still reading, but it appears that the SCOTUS upheld the mandate. Roberts went left.

since I know many of you get your news here first. ;)

What does this mean, exactly? Does the law have to be repassed in order to allow the IRS to tax people for not having health care? How does the funding work if it is now a tax and not a "penalty"? And, are there any real limits to government power now to coerce people to do things under the guise of the "greater good"?

Spot

All the court did was punt the football, basically.

Our stupid local news lady threw out this quip "Our President was a constitutional scholar, so yeah of course it passed."
Welcome to post constitutional America.

Those are great questions. I would think so, but am not sure. If you are going to treat it as a tax, I would think the IRS code would need to be revised. But, I have not seen the actual decision yet and how they worded it.

Yes, I think the "fee" was to be reported on your tax return and collected with payment of your other income taxes. It is assessed and collected just like any other tax penalty.

Yes, I think the "fee" was to be reported on your tax return and collected with payment of your other income taxes. It is assessed and collected just like any other tax penalty.

So it's been a tax all along, and the SC appeared to see past the political rhetoric and acknowledge that? "It's not a tax" never seemed to be much of a legal argument.

>The court successfully punted the football back into the political realm, is all.

Back into the political realm? It's going to be firmly in the political realm forever, and there's nothing the courts can do about that except alter political strategy.

I told you I had grudging respect for Roberts. :) (I'm not for the law, but since you assumed I was earlier, I'll go ahead and gloat).

So it's been a tax all along, and the SC appeared to see past the political rhetoric and acknowledge that? "It's not a tax" never seemed to be much of a legal argument.

...makes me wonder why they didn't just expand the Medicare program and make everyone pay a bit more into it, instead of this monstrosity of a law?

Well, not really, since as others have pointed out, this is a penalty for an individual for not entering into a private transaction with a third-party.

However, having gotten to thinking about this, the gov't already makes everybody pay into Medicare....this probably isn't all that different if you look at as a tax. But that also makes me wonder why they didn't just expand the Medicare program and make everyone pay a bit more into it, instead of this monstrosity of a law?

Spot

...They knew they didn't have the juice to make that jump so they went with this and may have made it so Rube Goldberg-ish that it will collapse under its own weight thereby, they hope, convincing folks that we might as well just try for some sort of national health scheme.

It's always nice that you let us see a little bit into your world. So, in your world, the conspiracy theory is that the Dems intentionally passed a GOP plan which was so horrible, that it will eventually make a single payer plan look good?

you're funny sometimes.

The GOP is the only major political party in the industrialized world that doesn't support a nationalized healthcare system. Yeah, the whole world is wrong but them.

It's always nice that you let us see a little bit into your world. So, in your world, the conspiracy theory is that the Dems intentionally passed a GOP plan which was so horrible, that it will eventually make a single payer plan look good?

you're funny sometimes.

The GOP is the only major political party in the industrialized world that doesn't support a nationalized healthcare system. Yeah, the whole world is wrong but them.