There are 9 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @Valin
    Brasidas: Very much enjoy and appreciate your analysis, Adam.  If you have time and happen to see this question, do you have any thoughts on the viability of the mandate if it is now considered to be a tax?  Tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives, yet the ACA originated in the Senate.  So, did Roberts plant a seed of destruction by designating this a tax.   · 6 hours ago

    Great question!

    • #1
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @tabularasa

    Adam: Your short explanatory podcasts are excellent. I say this as a lawyer who is not all that conversant with constitutional law. One thing Obamacare has done is educate the general public (and lawyers like me) on principles that were previously opaque. Your podcasts add clarity. Keep them coming.

    • #2
  3. Profile Photo Member
    @JimmyCarter

    Worst decision ever…. Going to hell in a handbasket… blah, blah, blah…

    You need intro/exit music.

    • #3
  4. Profile Photo Inactive
    @WhiskeySam

    Adam, thanks for taking the time to do this.  Always enjoy hearing your perspective on legal rulings.

    • #4
  5. Profile Photo Member
    @AaronMiller

    Thanks. Two questions:

    1) Does government have the de facto power to prevent health insurance providers from raising their premiums and fees enough to compensate for being forced to take losing bets on patients with pre-existing conditions and the like? If they can eliminate the profitability of private health insurance, then the individual mandate hardly matters because healthcare will belong entirely to government.

    2) The federal government already “rewards” certain behaviors via the income tax by returning some money to citizens. This individual mandate seems to merely reverse that. If you embrace the desired behavior, the government won’t take that money to begin with. Either way, the government is claiming authority over your money and using that authority to encourage particular actions. Are these Constitutionally different?

    • #5
  6. Profile Photo Contributor
    @AdamFreedman
    Aaron Miller: Thanks. Two questions:

    · 47 minutes ago

    As to number 1, I would argue that there’s a case to be made that ObamaCare amounts to a regulatory “taking” of property from insurance companies.  But I think we have to wait until the law kicks in; I doubt whether they could prove a taking as a facial matter.

    As to number 2, I’m not sure.  I *think* there’s a big difference between taxing something and taxing nothing, as Paul Rahe points out in his post, namely that I don’t think a “tax” on nothing is really a tax; it’s a penalty.  But I’m not sure about the constitutional significance.  If one can prove that a tax on nothing is a “direct tax” then it would matter because of the requirement of apportionment.

    • #6
  7. Profile Photo Member
    @Brasidas

    Very much enjoy and appreciate your analysis, Adam.  If you have time and happen to see this question, do you have any thoughts on the viability of the mandate if it is now considered to be a tax?  Tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives, yet the ACA originated in the Senate.  So, did Roberts plant a seed of destruction by designating this a tax.  

    • #7
  8. Profile Photo Inactive
    @FeliciaB

    Thank you, Adam!

    • #8
  9. Profile Photo Member
    @BereketKelile

    Adam, I had a question for you. I heard awhile back that there’s no consequences for not paying the penalty/tax under Obamacare. Do you know if that’s true? On page 4 Roberts even says there’s no legal consequence for not buying insurance beyond the penalty (whatever that means).

    • #9

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.