C-Span has run an informative program from the CATO institute, several times since the decision. I’m sure it’s in their archives now and probably won’t run again.
One of the presenters said something that I’ve said, in asking questions about the meaning of the ruling. He’s the only one I’ve heard put it into the exact words I was pondering, and suggesting, in my question.
He said the ruling did not uphold Obamacare. He said the Court ruled it unconstitutional for purposes of the suit brought by the 26 states, but not struck down because it could survive under a different scheme than the suit argued, namely the tax.
However, I remember Rush saying that RBG and the other libs were angry that Roberts even mentioned the tax justification, because she and they wanted it upheld under the original suit basis, the Commerce Clause. He mentioned that she dissented from Robert’s construct about the tax power.
I have asked repeatedly, what did a majority of the Court agree to. What did five justices actually put on paper that was essentially the same so that it could be seen as a majority ruling, that will live on to establish precedent on the taxing power.
???
Even THIS informative program didn’t answer that question that haunts me.
I still don’t know. I know for certain the law was not struck down, only because Roberts abandoned the four who voted to strike it down, and joined the libs in saving it, but according to Rush in the aftermath, Roberts was using the tax excuse, not the other justices.
IF, and I say IF because I still don’t know, five agreed to save it but five did not agree it was under taxing authority, then I do not see how one man, or at least less than five, can say it was a tax and not only thereby save it but also establish a precedent that the feds can tax anything you don’t do that they don’t like.
Again, ???
The CATO institute program had experts that have labored long over studying these issues and are super analysts. They went on to give great hope that this law has holes through it like a sieve, and will have great difficulty standing because it simply does not work.
They said the ruling that allows the states to refuse Medicaid expansion without being punished as the feds want to punish them, is a big probem for the law and will help it fall.
They also said the way the law is written, and what it leaves out, allows the states to not set up state exchanges and does not provide the feds, who it says can step in and set up exchanges, the actual wherewithal to do it.
And you can’t get a subsidy from a federal exchange, according to the law itself. So if you qualify for a subsidy under the mandate, you still can’t get one if your state refuses to set up an exchange.
They went on to say that the insurance industry would be literally wiped out, ruined forever, as well as employer provided coverage, if the law as written is attempted to be implemented, whether states refuse or not.
To which I say, that was the most likely reason for this law. To destroy the private insurance industry and employer provided coverage, so there would be nothing left but the federal government to handle health insurance.
So much for Obama’s lie that if you like the health insurance you have now, you can keep it.
Grounds for impeachment, in my book, that. If there were any justice in this world.
The CATO people have read every word of the 2700 pages. They are amazing.
Check out the C-Span archive if you want the weeds on the ACA itself, and the ruling.
Thanks for the info on the CATO Institute program -I will make a point of viewing it.
Thank you for a very informative post. Gives hope but I’m still confused
I was wondering the effects of the ruling myself.
Plainly, it’s not as cut and dried as most believe. In fact, I think the fat lady ain’t sung yet, heck, she’s not even on stage!
My summary would be:
Medicaid expansion is out. Let’s not even worry about that part.
Individual mandate.
OK.
Roberts basically said, and I will paraphrase “You can’t do that under the commerce law, so forget about that. You COULD do that under the taxing powers. Court is adjourned, I’m outa here.”
BUT!!!!.....
AFAIK, the legislation that was passed by Congress DOES NOT CALL IT A TAX, IT CALLS IT A PENALTY!!
SO!
THAT LEGISLATION, OBAMACARE AS IT WAS WRITTEN AND PASSED, IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!
THEY MUST, repeat that last word, MUST, take it back to Congress and rewrite it so that IT CLEARLY IS DEFINED AS A TAX!
My take, anyways.
And hopefully we KNOW what will happen if it goes back to Congress.