From ScotusBlog, not yet up on SCOTUS.org:

Various comments:

Quote:

The individual mandate survives as a tax.

So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

Worst possible interpretation. It's a tax.

More Scotus Blog:

The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated...

The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.

Amy Howe:
On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.

10:22 Lyle:
The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55)

10:23 Amy Howe:
The critical detail is that you cannot take away the existing Medicaid funds.

10:23 Amy Howe:
The Court does not reach severability issues, having upheld the mandate 5-4.

10:24 Tom:
Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

10:25 Amy Howe:
The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.

10:26 Amy Howe:
The Court holds that the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply because the label "tax" is not controlling.

The IRS will waterboard anyone who refuses to pay that particular tax and take that person's assets if he dies.

What about all the waivers Obama's been handing out like candy to his pals and union buddies? How are the waivers Constitutional?

[Deleted...commented on typo]

ETA: there's a certain Pink Floyd song I can't seem to get out of my head right now.

ETA: Page 31.

Quote:

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

Roberts' examples aren't equivalent because they tax some actual activity. This is a tax on no actual activity.

no its a typo

Tom:
Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

So FUUUUUUUUUU

Hey, wait a second. Is Roberts circling around and injecting a test of the income tax as a legally enforceable mandate? Wasn't the income tax hyped as voluntary when it first appeared, or was that just Social Security? Even if this could apply only to the enforceability of the Social Security tax, that might be a great big deal.

ETA: Darn, the misreading blows that whole line of thought.

Bottom line: Eat well and exercise more. The state wants healthy chattel.

ETA#2: Okay, if the mandate is now a tax, does it have to go back through the House of Representatives to be passed as such since it was not written as a tax previously?

This whole thing makes me ill. (Not meant to be humorous in any way.)

Polls have 68% of the population as saying they disagree with the mandate.

That will help Romney, as he says he'll repeal it.

This is going to rip some of the middle/lower class to shreads btw... most of them can't afford the insurance.. so it'll be an extra 500$ out of all their pockets.

Quote:

And what if I expect not to use it, or just plain don't want it.. should I pay anyways?

No one wants to use it but the reality is that everyone will use it at some time unless you die in a car crash or some other accident. You either need to pay cash or have insurance so other people don't have to pay your expenses because someone always pays.

The SCOTUS decision was as I expected which may be a victory for Obummer but we shall see in the election who wins in the end.

Opinion not up on SCOTUS.org so all that we see is from Scotus Live Blog at:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/live-b....

Key points:
-Mandate upheld 5-4, Roberts joins left
-No severability issues at all
-Roberts opinion separate on Commerce/Tax clause issue
-Violates Commerce Clause but ok as a Tax
-Medicaid provision upheld but punish only with regards to new funds not old

Dissent:
Lyle:
In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

===================================

But it does not matter anymore.

It stands as a tax, you must pay, little changes but for the withdrawal of Medicaid funds to punish states.

==================================

The Money Shot:

10:32 Amy Howe:
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power.

The court reinforces that individuals cant simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate...

Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax...

So pay up, everyone.

Romney should win easily now.

You have to remember that this was a bailout for health insurance corporations. Roberts has always been a corporate man.

Link to opinions, rulings, etc:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11p....

Wow...Roberts went left and Kennedy went right.

The mind boggles.

Page 127 for dissents.

I am reading Stevens' opinion....wow...

He doesn't understand that Congress can just raise the "penalty"...err tax for not having insurance to an astronomical level thus inducing/mandating coverage. This goes against his argument that it is unconstitutional under the Commerce clause.

I wonder who will be offering insurance for $1/month with a $10,000,000 deductible, so that people can comply and avoid the tax *cough*, ahem, 'fine'.

If SCOTUS claims Obamacare is Constitutional because it's a tax, why can Obama's waiver pals and union buddies avoid the taxes they would have had to pay on their "cadillac" plans?

Bezzle says A1S8, enjoy your slavery.

Quote:

That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, itis necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’senumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8,cl. 1.

.and here we have someone who thinks the law dne because they want it to be so, or they think the law is one way or another.

We just had a SCOTUS ruling on the law. That's all that matters. It's not going anywhere.

Denial is a powerful drug.

Now would be a good time for certain states to start considering secession.

Next step: Force All US doctors, pharmacies and hospitals to accept medicare/medicaid or pay a "penalty/tax".

mrbill wrote..

Bezzle says A1S8, enjoy your slavery.

remember when bezzle was mocked for this?

Well, as Mrbill says above, I guess it all comes right back to Bezzle's argument that the intent of the Constitution is to distract you from A1S8.

The. Entire. Constitution. Is. All. About. Slavery. Do people get it now? Comments like "Roberts went left and Kennedy went right" indicate otherwise.

The Constitution isn't dead. It's just that it was never meant to serve the sheeple. Carlin: "You have owners. They own you. They own everything."