Skip to main content

View Diary: Justice Scalia briefing papers: Right-wing blogs (121 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the entry fee (0+ / 0-)

    to be guaranteed insurance in your old age too.  It goes with the prohibition on denial for pre-existing conditions.  It's a lifetime membership.  It's what govt does best: making us all pay into a comprehensive risk pool.

    Hey, I don't love it that I pay every year for FEMA to rebuild wingers' homes in tornado alley.  They seem happy to take the help.

    It's no different than funding social security, mostly because you'll need it in your old age, but also, in case you become disabled.

    •  So why do immigrants enter as equals? (0+ / 0-)

      In Social Security, your benefits depend on your contributions, and an immigrant starting work here at 50 will contribute the same from 50 to 67 as the guy working next to him but will not collect the same when they retire - he didn't pay 'the entry fee'.

      Your FEMA example is better, because it all reboots every year. But your contributions to support FEMA from 18 to 50 don't affect your eligibility to collect at 51.

      If ACA required everyone to buy an insurance policy that only paid medical bills on the condition you were 50 years old or more, your 'entry fee' argument would stand but would you find it constitutional? Yes, the federal government can tax everyone to pay the medical bills just of those over 50 - the entire Supreme Court agrees - but can it mandate that you buy insurance for it? (Even if that insurance were from a public option, be it noted.)

      The argument before the Supreme Court is that the ACA makes the relevant time period one year, not a lifetime.

      Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

      by Clem Yeobright on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:54:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Explain to me (0+ / 0-)

        I really don't understand the one year versus lifetime thing, except as it applies to immigrants being able to jump into the pool anytime, and as it applies to the inital ramp up.

        •  Alito is bothered that younger people (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sharman

          - including a lot of people here at DK - are virtually by definition disadvantaged by this statute. I think he accepts that Congress could accomplish this through taxation, hint: single-payer, but can't do it through the mandate to buy health insurance.

          The one-year argument is made by the States (it's not mine); their attorney cited it when one of the Justices (Ginsberg, I think), made an assertion about things evening out over a lifetime.

          Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

          by Clem Yeobright on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 11:01:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, Alito and the others decide what they want to (0+ / 0-)

            decide.  If the Congress, by some miracle, passed a single-payer system, they'd find a way to say no to that too.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site