obamacare upheld

[clarionite]

I do believe it's way past time for an amendment to be added to prevent future decisions being based on this one. Something along the lines of not being taxed for breathing. Taxes are based on some action. How can you be taxed for existing?

Ummm.... Congress wrote the law, and the SCOTUS upheld it.
Is it right? No. But that's how it can be.

Ummm... They upheld it as constitutional. Congress can't write any law they want. It has to fit within what's constitutional. If we add an amendment to the constitution, that prevents us from being taxed for being alive, then the law becomes unconstitutional. That's how the system is supposed to work. And did for quite a while.

[psijac]

Any expanse of power comes with an abuse of that power. Can gun owners now be taxed at 100% their income for owning a gun?

[LikesShinyThings]

I do believe it's way past time for an amendment to be added to prevent future decisions being based on this one. Something along the lines of not being taxed for breathing. Taxes are based on some action. How can you be taxed for existing?

Ummm.... Congress wrote the law, and the SCOTUS upheld it.
Is it right? No. But that's how it can be.

Ummm... They upheld it as constitutional. Congress can't write any law they want. It has to fit within what's constitutional. If we add an amendment to the constitution, that prevents us from being taxed for being alive, then the law becomes unconstitutional. That's how the system is supposed to work. And did for quite a while.

Agreed - if we pass an amendment to the constitution to prevent being taxed for being alive, that would indeed eliminate this tax, and any other "tax just for living" that congress might think up.

[BillT]

Yipeeeeeeee I'm beginning to think there is hope for this country!!! What a great day for America. So many children with very serious, life threatening diseases, and who don't know a thing about politics where just granted the opportunity of life. Maybe this country is beginning to find it's moral compass! For those of you that are upset by this I suggest you consider that we are not Human Beings having a Spiritual experience but that we are Spiritual beings having a Human experience...

[snatchel]

Yipeeeeeeee I'm beginning to think there is hope for this country!!! What a great day for America. So many children with very serious, life threatening diseases, and who don't know a thing about politics where just granted the opportunity of life. Maybe this country is beginning to find it's moral compass! For those of you that are upset by this I suggest you consider that we are not Human Beings having a Spiritual experience but that we are Spiritual beings having a Human experience...

You apparently don't know a thing about politics. We would all love to see everyone insured, but I for one will NOT support universal healthcare insurance at the espense of liberty.

[snatchel]

I'll add this: Without libery, we are all dead anyway. Liberty or Death. As true now as it was in the glory days of our Country.

[anygunanywhere]

I do believe it's way past time for an amendment to be added to prevent future decisions being based on this one. Something along the lines of not being taxed for breathing. Taxes are based on some action. How can you be taxed for existing?

Why add more amendments when the constitution is ignored?

Time to hit the reboot switch.

Anygunanywhere

[anygunanywhere]

Yipeeeeeeee I'm beginning to think there is hope for this country!!! What a great day for America. So many children with very serious, life threatening diseases, and who don't know a thing about politics where just granted the opportunity of life. Maybe this country is beginning to find it's moral compass! For those of you that are upset by this I suggest you consider that we are not Human Beings having a Spiritual experience but that we are Spiritual beings having a Human experience...

Hey TAM, here is one of the ones you were referring to in your post.

Anygunanywhere

[hi-power]

From Roberts' opinion:

The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).

Justice Roberts used this weak argument to prop up a law that most of the citizens of this country want to see repealed. He's lost all credibility to me. He simply changed the law to match the Government's THIRD argument - that the individual insurance mandate is a tax - no matter that Obama and all the other Democrats strongly argued it was not - and now it's the law of the land. That was not Congress' intent and it should not be taken as such because a mandated tax most likely would not have survived the vote.

From Justice Thomas' dissent (pointing out the Pandora's Box that Roberts just opened):

I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 67–69 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison,
supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 ... 93c3a2.pdf

[74novaman]

You know, as disappointing as the ruling was, far more disturbing to me is the number of friends/acquaintances on facebook and elsewhere downright cheering this massive federal power grab.

I fear for our future, if the people are truly happy about handing in freedom for benefits.

[steveincowtown]

Yipppeeeee!!! I figured out how to successfully block someone so I don't have to read their post.


It isn't over yet, but this a huge step in the wrong direction.

Job. Killer.

[mamabearCali]

Yipeeeeeeee I'm beginning to think there is hope for this country!!! What a great day for America. So many children with very serious, life threatening diseases, and who don't know a thing about politics where just granted the opportunity of life. Maybe this country is beginning to find it's moral compass! For those of you that are upset by this I suggest you consider that we are not Human Beings having a Spiritual experience but that we are Spiritual beings having a Human experience...

The ends do not justify the means....the supreme court has said that congress can now tax non-behavior. The sets precendent....how long till not buying a hybrid car comes with a nasty tax.....how long till not recycling results in a nasty tax....this about more than just health care. Certainly I want people to have the medical treatment they need, but not by this means. Your rejoice for children....do you know that it is the very young, the very old and those that are life-limited that will experience the worst of the medical rationing of this travesty.

[Slowplay]

So, scotus ruled that the Commerce Clause doesn't give the congress the authority to force you into a market (buy health insurance), but Roberts sees it reasonable to consider the penalty for not buying health insurance an allowable "tax" within the power of congress - effectively giving congress the ability to force you into a market. Roberts was looking to establish his "legacy" at the expense of his ability to apply "logic." The Commerce Clause was made irrelevant today.

Looks like a win, win for Obama. He gets his Obamacare upheld and more government workers will be employed - including thousands of IRS agents to enforce the Obamacare individual mandate TAX.

[AEA]

Yipppeeeee!!! I figured out how to successfully block someone so I don't have to read their post.

How do I block that poor misinformed individual?

[teri]

My hospital system has been working on a plan for if/when these healthcare laws take effect. If we aren't ahead of the game when these go into full force, we will sink. I fully expect stand alone systems to collapse rather quickly. These laws have decreased the reimbursement to hospitals/physicians to the point that it doesn't even cover the physical products necessary for a hospital stay.

Last month our lab had to lay off 5 techs and eliminated their positions permanently. We are now expected to give 110% daily. Our CEO specifically referenced the Obamacare (Tax) that will create a Medicare "breakeven" for us to aim for in the future and that these cuts were necessary to achieve that goal. And not to mention our nurses are being spread over more patients. The more people are stretched in a stressful environment the more mistakes are made.

More people will be losing their jobs and/or positions will not be filled when employees leave. This is the reality for healthcare systems/professionals.

So, yes, I'm disappointed in the decision.