Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Thursday ObamaCare Death Watch | Main | Let's Play Two! On To Holder »

June 28, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2017742cd60c3970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Let's Tax The Servers Here:

Comments

peter

Roberts wanted to be invited to all those inside the beltway dinners for the rest of his life. He did not want to be the pariah. Not totally surprising considering the Supremes refused to take on the birth certificate issues, or the GM bankruptcy screwing of creditors.

Jane

Anyone know what time the contempt vote is taking place?

And I agree with Jim Rhoades opinion of Roberts in the last thread.

BTW the republican governors have decided to ignore the decision.

Two can play Obama's game.

Sara

Will Seniors ignore the $500 billion cut to Medicare? Dems have been scaring seniors for years about how Repubs want to take their Medicare away. Well, now we know it isn't Republicans but Democrats who want to screw seniors.

Jane

Sorry I misspelled your name Jim. I will repost your dissent as an apology:

I don't believe John Roberts is a squish. He was picked as Chief because he was the best SCOTUS advocate of his generation, and was a conservative with Federalist credentials. Had he not made this call, we would have had a 5/4 ideological opinion. If you doubt me, read the Ginsburg dissent.

Obama would have had a real hobby horse to run against, and would have pushed to demonize the current make up of the court. FDR provided the template, and a demagogue like ElJefe would have happily used the Court as the squirrel to chase while the economy circled the drain. Now he and Pelosi and Reid have a real political health care mess on their hands to go along with a tanking economy.

Danube of Thought

What are we hearing thus far from those who deplore having the Court get involved with politics?

Sara

REPEAL!

Ranger

Ok, I was just out grabbing some lunch and heard a pundit on FOXnews making the same point I made in the other thread...

What the SC did on the Medicaid side means states can just opt out of expanding Medicaid, and all those people who would have been eligable for expanded Medicaid, but now arn't, sujbect to the 'Mandate-Tax.'

Threadkiller


Gersten also pointed out that Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself of the Gomes v. Countrywide. “It would be nice to know why because it doesn’t normally happen,” Gersten said.

http://www.loansafe.org/forum/loan-modification/43713-u-s-supreme-court-declines-review-mers-challenge.html

Rick Ballard

I'll reserve my thoughts regarding Roberts pending further accretions to the corpus of his work. At the moment I find him a fine five legged sophist, regardless of the political effect of his sophistry.

If he sought to maintain the level of respect for the Supreme Court extant at the moment, he has succeeded in my case. The Warren Court took it to the zero bound and it ain't moved a millimeter since.

Captain Hate

What are we hearing thus far from those who deplore having the Court get involved with politics?

They're so conditioned for situational ethics that I doubt this even produced a galvanic skin response.

centralcal

Jay Cost ‏@JayCostTWS

The more I think about this, the happier I am. Roberts was SMART and conservative here. And we'll have him for 20+ more years.

Jane

This will make you feel better about the decision.

NK

CaptH@1250-- excellent snark.

TomM-- The link to Amy Howe-- even though she's a Lib she gives a very fair reading of Robert's ruling. And make no mistake, he was one man here.

centralcal

Jane: Don't know the exact time of the vote, but you can watch the action on-line here:

http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fastandfurious/

Stephanie

Over at Volokh per Ace:

Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”). Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.

daddy

On Local Talk a State Politician just said she will propose increasing the Funding for our Attorney General from 1 Million to 10 million in order to enable the state AG to better sue the Federal Govt as required as a result of this ObamaCare decision.

bgates

John Roberts...was a conservative with Federalist credentials

The Constitution was a delegation of limited, enumerated powers. Now, "Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do", writes the one-time Federalist.

NK

Jane's link to Jay Cost-- I agree with the Jay Cost comment -- I know Iknow, it's what I've been saying. But at least I'm consistent!

Porchlight

My dad's take, via email. Sorry dad if you're reading this but I thought it was worth sharing.

One commentator’s reaction was “Is this a Marbury v. Madison” where the executive got his result, but at the cost of loss of future power (Insty: Has Roberts pulled a Marbury, appearing to give ground while actually laying the foundation for change in the future? Call that an optimistic reading.) All in all, I’m satisfied. The commerce clause has a limit; the Medicaid provision is a big deal (states can opt out of the new requirements without losing existing benefits) and this reasoning may be applied to other obnoxious laws; Obama can’t blame the Court; Obama is responsible for a tax increase (although it seems that only the penalty is the tax, not the forced purchase of insurance). When I’m in a purist mode, I want the whole thing thrown out. But in practice, this needs to be repealed by Congress after an election in which it was a primary issue. I think the odds of that happening increased.
Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Hey Porch:

Your dad is a wise man;>)

Captain Hate

Your dad's a smart man, Porch.

Neo

Erick Erickson: “On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now.”

Perhaps, the SCOTUS is on to something here. Tax the hell out of everything. Don't send people to jail, tax them big time.

Jane

Thanks CC. Stephanie, if that is true, well that is beyond anything I can imagine.

(OT the congressass from Massachusetts just got up and made his statement in the F&F hearing. The statement in full:

"George Bush started this operation."

jimmyk

This will make you feel better about the decision.

Sorry, but I don't feel better. The Commerce clause has a limit, but now anything the government wants to make us do it can simply call the penalty for failure to comply a "tax" and it's okey-dokey.

And I'm not sure I understand the Medicaid ruling. Why can't the Feds "tax" the states for not complying?

Sara

Just for the record, since at least one person here thinks this is a Romney plan:

Jack is Back

Porch,

Exactly my analysis I shared on previous thread. Your Dad and I are soul mates here.

It also means that the Senate and House look more and more big time pickups over what had been predicted before the decision. I still believe the Progs haven't noticed that instead of this being a big validation of Obama's presidency and political legacy it is actually a huge deficit to his campaign.

Porchlight

Thanks Jim and Cap'n. I have never been one of those kids that think they're smarter than my parents. Both my folks operate on about 10x my mental horsepower. ;)

Porchlight

and thanks JiB too. ;)

NK

Porch-- will your dad consider adopting a middle aged guy? his opinion is spot on IMO.

Stephanie-- Roberts changed vote? No conspiracy-- use Occam's Razor. When they met in conference in early April --5 Justices said commerce clause fails, and Roberts assigned himself to write the commerce clause fails opinion. He started drafting, and through discussions and drafts the 4 LIBERALS adopted Roberts final position to use the Tax power, so long as 2 Libs agreed with the Medicaid Federalism argument. Roberts was always the same-- the 4 Libs changed position to form a different majority. The 4 conservatives refused to change their opinion that the tax power was a sham figleaf, so it was not unamimous. IMO, something like that happened-- Roberts positioned himself to alway control the final decision. Don Giovanni Roberto.

Porchlight

I still believe the Progs haven't noticed that instead of this being a big validation of Obama's presidency and political legacy it is actually a huge deficit to his campaign.

I believed that if the law were entirely overturned, it would be a huge blow to the re-election campaign because "Obama's signature reform declared void" etc.

So if I'm being honest, all things being equal, this decision should be a boost to the campaign, right?

But all things are not equal. The law has been unpopular from the beginning. The progs' blindspot on this will now grow even larger.

Stephanie

the Medicaid provision is a big deal (states can opt out of the new requirements without losing existing benefits)

And... maybe I'm being dense, but

Uninsured goes to hospital

Hospital incurs costs to treat

Hospital notifies government that you are uninsured

Government sends uninsured a tax bill

Government keeps tax revenue

Hospital gets stiffed as government didn't offset their costs with the tax

Net result the uninsured still got "free" treatment, the hospital still got "stiffed" and spread the costs to the insured and the government got additional revenue for doing nothing

So status quo with a lot more shit thrown into the mess (sabot/sabotage to quote the chick on Star Trek)

What am I missing?

NK

Porch@1:18-- now you are being wise. I agree with that. 'Bam has gone from the frying pan of SCOTUS invalidation to the fire of defending the $400B tax and lying about it.

bgates

The Commerce clause has a limit, but now anything the government wants to make us do it can simply call the penalty for failure to comply a "tax" and it's okey-dokey.

-and the elected branches can explicitly deny it's a tax until the bill has been passed through Congress, signed into law, and had its constitutionality challenged all the way to the SC (at which point they still don't need to use the t-word, they can just refer to NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.)

centralcal

Maybe, maybe not - Porch! Twitter says Ed Schultz is having a meltdown because the "decision helps Romney."

Maybe some liberals are over their momentary euphoria and thinking - hey, wait! LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!!!!

Stephanie

I'm calling it 'free' treatment assuming he showed up for a heart attack and got fined $5,000 for procedures that cost the hospitals etal $500,000....

Again What am I missing?

Windy Daze

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but it makes me respect Roberts more than I did a hour ago...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304280/insight-mind-justice-roberts-kathryn-jean-lopez

Porchlight

Thanks, NK. Interesting if your speculation is true because if so, it indicates that Roberts has considerable influence on the liberals on the Court.

Captain Hate

Special Ed is smarter than the troll; what are the chances?

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Not Ed Shultz. Say it isn't so. I wonder if it will soon dawn on Juan Williams?

Frau Jetzt oder Nie

And, Porch, your children are in good hands, too, with you to guide them.

Jane, I appreciate the link. I feel the Tea Party will be stirred to action on a grand scale. This time, we shall fill the whole fracking city. A tax on every citizen in the land!
...except those with waivers or no tax to pay.

bgates

Good news, the federal government is limited in what it can do to you under the Commerce Clause , and can impose ObamaCare only through the taxing power.

And when the IRS comes to get the money from you, they will have limited success in using clever wordplay and puns, and will have to fall back on being thousands of men with firearms.

And when they shoot you with the firearms, you will sustain limited temporary damage from the holes in your clothes, and only really need to worry about shock, blood loss, and destruction of vital organs.

Sara

Romney campaign announces a million dollars in donations so far since ruling announced.

NK

Porch-- 'influence' over the Liberals? well here his influence was if you don't go along with the federalism, I'll just vote with the 5 conservatives to invalidate the whole law. I gues leverage is a form of influence. BTW-- Weekly Standard quotes the dissent attacking Roberts for being a sophist. Kennedy calling someone a sophist-- Hmm... Mr Justice kennedy believes in Sophistry for me but not for thee. the quote: The dissenters concluded that Roberts’ reading of the mandate as a tax “carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.”

Chubby

Thanks for posting your dad's take on the decision Porchlight, and I think he's correct. (I bet people say you take after him.)

bgates

The quote that makes Kathryn Lopez and Windy Daze feel better:
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

The modern thing would be to save that sentence as a macro in a word processing program, but given the Court's low-tech fetish and devotion to tradition (dating back to the 30s), I suggest they put it on a rubber stamp.

AliceH

Citizens don't get waivers. Businesses do. The waiver allows the business to continue to offer (or not) whatever they currently do as a health insurance benefit for their employees. The employees have the exact same liability either way - buy it or pay the tax.

derwill

Via Althouse, this is why it will end up hurting Obama:

1. Obama imposed a huge new tax on working people.

2. Obama deceived the American people by saying it was not a tax, when it was.

3. The law made it look like money would go to insurance companies — in the form of new premiums — that would keep premiums low as the companies were required to take on people with pre-existing conditions, but now we find out that the money is really going to go to the federal government. [ADDED: So get ready for your premiums to spiral up and/or for insurance companies to be ruined.]

Romney can now campaign on: Obamacare imposes the biggest tax hike on the middle class and poor in history. And thanks to Obamacare all you voters out there who already have medical insurance will now see your premiums skyrocket in the future.

The Supremes might have declared Obama's signature legislation basically constitutional, but a crap sandwich is still a crap sandwich. If they'd struck it down he could have campaigned on "that mean ol' conservative Supreme Court took away your right to free health care, which is why you have reelect me, so that more good liberal judges get put on the court and the you can get free stuff." But now Obama has to campaign on defending that crap sandwich of a tax hike on the poor and middle classes and people's health insurance premiums necessarily skyrocketing.

bgates

Mr Justice kennedy believes in Sophistry for me but not for thee.

All this decision required was a 5th Justice to be as opposed to sophistry as Mr Justice Kennedy.

Porchlight

Again What am I missing?

I think what you've described is correct, Stephanie. It is one reason why the law is horrible. But horrible and unconstitutional are not the same thing and Roberts did not argue that they were.

But you referenced the Medicaid provision. Medicaid provision ruling(as I understand it) says that the feds can't punish the states for refusing to expand Medicaid and blowing up their budgets. I think it's somewhat separate from what you're describing.

daddy

Cboldt posted this on the other thread:

"A bill to repeal a tax takes 60 to get through the Senate, and 2/3rds in both chambers when the pres__ent vetos it."

Simplistic question, but if our side calls it "a mandate" just like it was called when it was passed on to us, can we vote to overturn and only require 51 votes.

Seems to be a lot of semantics going on.

NK

bgates-- you can't be serious-- Kennedy opposed to sophistry? only when he's on the receiving end. Sophistry should be Kennedy's Headstone epitaph at Arlington National.

Porchlight

Citizens don't get waivers. Businesses do. The waiver allows the business to continue to offer (or not) whatever they currently do as a health insurance benefit for their employees.

Exactly, and the businesses who get waivers can only continue to offer whatever they currently do as long as their insurance companies allow them to. The businesses may be exempted from Obamacare requirements but they won't be exempted from their insurance company changing their plan, or increasing premiums, or going bankrupt altogether.

"If you like your health care plan, the waiver I have granted you may or may not enable you to keep it." --Obama

NK

To anyone who doubts Porch's dad, JiB, JimR and my take on what Roberts has done, I give you Charles Schumer. Of course Schumer is a disgusting cretin of the highest order, but he's very smart and politically shrewd-- below is his offical response to the SCOTUS-- no football spike for him-- let's move on off of Healthcare-- he knows Obamacare debate is poison for Senate Dems and 'Bam: "This decision preserves not only the health care law, but also the Supreme Court's position as an institution above politics. Just as Speaker Boehner vowed not to spike the football if the law was overturned, Republicans should not carry on out of pique now that the law has been upheld. Democrats remain willing to cooperate on potential improvements to the law, but now that all three branches of government have ratified this law, the time for quarreling over its validity is over. Congress must now return its full-time focus to the issue that matters most to the public, and that is jobs."

AliceH

Here's how I understand the medicaid provision.

Before the ruling: Feds tell states, today you get 100 quatloons from us to cover 50x people. Change your rules for qualification to include another 50x people and we'll give you 125 quatloons. If you don't do it, we're going to take away the 100 quatloons you get now.

After the ruling: Feds allowed to give 25 more quatloons to states that choose to comply with their new rules, but cannot stop giving 100 quatloons to states that opt out of the new deal and remain under rules of the old deal.

Jack is Back

Stephanie,

What if you're homeless or indigent - no income. How do you tax someone who has nothing, how do you enforce? Throw them in jail? Incur another cost for the Feds.

If you are uninsured but have income the hospital can garnish your wages if you don't pay up, right? Then you get taxed on top of it. Sounds like the kind of mugging that makes more Tea Party members.

I don't know how this uninsured works but the hospital in Southampton (my hometown) had a $14 million deficit some years back and 90% of it was from treating illegals. How do the Feds collect taxes from illegals if they are day workers?

NK

AliceH-- that's my understanding, yes.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

The 7-2 decision preventing the feds from coercing/extorting state medicaid expansion at pain of withdrawal of existing medicaid funding was a big f***** deal, especially with Kagan and Breyer concurring.

centralcal

Republicans (Kyl, etc) are saying they will use "reconciliation" to repeal Obamacaretaxes.

Voldemort Delenda Est !                   Sandy Daze

Well, the arc of opinion is moving quickly on these threads. . . extrapolation suggests that in a shorter half-life than the similar executive efforts (e.g. war on women--Fluke), this SC decision will be seen, as JiB infers, three-dimensional chess playing by Roberts.

I believe that the conservative and Republicans in every elected office should strongly embrace the SC decision.
¨Now Obamacare is exposed for what it actually is, the largest tax increase int he history of the world. . .¨
¨We thank the non-politically driven SC for the wisdom of their decision, deciding that in fact Obamacare is a tax increase--the largest tax increase in the history of the world
¨Yes, non-political decision. . .--we are pleased that a bi-partisan majority of liberal and conservative judges have determined, above all, that Obamacare is a tax--the LARGEST TAX in human history.¨

Voldemort and his ilk will rue the day of this decision.

REPEAL THE OBAMATAX. over and over and over
¨

MarkO

Lyle Denniston

Since President Obama signed the new law, it has been understood by almost everyone that the expansion of health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans without it could work — economically — only if the health insurance companies were guaranteed a large pool of customers. The mandate to buy health insurance by 2014 was the method Congress chose to supply that pool. It is not immediately clear whether the Court’s approach will produce as large a pool of new customers. The ACA’s key provision amounts to an invitation to buy insurance, rather than an order to do so, with a not-very-big tax penalty for going without.
The reality, of course, is that the health insurance industry was never guaranteed a vastly larger pool of premium-payers. The “minimum coverage” provision (that’s the technical name Congress gave what most people have called a mandate) was never to be enforced on its own — that is, the Affordable Care Act has never told people to buy insurance or you go to jail. It was always going to be enforced only by requiring an individual who refused to get health insurance to pay a tax.
What might say, then, that what happened on Thursday was that the Court brought into full public view — perhaps for the first time — the fact that the nation’s health care market is going to have as customers only those who opt to buy insurance rather than pay a tax. How this would work out, in real-world terms, may not be known for a couple of years, because this part of the new health care law is not due to go into effect until 2014.

bgates

Kennedy opposed to sophistry?

Vastly more so than Mr Chief Justice Roberts.

Ranger


After the ruling: Feds allowed to give 25 more quatloons to states that choose to comply with their new rules, but cannot stop giving 100 quatloons to states that opt out of the new deal and remain under rules of the old deal.

Posted by: AliceH | June 28, 2012 at 01:51 PM

Yes, and that is key to gutting Obamacare because those extra people where supposed to be put on Medicaid to avoid falling under the mandate requirement. Now they won't have access to medicare, so they are all subject to the mandate tax penalty.

Lots of working class people are going to see their earned income tax credit negated to pay their Obamacare penalty.

Stephanie

I only noted the medicaid provision as that is supposedly where those who can't afford/get insurance were supposed to land under Ocare. Private insurance for workers/ medicare for seniors / medicaid or exchanges for the indigent/intransigent, right???

So the courts essentially moved the costs of the 'free riders' back to the hospitals in those states that tell the feds to pound sand that they aren't going to take the bloat to their budgets. The bloat goes to the hospitals and they will bankrupt.

BTW under any version of the bill, according to the USCCB (via Gateway Pundit):

ACA fails to treat immigrant workers and their families fairly.ACA leaves them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money.This undermines the Act’s stated goal of promoting access to basic life-affirming health care for everyone, especially for those most in need.

So all those illegals in the emergency room are still gonna be there clogging up the works.

What a sham.

Sue

I'm sorry, we can spin this any way we want but in the end, the government can now make us do anything they want us to do. That is not a good thing.

Chubby

this great win for Obama may have been manufactured by ACME, like their beautiful exploding bouquets

Janet

I'm sorry, we can spin this any way we want but in the end, the government can now make us do anything they want us to do. That is not a good thing.

I agree.

Ignatz

--Roberts was SMART and conservative here.--

Then I'm proud to be a feebleminded libertarian.

Jane

12 democrats voter for the 1st resolution on Holder. I have no idea what one it is.

Sue

Janet,

It hurts even more to know it was done by a "conservative" court. There was never any question how the 4 liberals were going to vote. They hang, no matter what, just like the dems do. It is only conservatives and republicans that have to compromise and moderate.

I'm bummed. And I don't think electing Romney in November will undo anything done by this court today.

Porchlight

So the courts essentially moved the costs of the 'free riders' back to the hospitals in those states that tell the feds to pound sand that they aren't going to take the bloat to their budgets.

No, the cost of free riders will still be borne by hospitals in all states, as it is now and has been for years.

The courts didn't move any costs, they just said that the feds couldn't yank existing funding from states who do not expand Medicaid.

There will always be uninsureds using the hospitals in any given state with or without Obamacare and whether or not that state chooses to expand Medicaid.

bgates

I'm proud to be a feebleminded libertarian.

What you're not getting is this severely constricts the Left's ability to dictate our lives by having Congress penalize certain behaviors without incurring the political cost of using the word 'tax', because Roberts ruled that the Left has the ability to dictate our lives by having Congress penalize certain behaviors without incurring the political cost of using the word 'tax'.

Carol Herman

Well, it is a tax!

Roberts also understood that Anthony Kennedy would "write the dissent." So, the beauty here is that Roberts identified CONGRESS' ability to tax!

If this is a "win" for Obama ... He just learned that LYING and saying ObamaCare was NOT a tax just bit the dust.

Actually, a very clever majority opinion. Since everyone understands that "taxes must be paid." And, the IRS is tasked with making sure the law is followed.

Nobody wants to fool with the IRS and their abilities to collect taxes.

Why wasn't something so obvious stated ahead of time? Politicians think the word "TAX" is the 3rd rail.

Sue

What are the stocks looking like on insurance companies? They should be spiking, since the government just gave them a big win. Buy their product or pay a tax.

Sara

And I don't think electing Romney in November will undo anything done by this court today.

Huh?

He has sworn to do everything he can to repeal the monstrosity and barring that, he'll sign an executive order giving a waiver to everyone.

Get out there and work to take back the Senate and make Mitt's job even easier.

Sara

The two areas that I think (my opinion only) that Romney will want to see is the protection for pre-existing conditions and the ability to keep your kids on your policy until 26. And I only list the 2nd because the LDS church provides its own insurance to all employees and their families up to the age of 26. They do this because by the time a son or daughter concludes their Mission and returns to college, they are very close to 26 before they graduate and can begin to earn a living.

Sue

Sara,

Huh? Indeed. You need to figure out what the court did today. And quit trumpeting Romney. I'm voting for the dude, even though I would love to vote against him just to spite your ass.

daddy

I believe the Constitution was written in language for the Common Man to understand.

Whether sophistry, semantics, penumbra's whatever, I believe Robert's ruling today flies in the face of the Common Man's reading of the Constitution.

I cannot imagine any Constitutional Founding Father that I am familiar with looking at Robert's reasoning today and concluding that it jibes with the words or the spirit or the intent of the Constitution that they bequeathed us.

But as students of history through the ages, I am certain they would not be surprised by the decision we witnessed today.

Sara

Fuck you, Sue.

Captain Hate

And I don't think electing Romney in November will undo anything done by this court today.

Well no but when Congress does something to repeal it, there won't be a veto by President Romney.

Captain Hate

I hate to be in the strange position of being the moderate one, but let's put personal animosity on the sidelines until after November.

Sue

Capt'n,

How does that prevent future congresses and presidents from taxing me because I didn't replace my windows with energy efficient ones? The court said today we can be taxed for not purchasing a product or service. We are in that area that started welfare as we know it. "The public won't allow it. Public opinion will prevent unwed births from skyrocketing".

::sigh:: Every action has a reaction.

Captain Hate

daddy, as my fellow ACC non-attorney, put your faith in what Jim Rhoads and Clarice, among others, say.

bgates

Sue, that's not right. Guaranteed issue and community rating mean that you can get $1M coverage for $1K premium either before or after you incur $1M medical bills. The tax just means that if you don't pay beforehand, you have to send $100 to the government.

The health insurance industry is now a casino where you get to see all the cards before you place your bets.

Sara

You are correct CH and I should not get so angry, but I am so tired of certain people acting as if electing Romney is a bad thing and that somehow I'm so stupid that I can't understand what went down today.

I don't give a rat's ass who votes for Romney. If they don't vote for him, then they get what they deserve. It is time for people to get their heads out of their asses.

Windy Daze

I think the Supreme Court's ruling exposed ObamaCare for what it really is - a money wasting, job killer. It's a tax, which is why the Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional. Obama and his minions argued it wasn't a tax, and now their argument just went down the drain.

Obama can't use the excuse that it was the Republicans who prevented millions of Americans from obtaining "affordable" and "free" healthcare. He can't blame Bush for appointing Roberts (he'll still try). This is purely on Obama's shoulders.

Americans are not going to be happy.

These are good videos.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304285/obama-administration-officials-mandate-not-tax-claire-mahoney

And from the mouth of Obama:
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9337-video-obama-even-considers-the-individual-mandate-a-tax/

Captain Hate

Sue, it's up to us, the voters, to make sure people that won't do that are elected. As I said previously, I don't have any problem with the courts refusing to save our asses because we elect big spending imbeciles.

Jane

I do think Romney will get rid of it on day one. He's not much of a liar. His bigger problem is he hesitates to think things out when people want fast and smooth and cool answers.

I also think the left is not happy about this on any level. It's much less of a freebie for them now. The talking points will suck the same old people in but I don't see the independents rushing over to embrace a "tax".

Enlightened

Jeezuz - What is your problem Sara? Some of us can't stand Romney. Don't like it? Go to another blog. Kind of like that Romneycare shit you posted State vs Fed - I couldn't give two shits about that man, and his obvious hand in ObamaTax I mean RomneyTax. The perception of same-but-different is out there whether you like it or not. Resorting to personal attacks is the lib way - what a really, really stupid thing to say.

Sue

bgates,

Hmmm...the pre-existing clause. Okay, I see your point. We all drop our insurance and only get it when we need it, paying the fine, excuse me, tax.

marlene

Maybe this will make everyone feel a bit better...I saw a pick-up truck in the grocery store parking lot with a Reagan bumper sticker! His tailgate was plastered with anti-Obama stickers,so that made me smile.

MarkO

The purported economic benefit of the “mandate” was that there would be a forced demand for insurance which would, in theory, reduce the costs of insurance. Supply and demand. As it turns out, now, there is no mandatory purchase of insurance only a tax to support the government’s costs in picking up the bills of the uninsured.

How is that different from what existed before Obamacare, excepting of course, the leviathan of government regulations and panels?

Yo. Calling all economists.

Ranger

Sue, nothing in the constitution prevented congress from doing that before.

As the real Ben Franklin once said: "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while as the legislature is in session."

hit and run

Sue:
What are the stocks looking like on insurance companies? They should be spiking, since the government just gave them a big win. Buy their product or pay a tax.

Nope

Stocks of insurance companies fell and hospital companies rose sharply Thursday after the Supreme Court upheld a requirement that almost all Americans carry health insurance.

Insurance companies were down sharply as analysts rushed to sort out the ruling. Indianapolis-based WellPoint's stock fell 6 percent, UnitedHealth Group dropped almost 3 percent, and Aetna 3.6 percent.

Sara

What is your problem Sara? Some of us can't stand Romney. Don't like it? Go to another blog.

You go to another blog. Go over to Kos or DU or somewhere being stupid is celebrated.

Ignatz

--What you're not getting is this severely constricts the Left's ability to dictate our lives by having Congress penalize certain behaviors without incurring the political cost of using the word 'tax', because Roberts ruled that the Left has the ability to dictate our lives by having Congress penalize certain behaviors without incurring the political cost of using the word 'tax'.--

Thanks, bgates. I only wish I was a smart conservative so I could fully appreciate the brilliance of Roberts' decision.

Sue

Enlightened,

I like Romney. Always have. I don't think he would approve of Sara's campaign tactics for him.

Sue

Sue, nothing in the constitution prevented congress from doing that before.

Really? There was something in the constitution that said Congress could tax me for not purchasing a product and/or service?

AliceH

--a requirement that almost all Americans carry health insurance.--

Who gets to opt out? Is the opt-out limited to Amish and Native Americans?

Perhaps this is a good motive for us all to seek out our 1/32nd Cherokee ancestors.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame