Hot! (and embarrassing)

[altivo]

Today's heat index hit around 114F according to Wunderground, which includes sensors just across the road from us. It felt like it too. We are not putting the horses in their stalls tonight, trying to let them get what little advantage they can from more freely circulating air. Of course, there's not a whiff of a breeze at the moment but at least the temperature is dropping.

By now I'm sure just about everyone knows that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (also called the Health Care Reform Act of 2010, and derided as "Obamacare" by Republicans and other right wingnuts.) Some of you know that I'm not particularly impressed with this so-called "reform" either. I believe it lacks adequate cost controls, and leaves far too much to the whim of capitalist market forces and private corporate boards. It has no public coverage option, and does relatively little to protect lower middle class individuals, particularly unmarried ones. As usual, the politicians have been beating the "family, family, family" drum to the exclusion of fairness to anyone who doesn't fit their narrow definitions.

However, the fact that this particular court, conservative as it is and constructed largely of justices appointed by Dubyabush, still managed to uphold the constitutionality of the act is something of a hopeful sign that partisanship and polarization do not yet completely control the US.

So what's to be embarrassed about? Well, you've also seen me complain about the sheer, wilful ignorance of so many US citizens and voters. You know, the ones who refuse to accept the validity of science, don't believe in evolution, and still insist that gays and lesbians should be stoned to death? Today I've seen numerous right wingers announcing that they will "move to Canada" rather than submit to the "big government health care" changes. Ignorant is a generous word to describe what this actually suggests. Do they not know that Canada has genuine socialized medicine, something that the ACA does not really achieve? Are they aware that Canada has legalized and recognized same sex marriages on a national level, and requires equal treatment in all provinces? That Canada's abortion laws are more liberal than those of any US state? Or that the Canadian population includes far more self-described atheists than the US does? (Some estimates run as high as 45% of the adult population.) Evidently, no. Surely none of these Obama haters would consider moving to a country so liberal and socialist, unless they simply had no idea what they were talking about.

I suggest that they move instead to Mexico, which really does have less government, is nowhere near recognizing gay marriages, and remains highly religious and opposed to abortion and birth control. And once they move there, let's use their own proposed anti-immigration laws and measures to keep them from ever coming back. Good riddance.

Comments

[lhexa]

I was impressed by the fact that John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. But hey, that's the way it goes, justices change alignment as the years pass. I honestly think that the change mandated by the ruling (lack of insurance brings a penalty tax rather than a misdemeanor) is a good one, too.

Also, regarding gay marriage in Mexico.

Good luck with the heat, I'm honestly amazed that you've reached such a high mark. :(

[altivo]

Yah, the wingnut commentators are saying that John Roberts is on drugs and I hear some are now proposing to start an impeachment action against him. It's funny though as you say, that so many arch-conservative judges seem to start drifting toward the left as they spend time on the Supreme Court. Not that they all do, of course, but some notable ones have definitely gone that way.

[lhexa]

I don't think it's so much that the judges change ideology as that the debate du jour eventually reaches a topic on which the judge does not have a firm opinion. Roberts, for instance, was elected when conservatism was all about supporting the Middle Eastern wars, and I gather his views on health care were not scrutinized as closely. Similarly, the Nixon and Reagan judges were appointed when conservatism was about States' rights, gun rights, and anti-unionism; then, not too long after, the Court started handing down decisions like Lawrence v. Texas -- women's rights, gay rights, and student's rights suddenly and unexpectedly gained decent (not great) Supreme Court support. (Note to any aficionados watching, I am aware that my knowledge of US legal history is very spotty.)

While I tend to be aggravated by liberals' arrogant (and largely false) belief that intelligence governs ideology, I do think that liberalism persists in being less short-sighted than conservatism. I also think that's why the Supreme Court, with its permanent appointments, tends to be the site of key liberal victories, even following periods of conservative dominance.

[deffox]

As usual I can't say I'm impressed with the court.

On one hand the court twisted concepts to redefine a fine as a tax. To fine someone for not purchasing a private product is a bit much. The method of the fine is getting close to being a bill of attainder, hence should have been tossed. The court chose to redefine it as a tax when the other two branches were adamant that it wasn't.

Yet requiring states provide Medicaid to people unable to afford private products is a "gun to the head".

Somehow fining one group is just peachy, yet not giving as much money to the other group is unacceptable. In the end corporations make money, and many people still fall through the cracks.

[schnee]

On one hand the court twisted concepts to redefine a fine as a tax. To fine someone for not purchasing a private product is a bit much. The method of the fine is getting close to being a bill of attainder, hence should have been tossed. The court chose to redefine it as a tax when the other two branches were adamant that it wasn't.

This struck me as very odd, too. No matter what you think of the bill (I'm generally in favor of it, at least insofar as that it's a step in the right direction; it may not go far enough, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and an OK law that gets passed is preferable to a better one that doesn't, at least for the moment), it should be plainly obvious that the fines are not a "tax" in any usual sense of the word.

In fact, the whole concept of taxing people for not doing something rubs me the wrong way, too, and I think the comparison that has been drawn to taxes that people have to pay simply by virtue of existing falls flat, too. Whether those are justifiable and to which extent is debatable in itself, but the fact that you can avoid paying this "tax" by doing something makes it very clear that it is intended to dissuade you from refusing to do that something — that it is, in other words, a fine and not a tax.

As for the Medicaid bit — I've been wondering, what would keep the federal government from letting the existing programmes under which states receive funding run out and replace them with new ones for equal amounts, with additional requirements that just so happen to match what was struck down now? It seems that this would not run counter to the letter of this SCOTUS ruling.

[altivo]

I suspect that your Medicaid proposal would fail. The real issue is forcing the states to pick up the bill for more than what they already do, and with so many of them bankrupt or nearly so, it seems pointless in any case. Medicaid itself is a dubious construct that has never really stood a genuine test of legality, I fear. Medicare, as an all federal program, is different and this ruling further reinforces the legality of that program.

[deffox]

The problem with the Medicaid ruling is it goes against their own precident. In South Dakota v. Dole the Supreme Court ruled that federal funds can be withheld from states that did not conform to federal policy.

Like many people I like certain aspects of the law, such as attacking the pre-existing conditions scam, but don't consider it an acceptable level of reform. I know enough working poor that won't be helped. But the court did not rule correctly or in the interests of the public.

[altivo]

No surprise there. It's just as Congress didn't really act in the interests of the public when writing the law. They sold out to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and created a law that just funnels federal funds into corporate coffers without any kind of control on the rate of flow or the inflated costs. Even medicare has better safeguards than this thing does.

[(Anonymous)]

I have to wonder if in fact the Commerce Clause actually means anything, because anyone can cross out the word "penalty" and write in the word "tax".
- Daks

[altivo]

Well, we've been seeing an awful lot of free and loose interpretation of constitutional language over the last decade or two, by both the courts and the other branches. It does surprise me that this particular Supreme Court bothered to go so far to uphold ACA, though. Looking at it in the context of many of their decisions, things are starting to seem generally flippant and frivolous to me.

[altivo]

I started thinking about this and it didn't take me long to come up with another example of a common situation in the US where punitive fines and taxes for not doing something are much the same thing (call it what you will.) The common dog license.
In most places where I have lived, dog owners are required to pay a registration or license fee for each dog. Typically a rabies vaccination is required as well.

There is, of course, a fine for failing to register the dog, and the fine is much larger than the cost of registration. However, the registration fee often has two levels. If the dog is neutered or spayed, the registration costs much less than if the dog is intact and thus presumed capable of reproducing.

The difference between the two license levels can be viewed as a "fine" for not neutering your dog (which is what it amounts to) or as a special licensing tax for a dog that can reproduce.

Another example, which actually involves insurance, is auto insurance. In most states, it is mandatory for the owner of an operable vehicle to buy liability insurance every year. But a few states allow owners who do not purchase insurance to instead pay a fee that includes them in an "uninsured motorist" pool and, in essence, covers their liabilities should they cause property damage or injury to anyone else. This is very close to what is happening with ACA.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Legally, the difference is that those types of things are the jurisdiction of state and municipal governments, not the federal government. This gives you a choice - if one state has too many "penalty taxes" then you can always choose to live in another state. That way, states are encouraged to prevent these penalties from getting out of hand, or they risk an exodus. But if you have the federal government doing that, then it becomes a much bigger problem, and there's no such incentive for them to control the number or amount of such penalties... and that's why it is supposed to be unconstitutional for the federal government to do that.

[treppenwolf]

Do they not know that Canada has genuine socialized medicine, something that the ACA does not really achieve? Are they aware that Canada has legalized and recognized same sex marriages on a national level, and requires equal treatment in all provinces?

"It's not bad when the Joneses do it. Besides, we'll just be visiting. Long-term. In their attic."