Well, the Supreme Court, as it has so often before, surprised nearly everybody. Most people thought Justice Kennedy was the pivotal vote. He wasn’t. He thought the whole Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, as did Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. The four liberal justices would have upheld the whole act. It was Chief Justice Roberts who made all the difference, and his idiosyncratic reasoning will have profound constitutional implications far beyond ObamaCare. Here are three, a distinctly mixed bag.
1) He limited federal power under the Commerce Clause. It is not constitutional to require people to buy a product. The clause is limited to regulating commerce that is, not commerce the government wants to see. That’s a big deal, because had the requirement been upheld, the power of the federal government under the Commerce Clause would have become essentially unlimited. As was pointed out in oral argument, you could be required to buy broccoli.
2) He greatly expanded the taxing power. Never before that I know of, has a federal tax been placed on inactivity. If you buy something, you pay a sales tax. If you earn income, you pay an income tax. If you do business as a corporation, you pay an excise tax. Now, if you don’t buy health insurance, you pay a tax on not doing so. What else then can be taxed? Not exercising? Not eating broccoli? Not agreeing with the president?
3) He considerably limited federal power over the states. The Tenth Amendment has been largely a dead letter for decades, declared a mere truism. (In which case, why did the Founding Fathers include it?) But Roberts ruled that while the federal government can tie strings to federal money given to the states—in this case additional Medicaid funds—it cannot coerce the states by threatening to take away other funds unless its will is complied with. This is a tactic the federal government has been using for years to, in effect, make states mere administrative districts of the federal government. For instance, it forced the states to adopt 21-to-drink laws or face the loss of federal highway funds. Roberts is arguing that the states are, indeed, sovereign within their own sphere. That is also a big deal.
Judging by the signs being carried, the overwhelming majority of the crowd outside the Court this morning was anti-ObamaCare. With the upholding of the mandate, ObamaCare survives. For now. But I suspect the already energized anti-Obama forces in this year’s election will now be supercharged. The only way to get rid of this deeply pernicious piece of legislation will be to get rid of Obama. Requiring all candidates for federal office to sign a promise to repeal ObamaCare as a precondition of support would be a starter.
"Requiring all candidates for federal office to sign a promise to repeal ObamaCare as a precondition of support would be a starter." n nThe act of a politician signing a piece of paper promising to do or not do something isn't worth the paper it's written on!
The limits placed on federal power over the states by this decision notwithstanding, whether based upon the Commerce Clause or the Taxing Power, the Supreme Court allowed further government intrusion into the legitimate choices responsible adults should be allowed to make in a free society. Justice Kennedy was dead right when he stated that this law fundamentally alters the relationship between the U.S. govenment and its citizens.
Yeah, the right for you or a love done to choose whether to be sick or not and whether to bankrupt your family or save money and die. You right-wingers turn greed and meanness into virtues and social consciousness into socialism. n nYou seek to reduce social interaction into transactions, into "market-based solutions". You're really all atheists, because if you believed in a just God, then you'd be trembling at the prospect of a Judgment Day. But you don't tremble, thank you very much, because you believe in nothing but "me and mine".
There is a difference between freely-given individual compassion and state-coerced redistribution. Take a long look in the mirror before you ascribe such mean motives to those who disagree with you on political questions, people who also have families to care for and limited means, and ask yourself what you've done freely of your own time and money to help the people you think deserve it before you began advocating for politicians to extort money from others to do it for you.
The liberal point of view of the Constitution: whatever we need, whenever we need it. How doesn't matter. If today, tax not commerce does the job, fine. If tomorrow, commerce not tax does the job, fine too. Don't hold your breath for the "restriction" of commerce to actually effect anything else. nAnd don't hallucinate that the feds are now constrained in dictating to the states. They'll find a way. nIt's the Republican appointees who betray us. The Democrats embody the principle stated in the first sentence above. Who was the last Dem justice to even mildly disappoint the left? Try White; fifty year ago. Since then, mind numbed robots like Ginzberg and Breyer.
What a bizarre ruling. Anyway, Repeal & Replace just became doubly important. Time for GOP campaign strategists across the country to earn their paychecks. Flood the airwaves with ads warning people of what's coming, and remind every voter how their Dem incumbent screwed them. Force every Dem candidate to defend the indefensible. A setback, but only the beginning. n nTry to resist the urge to punch your monitor/TV, even though the gloating will be insufferable for a few days.
This is absolutely the right way to react! I daresay that there are few,if any, conservatives who will now carp about Romney being the " too moderate" candidate! Indeed, if you heard Romney react to the decision today, you can see why he is a formidable challenger. He succintly said why this act has to be repealed and why Obama has to be voted out of office.AND- he did not pander to the Supreme Court and said he agreed with the dissenters!
In fact, artemislange, it is a very shrewed ruling. While Kagan et.al., the demprogs and the Prez were playing checkers…Roberts was playing chess. Watch and pay close attention.
We can repeal Obamacare. We can vote out Obama. We can vote out every member of congress who voted for this bill. What we can't do, however, is repeal the bottom line of Roberts' ruling, which is: what congress can't do directly through the commerce clause, it can do indirectly through taxation. Congress can't force us to buy a product, but it can tax us if we don't. Congress has just been told that it can do anything it wants to us by taxing us if we don't comply. This ruling belongs in the supreme court hall of shame with Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo v. City of New London.
I think that the ruling's tacit acceptance of an "unlimited power of taxation,” however alarming it seems in principle, will have few practical results. Tax increases, especially if they’re broad-based, are politically problematic—witness the Obama Administration’s vociferous denials during the debate over passage that the individual mandate constituted a tax. I believe that the portion of the ruling touching on state sovereignty will prove to be much more significant in the long run. Consider the case of Obamacare. Its operation depends in large measure on the federal government’s ability to coerce the states. That’s now going to be more difficult. Better half a loaf…
I'm a conservative and a lawyer. I am immensely proud of Justice Roberts' opinion. Judges are not supposed to be political hacks. As Justice Roberts said, it is not their role to rule ont he wisdom of a law. Their role is to to reason and apply the law (or, in this case, the Constitution), which is exactly what Justice Roberts did. His (and Kennedy's) positions increase my confidence in the integrity of the court.__The "tax on doing nothing" argument is bogus. In the first place, it is logically impossible to distinguish "doing" from "not doing"–the only way not to do something is to do something else, and the only way to do something is to not do something else. And, here, people who don't buy insurance are not simply "not doing" something–they are "doing," they are shifting to government and taxpayers the risk and burden of their care. As a conservative and a Republican, and suspecting that Republicans are more likely to be taxpayers than are Democrats, I have struggled to understand why it is not considered a conservative principle to discourage such free-loading.
I find at last a voice of reason. People think that the justices should simply play party politics. Justices Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, who do exactly the same are a disgrace to the judicial profession. Had the republicans been other side of the issue, just as when Heritage Foundation was supporting Romney's individual mandate, their verdict could have been exactly the opposite. Even very recently, Romney hailed it as a conservative principle because it eliminates free loaders. Reagan's solicitor general also admitted that individual mandate is constitutional, and hence must be upheld. n nThe argument that it infringes on our liberty is also bogus. When car insurance is constitutional, this should also be. One flawed argument against the analogy is that you can choose not have a car and avoid insurance, but the fallacy here is that we can't choose not to have this body (analog of the car). Some other fallacious argument in defense of Romney care) is that state's can have mandate, but not the Federal Govt. The counter-argument can be put in the form of a tea party question: Are the states permitted to enforce "broccili" purchase mandate, whereas the Fed Can't? That's not true either.
I want to comment that you've picked out Justices who tend to vote along the lines of the limiting aspects of the Constitution and called it playing "party politics." How is that party politics (and how is it any different than Ginzberg ruling along the lines of a "living" Constitution)? And how can you avoid singling out Sotomayer for, according to Obama whose "party politics" line is "It's the right thing to do," saying when he nominated her (rephrasing) that she votes her empathy for the right thing to do (meaning rather than the law)? How is that not playing party politics? And Kagan worked with the Obama administration on the legal arguments in support of Obamacare but didn't see fit to recuse herself. How can anyone not see that as the most blatant and despicable show of party politics?
I'm not sure I share your pride in this decision. Justice Roberts basically said that the law was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause (which is how it was written) and then rewrote that section so that it would be a tax (which is constitutional). I have no problem with a tax being legal but that's not how the law was written. The law was written using the commerce clause. Does this mean that any time a law is unconstitutional the judges will rewrite so it is constitutional?
I agree with Justice Roberts that it is the substance of what is done, not the label Congress chooses to put on it, that should be determinative.
That's not true. n nSomeone who is wealthy enough to pay for his own health care may choose to not buy health insurance–yet he is still not shifting his costs onto others. n nBill Gates can pay for any conceivable health care that he and his family might ever need. Why should the government mandate that he has to buy health insurance? n nStudies I've seen show that the "free rider" problem you're alluding to, costs only a fraction of the money that the ObamaCare mandate was supposed to generate. Its real purpose was to enable insurance companies to offer guaranteed issue and community rating. n nAnd that's why Vanilli–speaking for Obama before the Supreme Court–said that if the mandate is unconstitutional, then guaranteed issue and community rating would have to go too. He understood that they are the real purpose of the mandate.
Yeah, that's true as to Bill Gates and the relative few who are in his position. I'd be willing to bet, though, that Bill Gates and others like him are not too concerned about the shared responsibility payment. We are not really talking about them. We are talking about those who could buy insurance but who do not in the expectation that the government will pay for their health care.
rcmlaw, I also am a conservative lawyer, and I view this decision as entirely a piece of politics. I think he tried to stay out, and see that everyone is happy, but he had to really do some gymnastics to make that happen. Is it a tax, or isn't it? That's not entirely clear from the decision, because it was not enough of a tax to be barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. And the doing and not doing argument you make should have been enough to get by on the Commerce Clause, too, but that was wholeheartedly rejected. (Besides, the do/not do argument you make is faulty because the different do/not do results are entirely different and cannot be compared any more than that they are indeed both choices.) n nThe result of this decision indeed opens the door for further taxation on activities the government wants to see. While it no longer has an open door under the Commer Clause, the taxation door was widely opened. This is true whether the ACA remains. As a conservative, I find that quite troubling.
Here comes the broccoli tax through the back door. It is now possible to tax non-broccoli eaters because they need to be encouraged to eat well and lower the tax burden on others.
The Court found that the law was not, in the words of Justice Marshall, repugnant to the constitution, but it is still repugnant to nearly everything else, including common sense, fiscal responsibility, and health.
Im a conservative who will probably vote for Romney but my stomach turned when I heard him talk about the ruling this morning. He didnt even look all that upset or motivated. Heres a perfect oppurtunity to get people who are upset at the ruling to be in your camp and Romney hardly looked awake. If newt of Hermain Cain were in that situation there would be a 20 minute rant about how damaging this is and how important it will be to act with a vote this November.
Well, keep in mind that Romney isn't the most qualified to run against Obamacare, and that Herman Cain isn't the most qualified in general.
Romney can't win the election. Obama and Bernanke will give the Moderates and Independents "an offer they cannot refuse" for November. Reelect him and your mortgage is refinanced at 0% and the underwater portion forgiven outright. Elect Romney and you are stuck as an indentured debtor for 30 years.
Roberts has just given Obama a Trojan Horse. The American people already have a strong disdain for this legislative monstrosity and are still unaware of the parade of horribles that will follow if it were ever fully implemented. This presents the Republicans with the perfect Donkey's ass on which to pin innumerable tails from today until November. It ought to lead to a landslide.
Re: "Requiring all candidates for federal office to sign a promise to repeal ObamaCare as a precondition of support would be a starter." Any candidate that signs a pledge just to satisfy your hot-button issue doesn't have the courage needed to get my vote.
The problem is how is not buy something a tax? A tax is on something you earn or buy, name another tax is based on something you aren't doing. The other problem with this could be, what does the government decide to tax us on something we aren't doing? I'm not saying it will happen but it certainly opens a door for them to try sometime down the road. We are War with government, no bullets being fired, YET! but a War over who controls this country.
So you think its bad to tax people for trying to take a free ride on medical insurance?
Let's say your one of the single people or married without children, or like myself own a small business and carry only catastrophic health insurance. the government has now told me that the way i have been covering myself isn't good enough for them. I have paid for regular doctor visits over the past twenty years out of pocket and its been cheaper than paying for regular health insurance. Remember also that many of the people nearly have in their estimates are going to end up on medicaid which we pay for already so what is the difference. What happened to my right to choose which coverage i want, not some mandated coverage from Washington. so those this effects get punished so everybody else can feel happy about themselves. This does nothing for cost, added a bunch of taxes to the medical field and who do you think they are going to pass that along to? It's not going to Washington, in the end everyone gets coverage Washington decides and we all get screwed with more taxes.
If we could tax the lefts economic stupidity … the defict would be paid …
Have the house pass a law that taxes every individual $5000 for not buying a hand gun…. see how well this new 'tax' power goes over with the left then.
Once again it underscored the necessity of hard vetting of "conservative" nominees to the SCOTUS. John Roberts sold out America, and everyone in it except liberal drones, he sold out for his "legacy", and perhaps out of fear that Obama would attack SCOTUS credibility; of course a liar and a crook like Obama will do whatever he thinks necessary to keep himself in power regardless of any decisions. nAnd all this comes on top,of how many other Republican appointees that ended up voting liberal? nAmerica cannot afford another Souter, O'Connor or Roberts.
Designers of election advertising: Two sequences. In the first you show the clips of Obama swearing to high heaven that the individual mandate fine for not buying insurance is not a tax. nIn the second sequence you show his lawyer arguing before the supreme court that the fine for not buying insurance is a tax and hence does not violate the commerce clause. The ad closes with the words either "liar in chief" or "deceiver in chief".
Silly comment by John Steele Gordon: "What else then can be taxed? Not exercising? Not eating broccoli? Not agreeing with the president?" n nMight as well ask, "What else then can be taxed? Exercising? Eating broccoli? Agreeing with the president?" The answer is "Yes, yes and yes." The government can tax anything it pleases, other than religion. n nI can't imagine why taxing people for taking a free ride on medical insurance, is so amazing, John.
Because the gov isnt forcing people to pay for "insurance" They are forcing them to pay sex changes; hair pieces; simple check-ups… pretty much everything under the sun.. n nCan you imagine if teh Fed Gov said yourr car insurace had to include tire changes; oilt changes, wipers , tune-ups…. The costs woudl go thru the roof… and its is EXACTLY what has happened to health insurance… n nI also suppose you wont have a problem with the house passing a tax on those who dont own handguns??? Because everyone uses the police , and having a handgun would reduce the need top call the cops…
” The government can tax anything it pleases, other than religion. ”
So forcing Catholic institutions and groups to pay for other people’s contraception is what?
The government can't require you to eat broccoli but they can tax you if you don't, punitive taxation if necessary, backed up with jail time. n nThis wink-wink expansion of the commerce clause belongs in Newspeak textbooks.
Actually this is a good ruling, and Conservatives, like this one, should support nearly all of it. n nHere's why: The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, SCOTUS just said, hey, this is a tax., while specifically rejecting a non-tax mandate as unconstitutional – No, Louise, the Feds CAN'T tell us what to do, but Yes, Congress CAN tax us…. Taxes can be overturned. It is unlikely that SCOTUS will revisit commerce or the 10th for many, many years – and we WON on both. We can complain that it was sold by Democrats as not being a tax – but Democrats are ALWAYS lying, and Pelosi & Obama have raised (lowered?) lying to a new art. So, basically, the Left won a small skirmish and the adults won the war by reining-in the Federal government telling us what to do by whim (mandate) as they ignore the Constitution, and ensuring the continued relvancy of the 10th. THe Left are still too arrested-adolescent to have yet figured this out. n nThis ruling will enrage the Right and GOTV, while not doing anything to end the lethargy of the left caused by utterly failed Obamanomics. Romney will win in a landslide and take with him the Senate and House and a good many State legislatures. All the Right he was unable to get? They're his now. n nThe biggest losers are Dem pols in Blue States – they'll accept this thing (Red states will not), yet Blue states are already at or near bankruptcy so can't pay for it… pissing off their voters who don't want any more extension of the Blue model (see: WI, San Diego, San Jose, et al) by raising taxes to pay for their acceptance of it. The result here likely is more Red states on 7 November. Nov 2012 will make Nov 2010 look like an afternoon picnic…. n nThe biggest philosophical win is this: The Roe Court took FROM the representatives of the People the issue of abortion – and we haven't stopped fighting about it since. Roberts RETURNED this divisive issue TO Congress, where it belongs – in the taxing body with the representatives of the People. This is a far, far better outcome and will be seen as such once y'all calm down….
Roberts deserves a lot of credit. He denied the claim that the government can control anything that is wants to via the use of the commerce clause. His logic on no authority to regulate inactivity is compelling and well grounded in legal precedence. At the same time he shows great judicial restraint in an effort to find the tax provisions constitutional. He renders a very narrow decision and brings a majority along. A great act of judicial statesmanship. In addition he protects freedom in the future by making it clear that the desire of Congress and the President to control our lives cannot stand constitutional muster if it attempts to compel us to do something that we do not choose to do simply because it meets their standards of what is just or fair.
The problem is the tax power now replaces the commerce clause in allowing Congress to control our lives and Roberts gave no "limiting principle" to that whatsoever. A bit of judicial judo it was, but the result is the same.
The government can't require you to eat broccoli but they can tax you if you don't, punitive taxation if necessary, backed up with jail time.
"Never before that I know of, has a federal tax been placed on inactivity". n nThere is a federal tax on dying. Dying strikes me as the ultimate inactivity.
I agree that Justice Roberts refers to a distinction between activity and inactivity as part of his argument that Congress has the power under the Commerce clause to REGULATE commerce but not to COMPEL engagement in commerce. While I maintain that there is no such thing as inactivity in the general sense intended by those who hyperbolically complain of a tax on "doing nothing" (since not doing one thing necessarily entails doing another), a distinction between activity and inactivity CAN be made with reference to a specific activity, such as engaging in commerce. One is either engaging in commerce (activity) or one is not (inactivity). Roberts ruled, rightly I believe,that NOT engaging in commerce cannot be deemed the equivalent of ENGAGING in commerce for purposes of construing the Government's power under the commerce clause. That's a tremendously significant victory for conservatism and limited government.
But "not engaging in commerce" is still not the same thing as "doing nothing." Those who do not buy health insurance are not "doing nothing"–they are shifting to government and the taxpayers the risk and cost of their health care. That remains true even if, for purposes of the commerce clause, those who do not buy insurance are not "engaged in commerce." Roberts cites examples of unobjectionable taxes the Government imposes to encourage or discourage conduct–such as the mortgage interest deduction and the tax on cigarettes–and, constitutionally, sees the tax on foregoing insurance as no different.
Exactly. It is a tax on everyone, but those who have acceptable insurance are exempted.
The test of a law's constitutionality is not whether the Count deems sound the policy embodied in the law. Roberts rightly said–and this is surely a conservative principle–that it is not the Court's role to make or settle policy disputes. Conservatives, who rightly decry judicial activism, are being inconsistent when they fault Justice Roberts for not being a judicial activist where, as here, it would suit them.Roberts honorably fulfilled today his oath to uphold the Constitution and its sound philosopy of separation of powers. The legislature decides what policies shall be embodied in our laws; the Court passes on their constitutionality, not the soundness of their policies.
In the civilized nations, health care is a right of citizenship. Here, it has been a privilege of wealth. n nIn the civilized nations, they treat cancer as a disease. Here, we treat it as a profit center. n nCanadians live, on average, FOUR YEARS longer than Americans. They have universal health care. We do not. n nToday's decision is great news for Americans, and the decency of our great country.
In civilized countries, they do not use threat of force to achieve political ends. By your definition, we should prohibit profit-making on food, housing, water, clothing, and heat, all of which are more fundamental to life than cancer treatment and will kill you much earlier if you lack them.
Let us be clear about one thing. The Supreme Court’s “Obamacare” ruling represents a devastating intelllectual defeat for the political left. The Supreme Court ruled, with the agreement of all four liberal members, that the federal government may implement universal health care only through the powers granted under the general welfare clause; that is to say, the power the tax and the power to provide a public benefit. The same ruling is subsidiarily, but only subsidiarily a defeat for those conservatives who might want to argue that there is no constitutional basis for establishing a system of universal health even if it only raises money through taxation and purchases a health care benefit for the otherwise uninsured.
By defining the extent and limit of the federal governments powers in these matters, the Supreme Court has established a basis whereupon the issue can be discussed. How the Supreme Court could conclude that the “mandate” to pay a specific amount was not in violation of the capitation clause is a little hard to fathom. But the rest of the ruling was spot on.
So Obama lied. So what. Legally speaking it is a tax, regardless of what the Democrats called it.
Although it hurts, it is best that we acknowledge that John Roberts is playing chess to the progs checkers!! The supporters of the law, the majority, probably have yet to realize what John Roberts actually did. Obama and his minions may rejoice and call us names, but they have no clue. It will be fun in the years ago to watch the Demprogs, twist and turn. Hold on to you wallets folks, here comes the avalanche of taxes increases unlike anything we have ever seen before. Obama, in my personal opinion, justs wants to "transform" us into….what? I don't think he cares so long as he and his supporters can control us. John Roberts took away the easy way from him now.
Rodger, the "affordable care act" was passed with 2,700 pages of "wishes" from the Prez and the Demprogs. Republicans were not allowed to add or detract one thing…it was passed with a Demprog majority. The 2,700 unread pages directed the Health & Human Services Secy to outline in more detail a structure wherein the new regulations and costs would be defined and assigned. One of the first things in the law is the appointment of fifteen overseers to determine what medical treatment would be allowed. That is what the fight over breast cancer and prostate screenings was all about. The 15 man overseers began to change the way these two things had been done. Now you will see them move very quickly to outline in detail what you and I will be allowed to get and how much we will pay for it. There is nothing we, as individuals, can do but live with it. I want to know if the waivers for large companies, unions and some cities will continue. Will the unions now be allowed to put their members into the exchanges rather than pay for the healthcare out of the members dues. Why does Congress and the President exempt themselves if this is so great. And finally, Rodger, the President of the United States outright lied to our faces very much like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman…Monica Lewinsky"…so perhaps it is a progressive trait. We will lose the doctor of our choice; we may not get the care we need because of the cost, Doctors will not get sufficient compensation so many will move out of the medical field and/or not take Medicare and Medicaid patients. As a Senior I can tell you that my Medicare changed for 2011 & 2012 and very shortly what I had wil be gone because nearly $1 trillion was taken away from the Senior Advantage program that was so good. n
That is similar to what people said about Medicare.
Really? Then you have to admit that today, Medicare is in the process of bankrupting the USA….add Medicaid and Social Sec and we're toast! You cannot argue with math…there is simply not enough money unless the taxes go to 75% and up on everybody, but remember, 49% do not pay taxes! At least if you go the Europe you can pay the 90% in taxes but get countries that have rural, historic places very close together…..
That, Rodger, is the point. A "what" that will be put together in the light of day and not behind closed doors; a "what" that will not play favorites or politics. A what that we, the people, might wish to define. When people have to hide behind closed doors, make quid pro quo sweetheart deals with pharma, unions and big corporations and then lie to us…We have very intelligent and smart people all over this country that could probably do a much better job without shoving 2,700 practically empty pages down our throats! Have you read the 2,700 and the thousands of pages it has engendered? Do you comprehend what you read?
A brilliant opinion, entirely consistent with judicial restraint: defer if at all possible to the elected legislative branch. As for repeal/replace, chances of getting 60 votes in the Senate to do so are very very slim! ACA will go into effect in 2014, people will see the benefits and not want to give them up.
The tax that has been enacted by Obamacare- as per Justice Roberts- was passed by reconciliation- and 51 votes (afther Borwn's victory, they had no choice but to go that route)Hence, it can be repealed- or changed- by 51 votes. Everyone agrees to that.
Thank you for highlighting the extraordinary expansion of the taxing power in this ruling. What is gained by limiting the Commerce clause if the government can simply justify everything under the Taxing power? Taxes were meant by the Founders only to raise revenue, in fact it was a major driver of the Constitutional convention due to the Articles of Confederation's prohibition on Congress directly levying taxes, but they made clear in their comments and papers that it did not extend to penalizing activity (or non-activity), what we now call social engineering or more simply tyranny. n nThe individual mandate penalty is clearly not designed to raise revenue but to coerce behavior. The drafters of the bill would love for the revenue to be zero, as it would mean everyone was in compliance and their system would work better. Even current reconciliation procedures require that an item be struck from a bill if it is not intended primarily to raise revenue but merely raises revenue as a byproduct of its true purpose, in this case to coerce insurance purchases. n nWe can only hope Roberts intends to reverse or greatly curtail this egregious portion of the ruling when the next case of tax/penalty justifying a federal action arises.
This is a list of goodies with none of the taxes or adverse impact of the mandates and regulations considered. Here is a list of the provisions in my Rainbows and Puppies Act of 2012: n nAll puppies will be cute nRainbows will be visible every Wednesday during peak drive times in every city nA unicorn in every yard nA small fee on the one-percenters n nDon't ask where all the ugly puppies went, and I won't tell you. n
Right. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, think Medicare benefits must be "paid for" by taxes. So for every benefit in Obamacare, there is some sort of give-back. n nThe same is true of Medicare and Social Security. So would you rather not have Medicare and Social Security? n nIf ever Congress and the President acknowledge the truth, about Monetary Sovereignty, they will provide free Medicare to every man, woman and child in America.
There is no mathematical difference between "a tax on inactivity" and "a tax deduction for activity." They are 100% equivalent per formal mathematical logic. And there are plenty of prior examples of the latter.
Metaphor alert Rodger! That is precisely the reason we are in the mess we are in….everyone in the world just thinks dollars, euros or whatever can magically be delivered to save them…..in the US, Bernanke is setting up for a huge inflation hit…although, no one talks about the hit we've taken these past 30 months….the rich can afford it, the poor get food stamps and once again the middle takes the hit.
Anyone who contends that Congress has never before taxed inactivity does not know what he is talking about. If you fail to pay your income in a timely manner, you owe a penalty and interest based on the amount of taxes you owe and collected by and paid to the IRS. This "penalty" for you failure to act is no different from the penalty due for failure to carry health insurance under Obamacare. n n
Except we didn't give the Democrats 60 seats. We gave them 58 and subtracted Obama. Then Franken recounted his way in. The Democrats turned on their word and installed Blago-appointed Roland Burris in the Senate, and Arlen Specter switched parties. Then Ted Kennedy died, and Massachusetts changed their laws in the middle of the game to allow the governor to temporarily install a Democrat to maintain the 60th vote until Scott Brown's surprise special election win in January. If a single one of these events don't happen, neither does Obamacare.
Right, and if you try to take a free ride on medical insurance, you pay more tax. So? n nThe Republicans don't give a damn about Obamacare. They care about the Presidency. Period.