Supreme Court: ObamaCare Individual Mandate Is Constitutional As Tax
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the Court in the 5-4 decision. Or was it a 6-3 decision?
Bush appointed Roberts. Therefore, ObamaCare is Bush’s fault.
It will take time for legal scholars to figure out what the decision really means.
Now we’ll have an election about it.
Bad news for the country. Good news for the Romney campaign.
More from my site
Legal Attire Outside The U.S. Supreme Court But Not On The Asbury Park Boardwalk
Christie: SCOTUS confirmed what we knew all along–ObamaCare is a tax
Supremely Political: Did Roberts Pen BOTH Opinions?
What if Obama is declared ineligible?- Star Ledger Editor Tom Moran Calls Conservatives Racist
Analysis: GOP can no longer look to court to repeal Obamacare
Chief Justice Roberts’ Foley
Time to stop whining about Roberts’ decision and think about what’s nextObamaPallone Care Even Worse Than Critics Thought
THE NEW HUB OF MARXISM: WASHINGTON, DC
The vote was 5 to 4, not 6 to 3.
ROMNEY 2012
Great day in America!!
Looks like the 26 states that sued won on the Medicaid expansion – Court has ruled not in Congress’ power to withhold Medicaid funding from states who opt out of the expansion. Congress could provide funding, but can’t force by withholding funds. National government mandate…national government pay!
60% of the American people oppose the individual mandate; GOTV in November.
Oh, President Obama piously proclaimed that “this was not a tax”. Now what did that one Congressman yell out? “You Lie!”
Check out what Romney was saying in 2006. His campaign slogan should be “Do As I Say, Not As I Said!!”
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/06/28/multimedia/100000001633697/mitt-romney-in-2006.html…
Milhous is now not only the biggest spender in world history–he has now placed the biggest tax increase in world history on the American people. Good job.
It shows that voting Republican does not necessarily provide better Supreme Court decisions.
This “tax” on those without coverage will begin replacing the “tax” that all the insured currently pay when they go into the hospital and wind up paying $20 for an asprin or other outrageous charges to help cover the ones who don’t have any insurance.
People need to carry their fair share of the responsibility – everyone will need health care at some point in their lives – let them get coverage or pay the “tax” to do so. So many of us are tired of carrying the freight.
The sad fact is that young adults who rarely need to visit the doc are now the ones stuck carrying the “freight” for you.
ACA – Those young people you cite as being asked to carry the freight won’t have to do so until they get off their parents insurance when they turn 27 – correct? Lots of responsibilities tend to develop by 27 – getting a job (that provides insurance under this law) or marriage or maybe even kids – all have costs attached that I and my insurance coverage cover when they decide to not get insurance and show up at the ER looking for medical assistance – because they tend to deem themselves invincible at that age.
The court ruled that states that don’t expand medicare aren’t entitled to additional funding that the participating states will receive. Those states that don’t participate in the expansion will be heavily lobbied by the health care insurers to get on board with the expanded program — too much greed at play here.
Judge Roberts proclaimed “it” a tax.
I’m willing to bet that 50% of the “60% of the American people” who oppose the “individual mandate” don’t know what the individual mandate is and who actually is impacted by the mandate.
ACA is it like the freight that taxpayers (without children in school) carry when they subsidize public school education?
Pilgrim – the taxpayers (with or without children) are the ones that use heathcare so if they want to call themselves freight, then so be it
Pilgrim – One other thing, everybody is now going to have to put some money in the healthcare cost pot – even those who show up at the ER that don’t currently have insurance or think they will never need it. They now have to take some responsibility for themselves and start getting insurance and getting out of my wallet when I & my insurance go to the hospital
Nice democrat talking point Joe Wedick.
There are three type of people without health insurance. Those who can’t afford it, those who can afford it but decide to spend the money on something else and those so rich they don’t need it. The last group does not effect us but is it fair that they have to pay a penalty/tax?
The first group is the largest and will become larger under the new medicaid rules so we will wind up paying more taxes to cover that. As for the second group, how large do you think that group is after you remove the other two groups and what do you really think they cost you?
The problem is the government. Get them out of health care and more people will get healthcare at lower prices.
Mlaffey – We are paying for the largest group you cite – those that can’t afford it – right now, before the decision came down from on high. They all use the ER now for every little thing – WE ARE PAYING FOR THEM NOW through higher premiums – let them kick in to the payments with this “Tax” to take the pressure off my premiums!!!!
Annual double digit increases in my premiums to cover them has to stop. Tax them – not me
Mlaffey – Am I correct that you don’t want the government collecting this “Tax” from people without insurance and would rather continue to allow them a complete free ride at the ER?
Joe, yes you are correct. I don’t want government doing this. The government is taking away someones freedom. Maybe next time it will be mine.
The people who can truly afford it don’t buy it, the 20 and 30 year olds known as “young invincibles” are not using that much free medical care and are not driving up your medical costs. That is a Democrat lie. The reason forcing them to get insurance will cause rates to go down is because they are the most healthy cohort and when healthy people buy insurance (which they don’t use) it causes rates to fall. That is the real reason Obama Care is forcing them to buy insurance.
Mlaffey – Young 27 year olds shouldn’t have health insurance? Then why do colleges insist they have it when they are 18 and just entering? Perhaps because they need it? Maybe they should do away with that?
So Keep the status quo and let those that show up at the ER without insurance continue the free ride – that’s your solution?
If you want, you can gladly pay my share of the cost for covering those that refuse to get insurance, but demand heath care at the ER door.
Unless you have a plan that will not allow that to happen anymore. If so, let’s hear it.
I did not say 27 year olds should not have insurance. I said that is their decision. It is a free country.
yes I do have a plan. First if you do not have insurance (unless you are indigent) and can’t pay out of pocket. NO care.
That should be incentive enough to buy it.
Then allow insurance to be sold across state lines and do away with all mandates. That way people can find a policy that they can afford that gives them the coverage they need. Then give them medical savings accounts where they can put pretax dollars away to cover medical bills and insurance. For the very poor you subsidize the accounts. These reforms would result in more insured, lower insurance costs and ultimatly control the rise of medical costs through the market.
You still miss my main point Joe. You are being taken in by a talking point that sounds good but is nonsense. There are not that many people who can afford insurance AND refuse to buy it using free treatment at hospitals. Most of these young people do not really need that much medical care. The real reason that the democrats want to force them to get insurance is that when you add people to the insurance pool who do not use the insurance (in this case because they do not get sick that often) it lowers insurance rates for the older people who use the insurance more often. So is it right to FORCE them to subsidize our insurance?
Mlaffey – No insurance – no care? Yeah right, tell that to some bleeding guy in the ER.
Allowing insurance across state lines is nuts – like credit card companies & their rates – notice all the companies go right to the states with the least regulation about the product being offered? NJ residents being covered by another states insurance laws – with nothing legally to say about it? We couldn’t vote for or against the state rep that passed the watered down rules & regs that another state passed.
What is not right is taking away MY right to spend MY money – that would be going to pay the double digit premium increases to cover the free loaders – the way I want to. So why do colleges insist on 18 year olds having insurance?
OK Joe, then have nationally charted Insurance companies just like you have Nationally chartered banks. Believe me if insurance was affordable and people knew that they could not get free care they would get insurance.
Here is the problem with the current system and Obamacare. People have no incentive to shop for better deals and providers have no incentives to cut costs.
Government will not be able to pay for what they want to do without either taxing us into bankruptcy, rationing health care or instituting price controls which will cause shortages in health care services.
The fact is that everytime government touches health care it has gotten more expensive. Do you really expect that to change?
Joe I am repeating this in a separate post because unless you are just ignoring this inconvenient truth you are not reading to the end of my posts.
You still miss my main point Joe. You are being taken in by a talking point that sounds good but is nonsense. There are not that many people who can afford insurance AND refuse to buy it using free treatment at hospitals. Most of these young people do not really need that much medical care. The real reason that the democrats want to force them to get insurance is that when you add people to the insurance pool who do not use the insurance (in this case because they do not get sick that often) it lowers insurance rates for the older people who use the insurance more often. So is it right to FORCE them to subsidize our insurance?
Mlaffey – I’m not missing your point – I understand that many people in the pool dilute the payments. I also know that the government (Bush Admin.) did not allow the government to use as negotiation leverage with the Pharm. companies the millions of seniors using Medicaid – that would have brought down the costs of prescription drugs – so you are right – sometimes the government does make health care more costly than it has to be. As to collecting this “tax” – I have no problem with the IRS doing what it already does, collecting money.
As to young people not using or needing healthcare as much – correct. But like a public school system and its’ costs, people without kids or those whose kids are no longer in the system help pay to keep it going, because of others who need it. Society needs to have that basic element avail. to all legal citizens – everyone needs and will use an education- same goes for health care and the insurance that goes along with it. I’m not going to pay for someone else if they aren’t at least kicking something into the pot.
At least the truth has come out.
“Society needs to have that basic element avail. to all legal citizens – everyone needs and will use an education- same goes for health care and the insurance that goes along with it”
You believe in the nanny state that should provide everything for us and will grasp at any straw to justify it.
Enough said. You can have the last word. I am done trying to reason with a wall.
I believe in everyone taking responsibility for themselves – let the government collect the “tax” from the freeloaders who go to the ER – I’ll continue to pay for my insurance.
Mlaffey – I still am shaking my head that you think providing a K to 12 education is the fearsome “Nanny state”. Absolutely amazing…..hey 21st century meet the 12th.
I said no such thing and you know it. Typical Democrat mouth piece, twist the truth to make a point
Mlaffey – So following my statement about providing a school system, your response “You believe in the nanny state that should provide everything for us and will grasp at any straw to justify it.” – “everything” didn’t include the schools? The only other thing mentioned was health insurance. The word “everything” denotes more than 1 thing, right? Now, how is that twisting the truth?
Listen, you want to continue paying for the freeloaders, go right ahead – call all of your like monded friends and the whole group can reach out to the hospital and tell them you want to make a direct contribution to their charity care fund rather than have the ACA enacted. That way you can keep the government out of your life and help the rest of us who don’t want our premiums going up each year by double digits to pay for the freeloaders at the ER door – is that a “Democrat” talking point?
Your grasping at straws was comparing education ,a legitimate government function, with health care and believing a democrat talking point. Yes it is a democrat talking point because your premiums are not going up because of “freeloaders” that is a false premise.
In fact your premiums keep going up because of government policies that distort the free market.
732 739-5900 – Bayshore Community Hospital – Call them and let them know that you and your friends want to keep the government and its’ nanny state at bay by stepping up and paying for all of their charity case payments that have been amassed from the freeloaders that come to the ER door. Enough people doing this will keep my premiums from going up and may even drive the cost of the hospital’s $20 asprin charge to those with insurance down a bit.