Supreme Court upholds Obama health care law

[thundley4]

They are nuts. Do you know how many people are saying even compared to their current rates it's cheaper for them to pay the few hundred dollars in mandate er um tax and just drop insurance and get on the gov. insurance and either eventually buy a supplemental or the excess money saved use it towards any healthcare gaps? So we will look like Canada. Unfortunately, we have no country to run to for operations if the wait is too long or it is denied.

I will laugh if the big companies start trying to drop insurance from union contracts.

[Carl]

Someone educate me here.
This law was the Senate bill but now has been declared a tax.
Tax bills have to start in the House don`t they?

Wouldn`t that make the whole thing unconstitutional?

[jtyangel]

I will laugh if the big companies start trying to drop insurance from union contracts.

YOu and me both. I think this is going to be funny in some ways. Just wish we could watch it under a microscope instead of as a part of it. 

[thundley4]

YOu and me both. I think this is going to be funny in some ways. Just wish we could watch it under a microscope instead of as a part of it. 

For some strange reason my  company wanted a 5 year contract covering wages and benefits. Our insurance is locked in for that period with increases tied to medical COLA.

[Chris_]

If you thought people were pissed off abouth a $7 monthly surcharge on their checking accounts to cover Dodd-Frank, wait until health care companies start sending out rate increase notices.

[zeitgeist]

Ah, so the remaining private companies will eventually be funded by the government to provide for the people when it gets to the point where everyone drops. What do we call that again? Here's a hint:

Which is only a stepping stone to the flag I posted earlier.

I know I know, pick me.   Pick me.  

The Italian Job  Fascism,  kids.  Pure and simple.  

[Freeper]

What happened today is a tragedy, from now on our government can force us to behave in any way, or buy any product they see fit, all they have to do is classify it as a tax. You still don't want to drive a Chevy Volt? that's cool we won't force you to buy one, but in April we will tax you for driving a gas powered vehicle.  

The worst part is, one of our own is who made this possible. At least when we can point at the libs and blame them we can still have some faith in our people, but after today who can we trust?

I'd say stick a fork in us, we are done, but I refuse to give up, I may not be able to do much, but when I vote I will vote for people who will promise to take our republic back to being a republic, and away from the 0bama dictatorship that we have become.

[docstew]

Please re-read what Splashdown wrote.  It makes a lot of sense:

I'm having all kinds of knee-jerk reactions internally over this, but we really need to keep our heads and read up on some analysis. 

And NO, I'm not sticking a fork in her.  She's worth fighting for. 

H5 for the bolded

[Chris_]

Why Obamacare Won't Work
[youtube=425,350]3S9dwP-fV3o[/youtube]

[Toastedturningtidelegs]

look what CNN has about what the ruling means to me

 

The insured

Because the requirement remains for people to have or buy insurance, the revenue stream designed to help pay for the law remains in place. So insured Americans may be avoiding a spike in premiums that could have resulted if the high court had tossed out the individual mandate but left other requirements on insurers in place.

Bullshit! My premium just went up 35% last week!

[docstew]

Someone educate me here.
This law was the Senate bill but now has been declared a tax.
Tax bills have to start in the House don`t they?

Wouldn`t that make the whole thing unconstitutional?

Very good point. Totally correct. And totally moot in this case.

If someone with standing were to file suit that it was a tax (as decided by the USSC) that originated in the Senate, then you might have something once it finally reached the USSC. Til then, not a relevant argument.

[JohnnyReb]

Bullshit! My premium just went up 35% last week!

Quit fussing, you will get the other 2/3's of your 3,000% decrease in premium soon.
Obama promised it so you can take that to the bank.....if it hasn't folded yet.

[Gina]

so are we at least going to get a contempt vote today?

[WinOne4TheGipper]

When I first heard that Roberts wrote the opinion, I assumed that it was because Kennedy voted to uphold, and Roberts wanted to at least provide an opinion that sort of smacked down the law while upholding it (which he did with throwing saying it was invalid under the commerce clause, but valid under taxing).  But Kennedy voted the right way!  This is a betrayal by Roberts.

[Revolution]

Severely disappointed in the USSRC today. However, I agree that this is Nov. '10 all over again. Leftists may be driven out of politics for a good long time come Nevember. Imagine what we could do; how we could flourish with 4 years of NO DUmmies in high places.

I've just about had it with politics with this vote today. Holder BETTER be found to be in contempt!

[Carl]

Very good point. Totally correct. And totally moot in this case.

If someone with standing were to file suit that it was a tax (as decided by the USSC) that originated in the Senate, then you might have something once it finally reached the USSC. Til then, not a relevant argument.

That was my point,challenge it on that grounds and toss the whole damn thing.

[Gina]

Severely disappointed in the USSRC today. However, I agree that this is Nov. '10 all over again. Leftists may be driven out of politics for a good long time come Nevember. Imagine what we could do; how we could flourish with 4 years of NO DUmmies in high places.

I've just about had it with politics with this vote today. Holder BETTER be found to be in contempt!

Do yall realize the fodder we could bring over here from the DUmp    It would be EPIC fodder 

[Rebel]

When I first heard that Roberts wrote the opinion, I assumed that it was because Kennedy voted to uphold, and Roberts wanted to at least provide an opinion that sort of smacked down the law while upholding it (which he did with throwing saying it was invalid under the commerce clause, but valid under taxing).  But Kennedy voted the right way!  This is a betrayal by Roberts.

If that was his reason in voting, that ****er is derelict.

[Revolution]

Do yall realize the fodder we could bring over here from the DUmp    It would be EPIC fodder 

It was pretty damn entertaining in 2010, and after the recall. That was nothing though. It would be as if ChimpyMcHitler were back in office.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

If that was his reason in voting, that ****er is derelict.

If Kennedy was voting in favor, Roberts could have voted in favor as well just to be able to assign himself the opinion, and conservative heat would be on Kennedy.  But Kennedy voted the right way.  Roberts did not.  Roberts has no excuse.

[Rebel]

Here's an argument from my sports board:

Right now, the federal government can tax individuals in only a few ways:  SS, Medicare, and Income tax (which took a friggin constitutional amendment for them to even collect).  We just effectively gave them the power to tax us for ANYTHING.  You seriously think this is a good idea?

unfortunately Monarch... Article 7 says otherwise..

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;  but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So uhm... all those waivers???   Let's see how the WH spins the "no taxes for some"...  argument now.

And if someone like Rand Paul or Jim Demint doesn't point this one out, I'll be really Disappointed in some of our major Fiscal conservatives...

Because this authority already exists, and yet they pulled this crap, I think it will hurt them... Bad... With independents, and even some democrats

Again, let's see what happens when some voters find out their companies aren't going to be renewing their employee insurance policies...

Yes - BUT - taxation can only come if the use of the funds goes to the General Welfare of the people.

"[T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare."


So, A) this tax does NOT provide for "General Welfare"  it only provides a benefit to a select few (those without health care coverage)

In addition,  this is a non apportioned tax.  Read the following about the apportionment clause:

Apportionment of direct taxes

Language elsewhere in the Constitution also expressly limits the taxing power. Article I, Section 9 has more than one clause so addressed. Clause 4 states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Generally, a direct tax is subject to the apportionment rule, meaning taxes must be imposed among the states in proportion to each state's population in respect to that state's share of the whole national population. For example: As of the 2000 Census, nearly 34 million people populated California (CA). At the same time, the national population was 281.5 million people. This gave CA a 12 percent share of the national population, roughly. Were Congress to impose a direct tax in order to raise $1 trillion before the next census, the taxpayers of CA would be required to fund 12 percent of the total amount: $120 billion dollars.

Apportionment and income taxes

Before 1895, direct taxes were understood to be limited to "capitation or poll taxes" (Hylton v. United States)[35] and "taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate" (Springer v. United States).[36] The decision in Springer went further in declaring that all income taxes were indirect taxes—or more specifically, "within the category of an excise or duty."[36] However, in 1895 income taxes derived from property such as interest, dividends, and rent (imposed under an 1894 Act) were treated as direct taxes by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. and were ruled to be subject to the requirement of apportionment.[37] As the income taxes imposed under the 1894 Act were not apportioned in such a manner, they were held unconstitutional. It was not the income tax per se, but the lack of a provision for its apportionment as a direct tax which made the tax unconstitutional.

The resulting case law prohibiting unapportioned taxes on incomes derived from property was later eliminated by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. The text of the amendment was clear in its aim:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Shortly after, in 1916, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad that under the Sixteenth Amendment income taxes were constitutional even though unapportioned, just as the amendment had provided.[38] In subsequent cases, the courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment and the Brushaber decision as standing for the rule that the amendment allows income taxes on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."[39]


So - this tax has not been apportioned as a Direct Tax.  I do not see where the precedent to take this action lies.  This is not a good idea.

Both guys are conservatives.

[Ptarmigan]

We will just have to wait for congress and Romney to repeal it. Top reps in congress said yesterday that if it is upheld, they will start the repeal process.

Justice Roberts turned liberal today.

I had high expectations for him. I wish William Rehnquist was still alive.

[Ptarmigan]

You guys aren't looking at the BIG picture. For the first time in history a precedent has been set that mandates you to buy something JUST for Damn living. They can now force you to buy ANY ****ing thing. Romney getting elected is going to fix it? Roberts stupid ass was a Damn Bush appointee. R and D. All the ****ing same. Progressive pieces of fly-covered dog shit.

Progressives are everywhere.

[Ptarmigan]

What happened today is a tragedy, from now on our government can force us to behave in any way, or buy any product they see fit, all they have to do is classify it as a tax. You still don't want to drive a Chevy Volt? that's cool we won't force you to buy one, but in April we will tax you for driving a gas powered vehicle. 

The worst part is, one of our own is who made this possible. At least when we can point at the libs and blame them we can still have some faith in our people, but after today who can we trust?

I'd say stick a fork in us, we are done, but I refuse to give up, I may not be able to do much, but when I vote I will vote for people who will promise to take our republic back to being a republic, and away from the 0bama dictatorship that we have become.

It's a travesty my friend. Another word for tax increase and government control. We're heading the road that befell many nations.

[Ptarmigan]

Severely disappointed in the USSRC today. However, I agree that this is Nov. '10 all over again. Leftists may be driven out of politics for a good long time come Nevember. Imagine what we could do; how we could flourish with 4 years of NO DUmmies in high places.

I've just about had it with politics with this vote today. Holder BETTER be found to be in contempt!

It set the economy back. 2010 was looking to be a make it break it before Obamacare came.