, a simple example is prohibition that required an amendment to be passed to the Constitution. Passing an amendment is much more difficult than raising a tax, but still to stop people from consuming alcohol the government could not simply pass a 1,000,000 dollar tax upon sale of a bottle of booze, because this would clearly be a way to prevent people from drinking, which is a legislative move, but to do it with taxes. Taxing is not supposed to be replacement for legislation, and that is why it is very important to understand, that Roberts wrote that the mandate stands as is because the tax (fine) is very low and doesn't actually force anybody to buy insurance.

This means that in principle if the tax (fine) is raised from its current level (and it will have to be raised, otherwise ACA is completely unworkable, everybody who has to pay for insurance under the ACA will cancel insurance and only 'buy' it when they absolutely need to and then cancel again, once done with the bills) so if the tax is raised, the mandate becomes immediately unconstitutional and ACA has to go back to the supreme court!

Of-course in practice it's not going to happen, the lower courts will misinterpret what this is and will rule that raising the tax is constitutional and the SCOTUS will deny hearing it again, so in practice this doesn't matter anymore, they found a loophole to pass ACA and now they won't bother with what they have to do technically to keep it legal, just like how they implemented the income tax (which is still illegal today, it is only legal as a tax on corporate profits, not an 'income' tax and not a personal tax).

3. Majority opinion stated that the mandate tax (fine) is not a direct tax based on a completely faulty notion that it only applies to a small number of people who are currently uninsured and will not buy insurance in the future. This is wrong on many points. First, direct tax means a tax that is forced upon a person directly and that person pays directly to the government. The direct tax must be apportioned to be legal though, that's why Roberts said that this tax is not direct, which makes it something else - excise tax or a duty or import. It's not a duty or import, so it's an excise. But how can this tax be an excise, like a sales tax, if the person who is forced to pay it, is only forced because he is not participating in commerce, he is not buying something (insurance)?

There is a contradiction in the ruling that is glaring, it is amazing people are not seeing it: the SCOTUS found that the commerce clause doesn't apply to make mandate legal, but simultaneously the majority opinion stated that the mandate tax (fine) is not a direct tax, while stating that the commerce clause doesn't apply. Either the commerce clause applies, and thus the excise tax can apply or the commerce clause does not apply, but that means that no excise tax can be levied.

Either it's commerce or it is not commerce, and if it is not commerce, then commerce tax cannot apply, and excise is a commerce tax - tax on the act of buying (well, in this case not buying) something.

--

It is likely that there will be a situation at some point, when a person will not buy insurance and will be fined under the ACA and will take this to court. Assuming that the lower court would understand what is written in the SCOTUS decision, and assuming that the lower court would care, would want to go after the truth of the matter, this can in principle end up back before SCOTUS (if SCOTUS decides to hear it again, which is probably unlikely).

But if this happens, then the defence must bring forward this argument as well:

The mandate tax (fine) is unconstitutional because it is not a direct apportioned tax, it is not a uniform excise tax and it is not an income tax (an income tax, which is by the way only Constitutional as an unapportioned excise tax on corporate profits, you can read further for the explanation of that.)

These are taxes that can be levied by the US federal government legally:

1. Direct apportioned taxes, capitation and other direct apportioned taxes tax (a tax that applies to a person directly but is apportioned to the States). This means that if the federal government wants to raise taxes, it has to say by how much and it has to then use census data and depending on the populations of different States, apportion them their share. So if California has 12% of population, it would be responsible for 12% of this tax increase. Direct apportioned taxes were introduced by the founders this way in order to try and prevent 2 things:
    a. Fraud in census data, that's because a State could overstate its population to send more Congressmen, Senators to the Washington.
    b. US founders did not like direct taxes, they added that direct taxes had to be apportioned specifically so that poorer States would not always vote for tax increases. If the direct tax is not apportioned, then poorer States would always vote to increse taxes upon richer States, creating wealth redistribution and incentives to increase taxes on the rich (exactly the rhetoric by the government nowadays, that is so much supported by the poorer people). Apportioning direct taxes prevents this problem, because then direct taxes would have to be paid by poorer and wealthier states only depending on the size of their population.

2. Uniform excise taxes. These are indirect, so they can be collected from a person not directly, but through a merchant for example, such as sales taxes. Uniformity requirement means that there should not be special dealings when introducing them, people shouldn't be forced to pay different sales tax depending on their location or religion or race or whatever.

3. The 16th amendment allows for an income tax. This is a special situation, probably 99.9999% of people misunderstand what this is.

Initially the tax was introduced as an indirect tax, but SCOTUS saw through that argument and did not buy it. That's because the government made this argument: this is not a direct tax on people, it is a tax on people's income! In case of rental income, putting a tax on it is equivalent to putting a tax on property, so taxing rent is taxing its source - land and then it's a direct tax on the land owner.

In 1913 the new legislation appeared that stated that any income from any source can be taxed without apportionment. The 1916 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) court case stated that income can be taxed without apportionment. BUT this case does NOT state that income can be taxed directly, so from that case, the income tax is an unapportioned indirect excise tax.

In Brushaber the SCOTUS stated that in order to tax income, the income must be separated from its source, because it cannot be a direct tax, because it is unapportioned. So a rent income is not under this decision, because rent is tied to land and to the owner of the land.

Later SCOTUS decisions explained that separating income from source can be done with a corporate balance sheet, which means that the 16th amendment income tax is in reality a corporate profit tax. There is no legal, Constitutional personal income tax, people do not have profit, only corporations do. Profits are all expenses subtracted from all incomes, that's what can be taxed.

This actually is interesting from another perspective, so many people are upset about so called 'loopholes' that corporations have in order to lower their income taxes, but of-course all these so called 'loopholes' have to do with the fact that corporation has so many expenses, and government tries to reclassify various expenses in a way that would prevent them from being subtracted from incomes for the purposes of tax accounting. There is the entire notion of 'capital depreciation' (and the entire false 'scandal' about the 'corporate jets', which depreciate in 5 years instead of 7 years for commercial airliners). But this is total nonsense, as corporation has to buy the equipment and pay for it right away, but it is prevented from subtracting its expense from its income the year it bought the equipment, which often turns the situation into an impossible one, where a company with no profits is forced to take loans to pay income taxes!

So again, the income tax is not an income tax, it is only Constitutional as an excise tax on corporate profits. But this means that the current practice that IRS is involved in - collecting DIRECT UNAPPORTIONED taxes upon PEOPLE'S INCOME is completely unconstitutional, it is precisely the opposite in every way of what was declared as Constitutional by the Supreme Court of USA.

Given this history of behaviour of US government, it is very obvious that since ACA passed with a very narrow definition of how it is Constitutional, in the future of-course it will be enforced in a completely unconstitutional manner.

The tax (fine) will be raised, because people who do pay for their insurance today will stop paying, because this tax (fine) is so low today compared to the insurance plan payments. There will be some people who will be subsidised under the plan and will not have to pay for insurance, so they will 'buy' their plans with the subsidies. Also the people who actually need insurance to pay them right now, because they are sick, they will obviously 'buy' into insurance, since they cannot be denied due to the pre-existing conditions.

But this means that huge number of people will drop out of insurance, and the only people in it will be a minority of those who didn't have it until now and those who need insurance to pay for their treatment.

Under this scenario, the insurance companies will cease to operate. But of-course what is likely to happen is that the government will bail out the insurance companies with tax (and borrowed and printed) money. In the short term the government may even have an influx of cash because taxes (fines) will be collected from people who had private insurance prior to ACA but would cancel it now and just pay the tax (fine). But in the long run this means that insurance will become extremely expensive because of lack of payers and the government will be bailing out insurance with tax money at the new expensive rates.

So in conclusion, as always is the case, the name of the bill that came out of the government should be fully reversed by 180 degrees in order to understand the real consequences of this legislation.

This is not an 'Affordable Care Act', this is the exact opposite: the Unaffordable Care Act, because if people thought their premiums were going up quickly before ACA, they will be surprised just how good they used to have it.

---
PS:
note that Robert's decision that the mandate tax (fine) is indirect based on the idea that only a small part of the population will pay it faulty in another manner.

For a direct tax to be direct it is unnecessary that 100% of population pays it! People can be exempt from taxes and this means that no tax is paid by 100% of population (this never happens anyway), and thus the logic that the mandate is not a direct tax is faulty, but it can be understood why Roberts declared that, because if he had to admit that the tax is direct, it would immediately be unconstitutional, because it is unapportioned!

---
PPS:
It should be noticed that ACA has various implications to the economy that are not fully appreciated by the businesses yet.

There will be a strong pressure upon the businesses to downsize the workforce, to make sure they do not have over 50 employees. Of-course companies will be dropping insurance coverage, so this is good news if taken out of the context of ACA, because it will provide some boost to people's incomes, as they will have a little more money in their pocket temporarily, that's because as employers will drop coverage, they will have to increase the salaries of their employees by some amount (also this depends if there are any penalties associated with not covering employees under the new ACA plan, because before ACA there were penalties to the employer).

But eventually as companies downsize there will be more unemployment and at the same time the insurance companies will be under pressure because they will lose so many current clients as people and companies cancel their insurance plans plans (it's a 'free ride' with no pre-existing conditions).

Eventually this will lead to a serious problem just because of ACA alone. The large firms that cannot downsize under 50 people quickly will be hit with extremely high insurance premiums all of a sudden, that so many people will cancel insurance and the rates will have to skyrocket.

The large companies will be in a pickle, this WILL mean more outsourcing and more firing and no hiring by large companies at all (and by companies that are at the 50 people threshold).
---

cancel ×

46 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

P.S. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40557263)

also note that Robert's decision that the mandate tax (fine) is indirect based on the idea that only a small part of the population will pay it faulty in another manner.

For a direct tax to be direct it is unnecessary that 100% of population pays it! People can be exempt from taxes and this means that no tax is paid by 100% of population (this never happens anyway), and thus the logic that the mandate is not a direct tax is faulty, but it can be understood why Roberts declared that, because if he had to admit that the tax is direct, it would immediately be unconstitutional, because it is unapportioned!

Some implications to the economy (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40557387)

It should be noticed that ACA has various implications to the economy that are not fully appreciated by the businesses yet.

There will be a strong pressure upon the businesses to downsize the workforce, to make sure they do not have over 50 employees. Of-course companies will be dropping insurance coverage, so this is good news if taken out of the context of ACA, because it will provide some boost to people's incomes, as they will have a little more money in their pocket temporarily, that's because as employers will drop coverage, they will have to increase the salaries of their employees by some amount (also this depends if there are any penalties associated with not covering employees under the new ACA plan, because before ACA there were penalties to the employer).

But eventually as companies downsize there will be more unemployment and at the same time the insurance companies will be under pressure because they will lose so many current clients as people and companies cancel their insurance plans plans (it's a 'free ride' with no pre-existing conditions).

Eventually this will lead to a serious problem just because of ACA alone. The large firms that cannot downsize under 50 people quickly will be hit with extremely high insurance premiums all of a sudden, that so many people will cancel insurance and the rates will have to skyrocket.

The large companies will be in a pickle, this WILL mean more outsourcing and more firing and no hiring by large companies at all (and by companies that are at the 50 people threshold).

Re:Some implications to the economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40558453)

There will be a strong pressure upon the businesses to downsize the workforce, to make sure they do not have over 50 employees

Do you have a source for this? I keep hearing people talk about this number of 50 employees and it having some enormously detrimental effect on an employer, but I can't find anything that actually dictates that employers spend more money at this point. By my understanding, an employer of more than 50 employees needs to make health care available, but I haven't seen anything saying that the employer has to do anything towards the cost of it.
 
 

Of-course companies will be dropping insurance coverage, so this is good news if taken out of the context of ACA, because it will provide some boost to people's incomes

Which companies will be dropping coverage? I thought the companies all needed to add coverage?
 
 

that's because as employers will drop coverage, they will have to increase the salaries of their employees by some amount (also this depends if there are any penalties associated with not covering employees under the new ACA plan, because before ACA there were penalties to the employer).

Does the law require that? If an employer drops coverage, does it actually say that the money they save must be passed on to the employees? I thought they could just keep it...
 
 

the insurance companies will be under pressure because they will lose so many current clients as people and companies cancel their insurance plans plans (it's a 'free ride' with no pre-existing conditions).

How would the insurance companies lose clients? The law forces people to buy insurance, which means the insurance companies gain, not lose, clients.

Re:Some implications to the economy (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40561215)

Those with over 50 employees will have to provide health insurance as part of the compensation, and insurance rates will be rising, as more and more people will actually cancel their private insurance and companies with fewer than 50 people will cancel coverage and companies with more than 50 people but those, who can get under the 50 people by firing will cancel coverage.

Thus the insurance companies will be left with much fewer clients, they will have all of the new subsidised clients, they will have those, who need care and thus those who cost money to the insurance companies. So ACA will cause the plan rates to go up, and every company out there that offers group insurance coverage will face steeply rising costs.

Thus there will be huge pressure for companies to get below 50 people and to drop coverage.

OTOH it is NOT clear what are the exact implementation details of everything in the plan, because it is left out of the ACA plan and it is left up to the executive branch to decide (and also something will be up to States, like setting up the exchanges and such), so in fact there is a huge unknown here, it is true, not everything is known.

Re:Some implications to the economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40561847)

Those with over 50 employees will have to provide health insurance as part of the compensation

(emphasis mine)

One could easily argue those last five words to be the most critical part here. They allow an employer to offer a compensation package along the lines of "we will give you $30k total compensation, of which $18k is your part of your health insurance". Being as the employee has to accept it or pay a fine if they have no coverage, they will take it. There is nothing in the law that dictates the employer contribute anything towards the employee health insurance - they are free to place the entire burden on the employee if they so choose.

Which means it costs the employer no additional money to go from 50 employees to 51.
 
 

and insurance rates will be rising, as more and more people will actually cancel their private insurance

That is hyperbole. First of all, the vast majority of Americans have insurance through their employers so there is no incentive for them to cancel. They won't gain anything by canceling. Rather more customers will be forced into the pool which under very basic economic principles should bring prices down.
 
 

and companies with fewer than 50 people will cancel coverage and companies with more than 50 people but those, who can get under the 50 people by firing will cancel coverage.

Care to rephrase that in a way that makes sense? I haven't seen a reasonable argument for that yet. As I just described, the law does not require the employer to invest any of their own money in the employee health insurance unless they want to.
 
 

Thus there will be huge pressure for companies to get below 50 people and to drop coverage.

You also seem to assume that all employers who have fewer than 50 would intentionally not want to offer coverage. This seems illogical as the owners of the company themselves will be required to have coverage on themselves. If they are going to the process to find coverage for themselves, why not bring the rest of the company in and try for a group rate? They could actually save themselves money in the process.
 
 

it is true, not everything is known.

That you have demonstrated rather plainly.

Re:Some implications to the economy (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40562415)

You don't get it, the 50 employee barrier means that the new law will force the employer to provide health insurance coverage.

But the crucial reason why the companies will want to get out of it (even IF that means paying a fine of some sort, I hear it will be a 2000 dollar fine per employee that is not covered) is that the insurance rates WILL BE GOING UP.

There is no question that insurance rates will be going up, and this will include the group coverage that employers buy. This is not a hypothesis, it's a fact. As long as the new tax (fine) is low and unenforced, people who do not need insurance to pay for some treatment will be dropping their coverage.

People will instead go to doctors and pay out of pocket and then pay (or NOT pay) the tax once IRS bills them. They won't pay because what's the difference? ACA is only constitutional (by Roberts) as long as this tax (fine) is too low to matter and cannot be enforced, and IRS has no authority to seize assets, wages, put people in prison for not paying, if IRS had that authority, Roberts wouldn't have been able to use that loophole to pretend that the mandate is legal.

The point is that the only people who will remain on insurance plans will be either the sick or those who are going to be subsidised under the new law.

The people who buy their own insurance today, will be cancelling their insurance, because insurance premiums cost them much more than the fine (tax), which they don't even have to pay.

The people will be cancelling their insurance plans because the REAL so called 'benefit' of ACA is that it forces the insurance companies to provide coverage without looking at the pre-existing conditions.

This is no longer insurance, it's a way for somebody to get free treatment, but it's not a business of insurance anymore.

Re:Some implications to the economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40562823)

You don't get it, the 50 employee barrier means that the new law will force the employer to provide health insurance coverage.

But does the law say that the employer has to pay anything towards it? I have heard of no such provision in the law. The employer is free to charge the employee for 100% of the costs of their health insurance if they see fit.
 
 

But the crucial reason why the companies will want to get out of it (even IF that means paying a fine of some sort, I hear it will be a 2000 dollar fine per employee that is not covered) is that the insurance rates WILL BE GOING UP.

First of all, you are speculating on the fine.

Second, why would rates go up when the pool of covered individuals has increased? That doesn't make sense. The insurance industry themselves said it was a problem of scale and that as the pool of covered people increases, the average risk goes down and with it insurance rates.
 
 

There is no question that insurance rates will be going up

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I am 100% sure that I am not the only person in the world who questions your logic. The insurance companies themselves said that rates would go down when the pool increases.
 
 

This is not a hypothesis, it's a fact.

No, it is a hypothesis at best. Being as it runs counter to what the insurance industry had told the government, it is an unsupported hypothesis at that.
 
 

As long as the new tax (fine) is low and unenforced, people who do not need insurance to pay for some treatment will be dropping their coverage.

That is speculative. I know plenty of people who have carried health insurance for years without needing any treatment.
 
 

People will instead go to doctors and pay out of pocket

That is very highly unlikely. The costs of medicine in the US are too high for most people to afford on their own. The rates that are charged directly to patients are generally 2-10 times higher than what insurance companies pay for the same. Just a primary care visit is a couple hundred dollars for an uninsured person (which is why most uninsured people don't go), and that is if no lab or diagnostic tests are ordered. In other words, people cannot afford to go to doctors in the US without insurance - that is why they end up in the ER and then defaulting on the payment under the system that says public and non-profit hospitals must accept emergency patients without regards to their ability to pay.
 
 

The people will be cancelling their insurance plans because the REAL so called 'benefit' of ACA is that it forces the insurance companies to provide coverage without looking at the pre-existing conditions.

That's not entirely true, either. The law requires they offer insurance without regards to pre-existing conditions - previously they could refuse coverage outright under the same. However, it does not in any way restrict how much they can charge for the coverage. The insurance companies are free to demand outlandish costs for a plan for someone who cut their toe 20 years ago and needed stitches. And being as the patients are required to buy the insurance, they will end up paying for that absurdly expensive plan.

In other words, the bill puts the power in the hands of the insurance companies. Which makes sense as the insurance industry sponsors more politicians in Washington - on both sides of the aisle - than just about any other.

Re:Some implications to the economy (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40586437)

But does the law say that the employer has to pay anything towards it? I have heard of no such provision in the law. The employer is free to charge the employee for 100% of the costs of their health insurance if they see fit.

Group rates are much less. Also, companies have to handle some of the cost, but the basic amount is pretty much entirely tax-deductible. If they opt for higher amounts, then it's not fully covered via tax-deductions. Anyway, the left over price for the employee is mostly tax-deductible also.

Re:Some implications to the economy (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40586363)

You don't get it, the 50 employee barrier means that the new law will force the employer to provide health insurance coverage.

That is only temporary. In 2014, it won't be based on head-count, but on average hours worked per employee. Small businesses under the 50 person limit, will get a small tax incentive to help them ease into providing health-insurance for their employees before the final changes go live in 2014.

But the crucial reason why the companies will want to get out of it (even IF that means paying a fine of some sort, I hear it will be a 2000 dollar fine per employee that is not covered) is that the insurance rates WILL BE GOING UP.

They will get that same fine in 2014 even if they downsize now. No long term gain in firing some of your work-force. Anyway, you get some pretty large tax credits for providing insurance.

is that the insurance rates WILL BE GOING UP

According to HR and my insurance company, insurance rates are going up because of the lack of people with insurance.

Really simple logic here.
Step1: Person does not have insurance, so they don't go in for their $100 check-up
Step2: Person gets sick
Step3: Person goes into ER and racks up $50k
Step4: Person can't pay it, so the hospital effectively lost $50k
Step5: Hospital jacks the prices for everyone else.
Step6: Insurance rates go up for those who have insurance and those without insurance don't pay for anything.
Step7: Economy loses money because that person didn't take 2 hours to go to the hospital to get a simple check-up, so now they're not working for 6 months.

Everyone loses.

I know several people to actually dropped insurance because hospitals don't have the man power to chase down people without insurance to pay their bill. Assuming you're healthy, it cheaper to not have insurance and when you finally go to the ER, you claim you can't pay

Hospitals can't turn you away for ER services. There is no economic incentive to get health-insurance for healthy people as there is no punishment for not paying your bill, assuming you could afford it in the first place.

My question is: If hospitals keep having people take advantage of them by screwing them out of money because "they don't have insurance", and hospitals are privately ran, then what happens to the local town/city when the hospital goes bankrupt? By law, they can't turn people away, but people can't pay.

One of 3 things will/must happen
1) Make hospitals a government service and use taxes to support them
2) Make sure everyone has insurance so they can actually afford to use the hospitals
3) Do away with hospitals and turn into a 3rd-world country.

There is no question that insurance rates will be going up, and this will include the group coverage that employers buy. This is not a hypothesis, it's a fact. As long as the new tax (fine) is low and unenforced, people who do not need insurance to pay for some treatment will be dropping their coverage.

Why would people be dropping insurance? Take my situation: I pay about $300/month for insurance, but I have used over $30k in services in the past 3 years. Now I will be getting a tax-credit for having insurance, which will drop down my $300/month effectively to something lower.

The people who buy their own insurance today, will be cancelling their insurance, because insurance premiums cost them much more than the fine (tax), which they don't even have to pay.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Why will they be canceling their insurance? Ohh look, my insurance rate has gone down and I get a tax credit.. I'm mad that I'm paying less, so I will cancel my insurance AND pay a fine.. WTF kind of logic is that?! Are you Comcast and L3 is offering you free bandwidth?

Re:Some implications to the economy (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600897)

People will be dropping insurance, because there will be some people dropping it, it's only a matter of time when a large number of people drops it. It will make news and eventually more people will drop it, etc.

It's going to be an avalanche, it doesn't have to start with everybody dropping it, only a few thousand, which is nothing really, but as the premiums start going up more people will drop it.

Don't forget, USA is now in a depression and it is strengthening. The only reason why the unemployment rate didn't go above 8.2% this month is because about 40,000 people stopped looking, while about twice as many started receiving disability.

These people will have gov't subsidy of-course, but to provide the subsidy there will be more taxes OR more borrowing and inflation (printing), and thus prices for EVERYTHING will be going up.

I don't know if you noticed, but prices for food commodities wen up about 35-45% THIS MONTH. So while people are cheering that oil went down (and they really should understand why that happened - inflation and expectation of a depression), the other commodities are going up.

The prices for actual food and other stuff is going up, so eventually people will NOT have that 300 dollars you are talking about, and while the poor will get subsidies, those who are not completely poor will have to pay, but even though not being counted as poor, their financial situation will be worsening.

USA is in a spiral, while everybody is talking about Europe, at least in Europe the crisis is hitting now because nobody wants to lent it more money, so Spain has to borrow at 7%. Of-course German workers (tax payers) are forced to sacrifice their savings to buy that debt first and loan it to Spain at lower rates. But in any case, you are forgetting that the economy is getting worse every day, that's the other reason that people will be looking to cut any amount of spending that is not absolutely necessary, and with ACA insurance becomes that.

WHY SPEND 300 DOLLARS TODAY, if you can just pay (or not pay!) something at the end of the year? People are buying mattresses on credit, to them it will only be natural to view this proposal in the same light.

Re:Some implications to the economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40558551)

so this is good news if taken out of the context of ACA, because it will provide some boost to people's incomes, as they will have a little more money in their pocket temporarily, that's because as employers will drop coverage, they will have to increase the salaries of their employees by some amount

AHAHAHA that's a good one. Tell me another!

I can't think of a single company that would consider the cost of insuring the employees to be anything other than the "cost of doing business" and would be happy to not pay it at all to anyone. I'm sure at a wholly legit pure-as-the-driven-snow employer, the paycheck would go up... by the amount of the employee's share of the premium. Anywhere else, some manager would find some excuse to have the employee's 50% share be credited to him at 40% or so. It's not like anyone actually checks their paystubs, the idiots think that their employer isn't out to screw them over!

Re:Some implications to the economy (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40561229)

Well, what you do NOT in fact understand at all, is that benefits are just part of compensation, they are not in fact mandated by government (until ACA came to town) and thus benefits are simply part of the salary.

When a person negotiates his salary, he also negotiates benefits. If health insurance benefits are removed from the equation, this leaves the company at a point, where it has to either raise compensation by some amount to the employee or the company could lose the employee, who would then be looking for another job either with the benefit or with a higher salary.

It looks like you are under the impression that companies are providing benefits today because they must by the law, but that is false. ACA is the law that states that companies must provide health care coverage if there are more than 50 people in the firm.

The businesses are providing benefits as part of the entire compensation package, and to the company it does not matter whether it is paying employee's premiums to insurance company or paying that money to the employee directly, it is exactly the same thing from point of view of salary, so coverage is just part of salary.

So you don't understand the motivation, you don't understand the implications, and the very first words in your second paragraph are the truth:

I can't think

.

companies are too nice, but they're not that nice (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40558903)

as employers will drop coverage, they will have to increase the salaries of their employees by some amount

They don't have to do any such thing. They're already not taking full advantage of the current labor market conditions. During the dot-com years employees took full advantage of the conditions, and I enjoyed large increases in salary. It seems that companies are sitting on so much cash now that they're content to just hold wages stagnant, and are only low-balling new hires who had been unemployed (for the minority of those who are even looking at the unemployed).

And note that while wages are stagnant, we're actually going backwards in take-home pay because the employee-paid portion of health ins. premiums is rising. Not to mention of course the govt.'s accelerated reducing of the buying power of the dollar.

IIRC the employee-paid portion of health insurance premiums is pre-tax. So when companies drop their health ins. plans, they'll spin it as the raise you haven't seen in years, but then you'll pay your top marginal tax rate on that extra income, which soon enough will not come close to covering premiums when you're sick and fines... uh, I mean "taxes", when you're not.

With free trade + the welfare state, the middle classes' incomes can only go down.

Re:companies are too nice, but they're not that ni (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40561279)

I already replied to some AC above to this, here it is again.
---

Well, what you do NOT in fact understand at all, is that benefits are just part of compensation, they are not in fact mandated by government (until ACA came to town) and thus benefits are simply part of the salary.

When a person negotiates his salary, he also negotiates benefits. If health insurance benefits are removed from the equation, this leaves the company at a point, where it has to either raise compensation by some amount to the employee or the company could lose the employee, who would then be looking for another job either with the benefit or with a higher salary.

It looks like you are under the impression that companies are providing benefits today because they must by the law, but that is false. ACA is the law that states that companies must provide health care coverage if there are more than 50 people in the firm.

The businesses are providing benefits as part of the entire compensation package, and to the company it does not matter whether it is paying employee's premiums to insurance company or paying that money to the employee directly, it is exactly the same thing from point of view of salary, so coverage is just part of salary.

---

What you don't understand that health insurance coverage is already your salary. Now, that it would be more advantageous for you to cancel your 'insurance' and only get one when you totally need it, since ACA removes the preexisting conditions as part of qualification process for a plan, and since for now at least, the tax (penalty) for not buying insurance is low and cannot be enforced by the IRS (and that was part of the argument by the SCOTUS as to why this tax is legal - because it's low and unenforced).

So instead of paying for your coverage you will likely get all or some of that money as part of your salary, if you don't, that means you are not a good negotiator, because the terms of your employment included this benefit, so either the benefit has to stay in place or it has to be compensated for monetarily to you, and it makes no difference to the employer.

--

Of-course you'll now pay a tax on that money, the reason why benefits were provided by employers in the first place was because during the WWII there were price and wage controls but insurance didn't fall under those controls [nber.org] , so employers found a way to attract better employees with such benefits.

The reason why this stayed is because you don't pay income taxes on these benefits. Now that there will be rising costs to health insurance (because so many people will cancel and only the subsidised and the sick will have it) employers will be searching for ways to stop paying for health insurance benefits.

In fact it is not clear, but rumoured that an employer who doesn't provide coverage but has over 50 people will have to pay the tax (penalty) as well, of maybe 2000 dollars. But many employers may just take that hit as well, pay the 2000 USD fine and give you part or all (depends on your situation and negotiating skills) of your former benefit as cash, and they still will end up ahead, because of what I expect will be a catastrophic rise in insurance premium costs.

Re:companies are too nice, but they're not that ni (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40569847)

So instead of paying for your coverage you will likely get all or some of that money as part of your salary, if you don't, that means you are not a good negotiator,

That's like saying if you can't find somewhere to fill up the gas tank of your car for less than a dollar a gallon then it means you're not a good negotiator. It's called market forces. In America today (and in the foreseeable future?) there is a glut of labor supply and low demand for add'l labor. The vast majority of us are commodity labor, so our "negotiating skills" rise and fall with the economic cycle (and whatever bubbles come along).

because the terms of your employment included this benefit,

But the terms of our employment are not for any particular term in length. (I don't know why you're acting so thick about these.) Put less ambiguously, not only is your employment not for any particular length of time, but neither are its terms. Your employment offering document(s) do not state that these terms can never be altered.

Re:companies are too nice, but they're not that ni (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40585541)

That's like saying if you can't find somewhere to fill up the gas tank of your car for less than a dollar a gallon then it means you're not a good negotiator. It's called market forces.

- you don't get it, you have already negotiated this contract, it included your benefits. If your benefits are cut that means your salary is lower now, because in USA the tax code is such, that companies provide health insurance specifically because it's not taxed as income, but this means it's your salary that is cut, now you'll have to buy health insurance outside of your employment and you have a contract.

So it's a fairly straightforward arrangement with your employer - he stops the health insurance benefits and he pays you that money directly, it's a NON ISSUE for the employer, because he has to pay this money one way or another, it is already included in your salary.

Now, you can negotiate about how much exactly you'll get when he cuts the benefit, but it is not a question that you'll be able to get cash out of this.

Of-course the problem that your employer is trying to address is that the rates for insurance will go up as more and more people cancel their insurance because a plan cannot be denied due to pre-existing conditions.

So your employer will likely be the one who will approach you with the request to accept the deal, where you get some more money as your salary and you'll not have to buy insurance right away, but only when you actually need it.

Once you don't need it, you'll cancel it again. Once you need it again, you'll 'buy' it again. That's what ACA does - creates a single payer system by basically destroying the insurance business but at the same time it will prevent insurance plan payments from going down and instead the plan payments will go up drastically, so it's a spiral, fewer and fewer people will have insurance.

Only the subsidised and the sick will have insurance, everybody else will not have it until they need it, so insurance companies will all be failing and thus government will be bailing them out, but that's tax payer money.

So it's a single payer with the side effect of feeding an ineffectual failing insurance company.

Now, because many employers will be cancelling insurance plans and so will individuals, many companies will be trying to get below the 50 people threshold to not have to pay the tax (fine) for not providing insurance plan as part of the benefits, while the larger companies will be stuck either paying the tax (fine) or still paying for insurance coverage but they will freeze hiring and they will be looking for ways to scale down and outsource more.

More and more companies will pay no insurance benefit, and since it was often part of the negotiation of the entire compensation package, this part of it will be gone, so the employees will be able to negotiate higher salaries or other benefits, that's the end of that.

Sure, your employment is not for any particular length, but it doesn't really matter to the employer, he is NOT going to be cutting the health care plan because he doesn't want to give you the entire compensation package as he used to, he is going to be doing it because he is going to expect very significant spikes in plan payments.

To the employer it's going to be cheaper to give you some of that money he paid in insurance premiums and forget about the whole issue.

Re:companies are too nice, but they're not that ni (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40588177)

you have already negotiated this contract, it included your benefits

We're apparently talking about different things. Maybe it's how you say in contract jobs. In "full-time perm" employment, like most of us have (who even have jobs, that is) there is no specific contract. Either party is free to change the terms, going forward, at any time, and if the other party doesn't agree, then they can sever the employment relationship, at any time.

Since what you've been saying is predicated on the understanding that this applies only to the minority case of employment type you're thinking of, you could've mentioned that.

so insurance companies will all be failing and thus government will be bailing them out

You haven't been paying close enough attention to Leftists. They think that the health industries being for-profit ventures is immoral. And that the expenditure of health care dollars and the distribution of said health care in the society should be centrally decided, to ensure fairness. You don't give a bail out to something where it's part of the very plan to force them to die out.

ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40558477)

The government attempted to answer "how can we make health insurance cheaper?" and didn't even manage to get that right.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40561359)

yeah, I think the real idea behind this legislation is to create a situation that can be used to blame 'free market capitalism' for the incoming failure of the insurance companies, but of-course there is nothing free market OR even capitalist! about what is done here.

No capitalist, free market or not, would run his company at a loss, and the provisions of ACA, such as the removal of the pre-existing conditions as part of the qualification for a plan, means that insurance companies from now on will always be ran at a loss until they either die or are bailed out by the gov't.

But then of-course if the point is to make insurance companies insolvent and bankrupt and to bail them out, then the Obama administration reached their real goal: single payer health care, except it will still NOT reach the goal of making the coverage cheaper, because with a single payer they don't have to have the entire layer of feeding the failed insurance companies while providing health care.

This bill is a disaster from every single perspective: freedom, money, coverage, everything.

Freedom - the gov't gets basically unlimited taxing powers now, of-course done with the failed SCOTUS.

Money - paying for insurance companies to exist while trying to provide single payer system by bailing insurance companies.

Coverage - ACA is basically putting everybody on Medicare, but is already broke, it is not workable, there will be less and less actual services provided and eventually no service will be provided, there will be no money at all for anything.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40586477)

yeah, I think the real idea behind this legislation is to create a situation that can be used to blame 'free market capitalism' for the incoming failure of the insurance companies, but of-course there is nothing free market OR even capitalist! about what is done here.

Out of curiosity, why do you think insurance companies will go under from this? I see no reason why this will be bad for them. The government just mandated that nearly everyone must purchase private insurance. How is that bad for insurance companies? If anything, it dramatically increases their revenue.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40595819)

He's honestly convinced that everyone is a malfeasant crybaby that will throw a temper tantrum where they cancel all their business contracts and close up shop then go out and get aids and demand insurance cover it. That'll show them!

Meanwhile, the companies with at least 50 FTEs that aren't busy smearing their shit on the walls and ripping out the copper wires are going out and tracking down insurance that costs no more than 9.5% of the employee's income and making that available to the employees. If they're feeling magnanimous, they might even contribute a little towards it.

Yeah, companies out there with 100 employees, all with stage-III cancer, and who pay them all minimum wage are probably fucked. The only problems anyone else has are likely self-imposed.

This is completely separate from the issue of whether the law sucks ass or not. It does.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (0)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40589129)

I wish I could remember when the phrasing was changed from 'health care reform' to 'health insurance reform'. I'm pretty sure it was the summer of 2009, but was it pre or post tea bagger?

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40598491)

I don't recall it ever being called "health insurance reform" (e.g. the Affordable Care Act). It's just meant that for a long, long time (remember, obamacare was a huge thing leading up to his election, and I'm pretty sure people talked about the high cost of "health care" - meaning insurance - before then).

Probably since early 00s when the increase in the cost of health "care" started outstripping inflation by ridiculous amounts. Or maybe when insurance companies ramped up denying patients "care" due to whatever obscure thing they managed to dig up as a pre-existing condition.

Whichever way it began, if there's a secret nobel prize for marketing, it's almost certain that whoever convinced the public that insurance === healthcare has received it. An absolute masterstroke.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40598989)

I didn't mean the official name of the act. I was referring to reference to the issue generally and colloquially. At one point, politicians, pundits, and reporters used the phrase 'health care reform'. This switched to 'health insurance reform'.

But I totally agree with this:

Whichever way it began, if there's a secret nobel prize for marketing, it's almost certain that whoever convinced the public that insurance === healthcare has received it. An absolute masterstroke.

(And WTF with the downmod to my original comment? Pretty limp wristed 'argument' there.)

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599143)

(And WTF with the downmod to my original comment?

And WTF to your WTF; you called Tea Partiers "teabaggers", numbnuts. When Lefties use crude epithets like that and calling Conservative women "cunts", it's as c/rude as saying that yours is the party of the niggers and fags. And words like these usually incite a troll mod. But I can see how people would be completely desensitized to Leftist^Wmainstream vulgarities.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599293)

They called themselves teabaggers before the left did. And it's equal to 'niggers' and 'fags'? Next I suppose I'm due a lecture on how persecuted Christians are.

'Numbnuts'? More of that rational discourse from the right I see.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599513)

So now you can't see the point of including a lame epithet in a comment trying to point out that what you did was use a lame epithet? You must be going blind.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599663)

So now you can't see the point of including a lame epithet in a comment trying to point out that what you did was use a lame epithet? You must be going blind.

It's the frequent masturbation, I'm sure. It serves more purpose than looking for intelligence around here.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600929)

What is your point?

The health care is expensive because of government money and regulations in it through everything, from Medicare to patents to FDA to inflation.

People didn't have a problem paying for MOST of their care out of pocket for a long time, all of a sudden Medicare came along and nobody is able to pay for medical care out of pocket anymore, does it not seem at least STRANGE to you?

Insurance actually used to be insurance, it was affordable. A buck or 2 per month per family is not a terrible price to pay to have coverage for expensive treatment, that's what people paid. But they paid for most of their DR visits out of pocket and private insurance was preferred to gov't sponsored insurance until Medicare came about and just obliterated the market, put gov't money into health care and caused prices to go ballistic. [slashdot.org]

People didn't have a problem buying education out of pocket when they needed it, today people just cannot do it, is that not strange to you?

Obama said a day or so ago: everybody in USA must have access to education because it is ESSENTIAL to have education. Well, it's a sad day in America that it is essential to have higher education (even secondary) to be considered for a burger flipper job. I wonder how many burger flippers and waiters and toilet cleaners have college degrees today? I bet a large number of them do.

It's not a sign of an improving economy that to be working as a waiter a person has to have a university degree, it's just not good for anybody, for economy, for those people. It's a sign of regress, not progress. We should be able to get more for less, not less for more with real progress, so it shows what is really happening.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40607911)

My point is that the goal changed. A secondary point is that he who controls the language controls the thinking.

And finally, pre Medicaid, medicine was just a hair or two above the leeches and trepanning level of quality. Costs have risen inordinately and it's by no means solely due to malpractice premiums.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40609015)

So who controls the language and why would you allow your thinking to be controlled in that way?

Secondly, you are mistaken. The computer you are using to post this proves my point, not yours. The technology and material science that goes into producing this as well as the mobile phone you have proves my point not yours.

Technology gets cheaper not more expensive with time while it gets more sophisticated and powerful.

Now imagine if government was getting involved in trying to ensure that 'everybody had access to computers and phones'.

Well, you don't have to imagine, AT&T was a government monopoly. The prices were always going up and service improved very slowly if at all, nobody actually could own a phone, people could only rent them. Once AT&T monopoly ended the technology started immediately improving while costs went down.

Answering machines, fax machines, phones of all types and sizes. People had to invest quite a bit to miniaturise and improve the experience of the users.

Computers once could only be bought by governments and largest companies, today are in ever phone and it costs billions to design and build new factories to create processors and all other tech, and yet prices are constantly falling.

Big LCD and plasma TVs used to be priced as good cars, today everybody has more than one.

You can't understand the market at work, you are looking at the consequences of government intervention in the market and you are saying: here, market isn't working because things are getting more expensive, and this is horse shit.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40610207)

Ugh. Enough. You're an ill informed retard. Have fun tilting at the windmills.

Re:ACA was the wrong answer to the wrong question (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40611879)

You are right about one thing though, there is no question about it, you are a windmill.

impeachment due and overdue (2)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40559089)

You danced around the whole judicial corruption issue. SCOTUS judges are there to decide whether things are Constitutional or not. They are not there to:
* Decide what they think is best for America at the time, or
* Decide what would be best for public perception of the Court, or
* Decide where they think America should be Progressing to, or
* Fall down on their checks-and-balances role and roll over for the other branches, or anything else.

Roberts and the Leftist wing have demonstrated that they can't/won't do their jobs, so they should be removed and replaced with judges who are not so easily/willfully distracted.

Re:impeachment due and overdue (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40561283)

No, you are right, the point of SCOTUS is to protect the Constitution, not people not gov't, not legislature. I showed that they find loopholes not to protect the Constitution but to help the current administration and they do it probably for all sorts of corrupt reasons, from money, to populism.

SCOTUS has failed, but it's been a failure for over 100 years now.

Argument: SCOTUS defines what is Constitutional (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40563401)

Try telling people what the role of SCOTUS is [slashdot.org] and they will tell you that what SCOTUS says is Constitutional is Constitutional because SCOTUS says so.

They disregard the glaring contradictions in the decisions (as shown in this journal entry above the case is with declaring that commerce clause does not apply, but excise tax does).

They insist that SCOTUS must interpret the Constitution and 'read between the lines' (it is all in that thread linked on top of this comment).

They cannot grasp that the SCOTUS has been and is actively involved in hacking the Constitution, giving powers to the government that gov't cannot have.

It is doing it by passing laws in their very narrow definitions but then the laws are expanded to cover much more, things that are specifically said not to be Constitutional by the SCOTUS (such was the case with the income tax law for example, same deal with the ACA and the fact that the tax (fine) is only legal as long as it is a small tax that is not even enforced. Just watch the executive branch redefine this tax - raise it and start enforcing it by seizing of property, confiscation and prison sentences, the ACA will still keep being referred to as 'Constitutional' even though its implementation won't be).

---

Here is a simple thought experiment:

Say the Congress passed a law that stated: US government is authorised to kill the known terrorist - Osama bin Laden.

Say this went to SCOTUS and they said: yeah, sure, it's good.

Now the government says: Ok, we can kill the known terrorist bin Laden and we are going to use this law to kill other terrorists. Then later they continue: and we are going to kill people we think are terrorists.

All of a sudden from a very SPECIFIC interpretation of the law, the law is expanded and now the government has broad powers to kill anybody just because they say that person is a terrorist.

Should SCOTUS take into consideration the past performance of government that used this exact tactic over and over and over and over and over and over (and I do provide one example with the income taxes, but I can provide huge number of examples of this abuse).

You say: SCOTUS should read 'between the lines', I say: yes, absolutely they should.

They should read between the lines of the new law.

---

This is how the unconstitutional becomes Constitutional and it is not true that SCOTUS justices do not understand it, they have plenty of time to study past cases and see the real life outcomes.

Re:Argument: SCOTUS defines what is Constitutional (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40702353)

"All of a sudden from a very SPECIFIC interpretation of the law, the law is expanded and now the government has broad powers..."

Yes, and that gave us the regulatory nightmare we have today, which led to Obamacare and kindred expansions of government into private life.

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

Administration claims that ACA is unconstitutional (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40568417)

The Obama's administration is constantly in the media insisting that the mandate tax is not a tax, they insist it is a penalty.

As a penalty, the ACA is unconstitutional, period, case closed. That is because SCOTUS only allowed ACA to stand because of mandate fine being a tax.

An unconstitutional law does not need another SCOTUS decision to be struck down, local courts and States should refuse to uphold it, because specifically ACA is only constitutional if mandate is a tax, and since the government claims it is not a tax, ACA is unconstitutional.

So sad (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40589161)

So disappointing. Given that a link to this appears in your .sig and you have mentioned it several times lately, I was hoping for more. Or perhaps, less. Yes, you are correct that much of came out was a pantload. Unfortunately, you waste a lot of time ranting about income taxes. Ask Richard Hatch, Wesley Snipes and countless others whether or not it is unconstitutional. I bet you pay yours every year (quarter, whatever). It's a lost fight and a poor argument. Heck, just for kicks, I like to argue that John Marshall was a nut and should have been impeached in 1803, but, again, too little, too late.

Your followup in the comments is also pretty lame. Copying and pasting responses smacks of APK, not intelligent discourse.

Re:So sad (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40589633)

Ask Richard Hatch, Wesley Snipes and countless others whether or not it is unconstitutional

- it is unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter, the Constitution is tossed out the window. That's my point, that's why I use income taxes as an example to explain that in this case it is not going to matter that in reality the ACA is unconstitutional, because with income taxes it doesn't matter, the system is set up to avoid the entire question. The point is exactly that once a narrow subset of the law is found Constitutional, then the law is used in a manner that is not Constitutional and the system does everything to prevent the question from being raised again, because the system isn't interested in whether the law is legal or not.

The government wants to collect taxes, Constitution be damned.

As to your other complaint about 'copying and pasting responses', what the hell are you talking about? I wish there was a 'reply to all' button in discussion forums, so I wouldn't have to repeat the same thing over and over and over.

You don't like my analysis? Have you seen any better done anywhere? Is anybody else raising the question of how is it that this tax (fine) is allowed to be ruled 'Constitutional', when it is clearly not one of the taxes that are defined to be legal and the way it is found to be legal it conflicts with the other part of the ruling, that says that the commerce clause doesn't apply?

So the commerce clause doesn't apply, but a commerce tax does?

So a tax is said not to be direct just because there are people who won't pay it? Well shit, no tax is paid by 100% of people.

So a tax is said not to be legislating by the tax code, because it is too low and IRS cannot enforce it yet, and here is where the unconstitutionality of the income tax example is used, to show that once a subset of a law is found Constitutional the gov't will expand its power to cover what is found to be unconstitutional and this won't make it back to SCOTUS, you don't find it to be just too convenient for the administration?

The tax is applied on an act of avoidance of commerce (not buying something rather than buying it) and this is found to be Constitutional and it's not interesting on its face?

The law itself originated in Senate and it's still 'Constitutional' somehow though it didn't come from Congress?

WHERE ELSE do you see these questions even asked, never mind compared to what has been done previously by the government?

You don't find any of it even to be interesting questions to ask, never mind to be a compelling case that the SCOTUS is not at all doing what it is supposed to be doing?

Re:So sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40589731)

You don't like my analysis? Have you seen any better done anywhere?

Better analyses have been written on bar napkins and discarded. Even when alien conspiracies are brought in to analyses, they still generally have a better ratio of truth:bullshit than what you have been puking up here in your attempts to "analyze" the situation.
 
 

The law itself originated in Senate and it's still 'Constitutional' somehow though it didn't come from Congress?

Thank you for helping prove my point.
 
 

WHERE ELSE do you see these questions even asked, never mind compared to what has been done previously by the government?

Indeed some of your questions and statements aren't even crazy enough to be written on bar napkins, or even shouted at the pub.

Re:So sad (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40589863)

Beautiful, do you often stay in bars reading off the napkins?

Re:So sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40590073)

Beautiful, do you often stay in bars reading off the napkins?

You should try it some time. You'd learn a lot about the same material you view yourself to be such an expert on. The material written on discarded napkins is better sourced and thought out than what you post here.

Re:So sad (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40590447)

I understand you are enamoured with the bars and napkins, so maybe you should stick to reading and commenting those in bars, where your comments belong.

Re:So sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40591399)

I used to think that slashdot had generally better commentary than what is found in bars. However, you are the counter to that hypothesis. You may want to consider doing some reading at the bars, it would bring up your comprehension level dramatically.

That, or you would dumb down the bars. Not sure which.

Re:So sad (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40597583)

I think SOME of your questions are interesting. That is why I find the balance of your post sad. Because it could have been so much more.

As far as better analysis? Both volokh and scotusblog have provided that in spades.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>