Through accident or design Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy have done the American people a great service. While the two American political parties become more partisan, the Roberts and Kennedy opinions rendered on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act have drawn a bright line between what seem to be two opposing visions for America's future. It is no small thing that Kennedy, the so-called "swing vote" felt the Act such an abomination that in his dissent joined by the three conservative justices, he called for striking the entire law down as an egregious overreach by the federal government. Chief Justice Roberts, on the other hand, upheld the law on the basis of the argument that although the Congress and the president specifically said that the mandate funding the legislation was not a tax, it could be "construed" as one. Roberts pointedly said that this was not an opinion on the quality or advisability of the law merely on the taxing authority of Congress (even when they don't intend to pass a tax).
That the law was passed on a purely partisan vote, that few who voted for it read it or were fully briefed on the contents of its 2,700 pages, that its first 10 years of operation are now projected to cost nearly $3 trillion, twice their initial estimate, and that it is now evident that many employers will opt to pay the penalty and cancel their existing health plans leaving millions of Americans unable to continue their present coverage as advertized -- none of these are constitutional issues. Congress does not have to read or understand what it passes and advocates are free to distort financial projections and demagogue, even in the words of Abraham Lincoln "to fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time." This is American government at the dawn of the 21st century. It's all perfectly constitutional.
Now, also in keeping with our constitution, on Nov. 6, 2012, the American people will have their say. They will go to the polls and decide whether to support the president and the party that single-handedly drafted, passed, and defended this "big __ing deal" in the words of Vice President Joe Biden or replace them with presidential and congressional candidates sworn to repeal it. They will decide if they want to continue the transformational direction advocated by this president, perhaps enact the promised cap and trade legislation that would in the president's words massively increase the cost of energy, pass card check to increase unionization of the private sector, expand the welfare state maybe extending unemployment compensation beyond the already extended two years, and cede to the executive the unilateral right to enforce constitutionally passed laws at his discretion.
Contrary to what many would have us believe, the next election is not about race, religion, who we would want to have a beer with, gay marriage, abortion, or God forbid, "fairness." It is about the future role of the federal government and the role of the individual in America. Chief Justice Roberts ruled that a tax is a tax even when it's not supposed to be a tax. The American people may now proceed to render a more consequential judgment.
Follow Al Checchi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Al_Checchi
Al Checchi offers this Truly Scary "fact": the Affordable Care Act will cost $3 trillion over ten years, twice the initial estimate. He gives no source for this startling claim, but he does offer a link. Because he's a High Profile Guy who is Very Well Informed, most readers won't check out his link. Those that do will discover this fact:
The $3 trillion cost that Checchi states as a Truly Scary "fact" is nothing of the sort. This figure refers to the 2012 estimated National Healthcare Expenditure, a statistic provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. This figure represents the total amount that *people* in the US will spend on healthcare in 2012. The figure has *absolutely nothing* to do with the cost of the ACA.
Here's a statement of the actual ACA coverage cost estimates from the CBO:
"CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period."
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf
That's still a chunk of change, but nowhere near Checchi's Truly Scary $3 trillion figure. To put the $1.1 trillion ten-year ACA cost in perspective, keep in mind that we spent $1.283 trillion to pay for the ten-year Iraq war.
Lune
Any citings or proof for this, or is it just made from thin air and the fervent dystopian hopes of the GOP?
If I can find the story and documentation for you I'll post it.
TL;DR :
Yes these studies were done , but they found that passing the savings after the penalty along to employees was the only way to ensure retaining said employees.
Most companies know that. As mercenary as they are, they also recognize that retaining the benefit (or its financial equivalent) would also better for them in the long term. Ergo, the charge of "companies will drop health care as a benefit" rings distinctly hollow.
buy your own damm health insurance ....
It's a tax on being a lazy freeloader who can afford coverage, but opts instead to go without, using the emergency room and skipping out on the bill when the invitable hopsitalization occurs.
Remember, the first plaintiff in the SCOTUS case, a car repair shop owner in Florida who claimed the mandate violated her Constitutional right, had to drop out when she contracted a serious illness, racked up nearly a hundred thousand in hospital bills, and filed for bankruptcy, shifting the burden of her (expensive emergency-room) care onto the rest of us.
So please, do tell me why we shouldn't tax the people who can afford to buy insurance, but opt not to. You're still free to be an irresponsible jerk - you just have to pay a little more for it.
I'm not married, so I don't get the "Married filing jointly" tax breaks. How is that fair, but taxing someone for free-riding isn't?
BTW, it is estimated that 1-2% of earners will actually be subjected to the tax, totalling only $55B.