Time to stop whining about Roberts’ decision and think about what’s next

By Harold Kane

On this our Independence Day I think that it is time for the Republican geldings to stop their whining over the Roberts Supreme Court decision and to think about what can be done with the decision. He reigned in the Medicaid expansion. That ruling stopped the Federal government from extorting the states. This portion of the ruling could have implications that we have not yet discovered.

The Obama Administration has granted ObamaCare waivers to 1,200 organizations. These were “thank you” to their supporters. They were granted under the false notion that ObamaCare was constitutional under article 8, the “commerce clause”. Apparently the regulation of commerce was construed to mean giving out goodies to your friends. However since ObamaCare was found to be constitutional under article 7, the taxing power, are the exemptions still valid? Under the tax laws enforced by the IRS we are all treated equally. If I get a deduction for dependent children, so do all citizens who meet the dependent child test. The IRS cannot arbitrarily decide who will get the child exemption based upon political favoritism. The question now becomes are all of the 1,200 exemptions null and void. If they are null and void I’m sure that Obama’s supporters that received them are going to be very unhappy and some of this unhappiness could exhibit itself on Election Day

Just as a note, Fox News played the tape of the Solicitor General making the case for article 7. Apparently this was plan B if the commerce clause was going to fall apart, which it did.

Posted: July 4th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: ObamaCare, U.S. Supreme Court | Tags: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

5 Comments on “Time to stop whining about Roberts’ decision and think about what’s next”

  1. Bob English said at 12:17 pm on July 5th, 2012:

    I’m far from an expert on this but regarding any increased burden on individual states, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis indicates that between 2014 and 2022, the ACA’s Medicaid expansion will add just 2.8 percent to what states spend on Medicaid, while providing health coverage to 17 million more low-income adults and children. Medicaid expansion will produce savings in state and local government costs for uncompensated care, which will offset at least some of the added state Medicaid costs. I think a big piece of that would come from people without insurance no longer using hospital emergency rooms (which are extremely expensive) as their main source of health care.

    So if increased cost to the states is minimal, any Governor that refuses the federal funds would have a lot of explaining to do to the millions of people that it would benefit.

  2. Barry said at 12:56 pm on July 5th, 2012:

    That CBO analysis is flawed because it included the 3 years the Federal government is picking up the additional money. Let’s see an honest analysis where the states pick up the entire tab for added individuals the law requires the state to add to Medicaid.

  3. Reader writes said at 1:23 pm on July 5th, 2012:

    The power to tax comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

    That requires NO free passes. When the health care law was passed under the Commerce Clause, the 1200 executive created exceptions were perfectly Constitutional. They are NOT under the taxing power. The taxing power has been modified, of course, by the Sixteenth Amendment or we’d have no income tax. But if you read the sixteenth amendment — The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. — it only modifies the taxing power for taxes ON INCOME. The Health Care penalty/tax is not based on income. It is a tax on a specific act or failure to perform an act, not a tax on income. Inadvertently — not surprising for such a hasty and contrived change of opinion by Justice Roberts — he has declared the execution of the health care act, the use of exceptions, unconstitutional. There is substantial Supreme Court case law that indicates that a law written to be executed in an unconstitutional manner is unconstitutional even if the language of the law does not immediately make it so. In other words, it would not be difficult to have a new Supreme Court rule that the act is unconstitutional after the November election based on the implementation the Act, particularly with the exceptions.

  4. Bob English said at 8:10 pm on July 5th, 2012:

    Barry…I’m pretty sure that the Govt is paying 100% of the cost for new people added to Medicaid for 3 years starting in 2014. After that they are paying 90%. I agree with you that the states need to figure out how much their 10% would cost starting in 2017.

    Hopefully the Governors especially from states with the highest amounts of people without health insurance such as Florida and Louisiana will judge the program on its merrits and not be against it just becasue its the Presidents program.

  5. RepublicanRed said at 8:49 pm on July 5th, 2012:

    Elect Joe Kyrillos to the U.S. Senate in November and then Republicans will take back control.

    Thats it in a nut shell folks…..

    Get out and help Joe K. win in November