I don't like the fact the Court allowed the law to pass as a tax. It provides the slippery slope that if you don't purchase a product (from a company or even government) then the government can penalize you for it. I would rather have the original option which was the public option.

I don't think it makes sense as a "tax," either (in my mind, tax = $, not product; if they taxed money and then the gov bought healthcare with said tax money, then it would make more sense to call it a "tax"), regardless of whatever else I might think of the law.

[edit]

It looks like frob is better with words than I am... he basically said what I was trying to say, but better.

It's essentially a tax here in switzerland. It's a good thing.

My issue is the "tax" is a penalty, it does not give you the service. If the money bought healthcare services then it would be better viewed as a tax. Instead it is more of a non-compliance fee, where you still have to pay to get into compliance AND you get to pay the fee. I don't like that aspect.


It looks like some of the findings will require an overhaul of portions of the law, so it is good that no matter which way the pendulum swings in November the details will be improved.

My issue is the "tax" is a penalty, it does not give you the service. If the money bought healthcare services then it would be better viewed as a tax. Instead it is more of a non-compliance fee, where you still have to pay to get into compliance AND you get to pay the fee. I don't like that aspect.

Just to be clear about your opinion, you'd prefer something like the following.

- Some public funded option (either the government becomes an insurance provider or contracts private providers).
- Taxes go up across the board to fund that.
- If you have private insurance you can claim it and get a deduction for the cost of a public option plan.

Just to be clear about your opinion, you'd prefer something like the following.

- Some public funded option (either the government becomes an insurance provider or contracts private providers).
- Taxes go up across the board to fund that.
- If you have private insurance you can claim it and get a deduction for the cost of a public option plan.

or D) call it a fine instead of a tax

Congress actually had requirements to purchase health insurance dating all the way back to the 1700s. This is not even a new thing. At all.

Congress has also legislated inaction in the past. Farmers were forbidden from growing too much of a crop, that they did not even intend to sell. The Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional because it could still impact commerce. The commerce clause has been interpreted very, very broadly in the past.

Edit:
As for it being a conditional tax... most taxes are conditional. If I don't buy a boat, no luxury tax paid. This is the same principal but applied to inaction. Which is something Congress has regulated in the past. None of this is new.

It's just sad that Kennedy and Scalia are so baldly partisan that they both pretend it is. Had Romney taken the Republican nomination in 2008 and become president, we would have ended up with this exact same law. As Obamacare is pretty much Romneycare verbatim at a national level. This likely never would have been challenged and if it had been, it would have been a 7-2 decision with Alito and Thomas objecting to the concept of insurance in the first place.

Should've just done single payer + public option right out of the gate. Sigh.

Read the full ruling here before you comment, they explain everything along with all the precedent. Besides, the Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of the act, just whether congress had the authority to enact it.

Should've just done single payer + public option right out of the gate. Sigh.

^ This.