Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Vox Populi | Main | Let's Tax The Servers Here »

June 28, 2012

Comments

woo woo

"It would be astonishingly stupid to disregard Romneycare versus Obamacare."

Yes, state, federal, whats the diff?

Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA

"Kagan should have been challenged."
No one can do so. She either recuses herself or she stays.

Sure, I only meant in the court of public opinion.

PDinDetroit

I will plead the 5th Amendment when I will be filling out my taxes for the specific question of "Do you have Healthcare?", as I do not have to "self-incriminate" myself. This is a FINE not a TAX, which means that I have to be "breaking a law" to be fined.

cathyf
I believe Barrycare has provisions for assisting low income people in paying their insurance premiums. It will be the young and healthy middle class people who had exercised their freedom not to buy insurance who will have to decide how they would like to be coerced.
I'm hopelessly behind and should know better than to post, but somebody posted this earlier and I think that it misses the point. The people who are getting screwed are the young and healthy middle class people who had exercised their freedom -- and prudence -- to buy health insurance, and will no longer have health insurance because their employers will discontinue it. The numbers are stark and brutal -- employers will pay the fine rather than provide the insurance. As the risk pool shrinks, insurance will become more and more expensive, causing the risk pool to shrink more. A "vicious cycle" which ends in a total implosion.

Then everyone -- healthy middle class young people, sick poor old people, everyone will experience bankruptcy if they get sick. Families will break up when one member gets sick as the only way to prevent the whole family from being driven into poverty. A huge amount of accumulated health care capital investment will be abandoned since no one can afford to use it.

There won't be any "deciding how to be coerced." Faced with a government which will have destroyed any private system that allows the not-mega-rich to afford health care, the citizenry will have only one choice -- throw themselves upon the mercy of the politicians to pay for their health care. Faced with a government which will have destroyed any private system that allows the not-mega-rich to afford health care, the health-care providers will have only one choice -- throw themselves upon the mercy of the politicians to pay them for providing health care.

Danube of Thought

George Will:

"By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, 'the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.'

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asked where the Constitution authorized the mandate, exclaimed, 'Are you serious? Are you serious?,'she was utterly ingenuous. People steeped in Congress’s culture of unbridled power find it incomprehensible that the Framers fashioned the Constitution as a bridle. Now, Thursday’s episode in the continuing debate about the mandate will reverberate to conservatism’s advantage."

The Democrats are right to say "let's move on." We will move on to the November election, and they will either win it or lose it. If they lose it, the mandate for the repeal of Obamacare will be as unambiguous as any in memory.

It will stand repealed, and can only be imposed again as an unequivocal tax, as determined today by a manifestly apolitical Supreme Court, already bathed in the glow of Strange New Respect from the left.

Enjoy your victory as you can, stupes. If you lose it in November you will have lost far more than you can imagine.

Thomas Collins

There are two things to be thankful for in this opinion. First, a majority of SCOTUS rejects the notion that the Commerce Clause is a general grant of police and social legislation power. Second, SCOTUS croaked the progs' scheme to penalize states for refusing to serve as the means to expand Medicaid.

Whether or not one agrees with the Chief Justice on the distinction between what is a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act and whether the mandate should be construed as a tax for purposes of deciding whether to uphold the mandate, I would respectfully disagree with the proposition that the Chief Justice is sucking up to the progism of the credentialled moronocracy. I think the Chief Justice's opinion was well reasoned.

Clarice

I agree with Will. Iowahawk, however, said the same thing more succinctly.

"David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog
Huge victory for President: court rules his widely-despised health care plan a huge tax increase"

Thomas Collins

The one area in which I would say that the Chief Justice's opinion fell short is that it gave short shrift to the argument that the mandate is a direct tax that has to be apportioned among the states in accordance with population. This part of the opinion, I think, deserved more of an effort than was apparent. See pages 40-41 of the opinion.

BR

Roberts' finesse or Roberts' folly, I say it's playing with fire.

"What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution." If this is truly a Romney quote, that's the bad thing about the decision. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government can interfere in health care at all.

Obamacare may be repealed, but the S.Ct.'s decision remains as precedent opening the door for future tyrannical laws.

The poor already don't pay tax, so they could care less if this is called a tax.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame