Here it comes:

It's going to be very interesting how this Court decides and whether, if they overturn this law, they'll have a shred oF credibility left or be viewed as just one more partisan player in the now hyper-partisan Washington

We come to it at last...

HAHAHAHAHA YESSSSS

OBAMA'S GOING TO JAIL

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

The House can levy taxes.

Anyone who has health insurance gets a tax break. Just like anyone who has a kid, buys a house, pays a student loan, etc etc etc.

Damn HMOs, ruining the sanctity of our marriages.

Questions like this are the reason that modern-day American conservatives are ill-equipped to handle the future - because by their very definition they want to maintain the status quo and resist any form of change/change in society. Change is a fact of life and the sooner our nation learns to adapt (read move further toward the center/center-left instead of our current right of center), the more likely our republic to survive.

As an increasingly urban populace, we have to start setting policy weighted more towards the support maintenance of our urban centers rather then continuing to prop up failing policies designed for a early rural American/agarian/industrial society.

Evolution is a heartless biatch and doubly so towards the political/economic landscape - so vote republican!

Supreme Court to determine whether Alexander Hamilton would have wanted to be forced to join an HMO

The case will deal with three main points.

1) Is the requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty "tax" or a "regulation"
2) If it is a tax, is judicial review barred by the anti-injuction act? If it is a regulation, is it within Congress' power under the commerce clause to mandate the purchase of health insurance?
3) Is the requirement that states participate in the program or lose federal medicaid funding overly coercive on the states?

That's paraphrased from the cert petition and from today's grant which instructed the parties to brief and argue the anti-injunction act angle.

olddinosaur: No-brainer.

Government has no authority to force someone to buy something they do not want to buy.

People argue, you are forced to buy car insurance but that is not relevant; nobody is forced to own a car.

I'll admit I wish Congress had been a little smarter on the mandate question by saying essentially "either you have health coverage OR you pay a tax of X dollars" because no one would seriously argue that Congress has no power to give targeted tax breaks. But inasmuch as we all accept that Congress would have the power to do that, what is the essential difference between that and what they did do? Pure semantics it seems to me.

olddinosaur: Government has no authority to force someone to buy something they do not want to buy.

You're not forced to buy anything. The federal government just set a tax on being uninsured. You get a tax break if you buy health insurance.

olddinosaur: No-brainer.

Government has no authority to force someone to buy something they do not want to buy.

People argue, you are forced to buy car insurance but that is not relevant; nobody is forced to own a car.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a thing. You're paying a tax if you don't choose to buy something. You pay extra taxes if you don't buy car insurance, you pay extra taxes if you don't buy a home, you pay extra taxes if you don't buy a child, you pay extra taxes if you don't buy a retirement plan...

That being said, the current healthcare law sucks. We need single-payer universal care, and we need it yesterday.

olddinosaur: No-brainer.

Government has no authority to force someone to buy something they do not want to buy.

People argue, you are forced to buy car insurance but that is not relevant; nobody is forced to own a car.

Yet at the same time law makers have passed laws that force ER's and hospitals to take care of sick people regardless of their ability to pay. Now according to the SCOTUS corporations are individuals that have rights. The government has given a mandate to health care organizations to care for anyone that is ill, therefore it's the governments responsibility to come up to pay for those who cannot. Either that or allow ER's to turn away people without ability to pay.

/trying to have it both ways doesn't work.

olddinosaur: No-brainer.

Government has no authority to force someone to buy something they do not want to buy.

People argue, you are forced to buy car insurance but that is not relevant; nobody is forced to own a car.

It's a 2% tax, that you can get out of by spending your money in a certain way. Exactly like tax credits for housing, education, etc. Also similar to tarrifs. It will be very interesting indeed if the SC rules that the Feds don't have the power to levy conditional taxes.

Talondel: Supreme Court to determine whether Alexander Hamilton would have wanted to be forced to join an HMO

The case will deal with three main points.

1) Is the requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty "tax" or a "regulation"
2) If it is a tax, is judicial review barred by the anti-injuction act? If it is a regulation, is it within Congress' power under the commerce clause to mandate the purchase of health insurance?
3) Is the requirement that states participate in the program or lose federal medicaid funding overly coercive on the states?

That's paraphrased from the cert petition and from today's grant which instructed the parties to brief and argue the anti-injunction act angle.

My opinion (which matters exactly 1/300,000,000th that of the Justices'):

1) It's an extra tax you pay if you don't buy insurance - i.e. a tax incentive. Tax incentives are used throughout the tax code and have been found to be perfectly constitutional.
2) No and moot.
3) No. The Court has repeatedly held that the federal power of the purse is a perfectly legitimate use of federal power.

In other words, constitutional.