The Sensible Parts of the Obamacare Decision
Okay, here’s some advice. Go ahead and scream, but try to keep your throat relaxed and open. Otherwise you’ll hurt your vocal cords.
Feel better?
Now, let’s calm down and look at what the SCOTUS really decided.
First, it decided that the individual mandate could be justified, but only as a tax. Well, we knew that. From the first, the Republicans were saying “this is a tax and a big tax, and a big tax that affects the poor and middle class disproportionately.” We also knew that the Federal Government could tax us to pay for health care. The only limits on the government’s power to tax us pretty much ended with the 13th Amendment in 1913. The notion that it wasn’t a tax was a fig leaf the Democrats came up with to keep from admitting Obama was setting up a big tax.
So what the decision has done is say “if it walks like a tax and talks like a tax, it’s a tax.” Of course, that does mean it’s incumbent on us to brag on how the SCOTUS agreed with the Republicans on that point, and to hammer home the point that Obama broke his tax promise.
By the way, the fact that it wasn’t advertised as a tax meant the Anti-Injunction Act didn’t apply. In other words, the Democrats were too clever by half — if they’d have called it a tax, the Court couldn’t have considered it at all. By not calling it a tax, they ensured the decision would come before the election.
Second, the decision says that the governments power under the Commerce Clause is limited. It may seem like a Pyrrhic victory right now, but this is still a good thing. Again, we already knew the Federal Government could tax us for pretty much any reason it pleased, and they already impose taxes for not choosing to buy certain things. (Consider, eg: if you have a million dollars in a savings account, the income is taxable. If you have it in a stock that pays dividends, the income is currently taxed at a lower rate. And if you have it in municipal bonds, it’s not taxable.) So this establishes a good thing, and only affirms something else that was already true. No loss there.
Third, it says that the Federal Government can’t force states to pay for Federally-mandated programs, at least under some conditions. It will be interesting to see if that is called on in the future.
So, as I say, calm down. This isn’t the end of the world, and actually establishes a couple of good precedents.
I just know there is a pearl in that manure pile, I just need to keep looking.Maybe a bigger shovel will help.Im pretty sure thats as good as I can feel about this mess but OK, Whatever Dude!
Try lying down with a damp towel over your eyes.
Does this mean I don’t have to buy broccoli? I hate broccoli.
You do not have to buy broccoli but you will have to pay a tax for not buying broccoli.
And after you buy it, you will have to eat it, and pay another tax.
And after you eat it, you will have to like it, or pay yet *another* tax.
Why not?
After I eat the broccoli and don’t like it, do I have to pay another tax for…you know…poo-poos?
That’s called your sewer bill.
I think this means that the government can tax you if you decide not to buy broccoli.
Here’s a business plan. I promise $1M to the reelection campaigns of each Congressman if they pass a law that says that each tax-paying American has to buy an email from me for $100. If they don’t, they get taxed $1 million dollars. I make about a billion dollars, I give about $500M to Congress, and come out very rich just by walking some hallways in Washington.
Easy money, baby. BTW, this is what just about every company, non-profit, regulartory body, and government department does every day on Copitol/ Capital Hill.
I like broccoli, does that mean I get subsidized?
Another benefit I see is that less and less medical insurance will be provided thru the employer. This was always a stupid policy introduce in WWII that punished people who bought individual policies.
For businesses with over 50 employees, the tax penalty will tend to be about $2,000 per employee which is a lot less than the cost of a full service premium, the only form of insurance acceptable to the IRS. I do not see this amount be raised by a congress with a strong Republican presence.
As premiums rise because of additional benefits, additional taxes on medical devices and the lack of underwriting, a business in these hard economic times will feel the pressure to opt for the lower penalty over continuing benefits whose costs are beyond their control. 85% of people liked their insurance and more and more will turn against the nanny state as they lose it.
Still looking for my pony in this pile of doo-doo.
Take a deep breath.
Get your passport ready.
And brush up on your French or German. Because they speak those in Switzerland. America is finished.
The ruling reveals the Chief Justice as a shallow opportunist who does not understand either logic or the law.
In establishing the ACA’s mandate as obtaining from Congress’s Constitutional authority to tax, a rationale must exist for the program for which the tax is being raised within the enumerated powers set forth in the Constitution. That justification cannot itself be the authority to tax, otherwise there would be no need for a Constitution in the first place: merely having the authority to tax would justify anything. That is why the machinery of the Commerce Clause was invoked by liberals to begin with.
Robert’s “thinking” on this issue is devoid of any serious logic; and far from being sensible he has actually handed the Left the largest blank check in the history of the (now dead) Republic. No law which levies a tax may now be considered Unconstitutional even if its actual purpose is Unconstitutional.
Think I’m exaggerating? I’m not. In the ruling, Roberts acknowledges that the Congress cannot justify this act on the basis of the Commerce Clause; there is therefore no Constitutional basis for the Act other than Congress’ own authority to raise taxes.
Now, the Deluge. America: RIP. Take a deep breath and get ready to emigrate.
Rather than emigrate, I think I’ll fight. Emigrate to where? Europe? Canada?
Maybe Mexico, at least there the U.S. government will buy me a gun.
Calm down, Fred. Maybe it is because I already live in Europe (though not the safe havens you name) but I think Roberts just handed the election to Mitt Romney.
It was VERY clever, of course. I mean, he called a pig a pig. That’s about it. I’m already getting emails from apolitical friends decrying all this, and the (they seem to be so upset about) the (shudder) taxes this entails.
Had the Supremes just deep-sixed it, we’d have five months of Obama crying and whining about how “They took your health care away” and so on.
Give Roberts some credit.
Anyway, I’ll put it this way, if we re-elect Barry Dunham Sotero in November, I, at least, can take out citizenship in my ancestral homeland. But if I were living at home, I’d be getting ready for my personal imitation of George Armstrong Custer.
Beannachtaí do Dhia ar a chuid beannachtaí beaga.
An Préachán
In the ruling, Roberts acknowledges that the Congress cannot justify this act on the basis of the Commerce Clause; there is therefore no Constitutional basis for the Act other than Congress’ own authority to raise taxes.
Which is the same as it was yesterday, you ninny.
16th not 13th.
Dammit, you’re right — I was all pleased when I typed that thinking “oooh, Amendment 13 in 1913.” Shoulda known that was too easy.
Im just glad Im not the first person to notice that this decision means that you can be taxed for inactivity, or not obeying the government. Tax or no, this application is punitive.
What, the government came up with a punitive tax? Who woulda thunk it?
On a completely different note—with the adventure happening right now in Europe in regards to the Euro and other things, as well as the thrust of the Democratic Party here at home, I hope it will be clear to everyone that any world government or association of governments will, with the current modes of thinking, inevitably end up being a Leviathan and there being no local rule, and thus the people of the United States will be well-advised to understand that their heritage, 1607 to 1776 to 1865 to 1941–it all ends if they get swayed to ever do as Britain has done. They will be swamped by cosmocrat opinion, and there is little more to it.
Anonymous, I actually think the whole Euro thing was a German ploy to grab the continent by other-than-Wehrmacht means.
I once spent some months in the Fatherland with German friends who ended up going to France, where they had Alsatian cousins. A German really relaxes in the PIIG countries–becomes a different person. The English do unwind in Italy, too, I’m told. I even find plenty of ‘em here, and this ain’t Italia.
But the English have too many Paks and what-not at home to survive without a bloody “Reconquista”. Where I’m living now, the people remember the Turk all too well. No problem with them here, and NO Paks.
As the old saying here goes, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
An Préachán
A German really relaxes right on the other side of the Rhine too — Baden is rather pleasant that way.
Nothing much has changed: Congress can still tax the bejeebus out of us. ObamaCare still sucks. (Can I say that here?)
What HAS changed is SCOTUS has issued a call to arms to TEA Party and small-government conservatives to make every vote count, at every level: local, state, federal.
This election has turned into a clear referendum on all things Obama.
Do I understand this right? The penalty for not buying “insurance” until you’re sick is a tax, but the unconstitutional mandate forcing us to pay a higher amount to the insurance companies when we are healthy is not a taz because it does not go to the government? And how is a penalty neither apportioned between the states (main text) and not apportioned or tied to income and not a tax on foreign commerce (tariffs which mostly paid for the Fec gov’t before the civil war) constitutionally legal. I don’t get it. Income tax means they can go around taxing just about anything. Seeing my local doctor is not interstate commerce and the Constitution of enumerated powers does not give Congress power over health care, so I just don’t get it. 10th Amendment says states will regulate local health care. Watch the insurance companies drop the health care departments like crazy which was the leftist plan in the beginning to kill as many unwanted and useless people as possible because humans are a scourge and as the history of capitalism has proved time and time again, we don’t have enough resources for the rich as it is now. s/ Arrgh!
I used to work for a company that dumped all of the employer provided healthcare as soon as the Affordable Health Care Act was passed. What incentive do employers have to provide such a benefit now.
This is one occasion where it would have been good to have gone to a competent law. From what I can see this may not be such a bad ruling. We are at ground zero and from what I can tell Obama’s assertion that things work best when we spread the wealth was absolutely and completely destroyed today.
Government can not overreach. It can tax and what is completely not clear to me and what I would like to see explained is that is the right to regulate insurance being taken away from the states. That in itself is strange since unless something is expressly given to the federal government it can’t be taken from the states. So the question becomes if the federal government can essentially tax you for not having health insurance how will it determine that? Will it have to go through the states for a registry, will it ask you on a form which you could perjure yourself.
The point is if the states have the right to regulate insurance doesn’t that give them the right to declare that under their laws they are satisfied you have it? Shouldn’t any state working through the will of its voters be able to say you have insurance at a paid premium of $0.00 with no means of putting through claims and the feds can’t tax you. Yes it’s dirty but it is no different than what the feds did to AZ. We don’t agree and we will use our portion of the government to screw you.
But the tax is the least of it.
The central problem is tyranical control over something they have no business meddling with…individual health care…in a massive expansion of government power.
I’m beginning to wonder if the whole legal approach wasn’t wrong. At the beginning I said, mandate/tax, who cares what they call it? Looks like that first thought was correct.
So our guys appear to have argued a narrow legal case that at the end, the liberals said, ok, it’s a tax then, ha ha. Too bad suckahs. Meanwhile, they are strangling 21% of the economy in a coup d’etat, and our legal eagles apparently didn’t think that was worth complaining about.