Breakdown of the ObamaCare Decision

Ok folks, so let's talk about the biggest political news so far of the summer: the Supreme Court's decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or otherwise known as ObamaCare. On June 28th, the Supreme Court released its decision on the law in the case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, immediatley re-igniting a heated debate about the powers of the national government.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's recap the major aspects of this law that the Court was dealing with. Long story short, the two most controversial aspects of the ObamaCare law were
        - the individual mandate that all Americans must have health insurance, either by privately  purchasing it, having their employers provide it, or being enrolled into a government-run program like Medicaid; otherwise they must pay a penalty,
        - and the requirement that the states had to enlarge the number of people enrolled in the Medicaid program, or risk losing all federal money in running these programs.. Medicaid is a joint program run by both the federal and state governments, helping poorer folks afford health coverage. However, Medicaid costs make up quite a bit of a state's budget, and many states were very upset at being forced to spend more on health coverage.
So we have two main issues involved here: first, can the federal government force individual citizens to buy a product? And second, where are the boundaries between the federal and state governments?

So, let's talk about the decision, because it gets a bit complicated. You may recall that the Obama administration argued that the individual mandate was within the government's powers under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. The Court rejected this argument, saying "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance." However, the Court decided that the penalty for not getting health insurance could be considered to be a tax, and that could be considered to be allowed under the Taxing Power in the Constitution, "The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance." So in other words, you can not be forced to buy something by the federal government....however, you can be heavily encouraged to buy something by facing an additional tax if you don't. Makes perfect sense, right?....Right???

I know that seems very contradictory, but it is not entirely unheard of. The government does use its taxing power to encourage its citizens to do certain things. For example, there are taxes on alcohol and cigarettes in order to encourage people to abstain from buying these products. There are tax credits (i.e. you pay less in taxes) if you buy a home, or adopt a child, or give to charity. What's different in this ruling is that you will pay a tax for NOT doing something, in this case obtaining health insurance.

As for the second part of the case, can the federal government force the states to expand Medicaid? In a surprise, the Court ruled that the federal government does NOT have this power. The Court found that the states have every right to not comply with the new rule, and still be able to recieve their current levels of Medicaid funding. For the first time in quite a long time, the Court drew a clear line limiting what the federal government can require of the states.

So what does all this mean? Well, conservatives and Republicans are upset that ObamaCare was upheld, and are worried about the possibility that this will open up the possibility of new taxes and requirements from the federal government. However, they are happy that the Supreme Court has decided to uphold the theory of federalism, by keeping a distinct line between the federal and state governments. And finally, they won't publicly announce it, but they are quite happy with this ruling because it gives them ammunition!

What do I mean by this? Simple. A majority of Americans were against the individual mandate of ObamaCare. After the Supreme Court decision, the Republicans and Mitt Romney can now portray themselves as the ONLY chance to repeal ObamaCare, and they are hoping that the American people remember that come November. And they can do this by using President Obama's own words, when he routinely said throughout the debate over ObamaCare that the penalty for not getting health insurance would be a penalty or a fine, and most certainly not a tax. Ouch!

Good grief, that was a lot of info! If you have questions, concerns, comments, haikus, please share! Stay groovy!