« The new Egyptian first lady | Main | Of taxes and subsidies »

28 June 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nancy K

Col Lang, I was a nurse for 37 years, working in various capacities and I have seen the devastation to families because of lack of affordable health care or inadequate coverage. Most people who do not have insurance do not have it because they are against medical insurance but because they cannot afford it. In the perfect world I would like to see single payer insurance but I am pleased that the Supreme Court majority voted in favor if this Health Care law. I am sure that there is much gnashing of teeth on the Republican side of th aisle but I feel there ongoing effords to destroy this law will only aid Obama in the election. The rich do not understand how devastating it is for a family not to be able to provide their children and themselves with adequate health care. The rich can afford good health care, those of us 65 and older have Medi-Care, the poor have Medi-Caid, it is the vast majority, the middle class who are lacking adequate health insurance. I would like to see the Republican members of Congress give up their health care plan if they are so against the taxpayers having to foot the bill for mandated health insurance. Last time I check we the taxpayers were footing the bill for their medical insurance.


Alexander Hamilton lives on....


A tax collected by private for profit insurance companies. Mussolini would have loved this decision.


As they pounded into our heads in first year law school...ya GOTTA read the opinion. This will become an opinion that law schools take a semester-or two- to go through. Trust no one's opinion on this till they had a ton of time to read it, reread, reread the cases it quotes in the text of the opinion....and then the reader needs to go back, or, go to, the briefs and read the best ones, to understand what the Justices might be arguing. And if that seems like a lot to do...as my old Torts Prof use to say, 'tough'.


Tax farming. Thats what I call Biblical values.

rjj du Nord

and the alternative is John Bolton et al.

choose wisely.


Even better the 'coverage' and 'fair and reasonable reimbursement rates' are going to be decided by unelected corporate bureaucratic death panels.

richard armstrong

The penalty/tax will be paid to the US Treasury. It will not be paid to insurance companies.

While it might be thought that the insurance companies stand to gain by mandating the purchase of health insurance I find it telling that those same companies contributed over $100 million to lobbying efforts against the ACA.

I see on Twitter today there is a new hashtag being used by opponents of the ACA: #movingtocanada. Canada. The Great White North and land of universal healthcare paid for by taxes. ROFLMAO!

Augustin L

After 'citizens united' of course the supreme court voted to upheld this monstrous law. The United States continues its somnambulic march towards the complete merger of state and corporate power, it's creeping facism.


Great victory for WMR...lol



Winchester Magnum Rimfire? pl


Morocco Bama

She makes you wet? Interesting. Richard Armstrong says insurance companies will not collect the penalty. pl


RA, yes the penalty will be paid to the tax payers. However, I'm absolutely certain that the insurance companies - who call payments to those insured 'losses' - will cut re-imbursement rates to said policy holders and eliminate areas of coverage not expressly mandated by law.



As I understand the decision at this point it is a tax rather than a penalty? pl


That is why it's a victory for Willard Mitt Romney...

rjj du Nord

It is not about who collects the penalty, it is about Somatic Security Service Sector overreach.

Oh but think of all the good it will do.



I believe what Jose is trying to say is that defining it as a 'tax' allows Romney (WMR) to claim that Obama has just passed a massive tax increase on America.



I want to see poor people have health care somewhere other than emergency rooms. IMO Roberts was clever, in that he upheld the law but struck a blow at the infernal commerce clause and another blow for federalism in the Medicaid section. pl


Nancy K:
Are you willing to give up the level of care that you receive under Medicare in order for millions of strangers to receive an equally poor level of health care?
If so, you are not rational.
I am not willing to receive less and poorer care because millions of stranger can't take care of themselves.
Doubt me?
Just look at the death machine misnamed National HEALTH Service in the UK.



Re: Roberts

I noticed that his decision was incredibly nuanced as far as limiting the damage that could be done by the commerce clause. Maybe I'm not understanding the arcane procedures of the SCOTUS, but couldn't have Roberts pruned the commerce clause if he sided with the conservative wing?

As far as the poor go, I'm with you there. The problem is the (unelected) federal judiciary said it was agains the law to prevent illegal immigrants from camping out in emergency rooms and skipping on the bill. Until we can do something about the massive illegal alien problem in the country, health care costs are going to continue to be problematic at the expense of the poor citizens of this nation.

I see Romney is taking another lukewarm 'stance' on this. I would not be surprised if he loses the Presidency, but there is a flood of Congressional Republicans riding a populist wave of discontent.

N M salamon

If Citizens'United can overrule Montana [for the loss of benefit for ther "PEOPLE"]; I would repectfully suggest that in the present case the Hon. Roberts should have allowed that the sovereignity [within the Constitution] should be overruled for the GOOD OF THE "PEOPLE".

I as a long time beneficiary of the one payer system [since inception], even with the system's faults, the system is far superior to the one you have in the USA.

Notwithstnading all the propaganda from the Fraser Institute [Canada VERY conservative think tank] to the numerous misrepresentations of our system in USA, MRI can be accessed within days, if the Doctor orders it.

Sure some selective surgeries are sometimes delayed [for months maybe] necessary procedures are performed ASAP, as in my case a heart attack at 6pm, sent to University hospital by 10 pm,[at public expense ambulance ride] and had a stent in 48 hours, after evaluation of my problem, out of hospital in 3 days.

Medicine subsidized, max per perscription is $25. In my case the monthly dosages[heart and asthme/emphesyma] is approx $500 per month, my cost is $50.00 per month, tax deductable for portins over 3% of net income [includes any trip over 50 km/30 miles and meal if taken]


par4, the tax is (or will be, when that part of the law comes into effect) collected by the federal government. It is a penalty. Those who don't buy insurance will pay the penalty, and get no insurance. The insurance companies don't, in my understanding, get any of that tax money. That's a strong incentive to participate in the market to get insurance, of course (to the benefit of insurers). The court found this incentivisation constitutionally legal, as a form of taxation.

(Interestingly, during the legislative debate leading up to the law, there was much discussion of getting some form of public option: so that, if people wanted, they could buy a publicly operated insurance plan: the broken 60 vote Senate put those plans on ice. It is easy to imagine that instead of being a pure penalty, those paying this tax for not buying insurance could be then enrolled into a public insurance plan. Maybe that could still happen in the future.)

A good economic reason for compelling people to get insured is that people who do not buy insurance are never excluded from the health care market. They can go to emergency rooms, which are compelled by law to provide some treatment for them. They may get vaccines. You might argue that some of those without insurance won't avail themselves of those services. But most would probably take advantage of them, if they needed care.

Cold War Zoomie


I've read a pretty big chunk of the opinion, but not all of it. It's fascinating, even for us non-lawyer types. What amazes me is the amount of case law that has accumulated the last 200+ years that these courts must review. It's as if every exception has happened to argue any viewpoint you want after all these years. The Anti-Injunction Act and especially Wickard vs Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn).

I'm holding my judgment until I've read the whole thing.


It appears that Chief Justice Roberts is already concerned about his legacy and that of what is called "the Roberts Court". This decision takes the matter out of the courts and put it back where it belongs, with the executive and the legislature. Like Social Security and Medicare, both very popular, there will be plenty of future tweaking of this law.

Again, those predicting the end of the Republic because of this decision will still be wrong.

r whitman

This will end up as a great American program along side of Social Security and Medicare. It will require some modification as time goes on same as the above mentioned programs. I am proud that we can send a program like this on to my grandchildren and hoped for greatgrandchildren. Its the right thing to do. Think of the benefits, not the cost.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad