Obamacare is "constitutional"

[AmbulanceDriver]

 

Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS....

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1

Here's another link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-28-10-17-22

ETA:  Apparently John Roberts sided with the 4 liberal judges on the court...

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Oh crap.

Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS

Yes, please.

[K Frame]

"Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS"

Nice thought, but since there are no longer any true Republicans, just Democrats and Democrats lite, it will never happen.

[AmbulanceDriver]

AG, my hope is that this will piss people off enough to overwhelmingly put conservatives in both houses, so that even if we get a RINO (Romney) in the WH, we can get rid of this crap.

[MicroBalrog]

Just remember: we must elect Obama to appoint more judges like Roberts.

[HankB]

All eyes were on Kennedy . . . and Roberts does this.      

Wonder how the markets will react . . .

[Ben]

Wonder how the markets will react . . .

Only down slightly now due to European news. I think we'll have to wait till the full ruling and implications are out there to really see how the market reacts.

[RevDisk]

"Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS"

Nice thought, but since there are no longer any true Republicans, just Democrats and Democrats lite, it will never happen.

Oddly enough, Democrats say the same thing about their party. "All we do is get Republicans and Republicans who call themselves Democrats!"

I'd say both had the right of it.

[brimic]

Ah well, the USA will runout of money by the time its fully implemented anyway.

[Balog]

Complex decision. It explicitly states that the mandate is a tax, and because thus within the feds scope of power. Some are saying this will be a big hit for the liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Not sure if I buy it, but we'll see.

[Ben]

Complex decision. It explicitly states that the mandate is a tax, and because thus within the feds scope of power.

I'm confused and possibly "misrememberring", but I thought the Dems were originally arguing that Obamacare was NOT a tax?

[Balog]

I'm confused and possibly "misrememberring", but I thought the Dems were originally arguing that Obamacare was NOT a tax?

They did. Ruling states that the mandate is in fact a tax and may be permissible because of it.

[brimic]

I'm confused and possibly "misrememberring", but I thought the Dems were originally arguing that Obamacare was NOT a tax?

They were against it being a tax before they were for it.

[MillCreek]

They did. Ruling states that the mandate is in fact a tax and may be permissible because of it.

I am reading through the opinion now, but it appears as if the fine=tax argument is what convinced the Court that this was within the scope of powers of Congress, which has the authority to levy taxes.  So it would appear that if you want this repealed, look more to Congress than the Oval Office.

[Ben]

They did. Ruling states that the mandate is in fact a tax and may be permissible because of it.

Not to jump the gun, but them defining it as a tax might be a good thing in the long run as it might apply to the interpretation of other socialist junk they attempt to pass in the future. At least in the vein of "lemonade out of lemons". Maybe.

[RevDisk]

The SCOTUS has announced, yes, the federal government DOES have the right to make you buy products. I so wish I had the money to buy enough politicians to make it a law that all Americans must buy a Chia pet, EVERY YEAR, or face high fines. Hell, if I could buy a POTUS and enough judges, I'd make it "Proof of purchase of a Chia pet, every year, or FIVE YEARS IN JAIL, plus being tattooed with a rainbow unicorn waving an AK-47 across your entire back"

I have a feeling people still would not get the message.

[TommyGunn]

"Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS"

Nice thought, but since there are no longer any true Republicans, just Democrats and Democrats lite, it will never happen.

Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare.  Now it is up to the voters to give him a kongress that will help him rather than fight him.

I am completly utterly disgusted by this. I am ashamed to be an American -- and fearful of what else can and will be done to us.

[Balog]

If the spin is true and this was a crafty move by Roberts to limit Commerce Clause abuse, it would be almost a break even, kinda sorta. But I rate the chances of that as about as likely as Roberts secretly being Batman.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Wouldn't finding it unconstitutional under the commerce clause have had the same effect of limiting commerce clause abuse?  I guess I don't see how saying it's legal under the taxation clause gets us any more protection from it as finding it unconstitutional altogether.

[Balog]

Wouldn't finding it unconstitutional under the commerce clause have had the same effect of limiting commerce clause abuse?  I guess I don't see how saying it's legal under the taxation clause gets us any more protection from it as finding it unconstitutional altogether.

Me either, just reporting the attempted spin.


From the SCOTUS liveblog
10:32
Amy Howe:
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

[Balog]

Here's the actual ruling. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

[Hutch]

Soooooo... the Congress manages to pass it by insisting it's NOT a tax, and SCOTUS upholds it by saying it IS a tax.  The Constitution means nothing, any more, as a check on the power, scope, and reach of .gov.  It only serves as a set of flimsy pretexts to license whatever action might serve any social utility whatsoever.

Another nail in the coffin lid of the Republic.

[Ben]

I guess I don't see how saying it's legal under the taxation clause gets us any more protection from it as finding it unconstitutional altogether.

I see it not so much as giving us protection as I do shining a flashlight into a dark corner to expose cockroaches. I doubt this will do much to reduce the effect of Obamacare, but if "they" had to start the process all over again now, and be upfront that it was in fact a tax, it might not receive the support that it did as "not a tax". Sheer speculation on my part. I think it will still be a good while before we see the full fallout and results.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Thanks Balog.  Was curious to read the dissent...

[Balog]

From the ruling...



(b)
Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful.
Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.
See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.