E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
After the Supreme Court’s second day of oral arguments, back on March 27, there was a sense that the justices were not sold on the health care law.
“I think it’s very doubtful that court is going to find the health care law constitutional,” NBC’s Pete Williams said at the time. “I don’t see five votes to find the law constitutional.”
And with good reason. The justices were very skeptical of the thrust of the government’s case -- that the mandate was justified under the so-called “commerce clause” of the Constitution and the government’s right to regulate markets. It was clear Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually a swing vote, were skeptical of the “commerce clause” argument, especially how it could be limited to the health care market. And star conservative lawyer Paul Clement, who argued for the states that filed suit against the law, focused his case on it.
Stringer / Reuters
In this courtroom illustration, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli (R) speaks at the lectern to members of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington March 27, 2012.
The rough day in court for the government led some to criticize the government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. The Republican National Committee went so far as to mock Verrilli with this video, focusing on style -- a pause and stammer.
But court arguments are not television anchor tryouts; they’re about the merits of an argument, and a review of the transcript of the oral arguments from that day (with the benefit of hindsight, of course) finds Verrilli made a strong case for the government’s taxing power. While the taxing power argument was certainly not the focus of post-oral arguments analyses, it was the one that eventually won the day. And though Chief Justice John Roberts gave few clues that he might be leaning toward the argument, there were some signs he might have been warmer to the government’s case than some thought.
The heart of Verrilli’s argument, that the mandate should be considered justified under the Congress’ taxing power, seemed to center on this point, which he made twice that day -- that the mandate would be administered by the Internal Revenue Service, the agency responsible for taxation.
“With respect to the question of characterization,” Verrilli told Justice Scalia, “the -- this is -- in the Internal Revenue Code, it is administered by the IRS; it is paid on your Form 1040 on April 15th.”
A few minutes later, pressed by Justice Roberts, he reiterated the point. “[I]t is in the Internal Revenue Code,” Verrilli said. “It is collected by the IRS on April 15th.”
Verrilli fended off tough questions from nearly all the justices on the taxing power argument, from the court's conservatives to liberals.
Some of the toughest questioning came as it related to the president and members of Congress arguing the mandate was not a tax. But Verrilli countered that: (1) Some members of Congress did argue that the mandate would be valid under the taxing power, and (2) that shouldn’t matter; that it’s up to the court to decide what’s justified under the law, not the rhetoric of politicians.
With Scalia:
JUSTICE SCALIA: The president said it wasn't a tax, didn't he?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, Justice Scalia, what the -- two things about that. First, as it seems to me, what matters is what power Congress was exercising. And they were -- and I think it's clear that the -- they were exercising the tax power as well as -
JUSTICE SCALIA: You're making two arguments. Number one, it's a tax; and number two, even if it isn't a tax, it's within the taxing power. I'm just addressing the first.
GENERAL VERRILLI: What the president said -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it a tax or not a tax? The president didn't think it was.
GENERAL VERRILLI: The president said it wasn't a tax increase because it ought to be understood as an incentive to get people to have insurance. I don't think it's fair to infer from that anything about whether that is an exercise of the tax power or not.
With Kagan:
JUSTICE KAGAN: I suppose, though, General, one question is whether the determined efforts of Congress not to refer to this as a tax make a difference. I mean, you're suggesting we should just look to the practical operation. We shouldn't look at labels. And that seems right, except that here we have a case in which Congress determinedly said, this is not a tax, and the question is why should that be irrelevant?
GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think that that's a fair characterization of the actions of Congress here, Justice Kagan. On the -- December 23rd, a point of constitutional order was called, too, in fact, with respect to this law. The floor sponsor, Senator Baucus, defended it as an exercise of the taxing power. In his response to the point of order, the Senate voted 60 to 39 on that proposition. The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.
It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's -- not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.
Scalia again pressed Verrilli in a somewhat testy exchange. But Verrilli held his own. Ultimately, Scalia backed down, albeit with a sarcastic conclusion:
JUSTICE SCALIA: You're saying that all the discussion we had earlier about how this is one big uniform scheme and the Commerce Clause, blah, blah, blah, it really doesn't matter. This is a tax and the Federal Government could simply have said, without all of the rest of this legislation, could simply have said, everybody who doesn't buy health insurance at a certain age will be taxed so much money, right?
GENERAL VERRILLI: It -- it used its powers together to solve the problem of the market not -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, but you didn't need that.
GENERAL VERRILLI -- providing affordable coverage -
JUSTICE SCALIA: You didn't need that. If it's a tax, it's only -- raising money is enough.
GENERAL VERRILLI: It is justifiable under its tax power.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. Extraordinary.
And perhaps most telling, here’s Verrilli’s most extended exchange with Roberts on taxing authority in which Verrilli admits the likely political considerations for the president and members of Congress not calling it a tax.
That admission may have clarified things and won the day.
Note Roberts’ conclusion:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why didn't Congress call it a tax, then?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You're telling me they thought of it as a tax, they defended it on the tax power. Why didn't they say it was a tax?
GENERAL VERRILLI: They might have thought, Your Honor, that calling it a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objectives. But it is in the Internal Revenue Code, it is collected by the IRS on April 15th. I don't think this is a situation in which you can say -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that's the reason. They thought it might be more effective if they called it a penalty.
Leave a Comment:
Good Friday morning, people. Please drink plenty of fluids and try to stay cool this weekend.
I expect the bluster over the SCOTUS decision to laast about 3 weeks before dying down. Repeal? If they could have done that, why did it get to the Supreme Court? Congress will mention very little about this after they return from summer recess. Notice how it went from being "Obamacare" to the "Healthcare Act"? That little Freudian slip shows that the Repubs already want to change the topic. Not that I blame them, their Golden Boy Mittens sounds very strange when he argues against something he himself signed into law.
Will do Detroit....It's hot, hot, down here!
But.....
The TeaPeople like theater, grandstanding!....Not substance!
The TeaPeople like theater, grandstanding!....Not substance!
Chilled - "Not substance" is the key.
to all you right wingers, and especially the idiots at Faux News who were mocking Verrilli, eat $hit!
Big right-wing money spent a 1/4 bil. fighting ACA, and they're going to spend another billion backing a loser like NitMitt. With strategical thinking like this, is it a wonder why the economy went into the tank in the W years. Actually though, watching these idiots implode is so much fun....
Obama/Biden 2012
See previous two post 1.2 and 1.3 for definition of no substance - lol!
Interesting article Domenico. Thank you. It's so so interesting to see how these arguments eventually play out after the arguments are presented. It is a penalty, not a tax. I just saw a blip on MSNBC that said Texans had 6.1 uninsured? That is bound to have an effect on the rest of us. People are writing today that this is about personal responsibility and I concur completely.
I think what also got lost yesterday but people around the web had mentioned, was the fact that President Obama wanted this case heard in front of the Supreme Court. I remember him feeling pretty confident that this legislation would stand for the most part.
Again, very interesting article.
I've written often about the day the Brown v. Board of Education decision was going to be announced. The anticipation was high. Everyone in the country took a deep breath while waiting for the decision to be announced.
Same thing happened yesterday.
It amazing that the TeaPeople in Congress, sitting on cadillac plans subsidized by taxpayers (socialized medicine), are able to convince their low-information base that they don't deserve an opportunity for such coverage!
Keep 'em dumb!
sirie
coming from you, it's a huge complement!
Texas has 6.1 million uninsured?
..that's why you need a GOOD lawyer!
I'm still wating for the Republicans to drop their socialist government healthcare to protest against the ObamaCare.
Hey, Repubs, please show me how YOU don't want this evil, taxpayer-funded benefit!
Am drinking lots of fluids. Don't have much time to post here today as I am making tracks back and forth from the front door to the street armed with water bottles to help the drama queen conservatives in my neighborhood. As they walk by my house, they collapse to the pavement uttering nonsensical words about the massive taxes they are paying because of the SCOTUS health care ruling. I give them a swig of water, and assure them that if they have insurance they do not face the gnarly $95.00 tax for being uninsured. It seems to work .. they slowly rise, gain their footing, and start proclaiming they served in the military and have 40 to 50 purple hearts. Those conservatives sure are full of valor. Now if I could just get reimbursed for all that water.
Yup, and TX AG Abbott (wheelchair bound) along with Slick Rick (Oops), are a part of the Repeal crowd!
chilled, I can hardly believe it.
6.1 million uninsured?
And this is okay with Romney? He has no plans whatsoever to replace the ACA with anything. He is so full of ****.
Detroit, I wish you were correct and we could just move forward now that the constitutionality issue has been answered. But you have to remember that the Party of No Ideas, well, has no ideas. "REPEAL" will be their mantra. "Largest Tax Increase in History" will be their fallback position. Forget about discussions on policy on how to move the country forward. We haven't heard the last of this. After all, the Right has nothing of substance to offer.
LOL Red, that's funny. What's pathetically sad are those that refuse water.
chilled
must be nice not to worry about their medical bills. I said this before (many many times) and I will say it again: I would have some respect for these people if they gave up their taxpayer funded benefits to prove their point. Other than that, they are greedy, selfish hypocrites!
The more i think about it the more politics reminds me of high school.
This is what happens when you have a smart man in the White House instead of a dolt like The Shrub.
Conservatives just can't seem to get it. Why do they want to destroy our country?
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
@Pat & bayllie
....sad statistics but true. Slick Rick has no answers for the uninsured in Texas....and Abbott confirmed the 'no answers' this morning with Thomas Roberts. He evaded the question, and went on with something else....Typical!
What all of the Obama glad-handers and Barack-olytes fail (or don't want) to note is that, as I said in a few different threads yesterday, Roberts may have done Republicans the biggest favor he could by codifying the fact that, despite what BamBam said, the individual mandate is indeed a tax, which is something that anyone with a mind not clouded by partisanship could see. Hell, even Stephanopoulos pressed Bammer on that during his interview with him about the individual mandate. This can now be branded by Bam's opposition as the biggest tax hike ever foisted on the middle class. Look for ad after ad in the near future in which Bam's ad-nauseum mantra of "this is not a tax" is placed right next to the SCOTUS' ruling.
Same legislation Romney signed into law in MA.
What part of that concept don't you and your idiot base get?
It's Romney's bill.
Joe, the mandate isn't a tax OR a penalty if you carry your own health insurance. So, I would argue Chief Justice Roberts did the nation, not just Republicans, a favor by helping to ensure everyone, even those with pre-existing conditions, get the health care they need without passing the cost onto those with insurance.
Joe B,
It is only a tax (fine) for those that do not purchase health insurance.
The individual mandate was called the individual responsibility act by Governor Romney.
If you don't want a tax increase then just buy the insurance … stop freeloading off of the rest of us.
The tax (fine) is estimated to affect 3% to 5% of us. Last year in Mass they collected the fine on only 1% of their residents.
Think Progress:
CHUCK TODD: On the tax front quickly, is a speeding ticket a tax? By that same definition? You can avoid paying this tax if you get insurance. [...]
CANTOR: First of all, let me — I can’t respond to whether the speeding ticket would be considered a tax or not under the states’ authority any states’ authority. What I can tell you is the court came down on this issue decided that it was a tax to coerce some type of behavior.
***********
Get insured. End of story. That's what we did here in MA. Thanks to Romney.
JoeB -- Taxing insurance has always been a Republican idea. Now you are griping??? That was their plan to pay for McCains so called health care plan. The difference here is that those being taxed are the ones that refuse to insure themselves. McCain would have taxed actual insurance plans provided by the employer.
Let me clarify a bit. Under McCain's plan anyone with insurance through their employer would have been taxed to pay for covering the uninsured.
You can avoid paying this tax if you get insurance. [...] Or you don't drive.
People whine about ACA having a tax but what they don't realize or don't want to realize is that the "tax" only applies to those who refuse to insure themselves. With the expansion of Medicaid and the subsequent decrease in liabilities to insurance companies we are likely to get money back rather than cost us more. Like cigarettes or gasoline if you buy it you pay the tax. If you don't want to pay cigarette tax don't buy cigarettes. If you don't want to be taxed at all you can take public transit and not buy gasoline where you pay the gasoline taxes. In this case if you don't buy you pay the fine, penalty or tax whatever you want to call it.
Frankly I don't want to pay for your medical care at the emergency room where the HAVE to treat you whether you have insurance or not.
I would make a change to the mandate that would carry it farther. With private and pulic insurance available anyone who refuses to get insured even when means testing proves they have the funds to do so,they would have to sign a waiver that would put up everything they own as collateral for any and all medical expenses they incur. If they get cancer or are in a serious accident they could rack up bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and they would be responsible to sell their assets to pay the bill. Their wages could be garnished, their tax refund confiscated etc. to pay the medical bills. If one has insurance that would except them from losing everything.
One big problems with those opposing ACA is that they have not presented an alternative plan that would ensure everyone has affordable health care and that insurance companies can't disqualify someone because of pre-existing conditions etc.
In response to a few of the response to my earlier post: =
Dennis - I don't freeload off of anyone. I have insurance through my job, which I contribute towards (a concept that I wish public-sector unions would embrace, but that's for a different thread).
Dont Carry It All - despite your assumption, I'm not a Republican. I'm a proud independent who is sickened by partisan hacks from both sides of the aisle. And regarding your reference to McCain's plan, being taxed to "pay for covering the uninsured" is exactly what I am against, and I could care less if it's a Republican plan or a Democrat plan. I didn't like Romney's plan in Massachusetts (I don't live there, but that's my opinion), and I don't like BamBam's plan for the nation.
My sole point in my original post had nothing to do with being "for" or "against" anything. I was speaking about tactics that could be used during this election season. And if people don't think that Roberts calling this a "tax" in his majority opinion will hurt Bam in the long run, well, perhaps you're lacking oxygen from having your head buried so far up a certain orifice.
There is no need to repeal Obamacare. President Romney can simply invoke the Barry "Me no likey" precedent and announce he will not enforce the parts of the law he doesn't like.
Same thing with Presidential appointments requiring Senate approval, President Romney will simply declare the Senate in recess and make a recess appointment.
Just like how the Dems abuse of the fillibuster to bog down anything GWB wanted in his second term, Barry's "creative President'n" will come back around to bite them on the a$$.
And when the lefty liberals start sctreaming and crying, I'll be LMFAO@THEM.
Joe -- What's your solution? Let's hear where you stand.
The biggest misconception about ObamaCare is that it will control costs. If it did, and if it actually operates as has been promised by the Democratic Party, then it will be the first entitlement in the history of the United States to do so. The odds are not in its favor. So as cost projections rise, which they already have, so will the need to come up with more funding, and you can guess how that will be accomplished. Higher taxes. The odds are very good that in the long run, ObamaCare will end up costing everyone more money, both in taxes and premiums. But by the time that reality hits home, the architects will be retired, living lavishly off taxpayer funded pensions, with a lifetime of the best healthcare to look forward too. As for the rest of us, hey we screwed up, we trusted them.
JoeB that question is for you.
Our President, the constitutional law professor, said that Obamacare was not a tax. Was that another lie or did he not know the constitution that well. Once again, the Democrats have placed another tax on the people, after doing everything they could to make us think otherwise. The Obama Administration has shown us how you can manipulate the system to get what you want. It's fun now, but wait untill the next President gets in there and the libs will be crying foul when they see the same tactics being used against them. What goes around, comes around.
Why don't all of you libbies ask your local government how much they will have to raise your taxes to cover the tax on all of the "cadillac plans" that they supply public sector union employees. Just one county in my state said that they would need an extra $2 million per year. And that is only ONE county. Watch out what you cheer for because the worst is yet to come.
chilled
but they do; it's: hahahahahahahaha - I have something you can't have.
Dont Carry It All - nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure: open up inter-state competition between insurance companies, and tort reform that caps medical malpractice awards so someone can't get multi-millon dollar verdicts for a doctor misdiagnosing a hangnail. Just those two things would drive the cost of medical treatment and insurance coverage down, and would be a good starting point. Of course, since politicians on both sides of the aisled basically live up the backsides of the tort and insurance lobbies, I have a better chance of marrying a supermodel than of seeing either of those things happen any time soon. So, alternatively, either let the individual states set their own health care policies, or (if we must have federal involvement here) follow the four points mentioned at the end of the article in this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/02/there-is-gop-alternative-to-obamacare/
And if you (or any other left-leaning hack on here) choose to blow this off simply because this is a link from Fox News, than you're not worth the effort to talk to.
Joe, this so called penalty/tax/whatever isn't even enforcable... So this is much ado about nothing.
Vigla - oh, I know that, and that made me laugh out loud when I read that. But again, the only point I wanted to make in this thread before don't carry it all got on his or her soapbox was that Roberts naming the individual mandate as a tax will hurt Obama in the run-up to the election, simply because to most Americans the word "tax" is a four-letter word, and Bam did all he could during his campaigning for ACA to stress that it wasn't a tax. He's now been proven wrong. How much will it hurt him? We'll see.
Re: Rick Perry
TX Governor continues to buck against helping those who can't afford health insurance by further delaying a state government exchange until after the November elections. I believe he or someone in the party were once touting the State's should be the ones to offer health care help. So why the delay? If they want to help, what's keeping him from doing it? And if not now, when? Setting it up now would be beneficial regardless of the elections.
Of course, the intent is to never set it up and to never offer help. He's even considering whether Texas should participate in the Medicare/Medicaid program. (Really or just rhetoric, like that seceding thing, or the refusing Fed funds thing?) And how will that help Texans who have already paid into Medicare/Medicaid and now draw on what they paid into? Does this guy think beyond the moment?
Republicans talk about health care and they talk about immigration but when solutions are just one-step away from being implemented, they ditch. We could have already had a solid Health Care Act if they had offered meaningful participation in the process. Instead they fought it on every point. They would have had the individual mandate they supported up until it was part of the AHA as well as other things their party had discussed. Instead they fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. So could it be their talk about health care and immigration is just rhetoric for votes?
When it comes time to vote in November, I hope people will look beyond what Republicans promise and look at what they've actually delivered. A smaller and smaller concentration of rich are getting even richer as the rest of us continue to lose money, jobs, retirement, and benefits packages we already paid into. The Tea Party says "Taxed Enough Already"? How about "Enough Empty Rhetoric Already"! Fix it!
JoeB -- From what I read on tort reforms in Texas it did nothing to lower the cost of health care nor insurance for healthcare, if fact health care costs and the cost of insurance has gone up. It did nothing to help people without insurance obtain it. What it did do is lower doctors costs for malpractice insurance. That money stayed in their pocket.
As for allowing health insurance carriers to cross state lines, my fear is all the big carriers would swallow up the little carriers and we would be stuck with a few carriers that price fix. Think of your cable and phone providers.
Read your link and didn't agree with the four point plan for many reasons.
I read the four point plan and it is really just three points of B.S. and one point that is repackaged: vouchers. That seems to be the GOP answer for everything. Education, healthcare, whatever people want the government to provide but they don't want to pay for they make a voucher system. What's next, vouchers for police protection? For firefighting? For using the roads?
You summed up the four point plan much better than I could have Detroit. Thanks.
inb4someblames Obama! Tom Cruise and Katie are divorcing! Oh and the stock market surged today. Coincidence or consequence? I wonder. ;-)
Gnarly $95?
"Impose an annual tax of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085."
Gnarly Bootes,
And again, there are many exemptions, like for those who claim religious objection and those of low or no income. The vast majority have health insurance and will not be effected in the slightest.
The main reason the Democrats called it a "penalty" instead of a tax is because the word "tax" has been made into a dirty word by the Republicans, even though America would collapse if people stopped paying them. But the word "penalty" does have another use. It implies that someone who refuses to buy health insurance is doing something that is not socially acceptable, and ought to pay a penalty (even if it's not enforced). It should be socially unacceptable for people to refuse to take responsibility for their own health insurance coverage on the gamble that they'll never get sick, and who may show up in the emergency room at taxpayer expense if they lose the gamble.
When the American workers experience A.C.A.for a limited time and truly discover it's benefits all of this nonsense will stop .It is Progressive , We are one of the few,if not the only Industrial nation who.s government has kept this benefit for themselves. Wake up you gullible ones and make sure that we don.t lose this by listening to this don.t have it.I know we have it,but you will hate it!
Need I remind you that Republican senators of the 111th Congress used the filibuster twice as much as Dems of the 110th Congress did? Hell, at that pace, I think we would have cured cancer, devised a fusion reactor, and landed on Mars, had it not been for GOP obstruction.
Oops, I mean Republicans of the 110th Congress. Who, in turn, used the filibuster twice as much as their Democratic predecessors did. In other words, during the Obama administration, Republicans have used the filibuster four to five times more often than Democrats ever did under Bush.
And people have the nerve to say that it's Dems who "abuse of the filibuster."
Joe in Albany
Your references to slang language relating to the President is disgusting. Makes you sound like a ...
Anyway, great article.
The problem with this idea is that it's actually a 'tax' on the people who can afford healthcare insurance and still refuse to buy it.
And the Leader of the Republican party, Governor Romney defended it as a 'freeloader tax.' He has already said that he supports it.
You do know that those ideas have been looked at from every angle and the cost savings wouldn't make much of a dent in the problem -- don't you? There's no magic bullet here. A .5% reduction from tort reform, for example...
Which your pals at Faux aren't about to discuss because that's not the message they're paid to sell to you.
http://insurance.about.com/od/reformresources/a/Would-Tort-Reform-Lower-Health-Costs.htm
CBO Analysis
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that tort reform would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/september/30/selling-insurance-across-state-lines.aspx
Why is there skepticism about the Republican concept?
"It's not the concept that is the problem. Quite the contrary, it's a fine idea," said Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group. But he expressed concern about efforts to de-regulate the market. "The real underlying issue is that Republicans and others who created this do not want to create adequate standards for the sale of health care." That would result in policies that "perpetuate the practices that have harmed consumers," he said.
If insurers can sell beyond state lines, the concern is that consumers would be attracted to the least comprehensive policies because they would be cheapest -- some call it "a race to the bottom." For example, someone could buy a policy in a state that doesn't mandate coverage of diabetic supplies and then the consumer could be stuck with higher bills.
In addition, insurers selling across state lines might market policies to younger, healthier individuals. That could leave the insurance pool with older and sicker individuals, who would face ever-rising rates -- or face being turned down -- because their insurers would have fewer healthy people to spread risk.
That would "undermine insurance regulation in states doing serious regulation," said Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center. "It would be destructive to those state efforts."
There are also fears that consumers dealing with out-of-state companies would have difficulties resolving disputes. And, since health costs vary geographically, insurance purchased in one state might not cover as much of the cost of care in a more expensive state.
The federal health law backers say that it allows the advantages of cross-border sales while still protecting consumers. "I think we're going to see a whole lot more choice available for consumers under the new law," said Pollack.
sigh. is it really that shocking that that roberts had to be won over? (well yes, i suppose...) what is even more shocking is that the other 4 didnt agree with robert's reasoning. im no constitutional law professor, but the healthcare mandate mandates me to get healthcare about as much as tax breaks for having dependents mandates me to have children.
honestly, im too cynical to think roberts has one intellectually honest bone in his body. i think there is something a little more selfish, a little more partisan going on here:
- the mandate is, after all, a republican idea
- he is beginning to realize how partisan and fraudulent his court has become, and wanted a token high profile decision he could point at to show he is not just a partisan hack
- there could be a backlash to republicans since they have no actual alternative
he pretty much realizes that his party has gone off the deep end and that someone has to come in and say a stern no like a parent would to a child throwing a fit. honest republicans should really be thanking roberts, however quietly, so they don't suffer the wrath of the mindless collective reactionary monster that the republican party has become.
Detriot Storm, The far right will never let the furor go away, there are those in the far right who think the constitution as it was first drafted was perfect. Some of them are opposed to Emancipation, voter sufferage for all, social security, civil rights, medicare, medicaid, and abortion. What makes you think Obamacare is an exception, there are those on the far right who will fight universal health care when it is a century old in this country.
I am in complete agreement with ADLER above. It is my contention that anyone who wants to refuse to buy health insurance, when means testing shows they can afford it, should be allowed to do so ... WITH THE CAVEAT that they must sign a waiver and guarantee that they are then personally responsible for whatever costs are incurred in their health care for as long as they do not carry their own health insurance.
So ... stand on your principles ... just be prepared to be FULLY RESPONSIBLE for any and all costs you incur ... and be sure to waive the right to declare bankruptcy on these bills.
You believe in personal responsibility ... right? It's easy enough to show that ... no need to complain ... just do what you want, but prepare yourself for the future ... because it is coming ... age and accidents are not negotiable.
Those of you crowing about the decision, really haven't read the decision. Roberts said two things that are very important... one, that the govt DIDN'T have unlimited authority under the Commerce Clause... contrary to what Liberals want, and need, to take total control of everyone and everything... and two, that Obamacare is constitutional because all it is is a big fat TAX.... now Pres Obozo has to carry the "largest tax increase in history" albatross around his neck going into an election where he wasn't doing too well already... and now the 60% against Obamacare are energized against Liberal Congressment and Senators..... methinks that Roberts is a lot smarter than Obozo, Reid, and Pelosi all lumped together....
First of all, your "name-creating" is NOT cute, nor is it particularly informative.
Secondly, this is a PENALTY authorized under the tax code ... it IS NOT a general tax on all Americans. (You would know this if you had read the decision.) The attempt to portray it as such is just a rhetorical device, hoping the general public will buy into the bumper sticker and not research it for themselves.
The ONLY people affected will be those who can afford to buy their own health insurance and yet refuse to participate in the collective efforts to generalize those costs.
Again, I say: by all means, refuse to participate, start your own savings plan now, and hope that your preparations will meet the possible $50,000-$100,000 or more that an accident or catastrophic illness will cost you and your family ... age and possible disease, if not accidents, definitely lie in your future.
Detroit - Ain't it the truth! Hot out there!
I'm still stunned that Roberts is the person who is responsible for passing ACA. Didn't think he had it in him. But, kudos to Justice Roberts!
Again, great week for the President and for the Country.
With no end in sight...
Although, the sky is almost black here right now & I'm hoping we get some much needed rain!
I love the hot - but I sit in an AC office all day, go home to an AC home, and when outside, I sit in the pool. As I said I love hot weather:)
Feisty - lightening and rain downtown. Just starting but it looks like this is going to be a bad one. We need the rain so I don't mind. Just want it to let up when I start for home. OOOOOOh - thunder!!!
Let's keep in mind, it was President Obama who pushed to have the ACA heard before SCOTUS expedited!
This man knows what he is doing...
The president got the law passed in Congress, saying it's a mandate, not a tax (a smart move - to counter the stereotype that Democrats are tax and spend party)
Verrilli got it done in Supreme Court, saying it's a tax (a smart move- because Congress's power to tax is constitutional).
Apparently conservatives are trying to claim that his epilepsy medication was to blame for his poor decision. Grasping at straws they are as they melt all over the messages boards. Poor suckers.
Constitutional scholar. Nice to have one on your side.
Increased taxes are coming, libs. Hang on.
I believe that Roberts did the right thing by making this a TAX. It allowed the SCOTUS to pass the legislation, and the ball is now in the peoples hands. Kudos!
It always has been a tax. You avoid the tax by having health insurance, just as you avoid additional income tax by having mortgage interest and real estate taxes, or by having income below the level required to pay taxes.
The vast majority of people will not have to pay this tax. Only the leaches on society who do not have health insurance will have to pay the tax.
Two points . . .
1. If the individual mandate is a tax, then how did it survive the Anti-Injunction Act argument (the time to argue a tax is after you've paid it and sued for a refund.)
2. In regards to dirp's comment "only the leaches on society who do not have health insurance will have to pay the tax," I have this to say . . . you could not be more wrong. Young healthy folks who, once upon a time in Amerika, were free to choose to self-insure are no longer allowed to do so without running afoul of the law and being penalized under the ACA. Sad.
Actually, it is decidedly a tax penalty, not a tax. A tax penalty that most will not have to pay as the vast majority are insured.
Well VirginiaDem, I believe that my insurance will be considered the "cadillac insurance" because my HR VP has already said that we fit under the cadillac penalty, whatever that means!
If it is a TAX PENALTY for not being insured, then the court would have to rule that the health insurance itself would be the TAX! Consequently, if you don't pay the tax then you pay the tax penalty! Just the way the law justifies itself.
ezduhzit,
Your logic is flawed. For instance, by your logic, a home mortgage would be considered a tax because if you have one, you get a tax deduction, if you do not, you don't get a deduction.
I think you guys need another tax word in here: exemption. This is not a "deduction" like home mortgage interest is thought of. The ACA is a tax that you would be exempt from paying based on certain conditions. (The main one being you have employer or self paid health insurance). It is not a "penalty" that is applied because of an action. The ACA tax will be applied to every American unless they are exempted (which will be a majority of the time)
If you think only the people without insurance are going to be taxed you are nuts. They are adding 32million more people to the roll, and that isn't even including all the illegals that his Executive Order will add. I kept hearing that this wouldn't effect you if you already had insurance, but our premiums went way up, as did our drug coverage and other coverages. There is no possible way that we all won't be effected by this, all the increases will get pass on to us one way or another. People you need to wake up. and see we can't afford to take care of the whole world.
I'm all for helping people but if you can't pay for it don't buy it! We already have a shortage on drugs, and Doctors, and it's only going to get worse. We do need reform but this isn't the kind we need!
sadie lady/It sounds,to me that you are not for helping people.If a person can't afford a vital coverage,such as for they and their young dependant's health,you imply that you would let them die.That is what all of the other developed nations refuse to do.It is far past time that we joined the rest of the civilised world. Do not claim that you are for helping,then state but they shouldn't get it if they can't afford it.
Listoire, did you really read my post, are you just one of those people that are so close minded that if you read something you don't agree with your brain shuts off. If you honestly think that I want people to die, your just being stupid. That's why we have Emergency Rooms, medicaid and medicare. Like I said we need reform, but if they would cut pork from both sides we would be able to have better services. We also should not reward people here illegally with all the benefits they receive. The money we pay out to people here illegally for, food. housing schools, medical etc.. would go along way to help American citizens. We also need to quit spending billions of dollars to other countries, we need to take care of our own first.
Sadie,
Medicaid is for very poor and Medicare is for old, what about class of people that are low middle class that make "too much money" to qualify for medicaid, can't afford insurance and too your for medicare? Emergency Room is not solution, when they can't pay for it, then I have to and all others with insurance. First there is nothing in bill that authorized illegal of this coverage, two nothing in constitution that gives rights to only citizens, but to everybody, exception of voting and running for president. Learn our laws before spewing things you don't know
Sadie, who exactly do you think pays for the "emergency rooms"?? People show up there for mandated care and do not pay. That costs us money because we pay more to make up for it. And adding "32 million" to the rolls is laughable because a lot of those people are showing up in Emergency Departments all over this country. They are already receiving very expensive care in ED's. Hopefully we can change that and get them more consistent and cheaper care elsewhere.
Illegals do not qualify for food stamps or other government benefits. Check out the SNAP website it will tell you. I also have a friend that is here LEGALLY on a visa from Russia. She and her family do not qualify for any assistance either. He kid could not even get into preschool without paying full price because it was government subsidized and he does not qualify since he is not a citizen. (even though he has a visa to be here.)
Angie, I don't know what planet you live on but illegals do get benefits. I know lots of illegals who receive benefits, and they thank it's funny that we have to pay for it. I'de like you to explain to me how we are going to pay for all these new insured?
I know who pays the E.R. visits, and thats why I don't like this law. Where I'm from. you can go to the E.R., and it's full of people there that just have a runny nose, but they go because it's free to them. Unless you haven't been listening this is going to be paid for by taxing all of us more. That's the only way it could get passed, just wait until you have to pay a ton more for your insurance, and then we'll see how much you like it.
sadielady, until you cite sources for all your posts, you just posted your opinion in all your posts. Opinions are NOT facts and never will be.
Should illegal immigrants be covered, no, and they are not. I favor deportation unless the immigrant is facing unlawful prosecution, or death at home, or the illegal immigrant was brought here as a child. These migrants should be granted legal status along with their families, either citizenship, or resident alien status, as the case may be. If illegal immigrants are treated in emergency rooms it does not make it legal for them to receive coverage under Obamacare.
I seriously doubt that you know ANY illegals, and if you do, why aren't you reporting them?
I'm calling B.S.
Mock no more RNC!
The ones with slow minds will continue to mock, the ones in control of the party don't want to talk about it anymore.
It is funny, however, that those who were pissed at the president for criticizing the court are now criticizing the court.
Funny thing is, since kids are now covered up until they are 26, do you consider a 27 year old a youngster? They may think they don't need insurance, but what young person does? Besides, tghe younger folks probably will get better rates I suspect.
Vigla..I think the 26 mark was to cover children in college. And, by the way, Vigla, my child is always my child regardless of age.
This is what happens when you listen to the talking heads instead of doing your own research:
1. you believe the Healthcare Law has death panels (it doesn't and never did.)
2. You believe the Healthcare Law, including the individual mandate, is unconstitutional.
3. You believe Republicans will do things in the best interest of all Americans.
4. You believe Republicans won't destroy the USA.
5. You vote for Republicans because they will do things to create jobs.
Death panels True
Unconstitutional Thats also true.
Items 3 thru five are correct also.
rukidding47,
Incorrect, once again.
I liked your idea for an IQ test to vote. Those under 90 may not vote (I love it since multiple studies have shown that the lower one's IQ, the more likely they are to identify as "conservative" and no data saying otherwise.)
First, "death panels" (something Sarah Palin was FOR in Alaska) do not exist in this plan. Private insurance companies have had them for decades, however.
As for the law being unconstitutional, that's a decision that can only be made by the Supreme Court, and well, you know what they decided, so you are, once again, incorrect.
VA Dem, the Supreme Court did not rule that the law was constitutional under the Commerce Clause! However, Justice Roberts delivered the deciding vote that it WAS constitutional under Congress' Power to Tax!!! Consequently, the SCOTUS just approved the largest tax increase in the History of The US!!! That tax will effect you, me and Sarah Palin. Our Spin Doctor President said my income level, "wouldn't see a dime in new taxes"! I don't need to be brain-washed by either of the political parties to know that he is DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ezduhzit, what nonsense... YOu only pay the "tax" if you don't carry insurance. The law covers most folks. It's those that can afford it but choose to not buy any that this impacts. In MA, I am told only 1% of the people choose not to carry insurance. Your hysterical post is just a useless rant.
ezduhzit,
Incorrect. Once again your logic is flawed. First, the tax penalty will not effect the vast majority of Americans, I will not have to pay it, Sarah Palin will not have to pay it, and if you carry a health insurance policy, you will not have to pay it. Second, on what grounds do you call it "the largest tax increase in US history"? Bush Sr.'s tax increases were larger, as they applied to most Americans, this tax penalty applies to a very small minority of Americans (those who can afford insurance, but choose not to purchase it.)
As for President Obama being "DONE!!!!!!!" I can only assume you mean that he wouldn't be reelected, however, looking at the electoral map and polling from the swing states, you couldn't be more wrong. In order to get to 270 electoral votes, Romney would need to win every single swing state and as of now, Obama leads in most of them. In reality, looking at the map, Romney has no viable path to 270.
In life as in politics, you win some you loose some.
Can someone answer me how all those millions of people that are on unemployment or have already fallen from the radar, will be able to afford the penalty or getting the new health care. Would they even be able to pay the NEW TAX?
Concern Citizen-856329
If they are unemployed --> they have no income ---> they will qualify due to being under the poverty level ---> they will not pay the "tax"
Exactly as Bayllie says. If you're less than 133% of the poverty level you'll actually qualify for Medicare. That counts as insurance, meaning the tax/penalty won't apply to you.
Ah .. more from the unconcerned non-citizen. We pro-health care advocates sure did win, the 'let 'em die' crowd lost, and then there is unconcerned who became 'loose as a goose'. Since English is the 28th language of unconcerned - I'll willingly help you out with the phrase:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=loose%20as%20a%20goose
IF your state of residence expands the current Medicare eligibility pool to include those with income levels up to and including 133% of poverty, you will be covered and not subject to the new penalty/tax. If, however, your state does not expand the eligibility pool and you do not meet any of the other exceptions, you will be required to pay up.
On a happier note, the penalty/tax is self reported and the IRS apparently has no mechanism in place by which it can enforce collection.
same as in everything else.
Workers will pay free loading dead beats (liberals) will not.
What a waste.
rukidding,
You seem to be unaware that quite a lot of the "freeloading deadbeats" reside in RED states. As usual, most revenue is generated in blue states and redistributed to red states.
Illinois is a blue state, you won't be getting anything from ILLINOIS, we are sooooooo broke!! California is another example, no money to give!
Which Blue states have money VD?
bayllie
And wh pays for the poverty level? Not that I do not want to pay for those that are less fortunate. This will be yet another form of the middle class paying for more taxes.
This is just as bad as Bush Senior "Read my lips, no more taxes"
To RedDevPS who by his posting seems not to like hispanics, since he is always pointing out my race. How can you claim you are not a racist? Go ahead and keep mocking my race and maybe just maybe they will get pissed off and vote against Obama.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=loose%20as%20a%20goose
Concern Citizen-856329
you and I and evrey taxpayer already pays for them. Except now you also pay for their ER visits as a way to get a "check up."
you also pay for them in your monthly health insurence premiums - kinda like you auto policy includes the uninsured.
sirie,
You seem to be laboring under the illusion that the states pay federal income tax, not individuals. Individuals in states like California, Massachusetts, Illinois and New York pay a lot more in Federal Income Taxes than those in states like Alabama and Mississippi, while states like Alabama and Mississippi use more in Federal aid programs like SNAP (food stamps) and medicaid. The simple fact is that the blue states support the red states with a few exceptions like Georgia and Texas.
Auto insurance rates will go down because you will not be paying for the uninsured accident victims care.
Good point Storm.
if you take time to read the law, they would be exempt.
So this is now considered a heathcare tax, afterall. I can't wait to see that fact and the recent CBO cost estimates for Obamacare boiled into the election politics. It will be interesting to see how our "evolving" president deals with his prior statements that it was not a tax, along with the skyrocketing estimates to implement the program.
I dont see a second term here given the poor results in the economy and the fact that he can't tell the truth to the American people.
Go to an opthamologist. You can now do so without going bankrupt and your vision is problematic.
Auntie Fascist
he will also no longer be discriminated against because of his pre-existing condition (problematic vision)
What about rectal-cranial inversion? That may be why he "can't see", his vision is blocked by his colon.
Detroit-Storm
even though this condition is extremely dangerous to one's ability to function logically, it will still not exclude one from being able to get insurance.
this also applies if vision is blocked by someone else's colon - like in Romney's case, for example
You should take a look at the electoral map, champ. 270towin is a good place to look, it's totally interactive, click on the "Polls" tab, then "2012 Polling Map." it'll show that President Obama has a massive lead, then you can look at all the polling data for the swing states remaining, Obama is leading in most of them. Heck, the most recent polls are showing Obama winning even in Florida.
My Projected results based on current data;
Romney: 219 electoral votes
Obama: 319 electoral votes <-Projected Winner
Do not confuse these loonies with the truth. It just confuses them and they demand more free stuff.
When Romney wins he needs to repeal the tax. It only takes 51 votes and it is dead.
Make a law that if you you pay no taxes you do not vote. or have an IQ test before allowed to vote. That will kill the liberal voting block.
Plus it will be as constitutional as this health care law.
That is quite literally the dumbest thing I have heard today. Congratulations, everyone is a little dumber for reading what you wrote.
dang! ... i often read/hear about the "american people" being lied to by such and such... do these "american people" really that gullible and ignorant that they could not understand the issues affecting them?... just saying...
rukidding,
Really? An IQ test? Many studies confirm that the lower one's IQ is, the more likely they are to identify as "conservative." So you really need to rethink that one, lol.
As for 51 votes in the Senate, in the unlikely event that the Democratic party loses control of the Senate, such a vote will never happen. Why? Well, Democrats need only use one of the Republicans favorite tools to stop such a vote, the handy dandy filibuster.
ulong,
its the tactic of distortion. Some people do understand, but most think they understand. The problem is there is a portion that wants the analysis boiled down and bite-sized so they don't have to do any critical thinking. That is problematic because it puts complete trust that those that are spoon feeding you are not giving you poison for their own gain.
Myself, I read a variety of sources (left, center, and right leaning) and weigh the facts. I don't even own a television because you really can't do a story justice in a two minute sound bite.
rukiddin47, so you oppose democracy? Only those personally selected by YOU are allowed to vote. Kind of like a one party system in the former Soviet Union or Germany of the 1930s and 40s is what you are advocating? Senior citizens should not vote in your feeble little mind because we have limited income that keeps many of us below the level required for paying taxes or for those struggling for the first time in their lives because of a crappy economy brought on by outsourcing and wars that were off budget.
And what does IQ have to do with it? There are some very intellegent people who are poor and some pretty stupid, ingornant and poorly educated wealthy people. Your comment clearly shows which of these groups you are in.
LOL @ Bayllie 7.4, pretty good one there ;~)
sirie
I'm glad you liked it
ulong, you can tell a lot about the answer to your question about the intelligence of the American people by reading some of these comments.
However , Chief Justice reached his decision; I think that it was appropriate to consider the interest of each citizen in the United States of America. Health care is an issue that reaches across party lines. The healthcare of every American should be all our concerns because it effects the financial state this country. We can either pay up front at a lower rate or we can pay later at a much higher one; I chose the latter.
No, citizen in this country should not have the right to see a doctor or dentist. Every action can not be about profit but about humanity. So I personally salute the 5 justices of the Supreme Court that allow their heart to lead their heads.
I do not care if they call it chicken soup. THRILLED it passed. In reality we all know the word tax is like saying Kryptonite to Superman. A negative mantra is projected on that word handed down practically from the beginning of the country BUT eminently necessary for our nation to function.
I am CONVINCED good taxation comes from electing GOOD, ethical, smart legislators and government workers appointed by them in this nation. The word is so besmirched because one can see the unsavory tie over centuries between the elected and the corporate lobbyist that functions NOT with the majority of the people in mind but by the selective few, indeed the 1%.
It is why we need at least THREE of the justices replaced by a progressive president and hope they are replaced in due time. It is WHY it is imperative for the reelection of the president. Without that this nation will be taken down a path of oligarchic bought government and will not see in our time and possibly in our children's time a nation we, as progressives, thought we knew.
Let me know how you like it after 2014.
FK Verilli and FK you too Roberts - you turncoat bastard! A painted pig is still a pig. Obamacare is still an intrusive unconstitutional piece of sh*t legislation (regardless of what Roberts says), that needs to be completely repealed and done the right way. For Roberts to side up with the 4 ultra-left liberal and completely predictable SCOTUS bastards to continue ramming Obamacare down our throats and continuing to severely threaten 1/5th of the U.S. economy is simply unimaginable. Roberts, you may have picked up some liberal friends with your @!$%# decision but you certainly managed to piss off a lot larger number of responsible people. I highly resent Obama (the lying SOB) and his equally immoral morons Pelosi and Reid, ramming this pile of crap down America's throats. Not a tax Obama? You lied you bastard! The middle class are getting ready to get screwed big time! America cannot afford the expense and the reduction of quality medical care that will ultimately be offered by Obamacare and neither can my children and grandchildren. We can either get rid of Obamacare and do it the right way or we can have civil war over it. Conservatives are not going to put up with this crap!
Gotta love the "You vote with us or FK you" attitude of the right.
How quickly they forget that the bill that was passed was not what the left wanted, but the GOP compromise.
wrong again VD
GOP Compromise? Hardly! This was all about Obama and his super congress ramming this one through. Let's remember when Obama "grand-standed" a supposed "bi-partisan" meeting at Blair House for political theater. I think we all knew how that one went down. It was nothing more than a photo-opt for the arrogant Furor to get some tv time.
Just a note for all you liberals who are peeing in your pants with joy over Obamacare, how do you feel about the tax (not penalty) that you will get to pay? And, it sure will be interesting to see how the CBO re-prices the cost of Obamacare. Bet it is going to wind up costing a ton. And, for you college kids who thinks Obama is a rockstar and celebrity, how is the job market working out for you? Want a job? Get rid of Obama and you might get one. Obama is clueless about how business works therefore he kills job creation and he is too arrogant to change (although he can certainly still blame Bush after 4 years). Obama needs to "Man-up" and start taking responsibility for his own ignorance - and he is business ignorant for sure.
Incorrect. President Obama wanted a 100% government operated single payor healthcare system, eliminating the health insurance industry all all together, it's what he talked about on the campaign trail all through 2008. But, being the diplomat that he is, he brought the Republicans into the negotiations, wanting the minority to participate. And what we got was this plan, administered by private insurance companies.
Do you people pay any attention at all to what's actually going on, or do you rely on the right-wing blowhards to tell you exactly what to think?
Steelman,
You've been so indoctrinated that you've missed so much about this law. The vast majority of Americans will not pay this tax penalty. Only those who can afford insurance, but do not have it, will pay the $95 penalty. Those who do have insurance, or qualify for the many exemptions, will not pay the penalty.
Scalia is not predictable? Thomas?
I always find it slightly ironic, and usually somewhat frightening, when I see this type of response from what, I guess, is the 'conservative' viewpoint.
What, for example, would be the 'right way'? I never really see an answer there other then the 'free market' response. How many people have to suffer; lose their homes or savings, or die before we, as the greatest nation, step up to the plate and take care of our own. Maybe I mis-read the bible, but it seems to me there was something about do unto others....... and yet that makes Pelosi and Reid immoral?
Furthermore, so the fact that you do not agree with this legislation that was put in place by a duly elected Congress; challenged in, and approved by the Supreme Court warrants your hate charged rhetoric threatening civil war? Do you understand that in many of the countries in this world you would be charged with sedition, if not treason? Yet those same institutions that you denigrate on one hand I am certain that you expect them to uphold your right to express yourself freely, to protect you and your family, etc., etc.
You are a prime example of why Liberals will lose time after time after time, until ultimately sanity rings forth the truth. We can not fight your ignorance and hate in the short term, because we embrace intelligence and compassion in the long term.
But make no mistake....... we are here, and we are going to fight. We are going to fight for the Constitution, for this country, and for the future whether it be clean air or economic stability. And at the same time, we are going to fight for your right to remain so very, very, very stupid.
Pick your field of battle; because you may kill me, but not the ideas of my mind and heart, you shallow little man.
If ACA doesn't appeal to you buy your own insurance at whatever rate they charge and you will be okay. Let others have what they need. Oh, and what alternative would YOU offer to replace ACA? Would you like to continue the status quo where you are paying higher rates because the uninsured wait for an emergency to get treatment in the ER where the cost is many times more than if they were able to take care of the problem at a lower rate earlier. What would YOU propose? Let us hear it. Perhaps you haave a better idea. If so I'll back you on it but if you don't have a better idea STFU until you do.
Steelman, you seem to forget all the concessions that were made in the crafting of this bill in hopes of getting Republican votes. They kept saying "we won't vote for it unless it has this and that." So this and that were incorporated, and they still didn't vote for it. This is much less of a health care reform than most liberals wanted because of Democratic efforts to placate Republican obstructionists.
My hope is that the ACA will finally illuminate the illegal population trying to illegally use our healthcare system. I wonder if that is why the business opposition to the health care reform is against it.
Well the good news is that President Obama has been doing quite a lot about that issue as well. Forst, thanks to his work on strengthening the border, actual border crossings by non-US citizens is at it's lowest level in 30 years, since Ronald Reagan opened the flood gates by giving 100% blanket amnesty to the 3 million illegals that were here at the time, making their fellow countrymen think if they came here too, they'd get the same amnesty.
Furthermore, in 3.5 years, President Obama has deported more illegals than Bush did in 8.
So often I have heard the argument that the courts defer to the intent of Congress when deliberating its laws. All along, Congress has declared "this is not a tax". Along comes (Souter) Roberts, totally ignores Congresses stated intent that this is not a tax and unilaterally declares this to be a tax. Not only that, it now gives an imprimatur for Congress to tax doing nothing. Imagine that, being taxed for doing nothing. This is legal jurisprudence? Roberts botched this one horribly, it makes no judicial sense, because he wanted to protect the "image" of the court. SCOTUS is now at the level of Congress in its approval rating. The Court is illegitimate if it judges cases based on perceptions.
Well in theory its not a tax, but a penalty. You don't have to buy it, but you pay the penalty. This no different then car insurance. If you don't buy car insurance and drive a car, then you pay a penalty if caught.
Does anyone else find it ironic that those who, for the last few months, have been chastising the president for criticizing the Supreme Court, are now, themselves, criticizing the Supreme Court?
Honorable Judge Roberts - Your decision was the first time I heard someone make a decision on his own with the help of his constituants. It was like a breath of fresh air. Right or Wrong the future will tell.
You couldn't be bought. You have the integrity to make this decision on your own.
Mr. Romney, it's ok for your state to have health care insurance, but not the whole country. Your a hipocrite, among other things. Greedy for sure. Laying off workers who only had a few years to go for a pension. Don't say you didn't know these things were happening in your company either. You seem to know it all. You don't have any idea what poverty or struggling is all about. You were born with a silver spoon in your mouth.
Apparently, Willard thinks being born on third base is the same as hitting a triple.
I think Justice Roberts realized that if this was another 5-4 decision along party lines, the credibility of his court would be totally destroyed. He does have some pride in the institution and he didn't want the American people to lose all respect for the court, so he had to find a way to prevent that from happening. Judging by the comments I have read he seems to have succeeded.
Finally HOPE for those uninsured in this country!!!!!!!! I still would prefer single payer, however, this is a first step in the right direction.
If you want to go backwards yes.
Thank you so much for keeping your ignorant and hateful comments so brief.
Truly a breath of fresh air in comparison to your compatriots.
Its not a tax just because the IRS collects it. What other department would collect the fine for not getting insurance. Do we call the fine for not filling your taxes a tax, or is it a fine. It still gets charged to you by the IRS and collected by them.
The ultimate decision was that it is not a tax, but a tax penalty for those who can afford to purchase insurance, but do not.
This will go away like Roe v Wade has. It's not over till it's over. A good republican sweep this fall will set us on the right path to fix this mess.
How has Roe v. Wade gone away? It's still intact, still the law.
shhh, Bob thinks the Easter Bunny is real too
Still the law of the land after 40 years? I'm good with that.
Obama should run over to the Supreme Court and kiss the Chief Justice's butt because he not only saved a poorly crafted piece of law but saved Democrats from wasting 2 years. I cannot figure out the logic. The govt can make Americans buy something they don't want (or need) and fine them if they don't. I think this logic can be used to the extremes and can be applied to any product the govt sees fit to sell. Say green Buicks or Chinese checkers.
Please take the time to read the dissent about the Commerce Clause (which Roberts dissented about as well) and you will sleep better at night knowing you won't be forced to buy something you will never need, like an education.
Republican claims that two-thirds of the American people oppose "Obamacare" is a bit strained. More recent surveys put the split at about 50-50 and now that SCOTUS has held the legislation constitutional, many will gravitate to the "approved" column. There is a message here that has not been addressed. There is absolutely no doubt that Chief Justice John Roberts is conservative to the core ~ but he is not an ideologue. When a staunch conservative like Roberts finds in favor of an issue, it has considerable influence on the masses and greater influence on other conservatives. I'd expect there to be an 8-10% swing in favorable-unfavorable just on Robert's decision alone. Time will tell, but Romney's sworn vow to "repeal" will not endear him to the masses when what will be lost is compared to what has already been gained.
That's not really accurate, either. It's more like 50% against, 30% for, and 20% undecided, roughly.
And half of those who are against it are against it because they think it doesn't go far enough.
Jim #20.............you gotta understand that Republicans count only themselves and TPers as "American People"............the rest are just Socialists or worthless illegal immigrants......thus the math works out as correct
Just read this on Yahoo news, yikes!
But that's not all. Also starting in 2013, all or part of the net investment income, including long-term capital gains and dividends, collected by higher-income folks can get socked with an additional 3.8% "Medicare contribution tax." Therefore, the maximum federal rate on long-term gains for 2013 and beyond will actually be 23.8% (versus the current 15%) and the maximum rate on dividends will be a whopping 43.4% (versus the current 15%).
15% + 3.8% = 23.8%? Cite your sources because that makes no sense.
Yahoo news, there is a story called "what Obamacare will cost you"
http://
news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/map-where-obamacare-expand-medicaid-most-175400889.html
nice try, but that article is about the expansion of Medicaid by state. It mentions nothing about increased taxes on the wealthy
BTW, I did a search on Yahoo for an article called "What Obabmacare will cost you", and it returned NO results. I believe your credibility has been impeached.
http://
finance.yahoo.com/news/what-obamacare-means-for-your-taxes.html
Why didn't you just post the correct link (or post the correct name) to begin with? But you left out this part:
This isn't a tax increase, it the expiration of a tax cut. and it applies on the lesser of the "investment income or the amount of AGI in excess of the applicable threshold". $60K in investment income is used in the example. Thats more than 60% of Americans make all year from salary. Higher taxes on investment income isn't something I panic about.
So, what I want to know is this: When President Barry insisted that it was NOT a tax, was that an indication that he's an idiot, or a liar?
Actually, he was telling the truth. It's not a tax. Even Chief Justice Roberts agreed, saying instead, that it's a tax penalty.
Actually, it may mean Obama is turning into a good Republican story teller like Romney has always been
This article is the acme of all the exciting stories and interviews relating to the U.S. Supreme Court decision. How brilliant and ingenious that the authors of the Health Care Reform Act thought to incorporate the IRS as the means for enforcing the law. Much credit should go to Virrilli for defending so effectively.
We should all be grateful for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.
People with any current or former health condition did not dare leave their jobs due to insurance companys' unwillingness to insure pre-existing conditions. Now people are free to change careers or start small businesses. Since the 1970s, small businesses have accounted for a major segment of employment opportunity.
Many new employees had to wait two years before becoming eligible for a company's insurance. If the employee developed a health problem during those two years, the employee was unable to get the insurance due to a pre-existing condition.
Most children born with birth defects were not eligible for insurance under their parents' plans. Young people just out of high school or college could not often find jobs that offered health insurance.
People who accidentally missed paying an insurance premium or people who lost their jobs due to time missed as a result of illness ended up without insurance.
Insurance companies operated on the basis of profit only. Thousands upon thousands of peoples' lives were ruined as a result.
For many years I had an insurance company that required their approval prior to any significant medical care. If a person neglected to get approval for a surgery, the insurance company refused to pay for the surgery.
The health care reform act has changed all of that. The insurance companies are now required to serve people properly. They can no longer act to serve themselves for the purpose of excessive profit.
We, the people, are the winners. We must thank President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, as well as all of the dedicated Democrats and Republicans who worked together to bring us this very much needed legislation.
You are a fool.
The decision requires the insurance companies to provide coverage regardless of the condition of the insured. An AIDS patient walks into the hospital. The hospital treats the patient under the insurance policy. The premium is 500 a month/6000 a year. The cost of care is 28000.
Who pays for that? If you say "the insurance company leeches!", fine. Good.
And just how many times do you think they can do that - if no one pays into this "pool", in any substantial numbers?
You may want to read the SOTUS decision, and the dissents in their entirety.
The Republic is finished, because of the deception of the Democrats. And everyone is spiking the ball. And they do not understand what has happened...
RICO
Rico
That why it is insurance, or what point of having it if it wouldn't pay for this treatment. That why you have others in that pool that pay every month that pays for it. Expense get spread evenly, the more in pool the cheaper the premiums. You need to do research before talking nonsense.
15% + 3.8% = 23.8%? Cite your sources because that makes no sense.
it actuall goes up to 20% next year, then the additional 3.8 %
http://
news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/map-where-obamacare-expand-medicaid-most-175400889.html
Once again, that article is about Medicaid by state and mentions no increases. Don't just pull some random link out if you don't know.
Still waiting...
It's going to be a long wait. Got a good book to read?
It's unreasonable for you to expect a right winger to actually understand the content of an article they cite beyond the bold headline.
Actually I do, I have a copy of "Heart of Darkness"
.
http://
finance.yahoo.com/news/what-obamacare-means-for-your-taxes.html
Sorry, had the wrong link as I had two articles up at the same time.
Enjoy!
sirie,
Neither article supports your claims. You really should read more than just the headline.
Tall people prevent some from seeing properly. Should cut them off at the knees. Only fair.
Both Bushes had demo congresses to content with, 'W' the last two years when things went bad. Every thing that is bad. demos did. Now with nearly $16 trillion debt we have enormous new bill to pay, You can't imagine how crowded the waiting room will be. AND many will be turned down for needed care. They are now.
Most Americans would disagree. Several polls show the majority of Americans blame Republicans for the economic problems, and no polls show otherwise.
Wow Jack, is that not what they did with the Hutu's in Africa; cut them off at the knees? Perhaps you and Mr. Steelman can have a little conference together where you can compare notes about how terrible we liberals are and how you will fix the problem with just a little violence.
Your thoughts and vindictiveness are/is the complete and total opposite from what the Founding Fathers of this nation had in mind at it's conception. And yet, just like Mr. Steelman, you expect all the protections and freedoms that they instilled in the greatest experiment on Earth without anyone else having those rights as well. Perhaps you could take a little time and actually use some of the Christian ethos so predominate in the conservative movement to benefit your fellow man.
Yes, I suppose liberals are taller in general. But the question is are they liberal because they can see over the tops of the ignorant? By all means, cut us off at the knees so that we can only see as far as you.
Have a nice day.
Jack,
How is democratic congress that can't override Bush veto, can possible do anything? You should research how many times he veto the bills. So before 2006 what was an excuse?