Obamacare is "constitutional"

[T.O.M.]

Hold it a minute...it says that if you don't have insurance, you'll pay the tax, and it's irrelevent whether you willfully go without or are unable to get it?  So, if I lose my job, and therefore my insurance, my taxes would go up?  Whose bright idea was that?  (Don't answer.)

You know, I'm an eternal optimist.  I believe in America.  For the most part, I believed that the government was not bad, and that most government workers are good people doing their jobs to support their families.  I believed that the flaw in government was career politicians, who saw their job in terms of doing what needs to be done to keep the job, and not necessarily doing what's right.

Not sure what I believe anymore...

[Ben]

stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.

That's actually a little scary to me. How is it different than "carbon credits"? "Sure, pollute all you want, just pay us for the privilege."

It seems like this could be twisted in a lot of future legislation where the government can tell you that you need to do "X", or else, "Hey, you can just pay us money not to". One would think this would even get the Dems in an uproar, since legally being able to "ignore" a law would be based on wealth and ability to pay.

[AmbulanceDriver]

stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.

how the [censoredcensored] bleepin' [censored] can you *not* read "buy this or pay a penalty" as [censored] punishing [censored] unlawful [censored] conduct?

"Buy insurance!"

"No!"

"Then pay a penalty!"

"Is not buying insurance illegal?"

"No."

"Then why do I have to pay a penalty???"

Oh man...  this is doing bad things to my blood pressure today....   And pretty sure I'm gonna have an ulcer by the end of the day.

Hey, can I charge the supreme court for my healthcare costs related to their [censored] ruling?   After all, it's not unlawful, just a "penalty". 

[Balog]

Scary bit of Roberts opinion...


Federal funds received through the Medicaid program have become a substantial part of state budgets, now constituting over 10 percent of most States’ total revenue.

[MicroBalrog]

Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare.

Well we're all set then.

Obamacare is forever.

[TommyGunn]

Well we're all set then.

Obamacare is forever.

I'm depressed enough Micro.  Thanks a lot.


Look, either believe Romney or not.  Either he will keep his word or not.  I'm about ready to tell ALL politicians where the ***** they can go.   I am supporting Romney as a last resort but I can as easily ditch the repukeagain party and re-register as an independant and ...oh hell, join a militia or whatever....over going into another voting booth.     

[gunsmith]

 "We respect and agree with the conservative opinion that the "Commerce Clause"
can not be used to pay for Obamacare, but first we Bunga Bunga"

SCOTUS June 28, 2012

[RocketMan]

To my thinking ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  However, having little faith in the SCOTUS, I wholly expected ObamaCare to be upheld, Kennedy to be the swing vote, and the Commerce Clause to be the reasoning behind the decision.  For Roberts to be the swing vote, and his specious reasoning that the mandate is a tax, caught me completely by surprise.
It is clear to me that Roberts went into the hearings with his mind already made up that he was going to vote to uphold ObamaCare.  The legal grasping-at-straws reasoning he used indicates to me that Roberts believes ObamaCare is good policy, and he did not consider its constitutionality at all except in as much as what specious reasoning, what absolute stretching and bending of logic, would be required to vote to uphold.
It is an outrageous ruling by the SCOTUS.  With this ruling they have debased themselves to the level of the Congress, the institution's reputation damaged perhaps beyond repair.

[AJ Dual]

I'm wondering if Roberts vetting by the Bush Admin wasn't deep enough, and they didn't find out what D.C. madam had his name on her guest ledger, but the Obama Admin did..

[Balog]

I'm wondering if Roberts vetting by the Bush Admin wasn't deep enough, and they didn't find out what D.C. madam had his name on her guest ledger, but the Obama Admin did..

"This decision proves we need to elect Romney, because of Supreme Court appoint.... wait, Roberts was the swing vote? Oh never mind then..."

[RocketMan]

One more tidbit.  I believe Obama will be re-elected in November, the Republicans will lose ground in the House but not lose control, and the Senate will remain firmly in Democrat hands.
Against a sitting President that is supposedly so universally reviled, the best Romney has ever done in aggregated polling is an occasional slight lead that is still within the margin of error.
Thus, ObamaCare will not be repealed. Ever.

[TommyGunn]

To my thinking ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  However, having little faith in the SCOTUS, I wholly expected ObamaCare to be upheld, Kennedy to be the swing vote, and the Commerce Clause to be the reasoning behind the decision.  For Roberts to be the swing vote, and his specious reasoning that the mandate is a tax, caught me completely by surprise.
It is clear to me that Roberts went into the hearings with his mind already made up that he was going to vote to uphold ObamaCare.  The legal grasping-at-straws reasoning he used indicates to me that Roberts believes ObamaCare is good policy, and he did not consider its constitutionality at all except in as much as what specious reasoning, what absolute stretching and bending of logic, would be required to vote to uphold.
It is an outrageous ruling by the SCOTUS.  With this ruling they have debased themselves to the level of the Congress, the institution's reputation damaged perhaps beyond repair.

It wasn't.  The tax power of kongress was the authority used to uphold Obamacare.

[TommyGunn]

One more tidbit.  I believe Obama will be re-elected in November, the Republicans will lose ground in the House but not lose control, and the Senate will remain firmly in Democrat hands.
Against a sitting President that is supposedly so universally reviled, the best Romney has ever done in aggregated polling is an occasional slight lead that is still within the margin of error.
Thus, ObamaCare will not be repealed. Ever.

 I will join a MILITIA!  or FORM ONE!!! Or defect to a south pacific island!!!!


This day is too depressing.  I think I'm going to get drunk.

[RocketMan]

It wasn't.  The tax power of kongress was the authority used to uphold Obamacare.

Yes, I know that Tommygun.  Read my post again.

[gunsmith]

When folks start getting the bill, they'll be upset-but they'll blame their employers, the huge tax increase will spur a black market economy. (& increase the amount of people in jail)

[TommyGunn]

Yes, I know that Tommygun.  Read my post again.

   It's been a long day -- and it's not even lunch yet.  I think I am going to get drunk.  I hate this....

[Hawkmoon]

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.

I don't buy any of it.

A tax is when I hand some money to the government. I may do it in the form of a check, as when I pay my local property tax or pay the Federal (and state) income tax, or even when I pay an elevated price for a new tire that includes an excise tax and the vendor sends a portion of the money to the government. But the bottom line is ... money is conveyed to the government.

Enacting a law that requires me to purchase something I might otherwise NOT choose to purchase is not a tax. It is a mandate, and for some people it's an unfunded mandate.

Further, it defies comprehension how any of the justices could see this as a legitimate application of the commerce clause. The commerce clause says the Federal government has the power to "regulate" interstate commerce. If the insurance is being offered within my own state, and I choose NOT to buy it, thereby not engaging in commerce at all, how can they with any intellectual honesty claim that forcing me to buy something I don't want, from within my own state, is "regulating" interstate commerce?

I am VERY disappointed in Mr. Justice Roberts.

[RocketMan]

I predict employers by the tens of thousands will now dump their employee health insurance programs.  Health insurance premiums will continue rising at a rate well beyond inflation, and health care cost increases will pass Mach.

[seeker_two]

I'm wondering if Roberts vetting by the Bush Admin wasn't deep enough.....

Nope....Bush got who he wanted....esp. considering that Bush wasn't a Constitutional conservative, either....

First thought.....to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, "Now (SCOTUS) has made its ruling, let them enforce it."  How well will it work if the states refuse to comply and people refuse to pay the "tax"?.....

Second thought.....all the "conservative" talk show hosts are bragging about how this is Romney's big chance to show how he's different from Obama on health care.  Correct me if I'm wrong....but wasn't Romney-Care the start of this whole mess?.....

[TommyGunn]

..........  Correct me if I'm wrong....but wasn't Romney-Care the start of this whole mess?.....

Yeah, but despite the gleeful reminders by the Obamatons that Romney Care was the template, Romney has always maintained it is a states' rights matter (10th amendment) and the fedgov would not have the authority to do it.
And he has maintained he will fight against Obamacare if elected.
"Any port in a storm"..........................

[brimic]

And he has maintained he will fight against Obamacare if elected.

I think he wil fight it because he wants it to be called 'Romneycare.'

I've seen some write-ups on his campaign stops where he calls for 'repeal and replace' in regards to obamacare.

I'm almost at the point where I want the government to spend so much so fast so that it goes TU while I'm still young.

[Perd Hapley]

Interesting that it wasn't passed as a tax, but has now been declared a tax by our highest court. Don't taxes have to be treated a little differently than other bills? Does Obamacare now have an invalid birth certificate?

In any case, Obama et al are now responsible for a tax on the poor. That, plus the public disdain for the Health Control law, present a clear opportunity for the GOP. If (big IF) they can convince us they'll repeal, they could sweep the WH and the Senate. If (bigger IF) they deliver, that will repair the brand to some degree.

I am not sanguine.

[birdman]

I don't buy any of it.

A tax is when I hand some money to the government. I may do it in the form of a check, as when I pay my local property tax or pay the Federal (and state) income tax, or even when I pay an elevated price for a new tire that includes an excise tax and the vendor sends a portion of the money to the government. But the bottom line is ... money is conveyed to the government.

Enacting a law that requires me to purchase something I might otherwise NOT choose to purchase is not a tax. It is a mandate, and for some people it's an unfunded mandate.

Further, it defies comprehension how any of the justices could see this as a legitimate application of the commerce clause. The commerce clause says the Federal government has the power to "regulate" interstate commerce. If the insurance is being offered within my own state, and I choose NOT to buy it, thereby not engaging in commerce at all, how can they with any intellectual honesty claim that forcing me to buy something I don't want, from within my own state, is "regulating" interstate commerce?

I am VERY disappointed in Mr. Justice Roberts.

Commerce clause, tax and spend, it doesn't matter.  The bad part is that this is the FIRST time where it was held constitutional that you may be fined for NOT spending private funds on a product.  This is horribly bad juju.

[nigmalg]

You're not mandated to buy a $10,000 Chevy, but if you don't, there will be a $10,000 tax.
You're not mandated to donate $1,000 to the DNC, but if you don't there will be a $1,000 tax.

 

[RocketMan]

Commerce clause, tax and spend, it doesn't matter.  The bad part is that this is the FIRST time where it was held constitutional that you may be fined for NOT spending private funds on a product.  This is horribly bad juju.

Absolutely.  With fricken' clanging bells on it.