Let's say the Supremes strike down the mandates as unconstitutional

[DeltaLitProf]

What would be the next step?

I saw an episode of Maddow in which she said it would only be necessary to make a quick adjustment to have the reform bill work without the mandates. What was she referring to?

[bluestateguy]

1. The subsidies and the exchange would still be in effect

My guess is that the Congress could respond by creating tax incentives/credits to induce people to buy insurance in the absence of a mandate.

[DeltaLitProf]

3. As I understand it, the mandates are structured as taxes

This means that if the filer does not show he has bought insurance, a tax is applied. And aren't there many other kinds of taxes that would apply for NOT doing something? A tax credit, for instance, is only given if I DO something to earn it. And that DOing something may involve me going to a non-government party (as when I took out student loans) to buy something.

So if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, doesn't that place all sorts of tax credits and deductions in similar jeopardy, since at times I must buy things from non-government entities to earn those?

Just thinking aloud here. Any feedback would be helpful.

[bluestateguy]

4. No

You have to make purchases to get all kinds of tax credits, for buying a home for example, or a business that gets an R&D tax credit for buying equipment. There has never been a constitutional problem with that. Government may use tax policy to encourage beneficial economic behavior.

As long as there is no tax penalty, I don't see the remedy I proposed as being problematic with the Constitution, and even the tax penalty seems likely to survive constitutional challenges.

[mdmc]

10. perhaps a tax break for having insurance

not a tax for not having it

same thing..

[hansberrym]

12. The fix would be to restructure the penalty as an income tax, rather than an excise tax

As you say it is easy to make the penalty a feature of the income tax as Congress has the power to do under the 16th amendment.
The Senate chose not to do this -probably because they did not want to be seen as raising income taxes.


However, the penalty as the Senate wrote it is an excise tax on the "act" of not buying insurance. That is more than a bit absurd. Apparently Harry Reid is a devote of Baron Von Munchhausen, and believes one can literally pull oneself up by his own bootstraps.


The Senate wishes to regulate this or that item of commerce, so dear citizen you must pay a tax. However, if you don’t want to pay more than $700, you can opt to pay $700. By generously providing you this option to avoid paying more than $700, Congress thus tranforms a direct tax into an indirect tax. The “event” subject to the tax is the non-payment of the higher amount.


How many "events" did you perform(or should I say not perform) in reading this post? The number of things you did not do in the last 30 seconds is infinite, and so will be Congress' power to tax if the Courts agree with Reid.

[Rage Inc.]

2. Get Diana Ross to KICK THEIR ASSES!!!

From what I've heard, she can be a serious bitch!

[barbtries]

8. thank you!

see below. i'm not the only one who reads "the supremes" that way. lol

[salguine]

9. I actually prefer that to "SCOTUS". I have such extreme acronym fatigue...

[BlooInBloo]

5. Who cares - it won't happen.

[ChicagoSuz219]

6. The only thing that would change would be the mandates.

There's a provision in HCR that states if one part of it is deemed unconstitutional, it won't affect the rest of it.

It's moot... it will never happen.

[barbtries]

7. when i saw your headline the first vision that came to me

was "stop! in the name of love..."
oh well. i can't answer your question but have read a few articles that say repeal won't work.

[Statistical]

11. Public option.

With no mandates the insurance companies would be between a rock and a hard place.
They would be required to accept everyone yet healthy people could avoid buying insurance.

They will be begging for some relief. Republicans don't have the 60 votes to repeal the other conditions of HCR.

A possible fix:
A public option structured slightly different.

Any American who doesn't
a) show credible coverage
b) show ability to self pay
c) register some religious objection

would AUTOMATICALLY be enrolled in a public insurance plan.
Premiums (minus any subsidies for low income) would be deducted via payroll.

It wouldn't be a mandate it would be a universal govt program with ability to "opt-out" by having conditions a, b, or c above.

The irony is insurance companies would have no choice but to support it. Not supporting it would be financial death for them.

[DeltaLitProf]

13. It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent and patient

. . . DUers are in trying to answer the kind of flummoxing questions I come up with here. Thanks for straightening me out.