General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

66. He defined the mandate as a tax. For Republicans, that was a positive thing that

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 06:00 AM

Jun 2012

they can now fight. They will criticize the bill as raising taxes. They will not mention that most Americans have to pay that "tax" to the insurance companies already and will actually pay a lower "tax" in the future thanks to ACA.

Why will the "tax" be lower on individual Americans? Because the hidden profits in health insurance will be barred and health insurance companies will have to be transparent with regard to how much they really spend on health care. Health care insurance companies will not be able to spend so much money on reviewing claims and excluding pre-existing conditions and ineligible customers (some of whom are only told they can't be covered after they have paid for a while). Further, Americans will not have to pay the "tax" in the form of paying for certain preventive care they now pay extra for.

Also, Roberts limited the scope of the Commerce clause. I'm not sure whether that is part of the holding or will just be considered to be dicta -- extraneous language or opinion that does not serve as precedent in future cases.

Anyway, those are a couple of benefits that Roberts reaps from his decision.

This is just my opinion. Others may disagree with me -- and they may be right. Any comments?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe it's me but something is really fishy about Roberts supporting ACA [View all] LynneSin Jun 2012 OP

Maybe, just for once Mz Pip Jun 2012 #1

You know what, I hope that is the case LynneSin Jun 2012 #2

"The people" wanted the bill to go farther than it did. EFerrari Jun 2012 #4

Well they'd better rise to this occasion Mz Pip Jun 2012 #8

I believe you are referring to the Dem leadership after the Clintons' proposal failed. EFerrari Jun 2012 #14

I believe MZ is referring to taking the single payer advocates out of the room and killing public op robinlynne Jun 2012 #112

If Ted Kennedy was alive we would've had the public option. joshcryer Jun 2012 #43

But it was Max Baucus who wouldn't let single-payer advocates, Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #55

Single payer wasn't going to happen despite having the votes in the House. joshcryer Jun 2012 #56

Of course it wasn't going happen Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #58

Fair enough. joshcryer Jun 2012 #59

The single-payer advocates should at least have been allowed their say Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #62

We agree. joshcryer Jun 2012 #63

The outcome was a foregone conclusion when the Bill was structured by Baucus rather leveymg Jun 2012 #92

I remember Baucus' blow up well. Ironically he was courting Olympia Snowe. joshcryer Jun 2012 #119

+1 leveymg Jun 2012 #120

I think he recognized that the SCOTUS would lose what was left of its legitimacy if it struck ACA. backscatter712 Jun 2012 #19

My thoughts exactly. But adding one more thing. PFunk Jun 2012 #34

That's precisely what Robert Reich predicted, very much like the New Deal flip. joshcryer Jun 2012 #42

My focus was first on the the switched votes between Roberts & Kennedy. pacalo Jun 2012 #49

Correct. hifiguy Jun 2012 #100

+1 robinlynne Jun 2012 #113

No Way! RobertEarl Jun 2012 #3

I think he did it to avoid the 'single payer' evolution alittlelark Jun 2012 #5

If I were a cynic, I would agree with you, Volaris Jun 2012 #27

I think this was an extremely hard call for him rufus dog Jun 2012 #6

I think there is some truth to this. Mz Pip Jun 2012 #10

W fucked up again? Gman Jun 2012 #47

How will the guy who was the father of 'Obamcare' ultimately run against it ? n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2012 #7

It was akin to a backhanded compliment. morningfog Jun 2012 #9

You know this guy and who he hangs with. EFerrari Jun 2012 #11

Maybe he saw this video: FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #12

The problem with that kid was she was born LynneSin Jun 2012 #22

It could very well be a "good cop, bad cop" sort of thing Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #13

Roberts may have developed a new perspective loyalsister Jun 2012 #15

Observing someone's behavior over the course of their career is not the same EFerrari Jun 2012 #17

Do you believe there is a distinction between behavior and opinions? loyalsister Jun 2012 #20

As I said, observing behavior over an entire career EFerrari Jun 2012 #25

What behaviors are you referring to? loyalsister Jun 2012 #28

He's an umpire Ter Jun 2012 #51

He's not a robotic umpire loyalsister Jun 2012 #53

Oh definitely Ter Jun 2012 #99

I understand that loyalsister Jun 2012 #105

Agreed, NO trust for ROBERTS here. Tweety was drooling over his "integrity" today. UTUSN Jun 2012 #16

Of course Roberts voted for it. woo me with science Jun 2012 #18

Gotta agree here. It's collusion w the ins companies, plus (IMHO) a hopeful boost to the RW Nay Jun 2012 #24

We have reached a point of deliberate partisan delusion in this party. woo me with science Jun 2012 #80

Agree Strelnikov_ Jun 2012 #37

Money usually trumps everything, woo me with science Jun 2012 #65

LOL joshcryer Jun 2012 #40

That for-profit health insurance industry that spent millions lobbying against the bill..... jeff47 Jun 2012 #50

They were just pretending to be against it. joshcryer Jun 2012 #60

And the insurance companies just pretended to be *writing* it woo me with science Jun 2012 #73

They lobbied hard for aspects of it, that's for sure. joshcryer Jun 2012 #118

Agree sandyshoes17 Jun 2012 #77

At a certain point, woo me with science Jun 2012 #82

Exactly right. Who benefits? Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #89

I think you nailed it. It's all part of the theater so we don't recognize that bbgrunt Jun 2012 #91

I've read elsewhere that Roberts may have had his 'Road to Damascus' coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #21

I'm kinda hoping that is the case LynneSin Jun 2012 #23

Add to that he's showing Scalia who's boss. DevonRex Jun 2012 #38

Lyne courts have been rather partisan in the past nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #41

I know that lifetime appointments are distressing, but if we did not have them, JDPriestly Jun 2012 #67

It's already subject to the political influence LynneSin Jun 2012 #85

It would be worse if the appointments were shorter term. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #109

True and since they are there for life, they don't have to stay liberal or conservative treestar Jun 2012 #108

Maybe his kids or wife told him "Don't be a dick today" the morning he made up mind. Hoyt Jun 2012 #26

Nice=)... Volaris Jun 2012 #29

Talk was that he didn't Control-Z Jun 2012 #30

Then why did he uphold Citizen United the day before LynneSin Jun 2012 #32

I have no idea. Control-Z Jun 2012 #52

'cause I think he thought the public wouldn't notice it much. PFunk Jun 2012 #87

Most people would want to uphold their own previous decision muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #94

But he wasn't on the court leftynyc Jun 2012 #64

It is not my argument. Control-Z Jun 2012 #104

Earl Warren Republican did not start out as a liberal or as a progressive. gordianot Jun 2012 #31

Roberts is The Big Cheese now. He is NOT "beholden" to the GOP anymore. MADem Jun 2012 #33

We're talking one right vote out of hundreds! he has presided and voted in hudnreds of bad decisons robinlynne Jun 2012 #115

Well, I haven't heard about "hundreds" of bad decisions. MADem Jun 2012 #117

maybe he doesn't want to continue being a partisan hack Skittles Jun 2012 #35

you can see it as veganlush Jun 2012 #36

he also didn't want to court itself to become an election issue to rally dems. PFunk Jun 2012 #88

According to the lawyer I talked to today nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #39

I, too, thought from early on that this should be considered to be an exercise of the tax and JDPriestly Jun 2012 #69

Well it was written in tax committees. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #103

Good point. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #106

I wanted to think that Roberts is protecting the integrity of the court but Gman Jun 2012 #44

you spelled it out clearly. thanks. bbgrunt Jun 2012 #93

May be a plot. May have been an epiphany considering his strokes as suggested on a thread. freshwest Jun 2012 #45

perhaps it was because he has Epilepsy, and empathizes with those who don't have insurance? /nt still_one Jun 2012 #46

That was suggested on another thread. Could be. freshwest Jun 2012 #48

The curious thing is he essentially wrote the argument that the government should have been making still_one Jun 2012 #97

The court conservatives were between a rock and a hard place eridani Jun 2012 #54

Erm, that's not Rober Riech's take... joshcryer Jun 2012 #61

That's an opinion eridani Jun 2012 #68

Reading his statements, I don't believe that's the case. joshcryer Jun 2012 #70

I'm more inclined to put my hopes in state level action eridani Jun 2012 #71

If there is any hope of a public option at all, it will come from the states. woo me with science Jun 2012 #75

you've got great instincts. bbgrunt Jun 2012 #95

fishy? he was a dick about it. pansypoo53219 Jun 2012 #57

He defined the mandate as a tax. For Republicans, that was a positive thing that JDPriestly Jun 2012 #66

+1 Exactly. And after a bit of delay, every repuke in the nation had a talking point. BumRushDaShow Jun 2012 #76

The REAL winners here are Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife. stlsaxman Jun 2012 #72

I agree with your reasoning customerserviceguy Jun 2012 #74

It's not fishy. He lays out his reasoning in the ruling stevenleser Jun 2012 #78

It is actually a pretty conservative ruling quaker bill Jun 2012 #79

I think this is a good point muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #96

Another DU thread has some insight on this Shrek Jun 2012 #81

Roberts is an establishment Republican who doesn't have to care about his approval rating Arkana Jun 2012 #83

I agree -- I find it very difficult to believe that we would get an honest vote out of Roberts Time for change Jun 2012 #84

He made sure in his opinion that the federal...... NCTraveler Jun 2012 #86

I don't think that Robert's vote had anything to do with avebury Jun 2012 #90

I think Roberts is more concerned about his legacy as Chief Justice and the Supreme Court itself. Hosnon Jun 2012 #98

Maybe to offset Kennedy. Kennedy trying to offset his past. Festivito Jun 2012 #101

Fishy as in red herring ? dipsydoodle Jun 2012 #102

I may try to read that part of the decision treestar Jun 2012 #107

Roberts did not make the decision for any 'legitimacy' of the court. former9thward Jun 2012 #110

You must read Robert Reich's article; Why the Supreme Court Will Uphold...Obamacare robinlynne Jun 2012 #111

It's about disabling the Commerce Clause. alarimer Jun 2012 #114

some "support" ... 30 pages of zbdent Jun 2012 #116