home

A Dark Cloud On A Sunny Day

Obama and Roberts
Upholding ACA, laying groundwork to strike down New Deal

Yesterday, a happy day for many of us, where the Affordable Care Act was upheld in a 5-4 decision (PDF) authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, there is a dark cloud attached. The Chief Justice accepted the federal government's argument that Congress had exercised its taxing power in enacting the mandate. But rather than being a judicial minimalist and deciding only those constitutional questions that must be decided, the Roberts Court bulled on to decide issues that need not have been addressed—whether the mandate exceeded the Congress' Commerce and Necessary and Proper power.

And the Roberts opinion on the scope of the national government's power to address national problems is a shot across the bow to the Supreme Court's New Deal jurisprudence that underpins our modern national government.

(Continue reading below the fold)

In the early 20th century, this Court regularly struck down economic regulation enacted by the peoples’ representatives in both the States and the Federal Government. [...]THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s Commerce Clause opinion [...] bear[s] a disquieting resemblance to those long-overruled decisions. Ultimately, the Court upholds the individual mandate as a proper exercise of Congress’ power to tax and spend“ for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” [...] I concur in that determination, which makes THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s Commerce Clause essay all the more puzzling. Why should THE CHIEF JUSTICE strive so mightily to hem in Congress’ capacity to meet the new problems arising constantly in our ever developing modern economy? I find no satisfying response to that question in his opinion.12 [Emphasis supplied.] —Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Sadly, the five conservatives of the Roberts Court have embraced the Constitution in Exile. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, joined by the four other conservative justices, that:

As our jurisprudence under the Necessary and ProperClause has developed, we have been very deferential to Congress’s determination that a regulation is “necessary.”We have thus upheld laws that are “‘convenient, or useful’ or ‘conducive’ to the authority’s ‘beneficial exercise.’” Comstock, 560 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (quoting McCulloch, supra, at 413, 418). But we have also carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution. Such laws, which are not “consist[ent] withthe letter and spirit of the constitution,” McCulloch, supra, at 421, are not “proper [means] for carrying into Execution” Congress’s enumerated powers. Rather, they are, “in the words of The Federalist, ‘merely acts of usurpation’ which ‘deserve to be treated as such.’” Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 924 (1997) (alterations omitted) (quoting The Federalist No. 33, at 204 (A. Hamilton)); see also New York, 505 U. S., at 177; Comstock, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 5) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment) (“It is of fundamental importance to consider whether essential attributes of state sovereignty are compromised by the assertion of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause . . .”).

Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms. Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. For example, we have upheld provisions permitting continued confinement of those already in federal custody when they could not be safely released, Comstock, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 1–2); criminalizing bribes involving organizations receiving federal funds, Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600, 602, 605 (2004); and tolling state statutes of limitations while cases are pending in federal court, Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U. S. 456, 459, 462 (2003). The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power.

This is wholesale nonsense, both as law and fact. The mandate was not enacted in order to create activity that can be regulated. It was enacted, wisely or not, to make more effective the proper exercise of the Commerce power to regulate the health care and health insurance markets. It was a classic exercise of the Congress' Necessary and Proper power. The Roberts five claim that "such a conception of the Necessary and Proper Clause would work a substantial expansion of federal authority." Quite the opposite. This view constitutes a substantial contraction of federal authority. It strikes at our conception of our federal government and the New Deal.

In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg explains what is wrong with what the Roberts five are arguing:

[W]e owe a large measure of respect to Congress when it frames and enacts economic and social legislation.See Raich, 545 U. S., at 17. See also Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R. A. Gray & Co., 467 U. S. 717, 729 (1984) (“[S]trong deference [is] accorded legislation in the field of national economic policy.”); Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U. S. 314, 326 (1981) (“This [C]ourt will certainly not substitute its judgment for that of Congress unless the relation of the subject to interstate commerce and its effect upon it are clearly non-existent.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). When appraising such legislation, we ask only (1) whether Congress had a “rational basis” for concluding that the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce, and (2) whether there is a “reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends.” Id., at 323–324. See also Raich, 545 U. S., at 22; Lopez, 514 U. S., at 557; Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 277 (1981); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 303 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 258 (1964); United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152–153 (1938). In answering these questions, we presume the statute under review is constitutional and may strike it down only on a “plain showing”that Congress acted irrationally. United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 607 (2000).

Straightforward application of these principles would require the Court to hold that the minimum coverage provision is proper Commerce Clause legislation. Beyond dispute, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the uninsured, as a class, substantially affect interstate commerce. Those without insurance consume billions of dollars of health-care products and services each year. See supra, at 5. Those goods are produced, sold, and delivered largely by national and regional companies who routinely transact business across state lines. The uninsured also cross state lines to receive care. Some have medical emergencies while away from home. Others, when sick, go to a neighboring State that provides better care for those who have not prepaid for care.[...]

Rather than evaluating the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision in the manner established by our precedents, THE CHIEF JUSTICE relies on a newly minted constitutional doctrine. The commerce power does not, THE CHIEF JUSTICE announces, permit Congress to “compe[l] individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product.” Ante, at 20 (emphasis deleted).

THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s novel constraint on Congress’ commerce power gains no force from our precedent and for that reason alone warrants disapprobation.

With regard to the Necessary and Proper power, Justice Ginsburg wrote (joined by the 3 other moderate Justices):

For the reasons explained above, the minimum coverage provision is valid Commerce Clause legislation. See supra, Part II. When viewed as a component of the entire ACA, the provision’s constitutionality becomes even plainer.

The Necessary and Proper Clause “empowers Congress to enact laws in effectuation of its [commerce] powe[r] that are not within its authority to enact in isolation.” Raich, 545 U. S., at 39 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Hence, “[a] complex regulatory program . . . can survive a Commerce Clause challenge without a showing that every single facet of the program is independently and directly related to a valid congressional goal.” Indiana, 452 U. S., at 329, n. 17. “It is enough that the challenged provisions are an integral part of the regulatory program and that the regulatory scheme when considered as a whole satisfies this test.” Ibid. (collecting cases). See also Raich, 545 U. S., at 24–25 (A challenged statutory provision fits within Congress’ commerce authority if it is an “essential par[t] of a larger regulation of economic activity,”such that, in the absence of the provision, “the regulatory scheme could be undercut.” (quoting Lopez, 514 U. S., at 561)); Raich, 545 U. S., at 37 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) (“Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are ‘reasonably adapted’ to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.” (citation omitted)).

Remarkably, the Roberts five cited federalism concerns in denying the Congress its long established Commerce and Necessary and Proper power. As Justice Ginsburg notes, the chief justice makes his constitutional argument out of whole cloth:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE urges, because the command “undermine[s] the structure of government established by the Constitution.” Ante, at 28. If long on hetoric, THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s argument is short on substance. THE CHIEF JUSTICE cites only two cases in which this Court concluded that a federal statute impermissibly transgressed the Constitution’s boundary between state and federal authority: Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898 (1997), and New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992). See ante, at 29. The statutes at issue in both cases, however, compelled state officials to act on the Federal Government’s behalf. 521 U. S., at 925–933 (holding unconstitutional a statute obligating state law enforcement officers to implement a federal gun-control law); New York, 505 U. S., at 176–177 (striking down a statute requiring state legislators to pass regulations pursuant to Congress’ instructions). “[Federal] laws conscripting state officers,” the Court reasoned, “violate state sovereignty and are thus not in accord with the Constitution.” Printz, 521 U. S., at 925, 935; New York, 505 U. S., at 176.

The minimum coverage provision, in contrast, acts “directly upon individuals, without employing the States as intermediaries.” New York, 505 U. S., at 164. The provision is thus entirely consistent with the Constitution’s design. See Printz, 521 U. S., at 920 (“[T]he Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Lacking case law support for his holding, THE CHIEF JUSTICE nevertheless declares the minimum coverage provision not “proper” because it is less “narrow in scope” than other laws this Court has upheld under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Ante, at 29 (citing United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___ (2010); Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600 (2004); Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U. S. 456 (2003)). THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s reliance on cases in which this Court has affirmed Congress’ “broad authority to enact federal legislation” under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Comstock, 560 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5), is underwhelming.

Nor does THE CHIEF JUSTICE pause to explain why the power to direct either the purchase of health insurance or, alternatively, the payment of a penalty collectible as a tax is more far-reaching than other implied powers this Court has found meet under the Necessary and Proper Clause.These powers include the power to enact criminal laws, see, e.g., United States v. Fox, 95 U. S. 670, 672 (1878); the power to imprison, including civil imprisonment, see, e.g., Comstock, 560 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1); and the power to create a national bank, see McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 425. See also Jinks, 538 U. S., at 463 (affirming Congress’ power to alter the way a state law is applied in state court, where the alteration “promotes fair and efficient operation of the federal courts”).10

In failing to explain why the individual mandate threatens our constitutional order, THE CHIEF JUSTICE disserves future courts. How is a judge to decide, when ruling on the constitutionality of a federal statute, whether Congress employed an “independent power,” ante, at 28, or merely a “derivative” one, ante, at 29. Whether the power used is “substantive,” ante, at 30, or just “incidental,” ante, at 29? The instruction THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in effect, provides lower courts: You will know it when you see it.

Justice Ginsburg is much too sanguine here. The Roberts five will tell them in later cases. The undoing of the New Deal must begin somewhere. This is not the end of the Roberts five assault on the New Deal. It is only the beginning. Justice Ginsburg writes:

In the early 20th century, this Court regularly struck down economic regulation enacted by the peoples’ representatives in both the States and the Federal Government. See, e.g., Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S., at 303–304, 309–310; Dagenhart, 247 U. S., at 276–277; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 64 (1905).

THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s Commerce Clause opinion, and even more so the joint dissenters’ reasoning, see post, at 4–16, bear a disquieting resemblance to those long-overruled decisions. Ultimately, the Court upholds the individual mandate as a proper exercise of Congress’ power to tax and spend“ for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1; ante, at 43–44. I concur in that determination, which makes THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s Commerce Clause essay all the more puzzling. Why should THE CHIEF JUSTICE strive so mightily to hem in Congress’ capacity to meet the new problems arising constantly in our ever developing modern economy? I find no satisfying response to that question in his opinion.12 [Emphasis supplied.]

There is no satisfying response, but there is an obvious one—the Roberts five seek to dismantle the New Deal jurisprudence. With no need to even opine on the Commerce and Necessary and Proper question, Chief Justice Roberts has written an unfathomable opinion whose motive can only be the laying of groundwork—the groundwork to undo the New Deal.

Now, more than ever, we see the Roberts five agenda. We must reelect President Obama in order to stop it.

< City of Sanford Wants Help With Expenses of George Zimmerman Prosecution | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not really about The Constitution... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:53:04 AM EST
    The insurance corporations had a law that has the government forcing everybody to pay them money.

    Instead of a law where the government takes over as single payer and the insurance corporations are left out in the cold.

    Roberts had to scramble to find whatever constitutional figleaf he could to keep the first of those in place so as to prevent the people from demanding the second if the first one was overturned.

    Corporate interests first, conservative interpretation of The Constitution only allowed if it doesn't interfere with that.


    I don't know whether to be in (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:03:49 AM EST
    awe of Roberts' brilliance in executing such a purely political and ideological strategy, or appalled that people think Roberts proved his objectivity by voting with the liberals on the Court.

    Maybe I'll just go with "queasy-verging-on-outright-nausea."

    It seemed (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by lentinel on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:14:48 AM EST
    top me that he "sided with the liberals" only to the extent that he thinks this is a lousy bill, but they can have it if they want it.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:11:20 AM EST
    that is what I see.  I have to admit I am not the least bit suspicious of Roberts having some ulterior motive.
    The threat that women must vote for democrats or the supreme court will make it okay for congress to sew our vaginae closed is clearly not working anymore.  I guess this is the new reason we have to all plug our noses and vote for the democrat.  
    Maybe, just maybe, Roberts really does believe that elections have consequences.

    Parent
    erichwwk (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 04:25:35 PM EST
    How would you interpret this quote from Roberts?

    In the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision offers no endorsement of the law's wisdom, and that letting it survive reflects

    "a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation's elected leaders."
    "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," he wrote.


    Parent
    The classic conservative Justices (none / 0) (#92)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    JJ Frankfurter, Jackson, Learned Hand viewed their role similarly. 'Seem to recall that deference to the electorate & the electorate's responsibility was a driving force in a number of opinions authored in the past by adherents to conservative jurisprudence.  The staying of the judicial hand, and the awaiting of any electorate resonse is nothing new...it may just feel different because the Court has seemed to adopt an activist conservative posture that has been at odds with the sentiment you quote.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#96)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 06:07:45 PM EST
    I simply was saying that I could not feel that Roberts was "siding with the liberals" on this.

    He is a conservative - and in his statement he appears to me to be sticking it to those "liberals" who think this is a good bill.

    Parent

    Ginsburg was clearly right in all respects (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    The points of law in her opinion would have carried unanimity on the court any time before the 1990s and still should have received overwhelming support today (indeed, had the ACA been a brilliant triangulation by Karl Rove, they would have).

    Roberts's opinion, on the other hand, was really poorly reasoned.

    Also, I want to highlight footnote 8 from Ginsburg's opinion:

    Some adherents to the joint dissent have questioned the existence of substantive due process rights. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. _, _ (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 7) (The notion that the Due Process Clause "could define the substance of th[e] righ[t to liberty] strains credulity."); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring) ("I reject the proposition that the Due Process Clause guarantees certain (unspecified) liberties[.]"). Given these Justices' reluctance to interpret the Due Process Clause as guarantee­ing liberty interests, their willingness to plant such protections in the Commerce Clause is striking.


    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    is making f**** sense.

    Every once in a while... (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    ... there's nuggets of wisdom between the insults and unabashed Florida Gator worship -- especially on this ACA issue.

    Parent
    Wisdom in the insults (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    sometimes too.

    Go Gators!!

    Parent

    You know, I was going to say something ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    ... about No. 1-seeded Florida's spectacular pratfall at the hands of Kent State -- Kent State, dude! -- at this year's NCAA College World Series in Omaha.

    But then, I thought better of it, decided to play the statesman, and thus chose not rub your face in this rather painfully obvious humiliation.

    Oh, I'm sorry. I believe I just accidentally did that anyway. My bad.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Wow. Conservatives claiming that Roberts.... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by magster on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    ... epilepsy led to him having a cognitive deficit that resulted in him updholding Obamacare. More likely, his chronic condition made him sympathetic to the need for less fortunate to have access to treatment to a chronic condition.

    Tangent: has ThinkProgress gotten a lot better lately? Seems like I've been linking them a lot lately.

    Oh, fer pity's sake. I'm familiar with the meds (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    and yes, there are side effects -- but more so when adjusting to new meds or new dosages, not as a regular sort of thing.

    If Topomax can turn people librul, well, to h*ll with all this raising money for more free concerts and styrofoam pillars and such folderol for this fall.  Show me the PayPal fund to put Topomax in the drinking water in red states, and 'tis done:  Obama will have won.

    Parent

    folderol (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:34:51 PM EST
    That word made me chuckle and deserves a 5 for its use.  

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    IIRC, yesterday in the DK Radio show you said (paraphrasing) that this was a huge political win for the President because now he gets to tout the bill's merits, as opposed to just its constitutionality.  I'd love to read more about what you think the President should and/or will do in this regard.  I'm sure Roberts joining the majority has the President's post-partisan gears whirring, but I would like to see them come out swinging on this issue.

    My personal opinion only, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:33:20 PM EST
    ... I think the crass ideology of Associate Justice Kennedy, and the naked partisanship of Justices Antonin Scalia and Alito, may well have caused Chief Justice Roberts to finally and seriously consider how his judicial legacy might be analyzed by future historians and scholars, were the ACA to be simply be tossed out on its ear in its entirety, as those three aforementioned associate justices obviously intended.

    Thus, Roberts apparently hedged his bets by providing himself with an out, i.e., preparing an alternative draft upholding the law, lest he possibly risk being characterized as a chief justice more in the mold of the feckless Roger Taney, rather than, say, John Marshall or even a William Howard Taft.

    If you review the rather dogmatic dissenting opinion as written by Kennedy, Alito and Scalia, it reads as though it was initially drafted to be the majority opinion -- and at one point, even refers to Justice Ginsberg's separate opinion as the dissent. Their argument is entirely founded with one clear overarching goal in mind, invalidating the ACA.

    Then, just like Citizens United, they try mightily to work backward to cherry-pick case law in a most haphazard manner to create a basis for it, legal precedents be damned, including their own prior opinions! The result was yet another example of unfettered right-wing judicial activism at its most frightening.

    It's no small wonder Roberts blinked at the moment of truth on both the ACA and Arizona's SB 1070, and perhaps thought twice about how Scalia, et al., seriously risked turning SCOTUS into the judicial equivalent of "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" with these particular rulings. Instead, he chose to sign off on his alternative draft for ACA, using Congress's taxing authority as the lynchpin to uphold the law.

    Aloha.

    You're not alone in that, but (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 05:59:37 PM EST
    it doesn't make sense to me.

    We liberals think tossing out the ACA would be a horrible legacy, but why should a conservative think that?  Why wouldn't they see themselves as heroic for saving the country from going down the drain of socialism by standing up for Truth Justice and the American way in the teeth of outraged liberals?

    I'm far more inclined to think that Roberts is simply not frothing-at-the-mouth batshit crazy and still thinks he actually ought to apply conservative constitutional logic to constitutional issues and let the chips fall where they may.

    Parent

    My sister in law (4.00 / 1) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:44:33 PM EST
    My sister in law vented on Facebook that she's going to lose her house because of the insurance mandate.  She is just over the threshold for subsidies but lives in the Seattle area (high cost of living) and has huge student loans from her kids to repay.  She figured that $8000 in premiums each year (per Kaiser Family subsidy calculator) was going to break her.  She will be 54 years old in 2014.

    I assured her that she wouldn't have to buy insurance, would only be subject to the tax.  And I also told her if insurance premiums exceed 8% of her AGI, she could waive the tax.

    That made her feel better.

    I have a feeling that people ARE NOT going to be signing up for insurance even with this bill, which means that new requirements from insurers are going to make insurance MORE expensive, rather than less.  When people can't afford insurance, they can't afford insurance.  Full stop.  Making them buy it does not make it more affordable (per Mr. Obama way back when he was against the mandate).

    Remember when the feds opened up the bridge insurance for people with pre-existing conditions?  People in droves didn't sign up.  The feds reduced the premiums.  People still didn't sign up.  Why?  It still wasn't cost effective to carry insurance.

    Gloat if you wish, but this bill and this ruling is BAD for the Democrats.  Expect massive bleeding in November.  My SIL is a life-long Democrat.  And she is likely the stereotypical middle class person without insurance.  She is not going to vote for Democrats.  She will vote 3rd party.

    Why is your sister paying back the kids SL debt? (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    Sounds like it's not finically smart for her if she's that close to being broke and losing her house . . .

    Parent
    A lot (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    of the problem is the elephant in the room called the insurance business model. No one will admit this but trying to make a profit off of sick people does nothing but drive up costs.

    As far as this influencing voting, I would think it's a wash because Romney proposed the same thing in MA and he's unable to effectively critique his own HCR.

    What is going to hurt Obama is the economy. What is going to hurt Romney is his pandering to the tea party radicals.

    Parent

    At 54, financial disaster from uninsured illness (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    is right around the corner. If she is in dire straits already, I'd say ditching the house and getting health insurance is a good financial decision.

    Parent
    If someone gave me that advice (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sj on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    I would just walk away in disgust.  I don't know if you own your own home.  And if so, I don't know how long you have had it.  But:

    1.  I love my home.  That's my home.
    2.  I may or may not even be able to sell it
    3.  If I am able to sell it, it may or may not pay off my mortgage
    4.  If I am able to sell it, whether or not it pays off my mortgage, it is highly unlikely that I will be able to rent a place for less than my mortgage.  

    So how exactly does it make good financial sense to "ditch" my house in order to buy junk insurance?

    Parent
    Don't feel (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 05:20:24 PM EST
    bad. I feel the same way. You would be walking away from a necessary (shelter) to maybe afford a maybe illness. Most people would take the chance and forgo the insurance.

    Parent
    Sorry, did not mean to sound so crass (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:55:32 PM EST
    I'm definitely not as attached to my house as you and your SIL seem to be to yours. If I had to, or even could,  sell it to make my life better in other ways, I would not hesitate. I could rent the identical house down the street for a lot less than my current underwater mortgage.

    Parent
    But why are you assuming it is junk (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    insurance? If it paid for a good portion of heart surgery or chemo, it would be worth tens of thousands of dollars. I guess I am not that much of a gambler.  If I had to miss a student loan payment to buy insurance I would. I have seen what happened to my dad when he was without insurance for just a couple of months between jobs and had a mini-stroke episode and was wiped out financially. Recovered physically from that, but died in bankruptcy anyway 10 years later.

    Parent
    oops - meant as reply to #47 (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    First, those are her kids' student loans (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 05:32:58 PM EST
    to repay.  But I'll presume that she is paying them as they are jobless or ?

    Either way:  Student loan repayments almost always are negotiable.  For example, recent grad daughter has a teaching job! for fall (the bad news, of course: it's in Walker's Wisconsin) but has yet to get the final contract.  When she gets it, sometime between now and October, the lender gets a look at the salary, and her other debts, and etc., and then they set the repayment rate, years, etc.

    And I've had many friends who lost jobs, notified student loan lenders, got waivers until they got jobs, etc.

    So:  Why would she lose her home to pay back student loans, when they're negotiable?  Has she read the fine print on the loans?  Gone to the lenders' websites to see what to do?  Lenders don't want her to lose her home, as that just hurts other lenders . . . and maybe the same ones.

    Parent

    Many of my underemployed (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Rupe on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    friends in foodservice (and employees of mine) have 4 year degrees but only make $15K a year so they qualify for deferments on their student loan payments.  The vast majority that live on their own also receive SNAP cards.

    Parent
    Yep, and for any others, see an article (none / 0) (#90)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:32:26 AM EST
    today in the Chronicle of Higher Education (or see other sources) on "income-based repayment."

    Parent
    She could have loans (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:39:04 AM EST
    for her kids in her own name.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#95)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 05:00:58 PM EST
    as noted above.

    But if it comes to mom losing her house, it's time for the kids to grow up.

    Parent

    The same people who embrace the (3.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:47:27 AM EST
    Roberts-is-going-this-way-to-undo-the-new-deal crowd, are the same people who poo poo the Fast-and-furious-was-designed-to-lead-to-new-gun-control crowd.  
    People see what they want to see.  Especially in politics.  

    I think you mean "pooh pooh" (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    Because "poo poo" has entirely different meaning.  Ask any two-year-old.

    Parent
    If Madeline had just said to the tiger in the zoo (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by magster on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    ... to poo poo, the children's book might not have been as endearing.

    Parent
    You are correct (none / 0) (#46)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    I'll call a Freudian slip as I have been working in the cat room portion of the local animal shelter this morning.  

    Parent
    On the commerce clause.. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Romberry on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:34:32 AM EST
    ...the Chief Justice was right. You strain to stretch and reshape the commerce clause beyond all recognition. Yesterday's ruling was not an attack on the New Deal, and building the ruling on tax authority and rejecting the Frankenstein commerce clause monster was for me the best news possible. Under this scenario I find the ACA much more palatable. Had it been upheld under the commerce clause, I would oppose it absolutely.

    Justice Ginsburg (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:37:36 AM EST
    was so clearly right on the state of the law before yesterday that no one really disputes it.

    Randy Barnett himself says a new constitutional order was established yesterday.

    No one agrees with you as to what happened.

    Now, some agree with you as to what it OUGHT to be, but not as to what it was.

    In short, you are wrong.

    Parent

    Although I agree with both BTD and Justice Ginsburg, I don't think the reborn limits on the commerce clause and N&P clause pose any threat to existing New Deal legislation. The artificial activity / inactivity distinction doesn't affect any other law, and Roberts went out of his way to leave Wickard in place. The real threat to New Deal legislation, as with ACA, is legislative dismantling or repeal; even a Romney staffed Court is unlikely to overrule Wickard.

    The never before applied coercion test limiting spending power is something new and potentially more dangerous. The list of federal laws tying state compliance with federal conditions accompanying federal spending ranges from civil rights statutes (section 504 of the rehabilitation act, which, among other things, conditions acceptance of federal $$ on waiver of eleventh amendment immunity, Title IX) to some voting laws to lots of social welfare and education legislation (IDEA, Title One). Although the Court previously has alluded to a potential coercion test as a limit on that power, it never before found a law to be sufficiently coercive as to violate those limits. Because it is new, the spending power limit could grow significantly under a future Romney Court without overruling past cases.

    Parent

    Agreed. although (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    the position that  ".. I don't think the reborn limits on the commerce and N &P clauses pose any threat to existing New Deal legislation,"  might be a little optimistic and the "any threat" could be reasonably qualified despite the activity/inactivity specific to the ACA case.

    However, in keeping with your analysis,  Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan notes in her NYT opinion (July l), for the first time since the New Deal, the court struck down an exercise of Congress's spending power. If the federal government can deny state and local governments, universities and non-profits additional money only when it adds conditions the recipients must meet, it will be hamstrung in ensuring compliance with federal objectives. Professor Karlin cites concerns, including that the federal government gives grants on the condition that recipients will not discriminate on the basis of race, sex and disability.  If Congress adds sexual orientation to the list, must it maintain existing financing for groups that persist in discrimination based on sexual orientation?

    Parent

    As I understand it... (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:59:11 AM EST
    ... nothing was overturned yesterday, so that hopefully if some conservatives are replaced within the next 4 years by sane people on the court, this ACA decision can be distinguished away into nothingness in future commerce clause cases.

    As far as dark clouds go, I think Roberts using the taxing power could have been his own 11th dimensional chess as far as giving the GOP a tailor made "TAX! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" campaign issue while preserving his legacy as the somewhat less unhinged conservative chief justice who went for the slow but more enduring form of erosion of rights.

    The Medicaid expansion is in grave doubt (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:49:44 AM EST
    in a number of states under Republican administration (and that's a lot of states). Think Chris Christie rejecting tunnel money. These are horrible people.

    Parent
    I just hope that these governors... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by magster on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:34:35 AM EST
    ... get slammed at the ballot boxes if that is the course they take.

    Parent
    Wouldn't be surprised (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    if some right-wing governors blustered as we saw with ARRA funds.

    But if any see an opening to take personal credit for extending health care they'll jump.

    Yes.  These are truly horrible people.

    Parent

    Intriguing in Walker's Wisconsin (none / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:14:46 AM EST
    is watching a bit of battle of wills between him and his AG, until now a total toady, who had signed on with other states in the case opposing the ACA.  But when Walker announced yesterday that he will continue to refuse to implement even an iota of the ACA -- because he will continue to hope on "the November remedy," ousting Obama -- his AG announced that the state now must comply with the high court ruling and start to set up the state exchange required by next year.

    (Walker already rejected $38 million from the feds for the state exchange -- but that's a drop in the great big bucket of almost a billion dollars that he has refused from the feds for other purposes as well.)

    Parent

    We'll have interstate health care refugees (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by magster on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    As if outing Obama means automatic (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    repeal of the ACA. I guess we will know between now and then if Congress will repeal it, subject to Obama's veto. Somehow I doubt that will happen any time soon. There are enough good things in it that would be taken away to scare any Congress.

    Parent
    I hope that you meant ousting Obama! (none / 0) (#82)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:02:44 PM EST
    And yes, as if.

    I sense that the rallying cry to repeal ACA may replace the rallying cry to repeal Roe v. Wade -- as if the majority of Republicans could or would do so and lose that red flag.  

    (But may I say that if so, I am delighted, as that Roe v. Wade red flag -- red meat? -- was so wearisome.)

    Parent

    Ha! Yes, I did mean ousting.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:29:44 PM EST
    though what would surprise us anymore?

    That is a great point. I am glad for the change in red flags too. Maybe Planned Parenthood will get a little break.

    Parent

    What an odd conclusion (none / 0) (#76)
    by Banzel on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:04:40 PM EST
    Most people praise and support addicts for telling their dealer to go to hell.  Why would kicking an addiction makes someone "horrible?"

    Parent
    What are the potential implications, (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:50:29 AM EST
    if any, of Roberts twisting the mandate fine into a legitimate form of taxation?

    Could a future Congress and Pres. now decide to mandate say owning a gun, and impose a $500 fine/tax on those who don't buy a gun? Or mandate bank accounts or 401k's enforced by fine/tax?  Or was this unique tax power never in dispute?
     

    Congress already has fine/tax on not having a 401k (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    One could, say, put $10,000 in a 401k which is all tax deductible.  Assuming a 15% federal income tax rate and a 8% state income tax rate, you were taxed an extra $2,300 by not having money in a 401k.  Add in the current (around) 6% FICA tax, then you were taxed an extra $2,900 by not having money in a 401(k).

    Also, at one time, the federal government did mandate people have guns in the Militia Act of 1792:


    Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen...who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years...shall...be enrolled in the militia....Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges....


    Parent
    It's semantics perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    but I see it as a slightly different animal.  Can Congress continue to allow tax free contributions into a gambling account  (a tax break), as well as charging a tax penalty on those who don't have a 401k gambling account?  A tax break for doing something Congress and the Pres want to encourage is different than a punishment for not doing something Congress and the Pres are encouraging.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:35:01 AM EST
    ...it's not like it's a slush fund, there are so many restrictions on getting that money back, which of course is taxable.  Given the choice on 401k's, either taxing at entry or at exit, they choose exit which in theory should produce more tax revenue.

    Calculating the benefits of paying tax on the front end or the back end would take some time and would be very dependent on your tax rates throughout your lifetime and the expected returns throughout that same time period.

    But it's not tax free as claimed above, it's tax deferred to when you withdraw.

    A better example would be the Health Savings Account.  Tax free money you can use for medical expenses. But the gamble is not using it.  But it can be used for glasses/lasic, medicine including most over the counter stuff, and of course anything to do with doctors/clinics.  If you don't contribute, you pay tax on all that stuff.  It's an option program that if you don't participate in you are essentially penalized, but you have to have actual expenses.

    But it's all silly, because it's no more a tax then I pay a tax for not having kids, a wife, a dependent, or even a home.

    You are basically getting a credit for having insurance.

    I don't know what the least costly policy you can buy to avoid the fine, but I would suspect these companies are going to design some bare-bones policies that is the same cost as the fine with little, but some, benefits making it a scratch.  As it stand, the first year is a $90 fine, then $300, then $600, and $600 adjusted for inflation there on out.

    The only issue I can really see being a problem, is now that it's established law, the fine getting messed with, either higher or lower.  Want to kill all of it, make the fine $20, want to give back to the campaign donors, make it $2000.  And they way they slide BS into bills, that seems likely, especially lowering it to an amount that would make the entire mandate worthless.

    Parent

    A little tweaking (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    On the penalty:

    In 2014, the penalty is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child (up to $285 for a family) or 1.0% of family income - whichever is higher.

    In 2015, the penalty is $325 per adult and $162.50 per child (up to $975 for a family) or 2.0% of family income - whichever is higher.

    In 2016, the penalty is $695 per adult and $347.50 per child (up to $2085 for a family) or 2.5% of family income - whichever is higher.

    So in 2016, if you are single and more than about $27,700 in taxable income and choose to pay the penalty -you will be paying more than the $695. (for example, if you have $28,000 of taxable income, you will pay $700 instead of the $695).

    And of course, that's per year, and doesn't account for any cost you may outlay during the year for any health-related issues you may have.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    I was going off the top of my head and did not know there was a family amount.

    I also didn't know there was a percent.  That's got more bite then I thought.

    Parent

    Speaking of bite (none / 0) (#44)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    Right now there is really no penalty for not paying the fine/tax - other than possibly the IRS automatically deducting it from any refund due (which will be a bite for many).

    Now, if the law remains, when it is determined that sufficient revenues are not being raised (due to people refusing to pay and/or the individual amounts are too low) watch some "real" IRS type teeth being added to the law.  That won't play well politically, having the IRS going after lower/middle income people for their ACA tax.

    Parent

    People can easily avoid it then (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    by changing their withholding so they are not due a refund, right?

    Parent
    FICA Taxes are not paid on 401k withdrawal (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    So that part is definitely "tax free"

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    But for this abstract discussion of tax, you are getting slammed with a huge tax increase.  Over time you are easily paying more in tax then you contribute.  If you are under... say 50 and that is being generous.

    IOW there is no tax benefit to 401k, not even remotely close.  Well unless you 401k decreases, then there's a benefit, but that is probably not cause for celebration.

    Parent

    Uh, no (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    "IOW there is no tax benefit to 401k, not even remotely close."

    The elderly have higher standard deductions in the federal income tax.  Some states (like mine) allow a certain amount of 401k withdrawals tax-free per year.  Also some states (like mine), have lower tax rates for the elderly than non-elderly.  Since most of the IRA withdrawal is when you're elderly, there can be substantial benefits from a 401k.

    Parent

    I'm Sorry Dan... (none / 0) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:48:28 PM EST
    ...thought we discussing Federal Income tax, no ?

    Lets use $100, today at 15% would be $15 of tax, that same $100 should about $2000 @ 8% for 40 years.   Even if your tax rate in retirement is 5%, you are paying over 6 times the tax on the same $100.  Granted it's today's dollars, obviously $30 in 40 years isn't worth as much as $30 today, but that wasn't your argument.

    Those numbers goes down with time and the last couple of years will probably be beneficial in terms of tax, but not much.  But more importantly, over the lifespan of nearly everyone, they will pay more Federal Income taxes in a 401k then they will save up front.

    So in no way could not having one be considered a tax, and if someone wanted t play games, they could claim that a 401k increases their Income Taxes, and it would be true.

    I live in a state w/o income tax, so apparently Dan, you are being taxed for not living here, boom goes the dyno-mite.

    Parent

    Uh, no (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:26:36 PM EST

    I'm Sorry Dan. .thought we discussing Federal Income tax, no ?

    I mentioned "and a 8% state income tax rate" in the #12 comment in this post.  I accept your apology for not seeing that.


    Lets use $100, today at 15% would be $15 of tax, that same $100 should about $2000 @ 8% for 40 years.   Even if your tax rate in retirement is 5%, you are paying over 6 times the tax on the same $100.

    Even if you did not put the money in a retirement account, you would still pay taxes on the $2000.


    Granted it's today's dollars, obviously $30 in 40 years isn't worth as much as $30 today, but that wasn't your argument.

    My argument was that lower taxes rates imply paying less taxes.  If you disagree with that, please say so.


    But more importantly, over the lifespan of nearly everyone, they will pay more Federal Income taxes in a 401k then they will save up front.

    Suppose an elderly person paid $0 for the income from retirement account withdrawal.  In that case, you're saying that paying $0 in taxes is more taxes th[a]n they would save up front right?


    So in no way could not having one be considered a tax,

    Wait a second.  Didn't you just agree in comment #31 that putting money in the 401k means one doesn't pay FICA taxes?


    dyno-mite.

    You're a funny guy.

    Parent

    Also you are withdrawing the money (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    at a time in your life when your income is lower, so the tax is at a lower rate then it would be if you were paying taxes on it at the peak years of your earnings.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    15% on the front end and 5% on the back end was what I used.

    Parent
    I see that now...still don't get your math (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    I understand that 5% of 2000 is more than 15% of 100. But you would not have the 2000 if you had not invested the 100.

    What am I missing here?

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 02:40:08 PM EST
    ...for example, a Roth IRA you pay taxes up front and the withdrawals are tax free.

    But that wasn't the point, the point was you could spend it which doesn't give you a tax disadvantage over the person who sticks it in a 401k.  Dan was arguing you get penalized (taxed) if you don't stick it in a 401k and it's just not true.

    Parent

    Where You Doi Get Penalized... (none / 0) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 02:41:14 PM EST
    ...is if your employers matches contributions.  But that has nothing to do with taxes on the front end.

    Parent
    401K amounts are subject (none / 0) (#97)
    by coast on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:51:32 PM EST
    to FICA when earned and subject to federal and state income taxes when withdrawn.

    Parent
    I get that... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:05:39 AM EST
    the end result is basically the same, different tax bills for individuals based on private sector commercial activity or lack thereof...but I was just curious if it had ever been done before on the "punishment" end, instead of the typical "incentive/discount" end.  Has a new taxation precedent been set?

    If the ACA was worded to give tax breaks to those who buy insurance, that would be more typical of how we've used the tax code to encourage behavior in the past.  But it was worded as a mandate & fine, which Roberts just made synonymous with tax.  I see potential for a slippery slope of new fines called taxes for not buying all kinds of sh*t.

    Parent

    At Massachussets state level this is (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    exactly how the mandate penalty is implemented - through the taxing agency, with the penalty taken out of any refund due.

    So Mitt raised taxes too, if people want to look at it like that.

    Parent

    The Roberts opinion refers to a Court opinion wher (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    e a penalty was considered to be a tax.  US vs Sotelo (1978): "That the funds due are referred to as a 'penalty' [...] does not alter their essential character as taxes".

    Parent
    15 page Dicta (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:52:16 AM EST
    Dicta means "something said in passing" and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential

    Orin Kerr:
    Roberts also writes on the Commerce Clause issue, even though it's not needed to reach the result

    Those who thought they won ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    yesterday lost, and those that thought they lost won.

    But that's often the case with politics and the laws of unintended (though often secretly intended) consequences.

    For the level-headed cynics in the crowd:  Move on, nothing to see here.

    Actually Roberts just switched sides. (none / 0) (#21)
    by redwolf on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    The conservatives have rejected him over upholding Obama care and he will start voting in a reliably progressive manner within a couple of a years.  Politics is ultimately my tribe vs yours and Roberts was just kicked out of his tribe.

    oy (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by sj on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:41:44 AM EST
    Oh, what a fickle and ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    ... self-absorbed paramour a conservative must be: "I love you, but for only so long as you do exactly what I want."

    Well, even the most docile of doormats will eventually grow weary of the constant manipulation, endless caveats and emotional blackmail, and will walk once he finally realizes that he's been shacked up with the equivalent of Gertrude Stein's (rather pithy) description of Oakland, because there's no there there.

    Parent

    Question (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    I haven't seen it answered anywhere that I remember.  How are you going to prove you have insurance?  I can very well see scenarios where I may have insurance, but don't go to the doctor or need services for an entire year, so no claims will be filed, triggering something in some database that shows I have insurance.

    Are we all going to get something like a W-2 from our insurance carriers, or we will have to submit a copy of "Proof of Insurance" like we carry in our cars?

    I've had insurance cards issued to me... (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    ... for years by whichever corporation was getting my money.

    Parent
    Maybe those insurance cards (4.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    can be used as proof of ID for voting...

    Parent
    That would be great (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:44:39 AM EST
    Might thin the herd of who actually votes.

    Parent
    Counterfeits should be rampant... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:14:07 AM EST
    if we will have to submit proof with our returns.  I got old expired cards, a little doctoring would make a photocopy look legit...unless ya got audited.

    If the insurance company will have a new W2 type requirement, our rates just went up again;)

    Parent

    In Texas... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    ..we have a system for verifying insurance on the spot.  Certainly this system would be electronic and I suspect, like with W2's & 1099's the IRS will have that information before you file.

    If Wallgreens can tell that I am insured, I would think the IRS should have no problems.

    For some of us in the digital age, we file electronically and don't submit anything beyond the IRS forms.  I even search for my W2 and it populates the info, so I don't even have the option of trying to screw it up.

    The only thing that I could play games with is itemized stuff, but since things like property tax are relative to the previous year, it would be obvious if I did.

    What I think is odd, is yesterday they were saying that all the things the IRS couldn't do to you for not paying the fine.  Which was all the things they do when you owe them money.  Are they going to separate it out, if you owe them the penalty and actual taxes ?  It's like two classes of money you could owe them, one being very restricted.

    Parent

    Nothing to see/fear here (none / 0) (#63)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    As we all know, the IRS is one of the most benign and benevolent of all govt agencies.  ;-)

    Parent
    Right... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    ...but according to the law, they can be their normal IRS self, but for these the fine they have to play nice.  Seems odd.

    Parent
    Well until (none / 0) (#78)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:36:41 PM EST
    (provided the entire thing remains a law) it is determined that people are being scoff-laws and not paying and/or the total revenue is not sufficient - then watch the as the IRS hounds are unleashed.

    Parent
    Right, but (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    But when you do your taxes, are you going to have to include a copy of that? (And actually, I found old insurance cards in my desk a couple of weeks ago - from plans I hadn't had in years.  They are not dated - if all they require is a copy of the card, I could just photocopy that.)  Is the government really going to go through every single return and check the copies of insurance cards?  I doubt it.

    Parent
    Don't know but can see it being (none / 0) (#37)
    by BTAL on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    handled the same way as mortgage interest statements and tax filing.  The insurance co. sends an annual statement of policy to you that includes their ID and policy number.  You include those two data elements on your return.

    They can match in the database when processing your return.

    Parent

    Didn't see this before I wrote (none / 0) (#41)
    by dk on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:57:13 AM EST
    my comment below.  Yes, this is how it works in MA with our mandate.  

    Parent
    In Massachusetts (none / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    we get something like a W-2 from our insurance carriers to include with our state tax returns in order to satisfy the mandate.

    Parent
    Thank you. (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    Probably an entry on your W-2 form from your (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    employer, if you get it that way, or another form you have to submit with your taxes if you don't.

    Parent
    Window dressing (none / 0) (#49)
    by AF on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    I'm not concerned.  Roberts made the momentous decision to uphold the ACA and then made sure to throw his conservative brethren as many bones as possible.  But it will never have any practical effect.  There is nowhere to go with "inactivity" principle.  It just isn't going to apply to any actual laws, especially since Congress can always use the tax power.

    I KNOW what this f'king crap means (none / 0) (#72)
    by seabos84 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 05:22:19 PM EST
    for example, from BTD's quote above ...

    "Id., at 323-324. See also Raich, 545 U. S., at 22; Lopez, 514 U. S., at 557; Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 277 (1981); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 303 (1964); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 258 (1964); United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152-153 (1938). In answering these questions, we presume the "

    what ALL this crap means, is that instead of figuring out how to make the unemployment and retraining system work well and seamlessly ...

    I mean instead of figuring out how paying your rent or paying your mortgage work well and fairly ...

    OOOPS! ... instead of figuring out how to have HEALTH CARE so you can get back in the saddle and get back to being productive --

    productive so we have the surplus to take care of retirees, and invest in the young, and invest in the roads and sewer systems and the internet tubes, and ...

    so all the white collar parasites can go to work and make MORE dysfunctional unworkable f'ked systems which serve the parasites better than the working stiffs ...

    OOPS! how many tangents is that?  

    we're ALL gonna get employed reading chicken bones, cat guts and sheep entrails!!

    Holy crap, batman ... does anyone notice that this morass of b.s. is NOT employing nurses or doctors, or ... getting sick people healthy?

    Imagine, someday, you will NOT be able to go to advanced training, AKA 'college', unless you can make stuff work better, cuz if you can't make stuff work better, you should NEVER EVER be in charge of anything!!!

    rmm.

    appeal was on commerce clause! (none / 0) (#79)
    by diogenes on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:29:08 PM EST
    "But rather than being a judicial minimalist and deciding only those constitutional questions that must be decided, the Roberts Court bulled on to decide issues that need not have been addressed--whether the mandate exceeded the Congress' Commerce and Necessary and Proper power."

    Um...the appeal that came to the court was based on the commerce clause, so didn't that have to be addressed?  Or does a minimalist court only do the minimum needed to support your own personal political position?

    What would the next judicial case (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    be toward dismantling the New Deal? Will someone bring a case against Social Security? Just trying to understand the context of how the court will be able to act going forward.