This will however haunt Obama on the campaign trail... He's on records more times than I care to count swearing this wasn't a tax...
[quote]The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax," Roberts said in his opinion[/quote]
[QUOTE=JetPotato;4502736]There is no winning side today.[/QUOTE]
Sure there is. Those who favor State Power with the aim of Collectivism. A pretty clear cut win for them today. This power could, of course, be used against them, but I'll safely wager it never will be. But it will, I'd guess, be used again in the aims of liberalism/progressivism/collectivism of policy.
If I had to bet on it, I'd bet the next "Mandate" will involve Climate Change/Green Tech/Environmentalism in some form.
I'm actually OK with certain parts of the law (DISCLAIMER: I personally benefit by one provision of it, and it's not because of a health benefit I receive) I am [U]not [/U]with the mandate. The hypocrisy of libs being for it then their employer/association opting out via a waiver stinks too.I'd love to hear how a Federal tax can be “waived". Also Occufilth aka 0's SA tell us how bad corporations are now (D) forces you to pay them bad boys a tax!
Allowing insurance co's to compete, tort reform, higher insurance rates/rsk pools for pre-existing conditions/catastrophic circumstances are other solutions that would have been better
There are ways to get even and they are all within the rule of law
Most importantly by voting like a patriot/intelligent person in Nov. by selecting candidates who will repeal it.
Fire the leech that mows your lawn and have your kid do it. Other household work? Fire the GC that picks up ungrateful parasites to do it and take a stab at DIY or get a reputable firm in
Tax defer as much income as possible
B. Hussein promised no new taxes on the middle class - :rotfl:
EDIT: Cantor has just announced that they will start on the week of July 9 to repeal what is left of Obamacare.
In the long-term this will be a victory for conservatives. The SC is calling us out. The law is upheld on what basically is a technicality. No judicial activism here. We need to be the activists.
Based on what I have heard, none of the Justices believe this is a "smart law" or that it is good for the country/economy. They merely concluded that it is Constitutional b.c Congress has the power to tax.
[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4502748]30 Million more Americans will now have health care that did not have it previously.
That includes millions of children with chronic illnesses who were previously let go.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. The court’s holding on medicaid, finding as unconstitutional the federal government’s withholding of medicaid funds from states who choose not to lower their enrollment standards so as to provide health care to millions more people, is [B][I]finis[/I][/B] for B. Husseincare.
States will be entitled to the funds but don’t have to expand their medicaid rolls as required under the Act. Millions of additional people which were guaranteed by Obama health care [U]won’t[/U] get it and, as a result of the ruling on the mandate, he has imposed on every citizen a huge tax.
Which of course it isn't! :rolleyes:
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-28-2012 at 11:38 AM.
[QUOTE=Warfish;4502740]Sure there is. Those who favor State Power with the aim of Collectivism. A pretty clear cut win for them today. This power could, of course, be used against them, but I'll safely wager it never will be. But it will, I'd guess, be used again in the aims of liberalism/progressivism/collectivism of policy.
If I had to bet on it, I'd bet the next "Mandate" will involve Climate Change/Green Tech/Environmentalism in some form.[/QUOTE]
Just because the supposed winners are blind to the consequences of their "victory", doesn't mean they don't lose as much as the rest of us. They just don't know it yet.
If you want to take it further, then realize this: this ruling essentially makes Obama a liar. This mandate has been ruled a viable tax. If this identical bill had been presented to the public 2 years ago under that guise, it would have suffered even less than the 37% support it got. There is no chance it would have passed. Likewise, any similar bill going forward will have no chance if a similar penalty tax is attached. It can now only be expressed as a tax, as the Justices have ruled that it does not fly under the commerce clause. That piece of ammo is dead in the water for the left.
Only ruling I care about today is the mandate. It's unconstitutional, it's a terrifying new power the Governemnt should not have in any form, and it should be struck down.
The rest of the bill can stay, it's legal IMO. Regulation of existing commerce is a clear right of Congress. Hwo to pay for it is Congresses job to then figure out, but it has to be legal and constitutional if they want it.
As for Holder, meh, don't know. I get a "birther" feeling here that (R) is being strung along for the eventual (D) "see, look, nothing was up at all, look at these evil racist (R) going after us for nothing again, just like the birther issue". Any wrongdoing that was done, and I do belive there was, will be covered up, shredded or lost, and the end result is the (R) House looking like professional birthers right at election day.[/QUOTE]