Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Yup.

So if government intervention got us here, how do you figure more intervention is going get us out?

Dann757 wrote:You mentioned nuclear weapons, do you think we could maintain any shred of national security without them? Barry does, unless he has an ulterior motive.

We won't and shouldn't get rid of all nuclear weapons. But a few dozen are probably sufficient; we and the Russians don't need to stockpile them by the thousands. I don't know how old you are, but I grew up with the constant threat that some general or politician would miscalculate, some radio tube in a radar set would overheat and produce phantom blips on a radar screen, and the world would end in a massive fireball and nuclear winter that would leave ants and cockroaches as the pinnacle of civilization. And there are plenty of atomic bombs still operational to accomplish just that. I think Barry, like presidents before him, is trying to get the number of nukes back to a rational level. Organized opposition, as always, comes largely from those who benefit financially from building and maintaining the bombs. If it brings money to my congressional district or my contributors, it's a good program, and the world be damned.

Sorry, off topic, but I suppose you could consider nuclear weapons control as a form of health care.

Bob,
I'm gonna be 55 this month. I was instructed to hide under the school desk in the 60's. I guess I take a more primal and less altruistic tack than you do. Maybe I'm naive and just trying to extract some sense of security by being conservative.
I believe with the overwhelming evidence and all the information I have garnered over the last three years, that Obama is an anti-American, anti-colonial politician that was groomed and placed in power by forces that have the destruction of the USA as we knew it as their highest priority.

I see more of us on this great website at least with some common agreement that our leaders are bickering and fighting for power at the expense of the American People.

I have been reading that liberals have no sense of self-preservation. This translates collectively to a national level.
Some of us don't want to be taxed to this excessive level to implement a socialist society where citizens are manipulated into being dependent on an ever growing nanny state.
I heard that governments keep populations in control by keeping the citizenry fearful and demoralized. Your liberalism would be wonderful if there was not a viscious struggle to survive going on in the world.
This administration forcing me to buy a product that I and well over 65% of the American public do not want, is another blatant erosion and disregard for the Constitution.

Well stated Dann757!

When there is a fusion of state and private enterprise (as with Obamacare, the bail outs, GM, Chrysler, etc...) it is termed Fascism, but other than that you are right on!

When there is outright government ownership of enterprise it is Socialism, and when there is outright government ownership of both enterprise and the citizenry it is Communism.

Although I will admit that for GM and Chrysler we did have a brief period of outright Government ownership whereby clearly Socialism was evident. Then it slipped back to mere Fascism when stock was floated. There is a fine line here. A facade in fact. People generally prefer (or rather are more easily duped by) the facade of Fascism vs. the more honest (though clearly equally evil) outright Socialism.

Everyone on the right has their panties in a bunch and wants to execute John Roberts for his "betrayal". I know, I wanted to do the same a couple of days ago. Sure, Roberts could have voted en bloc with the conservatives and pissed off the left, legislated from the bench, and made the court look like a conservative entity while whipping up the left wing base to defeat Romney this fall. But.....he was smarter than that. He was smarter than most Republicans and smarter than ALL democrats except one, who tilted her hand to expose her leftist intents when the decision came down (I am referring to Ginsberg who knows exactly what Roberts was doing).

Had Roberts used his swing power to kill the law, doing so would have left open the issue of whether a citizen's non-compliance with the mandate to buy insurance initiated a tax or a penalty AND it would have left on the table the issue of the federal government being able to compel citizens to purchase anything it desired under the commerce clause.

Rightly, seven justices saw the error of the administration in attempting to coerce states to engage in the expansion of Medicaid, at their expense, or face having existing Medicaid support cut off. They rightly supported the tenth amendment on that point. But, when it came to the issue of the mandate, what was left undone, could have been as damaging to the people's freedom as the law itself.

Roberts, apparently at the last moment, by chance or design (we may never know), chose to lead the people to safer waters. It is a gamble but one that has tremendous upside for the people's freedoms and limited downside. Roberts action effectively ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution of the US cannot be used to compel individuals to purchase anything. Ginsberg was openly miffed that the commerce clause did not support the law. She is an unbridled socialist and as such, was incensed that the federal government was determined to have limited powers under the commerce clause.

For those of you who don't think that the question of the commerce clause's limitations were decided here, read this part of Roberts majority opinion, in which he answers all of the objections of Ginsberg:

JUSTICE GINSBURG questions the necessity of rejecting the Government’s commerce power argument, given that §5000A can be upheld under the taxing power. Post, at 37. But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be interpreted as a tax. Without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction. The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.

Roberts has had the court establish that non-compliance with the mandate triggered a tax, not a penalty. It was also determined that the tax was NOT a direct tax. Therefore, it is an indirect tax that must be uniform among the people. Failure to comply is estimated at 4 million people. Of those, most will be poor, the class that was targeted for coverage at the onset of the debates. These folks may or may not be covered under the intended Medicaid expansion within the ACA. Democrats will have to defend their new tax and spend program which, if determined to require uniformity, and fails to do what it intended, will be forced to legislate yet another tax (like social security) on EVERYONE in order for the law to succeed in doing what the Democrats originally intended- full national coverage. Defense of any of that will be difficult for them. Nonetheless, Roberts left no doubt as to the silly arguments of the Obama administration: It's not a penalty. It's just another Democrat tax.

As an unintended consequence, It is possible that this ruling establishes a precedent for the origination of tax law in either house. Or, Since the ACA IS a tax law, as SCOTUS has determined, then it may be arguable that it was improperly originated. If challenged again, would it be unconstitutional because it failed a proper legislative course? It remains to be seen.

It is interesting to note that non-compliance with the mandate is not criminal and no one will be compelled to buy insurance-ever. The IRS cannot use its force to collect the "shared responsibility payment" as it is called in the ACA.

As I see it, the law, as it is written, will be totally unworkable. States are not required to comply with the Medicaid expansion. The mandate is not enforceable because the law itself prevents enforceability. It is merely a tax for non-compliance. The mandate has no teeth. They cannot criminally prosecute the non-compliant. The formation of state HC insurance exchanges will be pointless. The goal will not be achieved because total uniform coverage will not be achieved. It will be a complete failure hung around the necks of the Democrats.

The Obama Administration had its head handed to it by this decision and the left hasn't noticed....yet.

Dan & Larry, either you guys are nuts, or I am. But pretty soon I'll be senile so I won't care which.

Don't say it!

I'm glad to see Mikeandgerry back. His post was brilliant as usual and your reaction was so typical. Deflect or insult, the liberal mantra. But "There I go again."
Try to reach a common ground with libs and you'll get slapped in the face every time. We're not insane, we're Americans, and we don't see Obama's face when we look at the flag.

Roberts said, you passed this piece of crap, it's a TAX, go figure it out by yourselves.
Good for him. Your right, the left hasn't figured it out ........yet. When they do, they're
going to be pissed.

Obamacare is Romneycare,... Romneycare is Obamacare..

homecomfort wrote:Obamacare is Romneycare,... Romneycare is Obamacare..

Sad but quite true! The joke here lies squarely upon the Republicans. They nominated the very man who first conceived of and implemented Obamacare to be their Presidential candidate.

You & me both Bob & I can't remember if I really give a *censored*. Outstanding post my friend,

rberq wrote:Dan & Larry, either you guys are nuts, or I am. But pretty soon I'll be senile so I won't care which.

Don't say it!

lsayre wrote:Sad but quite true! The joke here lies squarely upon the Republicans. They nominated the very man who first conceived of and implemented Obamacare to be their Presidential candidate.

Proof positive that there's no difference between dems & Reps. We need to clean house from the bottom up.

I can't take any credit for coming up with this one, but the gist of it goes as follows:

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution states, “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills.”

The Obamacare bill originated in the Senate and the Supreme Court stated that it would be illegal if it was promoted as functioning under the Commerce Clause, though it is legal only if it is considered and treated as a tax.

Bingo! All bills raising revenue (I.E., taxes) per the quite clear and unambiguous Constitution itself MUST originate in the House of Representatives, so this bill is effectively dead. All the Senate can do is propose amendments to it, they can not originate it. All we need to do is get the Supreme Court and Congress to read their Constitution.

Perhaps Justice John Roberts is a genius after all. He made it into a tax, and now it is dead meat. I can almost hear him chuckling while waiting for someone in Congress to stumble across this angle and force it back into the Federal Courts for a decision.

They haven't been using the Constitution up until now.

I don't expect they'll start today.

Either this bill is dead, or the Constitution is dead. I don't recall any Amendments modifying Article 1, Section 7.