Supreme Court wipes its ass with the constitution

Healthcare law upheld. I'm calling my senator tomorrow and asking him to sponsor a bill requiring all citizens to purchase a handgun or be fined. And continue buying ammo for it every year.

Discuss.

I'm surprised GB didn't have this up 10 minutes after it came through

Yeah, it's depressing. The first report I heard said the court had turned it down. Then they came back on and said it was a mistake, that it actually upheld it. Sheesh.

It's a bummer but we still have a way to go before the election. It's hard to say whether this help Obama in the long run or just motivate the opposition to vote him out.

I am surprised too! Don't tell me he is on facebook posting and not here!

Obama said over and over "It's not a tax"

Here is an interview he gave George Stephanopoulos in 2009:

"President Obama signaled in our interview that he was prepared to address some of the concerns raised by key Senator Jay Rockefeller, who called the Baucus bill a “big middle class tax increase” this week.

That means he’ll support more subsidies for middle class families.

But in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.

Here it is:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion."

I guess it depends on the meaning of tax....

I heard a commentator say how interesting they can rule it is ok to allow this as a tax that is not a tax related to income but to behavior.

I like some comments I have read:

Ironic that the same people who scream in outrage at the legislating of healthcare choices for women are the same ones shouting for joy at the government takeover of our healthcare.

Isn't this the reason why we revolted against England for. Because of their heavy taxation for products we didn't want. Very ironic.

The thing is, everybody's preaching to their own choir. Obama's supporters don't care whether it's a tax. Hell, they LIKE taxes.

People who are against Obamacare aren't going to change their minds because of this ruling.

the wording of the SCOTUS ruling calls it a tax.

"The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."



as such, it chould be fairly easy to get rid of the next time there's a tax reform, yesno?

i think SCOTUS was showing us the way to knock it down later.

when has tax reform ever made things better?

When taxes are cut, it generally makes things better. Pumps the economy up.

That is interesting though, that the SC made that distinction. It's like they're saying, no, you don't have to buy insurance, but the federal government can still tax you for anything it fucking well wants to tax you for. Doesn't matter what they call it or what it's for, they can put a tax on you for anything. So the end result is the same.

Man, I hope Romney and the Republicans pounce all over this big-time. Almost 2/3 of people polled (last poll I saw) did not want Obamacare. And now Obama and the Dems own it for real, rather than just advocating it. So maybe this will be a net plus. One can only hope!

i've read that 25 states sued the federal government for the repeal, and only 14 plus DC have taken any action towards complying with it. i don't see any way to look at those numbers and say there's majority support for this law. HALF the fucking country has gone beyond simple disagreement to actively fighting against it in the strongest way possible.

I've not been sure what to think of it from the beginning. At first it seemed great for people like us who have no health insurance with our part time jobs. Consequently, those part time jobs don't allow us to afford to buy any either. I guess I'll keep pumping the green smoothies and try to stay well!

Well there are all kinds of things I have a problem with regarding it. First, if you've ever been to a free health clinic and sat there for eight hours waiting to see a doctor, guess what, welcome to Obamacare, because that's EXACTLY what it's going to be like.

But more importantly is what Klaus alluded to... what ELSE is the federal government going to require we buy next? If this thing holds, and I hope like hell it won't, they're not going to stop with this. This will only whet their appetite. The sky's the limit. They're going to make us buy new eco-shit home improvements, all kinds of recyclable stuff, low-flush toilets, Chevy Volts, you name it. You think I'm exaggerating... just wait and see. Hell, just look at California. It all costs ten times as much and doesn't produce or save a dime.

Interesting and hopeful article:

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.


http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-c...with-obamacare/

Bel, the more I read about this, the more I think Roberts did us all a favor. You and Ken are right, I think.

Obama owns this now. He can't go around saying the big bad Supreme Court stole universal health care from the people. Which he would have loved to do in the campaign.

And Roberts and the SC have officially declared it a tax, probably the biggest tax increase in the history of mankind. And he actually did rule the 'mandate' aspect unconstitutional... which is at the heart of the matter. All he said was the government can tax any of us, anywhere, any time, for whatever they feel like taxing us for.

I agree. Brilliant.

i'd still rather label this "on the bright side" than "this is a good thing"

I'm not really certain either. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

I'd like to believe Roberts really did us a favor. But I go back and forth on it.

But the Republicans, in any event, need to get their shit together and hammer Obama mercilessly. It's not like they don't have enough ammunition.

at the very least, striking it down in any way CAN'T be a bad thing. i don't doubt obama would spin it like you said, but i'd like to think the "democrats make extreme power grab, but 25 states and the supreme court put them in their place" angle would have played nicely also.

one thing i'm REALLY not happy about with the ruling is the "well you can't mandate it, but you can tax to the same exact effect" thing. that just encourages politicians to play the semantics and angles game to get away with whatever they want. the EFFECT should make it unconstitutional, not the way it's phrased. bad precedent.

Yeah I don't know. I just want Obama out of there so bad, I'm hoping at least some of this turns out to be true.

Just came across this...the first time I've seen some actual numbers:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/

"The Affordable Care Act."



I think I agree with the part of the decision where the SC said the feds can tax us for anything they fucking well want to. That's how it's been for decades. The question then is whether our representatives in Congress will actually represent us and repeal the whole damn act/law/plan/whatever.

It's probably going to come down to the election in November.

And it IS a tax, all euphemisms aside. It's a huge fucking tax.

all issues of tax aside, i'm still lost as to just how the fuck this is supposed to drive down health care costs. it sounds to me like this whole plan is going to expand insurance like CRAZY. insurance doesn't exist to drive down health care costs, it exists to make a profit. which logically means that its very existence drives UP healthcare costs. and that's not even considering all the shady and underhanded practices that goes on all over insurance. i paid a total of $74 just to get my eye exam, and then they took out $30 more from my lens allowance for the "fitting fee." which is what $64 of the $74 was billed as. when my plan says all fitting fees are covered. yeah, i'm TOTALLY saving money with insurance. but i found out something else while i was there, they won't even take patients without insurance. there is no flat fee for an exam that you can just pay and be done with it.