Replies

The 2 primary expense items of Obamacare are 1) extending medicaid for the poor and extending premium subsidies to others and 2) requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions. The biggest “tax” of all will be the premium increases current insureds would not otherwise have if the pool of insureds were not diluted with those with pre exiting conditions. In the case of the young, some project their premiums to double over time under the mandate than they would otherwise have been and in the case of others not so young their premiums would increase 30-35%.And yet we would still not be paying fully for the program. That is the reality. All the rest is gimmickry and smokescreens to cover up the reality that those not receiving subsidies are paying for those receiving subsidies.

The rationing has already begun also. Common sense dictates that it is impossible to bring into the existing health care infrastructure another 30-million users without rationing the care and exploding the costs.

I have a 99-year old friend that recently had to find a primary care physician. Her health had always been so good that she did not have a relationship with any doctor. She had to approach five doctors before she was able to find one that would take any more Medicare patients. He did so only because he had recently finished his education and was starting a new practice. In a short time he too will begin to refuse Medicare patients. This is a form of rationing that is a given today. It will only mushroom as Obamacare is rolled out into the marketplace.

People really need to read this to help in understanding the decision...

@ Brief for Respondents on Severability

QUestion Presented
tHE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND aFFORDABLE ¢ARE aCT, PUB. l. nO. 111-148, 124 sTAT. 119, AS AMENDED BY THE HEALTH ¢ARE AND eDUCATION rECONCILIATION aCT OF 2010, PUB. l. nO. 111-152, 124 sTAT. 1029, PROVIDES THAT, BEGINNING IN 2014, NON-EXEMPTED FEDERAL INCOME TAXPAYERS WHO FAIL TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM LEVEL OF HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THEMSELVES OR THEIR DEPENDENTS WILL OWE A PENALTY, CALCULATED IN PART ON THE BASIS OF THE TAXPAYER’S HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND REPORTED ON THE TAXPAYER’S FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN, FOR EACH MONTH IN WHICH COVERAGE IS NOT MAINTAINED IN THE TAXABLE YEAR. 26 U.s.¢. 5000a (sUPP. iff 2010).

tHE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE aCT WOULD BE SEVERABLE FROM THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IN THE EVENT THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION WERE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

(sorry about the all caps, that's what copy and paste delivers)

The current...ahem...story being told is that "the penalty" is not a tax.
Well, you can tell that story all day long. The story that isn't being told, IMO, is that the mandate was a tax and it was intended as such all along.

6. tHE aCT ALSO ESTABLISHES NEW TAX PENALTIES TO BE PAID BY NON-EXEMPTED INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT MAINTAIN A MINIMUM LEVEL OF HEALTH COVERAGE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. 26 U.s.¢. 5000a.

@ 26 USC § 5000A - Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage

There first has to be a tax to enforce the penalty upon.
(a converse reading might lead one to argue that Congress, and Respondents as well, already knew the penalty was a tax as well and simply needed such a tax to be rendered Constitutional so the penalty could be levied on that tax)
The wording of the Respondents' Brief should indicate and inform one and all that the individual mandate was that tax from the start.

My wish is that folks will look anew at this and realize what is going on.

I'll read anything anybody responds with, but nobody should expect a reply to any response they may give. I'm not looking for any arguments.
I just want to offer my opinion and I just want folks to think anew about this.

And remember this, the Court can't answer a question they aren't asked so think hard about the question that was asked.