-
Payback Time
February 14, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Community Banks Face a Regulatory Cliff
November 21, 2012 | 120 comments
-
Happy Durbin Day
October 1, 2012 | 8 comments
-
How Senate Dems and Scott Brown Failed ‘Maxine Waters’ Test
March 28, 2012 | 34 comments
-
My NASCAR Buddy
March 21, 2012 | 27 comments
A Further Perspective
Obamatax Apologists
Obamacare and the 5-4 illegitimacy of liberal pundits.
It seems only yesterday that liberal pundits and politicians were proclaiming that a bitterly divided 5-4 decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare would deny the Supreme Court “legitimacy.”
Maybe that’s because it was as late as yesterday that liberals were making this argument. That is until a little after 10 AM, when a bitterly divided 5-4 Court barely voted to uphold Obamacare — or as it now should be known given the majority’s seriously flawed reasoning, Obamatax. Suddenly, a slim majority didn’t matter at all, as the Court was once again a wise tribunal.
“If they decide this by 5-4,” Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar told the Washington Post’s liberal blogger Ezra Klein last week, “then yes, it’s disheartening to me, because my life was a fraud. Here I was, in my silly little office, thinking law mattered, and it really didn’t.”
According to the plain language of Amar’s quote, any 5-4 outcome should have rendered his life “a fraud” and mean that law didn’t “matter.” Yet, mysteriously no such press release has been released by his office.
Or take (please take!) the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, who is infamous for decrying what he called Americans’ “freedom fetish” and praising New York City Michael Bloomberg’s soda size ban. In a June 21 post entitled “America’s Robed Radicals,” he wrote of the Roberts Court, “The express point has been to radically remake society, without a hoot of concern about whether it was being done by five or seven or nine.”
But suddenly when Roberts vindicated a law he favored, it was Tomasky who had not a “hoot of concern” about whether it was “five or seven or nine.” Now, it was all about who won the ballgame, no matter what the score was. “The bottom line is the bottom line,” he proclaimed a few hours after the decision. “Now [Obamacare] has teeth, and standing, and the presumption that America should give it a chance to work.”
Tomasky praised Roberts, as did many other progressive commentators throughout the day, for making “a legal rather than a political decision.” He said Obamacare supporters should answer just about any argument with the rejoinder that “John Roberts is on our side on this one.”
There are a couple problems with that argument, though, not the least of which is that Roberts succinctly made clear he was ruling on the constitutional, not policy, merits of the law. His opinion declared: “We possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”
But the main hole in Tomasky’s argument is that Anthony Kennedy, who — again just yesterday before 10 AM — was being hailed as the great “moderate” and “reasonable” hope and who has delighted liberals with various rulings from immigration to gay rights, blasted Obamacare’s provisions as constitutional abominations.
“The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding,” Kennedy joined with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito in writing. And Kennedy also joined with them in declaring that because “these parts of the act are central to its design and operation, and all the act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them … it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.” Just what exactly is it – even if one disagrees with the argument – that makes this line of reasoning “political” rather than “legal”?!
Roberts’ break from the logic and reason of these conservative and moderate justices was disappointing, but at risk of sounding like a cockeyed optimist, there are some silver linings. He seemed to insist on some concession from his liberal colleagues as the price for his going along. The concessions were mostly rhetorical, but in the long run, rhetoric can matter.
Every justice except Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in Roberts’ ruling that federal mandates punishing economic inactivity, such as not buying health insurance, cannot be justified by either the reach of the Constitution’s “commerce clause” or “necessary and proper clause.” By 8-1, the justices set a precedent affirming the arguments of libertarian Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who is considered the architect of the constitutional case against Obamacare, that could be used against similar mandates in the future.
However flawed Roberts’ tax justification is – and it is extremely flawed – it does put some limit on the government’s power in enacting such mandates. It means that any punishment beyond taxation, such as large fines or criminal penalties, would likely be struck down.
The other concession Roberts seemed to be reaching for is best called “truth in advertising.” It means that the decision of the Obama administration to finally admit before the Court that the law was just one big tax hike will have political costs. Sarah Palin displayed her rhetorical smarts with her tweet that “Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.”
Similarly, the savvy freshman Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) said in an email yesterday to supporters: “According to today’s United States Supreme Court ruling, ObamaCare is just a massive tax increase. The Democrats misled the American people and so did President Obama about this specific issue.”
Palin and Huizenga are keeping their eyes on the right target, and advocates of limited, constitutional government should follow their examples. While we can and should vehemently disagree with Roberts’ 5-4 opinion, conservatives should not stoop to the level of Amar, Tomasky, and other Obamacare shills who attack the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy” if it doesn’t rule their way. The Court was designed as part of our constitutional system by the Founding Fathers, and thus can never be illegitimate.
Rather, it’s the legitimacy of those partisan hacks dressing themselves up as serious Supreme Court observers that now more than ever is in doubt.
About the Author
John Berlau is Senior Fellow for Finance and Access to Capital at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and blogs at OpenMarket.org.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (147) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John Berlau
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/29/obamatax-apologists
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 6.29.12 @ 6:40AM
I read the decision and it has so many pirouettes in it that I'm surprised Justice Roberts didn't screw himself into the ground before he got it all out of his system. "This would be illegal if we used those words, so we'll use THESE words and presto! Now it's constitutional!"
The only good to come of this is that now the people will have to gird up their loins and turn out the people who foisted this abomination upon them and get this sucker repealed. And do it before more firms decide they are not going to hire anybody else, and more Catholic institutions start closing down. (I remember the people standing outside a closed American Standard plant in Buffalo, holding suddenly irrelevant picket signs, saying in stunned voices, "We didn't think they MEANT IT!")
Time to go Galt and go home.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 7:34AM
" any 5-4 outcome should have rendered his life "a fraud" and mean that law didn't "matter." Yet, mysteriously no such press release has been released by his office." - Of course you know that he meant 5 Conservatives v 4 Liberals. In which case it would seem quite political for the supposed NON-political branch of government. And that would have been a travesty. Instead, the law was upheld on pure Constitutional grounds, not party affiliation, as in Bush v Gore.
"It means that the decision of the Obama administration to finally admit before the Court that the law was just one big tax hike will have political costs." - Of course that is a load of horses***. IF you have health insurance today, there is no penalty, and voila, no tax. That is the case for some 250 million Americans right now. IF you don't have health insurance and you purchase it in 2014 when the health exchanges are in operation, there is no penalty, and therefore no tax. ONLY if you never purchase your own health insurance if you are not insured at work or elsewise (and therefore, it is your PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so), only then, is there a penalty, which is the tax. In 2014 the tax on an individual is $95.00.
OMG, let's storm the barn. $95.00 will break the bank, won't it? The days of free-riding on healthcare you don't have to pay for will be over. Everyone will need to pay their way and stop making the rest of us pay.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 7:34AM
Continued : So, yes, Obamacare is legitimate, has now been given the imprimatur of the Highest Court in the Land, and it's over. After a century of trying, we finally have healthcare for all Americans. (they may be exceptions).
As President Obama said yesterday, now we can get to the task of implementation and improvement as we go.
It was a landmark day for all Americans who now don't have to worry as much about falling ill, losing a job, getting old, or losing everything should you become ill. The personal responsibility nature of the law is a bedrock conservative principle and should be celebrated by the right, left and center. Obama 2012!
Nancy in NC| 6.29.12 @ 8:52AM
And you're on drugs.
I suppose all those illegals parking in the emergency rooms all over the country will buy health insurance.
And who will pay for health insurance for those who prefer spending their money on drugs or acrylic nails or booze? How do you like paying for all those responsible people?
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 9:17AM
Anyone not paying for insurance will be penalized (=tax). The law specifically excludes illegals from participating.
Will an Emergency Room turn an illegal in need of care away? Probably not. That's true today anyway.
But 40 million people that are citizens will not be freeloaders anymore.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 9:37AM
The Emergency Room is required by law (since '88, if I remember correctly) to provide treatment to ANYONE regardless of ability to pay. Thus the most expensive care is always available at no cost. It should come as no surprise that it is over consumed.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 9:56AM
And, this law will, among things, lower that cost for all of us. Your point is?
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 10:12AM
Purp,
The law created the problem. This one defies economics my increasing demand, but not supply and is not, according to CBO, fully funded and therefore drive up deficits.
You have an abiding faith the laws move economic reality. You will not be able to find a single example of that every being so.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 4:28PM
John, even if there is an economic cost, and I'm not sure anyone really knows precisely, some things are right and true and need to be done, because it is the right and just thing to do... and so it goes with universal healthcare.
Single payer would be even better, but we'll take this for now.
doramin| 6.29.12 @ 8:44PM
My stars Purp! It didn't take much to break down your argument completely and reduce you to that standard last line of liberal defense:
"Damn the consequences! It's the right thing to do!"
If things go according to Obama's plan, it won't be more than a few years until the healthcare system collapses completely. Those who can expect to actually know about these things have been warning us that massive numbers of medical professionals have been saying they will leave the profession if this goes into effect. That hospitals and practices will be shutting their doors. That huge numbers of insurance companies will be going out of business. That massive numbers of employers will be dropping coverage or raising their rates. That millions of people will be thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid just as they are both being cut back and reimbursements and red tape will make it impossible for doctors to accept such patients and cause mass suffering.
It's quite obvious that Obamacare is designed from the start to fall apart creating conditions that will force us desperate peasantry to tearfully supplicate our government overlords to establish a 100% government-run single-payer system.
You could just come out and admit that you know this damn well and you're all for it.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 5:50AM
Scare tactics and conspiracy theories? Don't you people ever get your fill of such crap, Dora? Any change in anything, and the sky is falling.
Well, the sky is already falling, and we've tried it your way for decades now, and if we did nothing, we would go bankrupt. We already spend 2x as much for healthcare as any other rich, industrialized country.
Of course the people who benefit from all this largesse - the providers, insurers are going to try to keep the gravy train going. Not all are on the gravy train, but I suspect the loudest critics are.
If this doesn't work, we'll try something else. What is the bfd? The old way is broken and bankrupting us, so let's try this.
It isn't government run, it's influenced by government, but States can have their own market exchanges for insurance with the pool of private insurers, or they can have the Feds run one for them.
In any case, private insurers run the whole thing with some quality standards and oversight by the Federal government. That is all.
If you don't have or buy insurance, you will pay the penalty (tax). So? You should. Why should the rest of us carry the free-riders?
Calm down, have some tea, and breathe. It'll be okay.
waapiti307| 6.29.12 @ 10:31PM
Health care will be rationed a short time after the PPACA goes into full effect in 2014 because the costs attached to the PPACA will be unsustainable, a fact that's even brought out by those who want a single payer system:
http://laborforsinglepayer.org.....t-survive.
Rationing will likewise be seen as the right thing to do in this case.
Let's go to the single payer system. Single payer means there is one administration that will be overseeing health care for everybody. No more heartless, evil health insurance companies. Who is going to administer the single payer system? Who is going to determine care? That's right, the all-benevolent government. Of course, government can run operations effectively and efficiently.
http://freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php#7
They've been doing it for years, right? Yeah, we never hear of mismanagement and waste at any level of government. To be sure, rationing will still exist with the single payer system for the same reason as it will exist when "ObamaCare" is fully implemented. Let's hope that when we are denied possible life-saving treatment, as determined by government bureaucrats, we can be comforted in knowing that we are being denied that treatment because it is the right thing to do.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 5:52AM
The government isn't operating this, it is the private insurers that will. Much like private security companies handled military duties for the Army in Iraq. Under government oversight.
But, drop the scare tactics - if this doesn't work, we'll try something else. What we have now is broken and breaking us.
Breathe, let's see how it works, and we can always change it later if it doesn't. Okay?
waapiti307| 6.30.12 @ 10:01PM
The U.S. federal government will control our health care system eventually, much like the NHS controls the health care system in the U.K. The system isn't working in the U.K., otherwise they would not be trying to reform their health care system and move toward privatization. Cradle-to-grave welfare, including "universal" or "single payer" health care is plunging the U.K. into economic ruin. They have been rationing care in the U.K. because the cost of their health care is unsustainable, which is was the point I was trying to make in my comment about "ObamaCare". Now the U.K. is much smaller than the U.S. in population and their health care system is failing them. So why are we led to believe it will work here? Even the Canadian government with their health care system has acquiesced and has taken steps to infuse their system with private health care because they know the health care status quo there is not working. To be sure, the U.S. government will have no choice but to ration care because that is how they will have to cut expenses to save money in an attempt to make the health care system sustainable.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 8:49PM
Waa - then healthcare costs will go down. It will save MONEY, and you will all be happy, counting your gold.
Thank you for supporting Obomneycare!
waapiti307| 6.30.12 @ 11:32PM
Purp - As you yourself have said, we will see if it works, if it is not repealed before then. For the record, I don't support Romney's health care plan. I don't support Obama's plan either.
Purp| 7.1.12 @ 1:19PM
Waa - so, status quo, we go broke. What would you like us to do? Nothing? It works in Massachusetts and covers 98% of the people and they love it. Don't you think it's worth a try, at least, now that is constitutional?
If we look at this without politics, I say yes. States can opt out, can run their own insurance exchanges how they see fit (within minimum quality standards). Some States are looking at single payer systems. They don't have to expand Medicaid, if they don't want to accept 90% Federal dollars to cover their poor people. And if you have insurance, you pay no penalty (=tax).
baxter4315| 6.30.12 @ 11:34AM
What a joke premiums are already on the rise. You can't insure more people, who don't pay, for less money.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 8:48PM
Baxter - did Rush tell you that?
In 2008, premiums were rising at 12%/year. Before the election, before Obomneycare. Ah, so you want to run this by us again?
Bill84728| 6.29.12 @ 1:20PM
Forty million people are not freeloaders. A percentage of them formerly did not have health insurance. Calling them "freeloaders" bespeaks an attitude toward them that is just about indistinguishable from the claim that conservatives don't want them to be taken care of.
Furthermore, is there some way someone can explain to me how putting forty million uninsured on a national health program is any different from them just having their health needs taken care of on an ad hoc basis when they get sick, except that there will now be a government set of health care institutions to provide them with the care, at additional expense over and above what it would cost to pay for their care out of the public purse when they need health care?
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 1:46PM
Well when that 20 yr old gets the clap from some NeoCon girl, instead of going to the Emergency Room, he can see a private doctor in his office...far cheaper.
Freedomfighter_99| 7.4.12 @ 3:43AM
You know, KING, in order for a snappy retort to have some "bite" to it, there really needs to be an element of truth to the remark. But the fact is that I am much, MUCH more likely to come down with some STD simply by sharing the air-space of Penn Central Station with your mother than I am having intimate realtions with a "neocon" lady.
See? That's funny, because of the element of truth!
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 4:33PM
Freeloader is a conservative term. Argue with your own terminology if you don't accept that. Anyone that used healthcare without paying for it, will pay for it now. And, it will lower the costs to all of us.
Emergency room care for the non-payer is far more expensive than regular care, and is the reason we pay $1200.00/year more in insurance costs than we need to. It's complicated, but that boils it down. There is no "government set" of institutions. The public purse is all of us, so we won't have to carry the non-payers any longer.
Ergo, cheaper.
Freedomfighter_99| 7.4.12 @ 3:46AM
Wrong again, Perp. "Freeloader" was a term coined by sHrillary Clinton back when she was failing at slipping a S/P healthcare plan on us. It was supposed to be a derogatory description of the small business-folk who couldn't afford healthcare plans for the boys sweeping their floors and emptying their garbage cans.
waapiti307| 6.29.12 @ 11:30PM
There are those who genuinely need assistance, so those folks are not "freeloaders". However, those who knowingly and intentionally defraud the American public assistance system could be considered "freeloaders". I prefer the term "criminals" in that case.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 5:55AM
"Freeriders" - is that better? That's Romney's term for why he instituted the mandate in Romneycare. So now we basically have Obamneycare. He's not likely to repeal what was his signature achievement in Massachusetts, now is he. I don't believe him when he says he will. He flips to often and just gives excuses why.
Nina in MA| 6.29.12 @ 2:06PM
They're illegal. They don't pay taxes for the most part those here illegally and many citizens who are here legally but still don't pay taxes...you think a threat of a fine is going to deter them? A penalty like what? Sending them back? Where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for the ones who won't/don't pay? Certainly not the rich, they can pay cash...the poor? Guess again! Hand the purp a cigar! Middle Class again pays for the bottom feeders! Or do you expect us to just keep rolling the green bills off the printing presses?
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 5:57AM
Illegals don't even enter into this. 40 million American citizens are the issue, not illegals. But if you get a paycheck, they will pay for insurance or the penalty - the IRS will take it from their pay, or refunds, or, or, or.
baxter4315| 6.30.12 @ 11:39AM
Most of these people work "under the table" for cash. They don't even pay taxes but they do show up in emergency rooms for treatment. That's 12 to 20 million people running up the costs of healthcare.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 8:44PM
Oh, yeah, sure - and get reported and deported. Idiot.
JoshInHB| 6.30.12 @ 11:23AM
But 40 million people that are citizens will not be freeloaders anymore.
Providing subsidized insurance does not magically change a freerider into someone paying full freight.
In fact it will increase free riding by increasing the demand for healthcare by the newly subsidized.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 8:45PM
Josh - How's that again? Can you explain that twisted piece of logic?
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 9:18AM
Purp,
The employee pays $95. The employer pays $2000. THE FIRST YEAR. Then onwards and upwards.
If each of your $10/hr employees - the ones most likely not to have insurance - just got $1/hr more expensive you have just seen a 10% tax on them. How may more people are you likely to hire. If you business is marginal, might you fire one or two?
"Storm the barn", indeed. You creeping socialists never see anything at the margin as affecting anything. $95 here, and couple of grand to the employer there, these won't have any effect, at all! Economic activity changes at the margins.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 10:01AM
What employer? If you have NO insurance and you DON"t buy insurance, you pay the $95.00. There is no employer involved.
If you have employer offered insurance, you pay nothing extra, no penalty( =tax), as do over 250 million of us.
And, when you do buy your own private insurance from the insurance exchange of private insurers, you will get a lower premium than today, because of the larger pool of individuals "grouped" together on that policy.
As far as economics go - you conservatives have no concern for those that go bankrupt when they lose a job or become ill and can't afford their insurance or healthcare. What does THAT do to the economy. Small thinking, that's what you engage in. What's good for all of us is good for all. Human beings wouldn't exist if we hadn't banded together for the benefit of all, against the ravages of nature and wildlife, not just the individual.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 10:31AM
Purp,
If your employer does not offer insurance, he will be charged $2000 rising to $6000 in 2014. Show me how that lowers costs to the employer. Do you think that insurance cost - the largest cost burden - comes from magic jelly beans.
Premiums are going UP with the law, not down. Pre-existing conditions add costs to the pool, the do not reduce costs. The IRS is getting close to a $billion to implement the compliance program. Bureaucrats are being hired (4.2% public sector unemployment). All to save us money. Get real!
Small thinking! What the hell is Medicare and Medicaid for but to provide care for the elderly (many of whom are quite wealthy and don't need Medicare) and the poor. These are two of you leftie's Great Society ideas which would rid the world of the scourge of poverty. It was clap-trap then and it's clap-trap now. When you define poverty as not having what everyone else has instead of what is needed, poverty will ways be 15% or more. When you pull you head out of your ass and look around you will see that your brilliant ideas modify human behaviour for the worse and create a dependent class. Of course that's good for big government which you appear to love, but it achieves nothing that you claim to love so dearly.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:00AM
So we'll see how this works and we'll see who's right. If you are right, we'll change it. If I am right, you'll be just fine.
Americans are not stupid. It's worth a shot to work this out - we're going broke on the current system.
So breathe, have some tea, and we'll see. We can stop the vitriolic hair- on-fire screaming now. It's the law, codified by the Supreme Court, so let's work with it and see if it can help us.
baxter4315| 6.30.12 @ 11:46AM
Lets repeal it instead of losing our freedom.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 8:43PM
And, then do what, Baxter? Healthcare is bankrupting us. You want to do nothing?
Freedomfighter_99| 7.4.12 @ 3:56AM
Who says we want to do nothing? I want to do several things.
1. First - SEAL THE BORDER! Otherwise we'll be providing healthcare for free to every indigent in the western hemisphere.
2. Throw out every illegal alien we can lay our hands on. We may not get all 20 million, but I'll bet we can get a lot of them. And eventually we'd get them all.
3. Rewrite the tort laws so scumbag lawyers like the John "The Breck Girl" Edwards can't bankrupt doctors in court with phoney lawsuits in order to get rich(er).
4. allow people to buy insurance across state lines. COMPETITION!!! THE UNSEEN HAND! Works every time.
5. Crack down on the abuse of Medicare/aid. We'd save billions!
I don't call that "nothing", comrade! And that's just off the top of my head.
JD| 6.29.12 @ 12:43PM
We have far more concern for those who go bankrupt than you do. Your policies cause the bankruptcies, and we're trying to stop you.
waapiti307| 6.29.12 @ 11:59PM
The concern is only expressed when the entity going bankrupt or out of business holds to a set of principles that does not run counter to their own. These days, I assume that most employers who are viewed as being to the right of center in their beliefs (e.g., many of the "rich") use unpaid robots to keep their businesses running, which allows for the lack of empathy or remorse when a business does go bankrupt or fold completely as a result of continued government regulation and/or increased taxation - no caring compassion necessary.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:02AM
JD, JD, JD - it was under GW Bush that the Crash of 2008 led to the foreclosures and bankruptcies of late. Republican policies, although not alone, led to Great Depression II.
Anyway, we'll try this ACA out. If it doesn't work, we'll fix it. Okay?
JoshInHB| 6.30.12 @ 11:28AM
No it was the democrat obsession with increasing the debt of poor people that led to an increase in bankruptcy by people that were unable to repay the debt.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 8:42PM
Josh - you are in denial. You ever hear of Wall Street? You really think poor people brought down the economy? Are seriously that uninformed? Have you heard about BofA and Jamie Dimon losing 9 Billion dollars on a bad bet? Any poor people there? Hmmmm?
baxter4315| 6.30.12 @ 11:45AM
You pay $95 or 1% of you income, which ever is greater. In 2016 you will pay $695 or 2.5% of your income, again, which ever is greater. Maximum for a family is $2085 or 2.5% of family income. Those are just to start. When the libs finally see they are bankrupting yet another government program these will go up and up.
waapiti307| 6.29.12 @ 10:54PM
This is working toward the single payer system. The employer will not offer or pay for an employee's health care insurance due to what doing so will cost them, forcing the employee to go to a government health care exchange. Insurance companies will not be able to compete with what the government has to offer - "free" health care or health care at reduced rates. Insurance companies lose customers (employers and/or their employees) to the point of phasing out their health insurance coverage, bankruptcy, or going out of business entirely. This leaves only the government to provide health care solutions - there you've got single payer.
Purp| 7.1.12 @ 1:23PM
Why do employers give us healthcare now? They aren't forced to do so. They could drop health coverage anytime they wish, without Obamacare. Why would they change now?
They won't drop coverage, or they will lose their best employees, and they know it. It's a benefit, not a mandate from the government that they offer health insurance coverage.
Stop the misinformation and scare tactics. We know too much to fall for it. Or are you just uninformed?
Nice negative progression to utter doom you have presented. Who told you all that? Rush? He's lying to you.
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 10:03AM
Your comments are pure BS but same is typical and usual. You're partially correct in that it is not a "tax".........what it is instead is GOVERNMENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE WELFARE! $95? You're full of excrement! HTF can $95 translate into between $500billion and $800 billion over ten years, dumbars? It's GD welfare, and mainly the economic raping of seniors to supply insurance to snotnosers who don't work, never will work, and don't give an excrement. Why is it such you 'stupidly' ask? Easy, because they as a group vote for DEMOCRATS and that is the intent of this horse manure aka Obamacare. Transferring $500 million and counting from seniors PAID FOR Medicare into this WELFARE is just the beginning, and if each and every gray panther doesn't storm out of their nursing homes on 11/6/12 to protest aka OWS style at their voting booths to defeat these domestice terrorists over this and everything else so welfaric, then this country will be toast financially, economically and socially in three years hence. Take you AFA [since it's UNAFFORDABLE] and .......SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!!!!!!
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 11:32AM
OMG are you twisted.
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 1:00PM
and you're a stupid liberal!!!!!!
baxter4315| 6.30.12 @ 11:49AM
Amen!
philippic| 6.30.12 @ 12:30AM
pffft...the battle has only started. there are millions who have steeled themselves to dismantling this assault on freedom.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:03AM
Calm down, have some tea - we'll try this and change it if it doesn't work - okay?
baxter4315| 6.30.12 @ 11:50AM
"We" will change in Nov. 6, 2012
JoshInHB| 6.30.12 @ 11:20AM
After a century of trying, we finally have healthcare for all Americans.
No we have a tax on the uninsured.
Purp| 7.1.12 @ 1:24PM
Both. Free-riders to be taxed. Hmmm, anything wrong with that?
c. j. acworth| 6.29.12 @ 8:31AM
Well, it looks like it'll be up to us to take care of this in November. Maybe it's for the best that way. Remember the beating Bubba got over Hillarycare (which didn't even pass)? When Obama gets thrown out in 5 months and the Dems lose the senate, maybe then the political class will learn to keep their takeovers of entire segments of the economy as academic theories only and not dare try to implement them in law.
buckeyeman| 6.29.12 @ 8:35AM
"IF you don't have health insurance and you purchase it in 2014 when the health exchanges are in operation, there is no penalty, and therefore no tax."
So you just called the "tax" a penalty, which is what it really is. A parking ticket is a penalty, a fine for misbehavior and not a tax. Parking meter payments are fees, not taxes. The Obamacare penalty is a penalty and not a tax.
Only a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist like you could misconfabulate this redistributionist piece of crap into a "bedrock conservative principle" of "personal responsibility".
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 9:19AM
Call it a 'fee' like Rombot does, or a 'tax', or a penalty - if you're not a freeloader, you don't pay any of that. Are you a freeloader? Only a freeloader would be upset with a penalty for not living up to his personal responsibility.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 9:34AM
Purp,
Typical liberal blank-white fallacy. A person who pays his medical expenses out of pocket (that would be me) is not a freeloader. The old "major medical" policy does not exist anymore. So I have to buy coverage I don't need at levels I don't want with no control at all.
You conclusion is, as usual, false.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 9:55AM
It's dumb if you pay "out of pocket" ... It costs you way more than it should. Didn't you know that? That is one more example how medical care costs more than it should, and you're just one to keep it going. That's stupid, as usual.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 10:15AM
Purp,
It's you who does not know, as usual. I get discounts for paying cash. My $260 physical therapy will begin costing me $74 when my insurance quits. I pay a $31.40 copay today.
The third man in the room never works for free.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 11:31AM
I don't have your paperwork, so I can only assume you're right - but - You're insurance won't quit with Obamacare ... hang on until 2014 and you will be fine.
Maybe you're a good negotiator, but that is not the common practice.
JD| 6.29.12 @ 12:33PM
No, the premiums will just continue to rise, and you will blame the insurers without even looking at how ObamaCare has impacted their costs.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:04AM
Well, who's raising the premiums? Makes sense.
Freedomfighter_99| 7.4.12 @ 4:13AM
Actually what is likely to eventually happen is ObamaCare will drive out all the other insurance companies who labor under the handicap of having to show a profit, unlike ObamaCare which can - and will - lose billions. Who can compete with that? Then the Left will finally have it's Single-Payer holy grail - every citzen beholden to the Gummint for his health care, while bureaucrats dole it out to their friends and those with either money or connections. The rest of us will end up on gurneys in hospital corridors for days on end like they do in Britain, or needing to go across the border like they do in Canada. Except there won't BE any border for us to cross.
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 10:15AM
Sure, extracting it from Aetna and transferring it to John Doe Minority Death Panelist Administrator is just peachy. What should be happening is for morons not financially responsibly insuring their reponsibility to themselves and to society who become sick or injured should be to simply GIVE THEM THE MIDDLE FINGERED SALUTE WITHIN HOSPITAL ER'S AND TELL THEM TO EAT EXCREMENT AND GO DIE! I and many others are sick and tired of financially supporting the indigents in life who produce 15000 illetimates daily and turn around and expect me and my wallet to pay for same. We've previously had NON-Affordable Housing, food stamps, aid to this that and the other, free public school bus service to and from home for these children, free breakfast lunch and dinner, free clothes, etc and now HOLY HELL free health insurance. Nobody pays or its only $95? BULLEXCREMENT, fool and you know it. Quit lying your ars off as is typical of you lying liberal bastards to justify your thieving socialism. Get your Gd hands off of my wallet and that of every taxpayer and GTH. Want ot give free health insurance to indigents etc? Then go PAY FOR IT FROM YOUR OWN WALLET AND LEAVE MINE ALONE. Your gig is up 11/6/12!!!!!!!!
Nina in MA| 6.29.12 @ 2:21PM
So riddle me this....if I choose to pay cash for my MD and Rx, I still get slammed with a penalty because I haven't purchased health care. Why? If I can afford to pay my MD visits and such, why can't I? And yes, there are those of us who choose to do just that but....we can't. We have to pay a fine right along with our TAXES.....which to me is just another TAX!
darcy| 6.30.12 @ 1:18AM
I'm with you, Nina in MA. I pay my own way, too. If everybody did this medical costs would be much lower: no third parties, doctor fees and lab costs would be competitively priced since patients would be particular about how much they spent, and frivolous trips to the doctor would be less frequent or rare, except for the neurotic among us.
Insurance should ONLY be for catastrophic care and it should be sold across state lines and never be coupled with employment. All policies should be individual ones. People should be encouraged to SAVE for their medical expenses. Charities should be involved in handling indigent care.
There should be, of course, NO coverage mandates which open the door to special interests that seek from the state what they can't get on their own. These mandates have helped to drive up costs. The whole health insurance industry is rife with making people pay for what they don't need and don't want because every chiropractor and acupuncturist has lobbied the states to have their services mandated.
This is utter nonsense. And the American people have only themselves to blame for being in on the scam -- oh yes, all in the name of rights and such bunk.
Liberals have rightly concluded that if Americans are going to behave like needy children, then by golly, they will take away our freedom, our rights to make our own decisions, and make them for us. If Americans were adults, they would tell nanny Obama and his merry band of miscreants to take a hike.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:07AM
Calm down - as Sen. Marco Rubio said - you can always move to another country.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:06AM
Oh, i dunno - because you're just like the rest of us. Not special.
If you have so much income you can pay cash, then you won't feel this at all. Why the bitching?
But you can have all the freedom you like, just pay the penalty. And spend cash all you like.
philippic| 6.30.12 @ 12:33AM
do you ever tire of the big lie? I get it that this is the latest talking point...Axelrod deployed it yesterday.
someone has to pay. this is income redistribution on a massive scale. the only good news is that it will accelerate the collapse of the healthcare system....so we can get about rebuilding from the ashes sooner rather than later.
Purp| 7.1.12 @ 1:26PM
Someone already pays - everyone that has health insurance - $1200.00/yr for someone else being a free-rider. This law provides a lot of good things for the American people, but of course the Corporate Shills in the Republican party are against anything for the people.
vtwin| 6.29.12 @ 9:11AM
What’s the big deal? The Supreme Court upheld the will of the American people as expressed in legislation, the Affordable Care Act (aka as Obamacare,) passed by both the House and the Senate, in the Senate by a whopping 60 votes, and signed into law by our President. Unlike the Citizens United decision where the Supreme Court thwarted the will of the American people by overturning similarly passed legislation, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka as McCain-Feingold.)
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 9:21AM
Excellent point.
The right wing exploded because they can't believe John Roberts didn't follow the partisan line. He showed himself to be a real Justice, not a political hack and they don't like it.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 9:23AM
Purp,
You wouldn't know how the right thinks if a manifesto was shoved into your empty head through your ears. Just keep making it up as you go along. It makes for amusing reading.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 10:08AM
Then you haven't been paying attention...
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 10:20AM
No moron! He and every other attorney/judge is nothing more than an ambulance chaser in a black robe acting as a member in good standing of the ABA and supporting their lawsuit crazed industry and its chief domestic terrorist in charge at 1600, that's all!!!!!!!
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:08AM
Wow! The Supreme Court is this ? Nice, real nice.
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 3:53PM
Once again:
Q. When is a lawyer/judge lying?
A. When his lips are moving!
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 9:21AM
The will of the people? This law has NEVER been supported by a majority of the people, was pronounced dead and resurrected several times before passing by a single vote using every strong-arm tactic, procedural trick and bribe (Cornhusker kick-back, Mary Landrieu special deal) as needed to cram this down the throats of the American people.
The will of the people, indeed!
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 10:11AM
Well, you're not quite up on the latest, but the Cornhusker and Landrieu deal were removed for passage.
The representatives of the people passed it. The Supreme Court has blessed it. All 3 branches of government have approved it - it is now law.
Breathe, you will continue to live. It'll be okay, Sunshine.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 10:17AM
Purp,
Like the man accused of killing three men and a dog, you proudly show up in court..... with the dog.
Address the "will of the people" argument. I KNOW it's law, fool. I'll keep breathing. And I'll keep fighting this socialist monstrousity.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 10:33AM
At the time, it was the will of the people through their representatives. They campaigned on Universal Healthcare, won the election and provided the law. If the will of the people change anything, so be it. But it should be through their elected representatives - that is the basis of our Republic.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 10:46AM
Purp,
Very fine sophistry. Because the representatives were lawfully elected and lawfully passed Obamacare it IS the will of the people even when the people were saying they didn't want it all along.
That is the will of the people as defined by a liberal and argued by a partisan.
In November, the people will speak again. We will see what they say their will is.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 11:29AM
Naw, people responded to all the propaganda and hyperbole, scare tactics and downright lies. The conservatives did the same thing for Medicare and Social Security. The safety net is used by us all, even if you don't like paying for it. It is your responsibility.
JD| 6.29.12 @ 12:39PM
There is no room for the Constitution in Purp's "will of the people" speech. Of course, when the will of the people disagrees with the liberal agenda, suddenly they (erroneously) decide that their agenda is a civil right and try to invoke the Constitution to overrule the will of the people.
Nina in MA| 6.29.12 @ 2:33PM
You got us. Scare tactics and propoganda to kill off all the old people and babies and kids and dogs and cats if this passed....us mean ole' farts...how dare we want equality and fairness for a hard days' work...sooner or later a light bulb will come on over these marxists heads when they realize the ones who are in power are the ONLY ones in power and the ONLY ones with money and luxuries.....take a hard look at the third world countries, the people working their butts off in China, Cuba, N. Korea, Venezuela....to support overblown reprobates and tyrants! Some day you may just wake up....
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:14AM
Nina, nina, nina - if this doesn't work, we'll change it. Calm down. The current system is bankrupting us, paying 2x more than ANY other democracy for healthcare, so we had to do something. Republicans weren't going to do it. But Obamacare is filled with Republican ideas, like the mandate. So calm down, Heritage Foundation is who came up with the mandate in the first place.
Have some tea, breathe and we'll see how this all works out.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:11AM
Obamacare was duly passed Constitutionally by the representatives of the people in House, in the Senate, by the President and now codified by the conservative Supreme Court - all 3 branches of government have approved of Obamacare. Where did you miss the Constitutional part and the will of the people ruling?
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 10:22AM
The Nebraska"Cornhusker" and the LOUISIANA PURCHASER will be political toast in November, as will this WELFARE!!!!!!!!
St Reformed| 6.29.12 @ 4:37PM
vtwin declared "the will of the people" I know; I know. Just like:
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"War is Peace"
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 10:18AM
Your 'will of the people' will be seen on 11/6/12......mark your calandar!!!!!!!!!
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 10:37AM
Don't forget to vote on Nov 7th!
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 1:08PM
I and all other moderates and conservatives will be standing in wait when the poll doors open, count on it idiot! Enjoy your liberal generated socialism while it lasts until November, because you and ya boys are going doen big time in November. Get down on your prayer rugs in from of Uncle Teddy's stature, because there's a new one going up of him and Chrissy doing their waitress sandwich on the restaurant floor in replacement thereof, okay????????
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:15AM
Calm down, breathe - if it doesn't work, we'll change it. But it isn't going anywhere for now, but implementation.
philippic| 6.30.12 @ 12:37AM
yawn.
the next, inevitable step...always...is to reinterpret history. the American people opposed Obamacare. a corrupt legislative process in which the proponents all the way through the speaker of the house to the President didn't bother to read the bill! the whole point of this exercise in truth is that a massive fraud was perpetrated on the American people.
you don't get it....this battle is far from being over.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:16AM
70 % of the public liked it, until the public option was taken away. Perhaps we should add that back in?
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 3:56PM
OMG, and I thought that IT JUST DEPENDS UPON WHAT THE MEANING OF "IS" IS was the greatest lie ever told!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Von Mises Jr| 6.29.12 @ 9:25AM
We now have an Imperial Court to match our Imperial Presidency. We got rid of half the Imperial Congress and it looks like we shall get rid of the other half in November.
But the precedent now is that there is no such thing as Enumerated Powers. If the Court can take away your money by taxation for not buying a product, they can take away your money for not buying a Prius.
If all property is taxable at a whim, then so is your 401K. Argentina took their subjects savings in the 1990's to fund the retirement of others. And our government has pissed away the Social Security Trust Fund, the Medicare funding and is $3.9 trillion in debt for State and Local Pension Plans.
Without a government of Enumerated Powers, you are now a slave. Isn't it remarkable that the first black President enslaved the nation?
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 9:31AM
Von Mises Jr,
When the conservatives are next in power, I suggest that the electorate as participants in the electoral process be required to become informed voters. Thus every voter must pass a class in Civics and learn the Constitution or pay a tax for not doing so.
Do you think anyone would mind?
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 10:16AM
THAT sounds like a great idea - Fixed News viewers would learn something.
But the conservatives will NEVER go for it.
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 10:25AM
"Fixed News"? No, everyone watches the Fa*&ot; Network, haven't you heard? Shultzie gropping RachelButch and tingling the legs of Christie Poo. Boy are you behind the times?????
Von Mises Jr| 6.29.12 @ 10:25AM
John,
The Founders only wanted property owners to vote since they knew those without property would use the ballot to steal their property. I think that you should have to pay a minimum of federal tax to qualify to vote.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 10:32AM
Von Mises Jr,
Or, perhaps, scale your vote by your tax bill.
Butch| 6.29.12 @ 3:10PM
You have just nailed the whole problem, Von Mises. The original republic could never survive mass, indiscriminate voting rights.
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 10:14AM
You would add that last line, making you a racist pig.
As if it all happened during Obama's 3 1/2 years. Idiot.
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 10:27AM
"racist" You forgot discriminator, disenfranchisor, gentrifier, etc , didn't you? You're obviously not up to speed on Al and Jesse's dictionary of STUPIDITY lingo!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 10:30AM
I really wish you Al and Jesse teat-sucking idiots would learn new terminology other than RACIST THIS THAT AND EVERYTHING ELSE, since you're really boring as hell with same!!!!!!!
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 10:38AM
Just calling a spade a spade. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 10:47AM
Purp,
You can't say "spade" you racist pig!
Purp| 6.29.12 @ 11:26AM
I was waiting for someone to take the bait... hahahaha, and you fell into my trap. :-)
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 1:15PM
Damn Purp, you're about as funny as A TRAIN WRECK!!!!!!!!!
Von Mises Jr| 6.29.12 @ 5:01PM
Perp is a paid troll. Forget him.
He has probably 10-15% of the comments on this column. Why are you helping him make $20 per hour for being an agitator?
doramin| 6.29.12 @ 9:03PM
Purp could only be a paid troll. It's obvious the Axelrod gang is pulling out all the stops. Purp's output has gone up 500% in just the last few days. He/she/it (in fact "Purp" may well be a whole staff) I dunno about these tactics other than perhaps it's to make the comments section so rancid and rancorous while a handful of people are so busy exchanging insults with Purp that most people just stop reading or posting.
The more sophisticated trolls are those who profess to be conservatives, then spread dirt and lies on various conservative office-holders and candidates whom they accuse of being insufficiently conservative.
For the last time, let us just ignore the trolls and work around them.
darcy| 6.30.12 @ 1:30AM
Your last sentence is the best. One reason trolls consume so much space here is because too many people keep feeding them. Starve them and they'll go away.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:19AM
That might work on a 5 yr old, but anyone that's been around awhile, knows it doesn't work on me.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:19AM
Dora, dora, dora - one person, shedding light on the other side of the argument, that is all. Paid? No. No need. You all need some information you don't get elsewhere, so here I am. Not perfect, but trying.
Namecalling begets namecalling unfortunately, I am only human.
Purp| 7.1.12 @ 1:34PM
Dora - I'm not paid, I simply cannot believe or stomach how you all believe your masters on the right. You don't question anything they say. You swallow it hook, line and sinker, and don't push back at all.
Another reason I argue with those on here, is that they are so smug about how right they are, and sometimes, yes, but many times, no, and I don't see the point arguing with people who agree with me all the time.
While I don't really care about Obamacare specifically, it does right many wrongs in our healthcare system. One way or the other, the current system is broken - I see where all the money is going, from the inside, and it isn't to help you be well. For more information, written by a former VP of United Healthcare, look up Wendell Potter. You'll learn something. If you care about some truth, you'll look him up.
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 1:13PM
Nah, it ain't no 'spade', but instead a HOE [which is descriptive of most liberals, especially those from SF etc that use taxpayer funded military aircraft to fly themselves to/from DC while demanding the rest of us PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE IN TAXES!!!!!!!
axbucxdu| 6.29.12 @ 10:49AM
USG transfer programs long ago outstripped the productive capacity of the US economy to pay for these pipe dreams. If no one has noticed, the Bernank is now brazenly printing to make up the difference. This law will accelerate the putrefaction process.
Remember: "The party looked to the conscript peasants. Most of them were in their first good pair of boots. When the boots wore out, they'd be ready to listen."-Yevgraf Zhivago...
If con leadership is worth anything, they'd better be ready with a plan when those boots wear out.
David| 6.29.12 @ 12:11PM
Could this have been Roberts's way of getting back at Bam Bam for all of his slights, criticisms, and threats against the Sup Ct? For Bam Bam dictating to the Court what it cannot and cannot do, and for telling the Court WHAT THE LAW IS?
If repubs were luke-warm about Romney, this decision will certainly light a fire under a lot of them. Not to just replace Bam Bam, but all of the dems in the House and the 23 dem senators that are up for re-election this time around to ensure it will be repealed.
Either Roberts knows exactly what he is doing in that regard, or as some have suggested, someone has uncovered a very big skeleton in his closet.
I will bet that he is sticking it to Bam Bam and the dems. It was not a complicated thing that Roberts did. It was not some nefarious well thought out scheme. It was a very simple idea and it makes sense to me.
That said, something does need to be done to make sure that everyone is contributing into the medical care system. It is simply wrong for millions to pay no insurance premiums and then to get free medical care when they are sick, while many millions pay exorbitant ins premiums and then pay out-of-pocket, too.
J.C.Eaton| 6.30.12 @ 7:45PM
In short, NO. You attribute too much byzantine cunning to Roberts and not enough calumny. He is fundamentally a cowardly, meretricious sophist. Best,
JD| 6.29.12 @ 12:37PM
Democrats condemn Voter ID laws as "imposing an undue burden to vote". What undue burden is this new tax? After all, not paying taxes can be a felony, and felons can't vote!
Who Knows?| 6.29.12 @ 12:40PM
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
That’s what postmodern liberals believe, so they can change their opinions freely---and, boy, do they!
As we bask in the afterglow of the recent SCOTUS decision—what a frisson!---and rightly focus on the future implications of Obamacare, as well as what it all means for the SCOTUS, there’s another even more existential issue.
The next president will likely appoint two or more new members of the SCOTUS.
Expect THAT fact to be mentioned, again and again, in ads and speeches by Romney and friends (of American freedom), until the election.
As bad as it is that Roberts may have proven to be another Kennedy, and therefore not a reliable conservative, just think how bad it could be if Obama could swing the court to a solid 5 or 6 liberal majority.
AND---just think how great it could be if Romney could replace one or even two of the old liberal farts with a Justice Thomas clone.
What a difference, going forward, having six solid conservatives on the SCOTUS would make.
Just imagine how nuts the truly mad left wing would be, if this kind of major realignment took place.
Yes---a House, a Senate, and Romney, GOP for 8 years, to “fix” the SCOTUS and all other problems.
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 1:21PM
You Conservatives REALLY don't see the difference on a 5-4 Party Line Vote and a 5-4 with the Chief Justice siding with the Liberals?
Hint: One is Bi-Partisan
Bill84728| 6.29.12 @ 1:27PM
Why is being bipartisan necessarily a good thing?
JD| 6.29.12 @ 1:51PM
It's incredible that you would try to make us seem like hypocrites when it's your side that defines judicial activism as "whether the Court agrees with us" with no regard for what the Constitution actually says.
Nina in MA| 6.29.12 @ 2:38PM
Doesn't the article above say that they all agreed that it's not within the governments power for mandating health care? That federal mandates are essentially not legal?
philippic| 6.30.12 @ 12:43AM
riiiight. guess you didn't read the article. no doubt you would be saying same if the 5th vote had fallen on the opposite side of the ledger. either way...that is irrelevant to the substance of the decision...and how the process unfolded. a colossal fraud has been perpetrated....these sorts of things cannot survive in the long-run. they contain the seeds of their own destruction.
Bill84728| 6.29.12 @ 1:25PM
Let's see: we are tired of paying for the health needs of many uninsured people. We are going to solve that problem by putting a set of administrative agencies in place, at taxpayer expense, and requiring them to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty to the government.
How is that "solution" any better than just paying for their health care on an ad hoc basis? Isn't is cheaper for us just to do the ad hoc thing rather than build a whole new government industry that we have to pay for?
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 1:43PM
This is the first step to single payer, that's where we get the cost savings.
JD| 6.29.12 @ 1:59PM
How?
Your side doesn't ever touch that issue, because your side never analyzes the causes of problems. You invent causes that suit your campaign messaging, but can never actually show them with data.
You haven't even begun to look at the problems with the current system, or any others. You just say, "it's expensive, so let's blame 'insurance company profits'". A simple look at the numbers will tell you what a tiny percentage of premiums go to profits, but you don't want to take that look.
philippic| 6.30.12 @ 12:47AM
he doesn't mean cost savings. he means increased income redistribution in the name of "fairness".
but your point is well taken. well....let's sit back and watch the system continue to collapse! cuz Obamacare...like Obamaeconomy......is going to make thigs worse...not better. both fundamentally misjudge human nature and systems behavior.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:21AM
Phil - you're right - sit back, relax, and watch. If it doesn't work, we'll fix it. It's not the end of the world.
Kingofthenet| 6.30.12 @ 1:08PM
Purp, they look at legislation like words in the bible, forever unchanging(even thou it has). They also see a BASIC Govt. Plan as the ceiling while most of us see it as a floor.Let's say the WORST stuff the Conservatives are crying about comes true and you have to wait 3-6 months for an MRI of that bum knee(Not exactly critical care) So What? If you don't have any insurance and no money it's better than NOTHING, if you got extra cash and your impatient.. by all means pay out of pocket for care NOW.
David| 6.29.12 @ 2:24PM
Who Knows, as I have suggested on this site before, it is not only the Sup Ct Justices who are important and that Romney talk about in his ads. Romney's ads should also mention the 179 appellate court judges and the 677 district court judges and the 677 bankruptcy court judges that a president gets to appoint for life.
Now, a prez doesn't get appoint ALL of them, but I recently heard that during Clinton's and Bush's 8 years in office, each one had the opportunity to appoint over 40% of the federal judiciary.
Knowing Bam Bam, he will convince all lib judges over 50 to retire so he can appoint 30 somethings and 40 year olds to the courts.
Romney could make killer ads. The courts and judges have always been understood by the electorate. Judges have always been a winning issue for conservatives.
phoenicis| 6.29.12 @ 3:31PM
The rabid hypocrisy of the Left is obvious to anyone with half a brain (which is all that most Liberals have). Personally, although a conservative Republican, I think Roberts did us all a big favor and ruled accordingly - the tax is constitutional. This ruling does not give legitimacy to Obamacare and only serves to put Obama on the defensive by exposing the lies that make up the Affordable Care Act. There will be a huge conservative and independent voter turnout this fall as this bill becomes more apparent for what it is and the People become more aware of the deception it is and the erosion of liberty that it represents. The Commucrat Left are like petulant children that must be taught a lesson. Gay marriage, immigration amnesty, health care tax, ineffective foreign policy - it is becoming more apparent that The Emperor has no clothes.
doramin| 6.29.12 @ 9:11PM
I already know what the next liberal MSM talking point will be. Bob Beckel started the ball rolling yesterday on "The Five" when he tried to admonish his fellow panelists and by extension all republican office-holders and candidates that trying to harp and carp on both Obamacare and Fast and Furious between now and November would only antagonize the electorate and lose them the election.
Another law of thumb that pubbies never seen to get: Listen to liberals' friendly advice and then go do the opposite.
Alej| 6.29.12 @ 3:57PM
The Romney campaign has received over $4.2 million since the decision. ObamaTax doesn't sound too much like the will of the people.
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 6:22AM
47,000 donors; if that's all that vote for him, good luck.
Von Mises Jr| 6.30.12 @ 6:29AM
For shits and giggles, I counted the number of posts Perp has on this article at 6:29AM Saturday morning. It is forty (40).
With a total of 112 comments, troll has commented 35.7% of all posts to this article.
Either this is one stupid troll, or one sad and lonely SOB. Probably both.
Kingofthenet| 6.30.12 @ 1:35PM
or 'maybe' it's an issue he is passionate about?
Purp| 6.30.12 @ 8:25PM
While I appreciate your concern for my time, I wonder why you have the time to "... counted the number of posts..." Methinks you're calling the kettle black - Mr. Pot.
How's that Simma cum laude son of yours? Is he a simmain' yet? and you call me stupid?
paintbrush| 7.1.12 @ 9:48AM
Finally, courageous Democrats in congress that have taken up the battle flag of our forefathers, who valiantly gave their lives so that future generations could snuff their spouses with impunity, free from the prying hands of republican politicians, the meddlesome tea party and unscrupulous doctors who seek only to prolong life have won a major battle. Even as progressives form a conga line to celebrate, let’s not forget that Kagen, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer who spend their life for the cause of social justice or engineering continued to obey the party protocol of continued tax revenue, did not get the memo to deny calling the ruling a tax rather than a penalty. The good news however, we will be able to declare membership in the Republican Party to be a plague curable only by ObamaCare, Death Panels or euthanasia. The question remains: Do we really want to live in a Republican dystopia of moral absolutes once again?
Beppo| 7.1.12 @ 12:09PM
John Berlau wouldn't be a partisan hack....would he? Given that this very site contains numerous attacks on Roberts for his decision to uphold this is rather a case of pot and kettle surely.