IT’S HARD TO overstate how much was at stake as Chief Justice John Roberts began reading the Supreme Court’s decision on the health care law Thursday morning:the fate of 50 million Americans who lack health insurance; possibly, President Obama’s own fate; the outcome of a reform battle that dates back 100 years; and the scope of Congress’s powers going forward. The 5-4 decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was, first and foremost, a victory for the president and the law’s supporters. But it also stands as a victory of sorts for conservatives in the limits it sets on federal power.
The confusion as the decision was being announced — CNN and Fox News erroneously reported that the individual mandate at the heart of the law had been struck down — stemmed from Roberts’ unexpected approach to the case. He began by endorsing the argument made by the law’s opponents (and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy) that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Comments
It's not possible to intelligently analyze something that doesn't make sense. First, what's the difference between arguing that the commerce clause can't require health insurance, and that we must pay a penalty if we don't have health insurance? Second: this isn't a tax. A tax would be if ALL taxpayers had another payroll deduction like the one for Medicare, or heaven forbid, if the income tax rate was increased for everyone to cover health insurance for all. This is a penalty for not engaging in interstate commerce. Decision was made by denizens of the Land down the rabbit hole.
"Barbara" You are exactly right it isn't a tax it is a penalty. A tax action in order to persuade people to take a certain economic action. I get a tax deduction for owning a home, two in fact. A renter gets penalized for not owning home by not getting the deduction. An incentive for home ownership. You don't have to buy a home but there is an incentive to do so. The same is true here. The federal govt. is giving an incentive to take on personal responsibility and get health insurance. You don't have to get health insurance but you will pay a penalty. I have never understood why the libertarians and that's where this brouhah comes from are opposed to personal responsibility. You would have me pay for the ER treatment for those who can afford health insurance but choose not to. In the end I may have to subsidize the poor and that's okay. I dislike however paying for the gambler who says I can take care of myself and then can't.
The supreme Court ruled this is a TAX, like it or not. this opens up a can of worms for this law. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY&feature=youtu.be
"According to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty is merely a tax on not owning health insurance, no different from buying gasoline or earning income". I keep trying to put this shoe on my foot without success. So, if I refuse to buy gasoline, the IRS will send me a tax bill? It must make sense. After all the highest ranking lawyer in the land says it does. Maybe Scott Lehigh can unwrap this for everyone. This reasoning could also apply to bread. My wife says if they pass a law on bread our diets will be discarded and we'll start eating ice cream again too. Mr. Lehigh called me looney tunes the other day, so that must be my problem. Please send out a search party for me as I wander through the maze of legalize trying to understand what seems to me a totally insane collection of politicians and judges.
The idea that this decision is going to help Roberts legacy by showing that his court was not really politicized does not hold up. Roberts parsing of language in this situation is totally political. He gets to have a foot on each side of the aisle. He voted to keep the law, but threw in "tax" language to leave the door open for conservative attack. I totally agree with the position of not wanting to pay for the health care of folks who refuse to contribute to the system simply because they have some whacky reason for not doing it, whether it be gambling or some other excuse.
Aids Obama? Over 4.2 million came into Romney's coffers in less than 24 hours. He's now officially raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 another broken promise. He's done what Romney couldn't do, motivate Romney's base and almost guaranteed that not only do republicans keep the house but take the senate.
You can call it a "tax" if it makes you feel better, but the definition is rather irrelevant. As I pointed out renters are penalized in the tax code. If they desire the tax break they have to buy. If you wish to avoid the penalty you have to buy health insurance. Frankly it really doesn't matter what you call it the fact is if you have health insurance you are unaffected. I don't give the public much credit but I think to argue this is a "tax" increase will fall on deaf ears if no one actually has to pay it. Okay a few libertarians will get fined refuse to pay the tax and file their usual frivolous suits. Who cares?
Divider-in-Chief L - O - L!! shoved down our throats L - O - L!! unhinged and delusional L - O - L!! Divider-in-Chief L - O - L!! shoved down our throats L - O - L!! unhinged and delusional L - O - L!! Divider-in-Chief L - O - L!! shoved down our throats L - O - L!! unhinged and delusional L - O - L!!
I read every word of every article re: the Supreme Court's decision. I also read Scott Brown's opinion piece. I'm convinced of one thing: one of the biggest winners is Elizabeth Warren. Not only has Brown written a poorly-researched and factually erroneous piece, this is obviously the way he thinks! Now on to his votes in the US Senate (And the MA senate, as he so wonderfully brought up.) The blush is off the rose. Brown has a full plate of sloppy words and votes to swallow. The debates will be interesting and more than good theatre.
And if anyone knows rabbit holes, it's you Barbara. God save us from unelected loony toons with an opinion on how everyone else should live. No offense, of course.
The crying and whining on the Radical Right brings to mind the childish resistance to the odd-tasting spoonful of medicine that will make the little babies feel better, cure their ills, and ensure a bright, healthy future. Kick your little feet, throw your little tantrums. When you grow up, you'll realize that the grownups just want to do what's good for you. Now eat your damned broccoli!
Forgot to mention: if y'all haven't figured it out yet -- "Barbara" is Barbara Anderson - the one person in America who hates Massachusetts more than Mitt Romney.
So, just out of curiosity, does Fehrnstrom pay you by the post, falsehood or insult?