SCOTUS 5-4: ObamaCare mandate is a “tax” and is Constitutional

June 28, 2012 | Filed under Health Care,John Roberts,Supreme Court | Posted by

I have to say, I’m really surprised by this.  I expected 5-4 the other direction, and weeks or months worth of hate heaped upon John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.

As it turned out, John Roberts did write the majority opinion, but sided with the court’s liberals to form the majority.  Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the conservatives on the minority.  Who can predict these things?

Here is the story from the Washington Post.

High points – the mandate is a tax, and falls under the taxing power of Congress.  And the Federal government cannot withhold Federal Medicaid funding for states that choose not to comply with Federal health care mandates.

So the mandate is a tax.  That means the IRS will now play a major role in determining our health insurance coverage and, by extension, the medical treatments we receive.

And, like Federal income tax, compliance is not voluntary; you can’t simply refuse to go along.  Every American must be accounted for on a tax return, every year.  Every American must provide proof of insurance coverage on their tax returns or pay a penalty, just like we pay a penalty if we are delinquent in filing our tax returns or we underpay our taxes.  Nobody escapes this.

Exit question: I know a lot of people in all ethnic groups across a wide spectrum of income levels and lifestyles.  The number of people I personally know who haven’t filed tax returns in a timely manner, or who owe unpaid taxes, is concentrated much more heavily among minorities and people at lower income levels.  If it is a crime and an infringement of civil rights to show a valid photo ID at the voting booth, is it also be a crime and an infringement of civil rights to mandate that poor/minority citizens must now go to the expense and trouble of getting their taxes in order, and file an accurate tax return each successive year?

« « Supreme Court Will Rule On Obamacare Today
CNBC Ratings Crash, Fox Business Network Surge » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on June 28, 2012.
Filed under Health Care, John Roberts, Supreme Court.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Commander_Chico

    Wonderful, a tax that is paid to private insurance firms owned by the megabanks. A great profit center.

    Your oligarchy at work. Could have just extended Medicare to everyone and taxed accordingly, but then you’d cut out the middleman and his profits.

    • Joe Lagle

      Because Medicare is such a great system

      • GarandFan

        And rapidly going INSOLVENT.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Your Democrats in action there, chicka.

      • herddog505

        Yes. If Bush had done this, it would have been the nasty ol’ rethuglikkkans.

        Since the democrats did it, it’s Teh EEEEEVIL Oligarchy, which of course is never actually identified.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000090789948 Dave Corson

    The people who escape this are the same people, I would imagine, that escape the IRS now, i.e. those who do not make enough to have to file a tax return. There must be some provision involving the poverty level. That is, so that you and I can continue to pay our hard earned dollars back to the government that then hands it out to those “less fortunate”. There will be plenty of people who escape this tyranny…but, that won’t be me or you!

    • Guest

      You don’t have health insurance?

      You probably do – and therefore you won’t have to pay the penalty.

      There will be plenty of people who escape this tyranny…but, that won’t be me or you!”

      Congrats – you escaped it. You have health insurance so you won’t have to pay the tax.

  • cirby

    The fun part will be all of the political ads this fall about the largest tax increase in history… completely, 100% Democrat-owned.

    • Guest

      ACA was based on RomneyCare – including the mandate.

      The largest tax increase in history was originally authored by the GOP’s candidate for President.

      ROTFLMFAO!

      • Sky__Captain

        Did you know that if you drink too much Libtard-brand Kool Aid, it effects your cognitive abilities negatively?

        Grumpy is a case study.

      • cirby

        Except, of course, for RomneyCare being much, much more limited, not to mention the problems with hospital reimbursement (there was supposed to be an increase, but the Massachusetts legislature never got around to doing that part).

        The penalties for employers who don’t provide insurance are also much smaller.

        The fun part is when Romney gets to remind Obama that Romneycare didn’t work as planned – it cost more, and didn’t do anywhere near as much as promised.

        • Guest

          RomneyCare – did it have a mandate? Yes.

          RomneyCare- did it provide a penalty if you didn’t comply? Yes.

          Yeah, the fun part is where Romney gets to claim that his initiatives as Governor of Mass “didn’t work as planned – cost more, and didn’t do anywhere near as much as promised”…

          Looking forward to that.

          • cirby

            You bet. “We proved in Massachusetts that even a limited form of Obamacare won’t work – then the Democrats took that idea, doubled down on it, multiplied it by fifty, and pretended that it was going to work. Then they lied and said it wasn’t a tax.”

          • jim_m

            Grumpy is already becoming increasingly desperate in his attempts to prove that it is not a tax.

            This ought to be a lot of fun.

          • Owen007

            And I look forward to so many Democrats doing a victory lap… until they realize how deeply unpopular this legislation still is. If memory serves, Democrats were so pleased with themselves after passing this thing in 2010. What happened half a year later? Well, the Republicans took you guys to the woodshed, didn’t they? Looks like history is going to repeat itself.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          And the powers of the states are not the same as the more limited powers of the Federal Government.

      • Owen007

        What does what happened in one state out of fifty have to do with a federal law? Oh right, nothing. I realize this is difficult for one as slow as you to grasp, but the ruling is a bad thing for Obama. Obamacare is deeply unpopular, as evidenced by what happened in 2010. The Court called Obamacare a tax, which Obama claimed it wasn’t. Get a ready for a lot of ads of Obama claiming up and down that it’s not a tax. Couple that with the many so-called Blue Dogs in the Senate up for re-election this year that voted for the bill.

        Think it’s a problem for Romney? You might want to share that with his fundraising team, who after this decision collected more money in one hour at one function than Obama can muster in the same situation.

    • TomInCali

      Yes, that will be fun. Because it’s completely, 100% a lie. It will be fun to point that out if anyone is stupid enough to claim it in an ad.

      • cirby

        I hate to break it to you, but the “it’s not the biggest tax increase” response relies on “studies” that only included the direct taxes in the original bill – and completely ignore the half-trillion+ of cost increases per year and such that were part of the original outlays. They also skipped over the huge requirement for Medicare and Medicaid expansion by the states, and assumed some huge cost savings that have turned out to be fantasies.

        Those “it wasn’t that much” people ignored the sunk costs because they followed the Obama lie that it “wasn’t a tax.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Zimms/100003653414389 Jack Zimms

    So government can mandate that you have to buy a GM vehicle
    as long as they say it is a tax. What B.S.

    • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

      Technically yes I believe they could do that. Since it would probably not be wildly popular the politicians that put this (The GM Vehicle tax) in place would probably be voted out of office. Views on healthcare seem to be more evenly split, but still could be a reason the vote for new representation in congress.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Not that evenly. More than 2/3rds thought the Individual Mandate should have been overturned. I doubt they will change their opinions on that overnight.

        • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

          I was giving it the benefit of the doubt as opposed to the hypothetical GM Vehicle mandate/tax which would be very unpopular (I presume). If Obamacare continues/grows to be seen as an overly oppressive tax increase and becomes even more unpopular then the Democrats will pay in future elections. If they manage to run it in a fashion that meets the needs of most without appearing overly oppressive (I’m not counting on that), then the Democrats may be able to manage the damage to their party in future elections.

          • retired.military

            Wont help much if Ruth Buzzi and Stephens retire Set up a SCOTUS nomination fight right before the election to fire up the dem base. Plus Obama has a chance to possibly name 2 more judges who will screw the country over for 30+ years while the republicans can only hope to get a 5 vote majority and apparantly that doesnt help even when kennedy votes with us.

          • retired.military

            Wont help much if Ruth Buzzi and Stephens retire Set up a SCOTUS nomination fight right before the election to fire up the dem base. Plus Obama has a chance to possibly name 2 more judges who will screw the country over for 30+ years while the republicans can only hope to get a 5 vote majority and apparantly that doesnt help even when kennedy votes with us.

  • Sky__Captain

    This is one of the greatest arguments to institute the Fair Tax that I have ever seen.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    The Court has held previously that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Now it has held that it’s also absolute and unlimited. Oh, good.

  • jim_m

    Three lessons from Ann Althouse:

    1. Obama imposed a huge new tax on working people.

    2. Obama deceived the American people by saying it was not a tax, when it was.

    3. The law made it look like money would go to insurance companies — in
    the form of new premiums — that would keep premiums low as the companies
    were required to take on people with pre-existing conditions, but now
    we find out that the money is really going to go to the federal
    government. [ADDED: So get ready for your premiums to spiral up and/or
    for insurance companies to be ruined.]

    The dems had claimed that this was a plan to destroy the insurance industry and they weren’t lying about that.

    • Guest

      ROMNEYCARE UPHELD!! TAX IMPOSED THANKS TO ROMNEY!

      ACA was based on RomneyCare, including the mandate.

      Everything you say complaining about ACA’s provisions is a ding on Romney.

      It’s a Great Day for America, and a sad day for the “family values” haters.

      • jim_m

        You are missing the point. What the government argued: That it was legal under the Commerce Clause, was ruled unconstitutional. The court still upheld the mandate based, not on what the government argued, but on it’s own interpretation of the law as a tax.

        You also neglect to understand that a state can enact a mandate because the powers of a state are different than the federal government.

        You also fail to recognize that Romney care is bankrupting Massachusetts, but then you really don’t care about government solvency anyway.

        • Guest

          The mandate isn’t a tax. The penalty for not complying with the mandate is a tax.

          Facts matter.

          • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

            By imposing the tax as a penalty for noncompliance, the mandate is a tax.

          • mechanic540

            Paying the fees are a tax and paying the penalty in leiu of the fees are a tax you not intelligent person.If your paying for something you were not paying before a certain date and its source was a federal law then its a tax.They just said so.

          • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

            I think you meant that for the Grump.

          • Vagabond661

            I know how this helps the governmanet (yay more taxes!) but this helps the poor how? And this helps the uninsured how? Forcing them to buy healthcare?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            It doesn’t help them… but it looks good on paper. And if that’s all you’re concerned with, then…

            Just remember – results don’t matter as long as your intentions are right. (Or ‘progressive’, as the case may be.)

          • Owen007

            Oh, the mandate’s not the tax, but the penalty is? Facts are great, but y’know what’s better? Logic and like so much of what you do, your statement is wholly lacking in it.

            I look forward to liberals trying that song and dance. “The mandate’s not a tax… the’re just this penalty thing.”

        • Guest

          And that doesn’t change the fact that ACA, including it’s mandate, was based on RomneyCare.

        • ackwired

          Good catch. Some reporters were saying that the court indicated that the actions of the federal government based on the Commerce Clause could be limited in the future because of this decision.

          • jim_m

            Thanks. I’m now reading where the Roberts decision will potentially open the way for future, dramatic curtailing of Congressional power. .

            From the article in Slate:

            Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.”

            We should only hope

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            The law of Unintended Consequences sharpens its claws…

        • Wild_Willie

          Jim, you cannot deal logically with a libtard. The SCOTUS says this is a tax on all americans. No matter what anyone else says, that tax on all americans is owned by Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the dem’s. ww

    • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

      Largest tax increase in American History owned and operated by Obama, Inc.

      • TomInCali

        And lie owned by rodney dill. And Limbaugh.

        • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

          Obama owns the lie. He claims it wasn’t a tax at all.

    • jim_x23

      1. Nope. He has merely required working people to get coverage, while at the same time requiring that insurance companies can’t deny people for pre-existing conditions.

      2. Sorry, nope. The SCOTUS saying something can’t be struck down because it has legal similarities to a tax, does not make that thing a tax. It’s still a requirement that someone buy insurance.

      3. Hey, blame the SCOTUS if their ruling forces the law to change. Obama had nothing to do with it. Also, your premiums will rise regardless unless and until health insurance companies are regulated, period. This is obvious, seeing as how there is no year that health insurance costs have ever gone down.

      Also, sorry but insurance companies still exist in countries that have “socialist” healthcare (where people receive on average twice the care for the same price, and also live longer).

      Also, which Dem politicians actually claimed this was a plan to destroy the insurance industry?

      • jim_m

        Check out Jan Schakowsky (D – IL). Roberts said it was a tax and that is good enough for me. I suppose you leftists know more about the law than the Chief Justice.

        • jim_x23

          No, sorry. I suppose you rightists know more about the law than the entire Supreme Court. Roberts did not say it was a tax on working people. Shame on you for trying to put words into his mouth.

          Here, let me quote it for you from the actual opinion.

          http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

          “But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as
          a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” ‘

          What’s that phrase there? Let me break it down for you. ‘Congress [not Obama, Congress passed this, and that's both parties FYI.] did not intend the payment to be treated as a tax..”

          Pretty clear, right?

          Now read below.

          “3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.”

          So it’s not a tax on all working people, as you falsely claim. It is a penalty that is assessed on people who do not buy insurance, which is legally permissible under the Constitution due to Congress’ **ABILITY** to impose taxes.

          Is there any part of that which is unclear to you, or do you require further explanation?

          • jim_m

            You are right. It isn’t a tax on all working people. It is a tax on everyone working or not.

            It’s pretty clear that Robert’s ruling declares that the law is only permissible under Congress’s power to tax. The ruling explicitly stated that it was not allowable under the Commerce Clause nor was it allowable under the necessary and Proper Clause.

            It is a tax because the court determined that the only way it was constitutional was to uphold it via the power to tax. It is a tax because otherwise it is unconstitutional.

            It’s a tax. Deal with it.

          • jim_x23

            Wow.

            How is it a tax on everyone working or not, if everyone doesn’t have to pay it??

            Please explain.

      • jim_m

        Check out Jan Schakowsky (D – IL). Roberts said it was a tax and that is good enough for me. I suppose you leftists know more about the law than the Chief Justice.

  • GarandFan

    On another note, odd that the usual suspects are heralding a ruling that was 5-4. Had it been 5-4 the other way, they would have been up in arms and screaming about dissolving the court. Right Grumpy?

    • TomInCali

      If it was 5-4 on party lines, there would be complaining from either side. But the actual split renders your argument pointless.

      • GarandFan

        Pointless? You obviously didn’t read any of the liberal whining the last few days about ‘this DISHONORABLE” court. But I’d imagine their tune has changed this morning.

        • Guest

          I didn’t read it either. Feel free to show where anyone called the SCOTUS “dishonorable” on this blog.

          • GarandFan

            Once again your reading comprehension is lacking. I did not say “THIS BLOG”.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Once again your [grumpy's] reading comprehension is execrable.

            FIFY

  • Sky__Captain

    Anybody remember the after-effect of the passage of 0bamaCare, the Porkulus, etc?

    I am referring to the elections of 2010.

    You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
    0bama just lost the 2012 election in the aftermath of the largest tax increase in American history.

    • jim_m

      The tax thing is going to kill the dems. They knew that this never would have passed as a tax and there is video all over the internet of 0bama swearing up and down that it was not.

      Well now it has been confirmed that it is a tax and 0bama now owns the largest, most regressive tax in US history.

      Furthermore, the court ruled that the government cannot use it’s spending powers to coerce the states by withholding money. In some ways this ruling isn’t that bad. It confirms some restrictions on the commerce clause and it restricts Congress’s powers of spending. My guess is that 0bama gets a bounce in the polls that disappears with the drop in the markets and the spike in unemployment.

      • Guest

        Yes, in some states the rich will be able to deny the poor health care coverage.

        Good luck with that.

        • jim_m

          Instead a government bureaucracy will do the same thing. And that is an improvement how?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Grumpy’s got his talking points – reality doesn’t figure into it.

          • Guest

            (duplicate comment removed)

          • jim_m

            Actually, the government was forcing the states to provide expanded Medicare coverage and they were coercing the states to expand that coverage by threatening to reduce their existing payments if they did not.

            The issue of who would benefit is irrelevant in this matter since the point is whether the government can make payments that it has already committed to under the law conditional based on new demands. The Court ruled that it cannot.

          • Guest

            (duplicate comment removed)

          • Guest

            You missed the point (no surprise there). Apparently you are getting your info from Fox News and other right wing sources — who have a habit of lying and hiding the truth.

            The SCOTUS ruling struck down the provision which had the Feds withholding Medicare funding to individual states if a state chose to not participate in expanding Medicare to another 19 million Americans by raising the income threshold to 133% of the poverty level.

            So the states are free to decide that they will not expand coverage to the 133 percenters.

            Think about that. Who would vote in favor of denying people whose income is 133% of the poverty level or less?

            Certainly not those who have Medicare now.

            Certainly not those who would receive Medicare under this provision.

            So it’s the rest of us, the majority of whom have health insurance, can decide whether the state we live in can deny Medicare to those whose incomes fall between 101% and 133% of the poverty level.

            Good luck with that.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP!

          • jim_x23

            Because the poor and working poor will be able to get health care more easily, and thus have longer and more productive lives for themselves and their children.

            you know, that whole future thing.

          • jim_m

            You are completely ignorant if you think that the poor do not have access to health care today. they do. In fact they actually get better access to health care than the middle class in some european nations.

            I have posted cancer cure rates many times before here. We exceed the number of people who have insurance for some cancer cure rates which means by necessity hat people are being treated and cured of their cancers despite not having insurance. I have worked in hospitals and seen how they work like crazy to get charitable aid for indigent patients who need expensive therapy. the idea that masses of people go without needed treatment is a leftist fantasy.

          • jim_m

            You are completely ignorant if you think that the poor do not have access to health care today. they do. In fact they actually get better access to health care than the middle class in some european nations.

            I have posted cancer cure rates many times before here. We exceed the number of people who have insurance for some cancer cure rates which means by necessity hat people are being treated and cured of their cancers despite not having insurance. I have worked in hospitals and seen how they work like crazy to get charitable aid for indigent patients who need expensive therapy. the idea that masses of people go without needed treatment is a leftist fantasy.

          • jim_x23

            OH, right. I’m completely ignorant if I think that the poor can have a hard time getting care for sick children, cancer, or chronic conditions. Riiiiiiiiiight.

            So having worked in hospitals and having seen people work like crazy to get charitable aid for indigent patients,

            - how many poor people do you think don’t make it to hospitals?
            - how many poor people do you think get adequate preventive care, so they don’t GET cancer or other chronic deadly illnesses?
            - how many poor people even get properly diagnosed – because they can’t afford regular checkups?
            - how many poor people do you think get adequate rehabilitative care?

            I mean, you’re really blowing my mind here.

            Have you ever been to a free clinic? Have you ever seen how overwhelmed and understaffed they are? Have you seen how doctors will show up in parking lots offering free care in major cities, and have to turn away people because so many thousands show up?

            It may be more comfortable for you to believe that its a fantasy. But your comfort does not change reality into a fantasy.

        • Owen007

          In denial, are we? That’s a shame for one that claims that facts are so important. Face the facts, junior: Obamacare is unpopular. Upholding it energizes those opposed to it, not those for it. And Democratic victory laps only further energize them. Romney is not hauling in a massive amount of money today for nothing.

          You can mention Romneycare as much as you like, but you’re overlooking two simple facts: the highest court in the land didn’t have to deal with it and a majority of all Americans aren’t predisposed to oppose it. Romney can now freely condemn Obamacare without a single worry. Any attempt to criticize him on Romneycare will only lead to blow back on Obamacare. And if one takes your reasoning into account, then Romney is actually the expert on healthcare, which also makes him fit to complain about Obama.

          Or are you going to try and do some liberal bizarro world logic that you’d only engage in solely so you can claim you’re right?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      In the first four hours after the Supreme Court upheld 0bamacare, team Romney raised in excess of $1,000,000.

    • jim_x23

      Care to bet on it?

      20 pushups.

      • jim_x23

        Oh, wow. Who was so offended by a friendly bet they had to vote it down? Does someone lack confidence in their party’s candidate?

        • jim_x23

          Looks like someone needs a waaaaaaahmbiulance.

          • jim_x23

            LOL. This is awesome. Can someone pettily downvote this comment as well?? : )

          • jim_x23

            And how about this one. I’ll set it up for you: “Ronald Reagan was a poopyhead.”

          • jim_x23

            Ooh! Oooh! And Sarah Palin sleeps with a Teddy Clinton.

          • jim_x23

            Nice! And Justice Thomas likes his coke like he likes his ladies: with public hair.

  • Guest

    “High points – the mandate is a tax, and falls under the taxing power of Congress.”

    The mandate isn’t a tax, the penalty for ignoring the mandate is a tax.

    Sorry – facts matter.

    • jim_m

      Sorry the court ruled that it is constitutional ONLY as a tax.

      FACTS matter. The mandate is a tax. The Roberts ruling makes it clear that it is a tax and must be understood as one.

      • Guest

        The mandate isn’t a tax.

        The penalty you pay if you don’t comply with the mandate is a tax.

        Facts matter.

        • jim_m

          Since it is cheaper to pay the tax than it is to comply with the mandate, the mandate is essentially a tax. Anyone buying insurance cannot be motivated by the mandate since they actually save money by paying the penalty and they will get treated regardless.

          How the law works matters too.

          • TomInCali

            Anyone buying insurance cannot be motivated by the mandate since they
            actually save money by paying the penalty and they will get treated
            regardless.

            So you favor the idea of someone declining to buy insurance and then getting free healthcare on the backs of everyone else? At least this way they’re required to pay something. Isn’t that in line with the Republican “personal responsibility” platform?

          • jim_m

            I am not saying that I like it. I am saying that the law encourages that behavior. People tend to act in a rational way that serves their own best interest.

            If the tax were in excess of the cost of insurance then the individual would be motivated to get insurance. But that is not the case so we will see people paying the tax in order to save money.

          • TomInCali

            I am saying that the law encourages that behavior

            The current system also encourages that behavior. People decline health insurance to save money, but then they still expect to get health care for free.

            we will see people paying the tax in order to save money.

            They may do so. It’s still better than having them declining health insurance and paying NO tax to save money.

          • jim_m

            Actually, they run the risk of financial ruin is what they do, but that is their decision.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Perverse incentives often work.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            It’s called the law of unexpected consequences. You act like it’s something new.

          • TomInCali

            What is “unexpected” about it? It’s a viable option that’s built into the law. People are free to choose it.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            And what will the results be down the road?

            Look at things another way – after the invention of the automobile, all sorts of things were ‘unexpected consequences’. Look around you – it’s one of the bases of our entire economy. (And cities are remarkably free of horse manure…)

            After Prohibition was enacted, nobody ‘expected’ there to be a sudden rise in organized crime.

            The wise legislator goes “Hey – what could be the consequences of (insert legislation here)” and tries to figure out what problems could arise from it, then try to minimize them.

            The unwise one goes “What’s the worst that could happen?!” – and usually finds out.

          • mechanic540

            Even better is the clause that says I never have to purchase a HC Policy until I really really need it and the HC insurance provider cant say boo about it or I go to court and get them in deep sh_t .And also, I claim low income ( self employed) so I claim I cant afford it and get an exemption because of income level. Is this country and those democrats a great bunch or what.

          • Guest

            The mandate is not a tax. Failing to comply with the mandate is a tax.

            Your analysis is “essentially” wrong. Read the SCOTUS decision and quit bullshitting everybody with your opinion.

          • jim_m

            I’ve read the decision. Many other people have read the decision.

            Everyone but dumbass lefty apologists are calling it a tax. The Supreme Court called it a tax. 0bama passed it claiming that it was not a tax but the court said that he couldn’t justify it that way.

            You can whine and fuss all day.

            It’s a tax and everyone knows it. Everyone except you and your loser friends. The only reason you are so desperate to say it isn’t a tax is because you know that it being a tax is the death knell of Barry’s reelection

          • Guest

            Actually, you’re wrong again, showing that you haven’t read the decision.

            The mandate is not a tax, the penalty you pay for non-compliance is a tax.

            The mandate is a “regulation” requiring you to get health insurance.

            You can choose to not get health insurance. How many taxes can you just ‘choose’ to not pay? None.

            If you can choose to not comply, it’s not a tax.

            The mandate isn’t a tax.

            SCOTUS ruled the penalty you pay IS a tax.

            The fact that other people are as stupid and ignorant as you are doesn’t change a thing.

          • jim_m

            So your argument is that it isn’t a tax because the tax is what you pay if you fail to comply with the mandate which forces you to go out and pay even more money for something that you didn’t want to get in the first place.

            Have fun selling that one to the American people. “it’s not a tax because you can spend even more of the money you don’t have to get something you don’t want to avoid the penalty that isn’t a tax.”

            I can smell your desperation through my internet connection.

          • Guest

            You can choose to not buy health insurance.

            If you so choose, you pay a tax. It’s paid on your IRS tax forms. It’s paid to the IRS.

            It’s a tax.

            The mandate itself is not a tax. It’s a regulation. You can choose to comply – which is great, or choose to not comply in which case you pay a tax.

            The mandate itself is not a tax.

            You can choose to not go along with the mandate. You can’t choose to not pay your income taxes.

            If the mandate was a tax you’d still have to pay for it even after you paid the penalty for non-compliance, just like you’d still have to pay the income taxes you owe in addition to penalties if you fail to file your tax return.

          • Guest

            The mandate is not a tax. Failing to comply with the mandate is a tax.

            Your analysis is “essentially” wrong. Read the SCOTUS decision and quit bullshitting everybody with your opinion.

            The mandate is optional. You can choose to not comply and not get insurance, you just have to pay the penalty/tax instead.

            So nobody is “forced” to buy anything.

        • Owen007

          I really do look forward to Democrats trying that reasoning in the months ahead. It should work out great… for Romney.

  • herddog505

    I’m really flabbergasted. I can believe the libs upholding this (lost their brains sometime between conception and adulthood), but anybody else??? In effect, the Court just ruled that our limited, constitutional, federal government can order Americans to buy anything so long as it’s considered a “tax”.

    Well, let’s look on the bright side: what shall we order people to buy when its a Republican president and Congress?

    • Guest

      The mandate isn’t a tax.

      The penalty for not complying with the mandate is a tax.

      • herddog505

        Oh, well, that makes it TOTALLY OK then, doesn’t it?

      • jim_m

        Here’s a fact:

        The mandate and the tax are inseparable. The mandate is not a mandate without the tax. Without the tax it is merely a suggestion.

        • Guest

          really?

          So the U.S. government only “suggests” that you file tax returns each year?

          Aren’t you subject to a “penalty” if you don’t file your taxes? It’s a penalty, not a tax.

          The requirement to file tax return stands on its own, regardless of the penalty which may or may not be imposed for failing to comply with the mandate.

          Same-o, Same-o.

          • jim_m

            Dude, Your argument is not with me, your argument is with the Supreme Court. They are the one’s saying that it is a tax. You go tell Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagen, Breyer and Roberts that they are all out of their tree and that they know nothing because it isn’t a tax.

            You are gloating that it was upheld, but the ruling is clear that it is only upheld because it is a tax and not allowed under the commerce clause as the President had argued.

          • Guest

            Go drink the Fox News kool-aid. Reality will catch up to you sooner or later.

          • jim_m

            Idiot. I haven’t watched FOX news in ages.

          • jim_x23

            You must be getting the terrible information you refuse to correct from somewhere. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, ?

          • jim_m

            Generally, people who post comments to threads that are 4 days old or older do so in the expectation of not getting a response so they can look like they won some argument. People who do that are typically cowards who lack the nerve to actually engage in a real discussion of issues. You are clearly one of those people.

            Perhaps you should go look at the tape of the government’s SCOTUS presentation where the administration argued that the mandate is a tax.

            Next time if you want a discussion don’t be a pussy and comment when people are paying attention.

          • Guest

            (Should we tell jim that he just posted on a 4 day old thread, meaning that he did so “in the expectation of not getting a response so they can look like they
            won some argument. People who do that are typically cowards who lack
            the nerve to actually engage in a real discussion of issues.”)

            Should we tell him? because,. clearly, he hasn’t a clue that he fits his description precisely.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP!

          • Digg34

            I won’t ask for permission. I will just tell you straight out. No one gives a shit.

          • Guest

            Jim does. To Jim this stuff maters. lol

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP! DERP!

          • jim_x23

            That is so interesting, though. That’s part of what makes projection such a fascinating phenomenon. People accusing others of what occurs to them to do.

          • jim_x23

            As per usual, people who can respond to comments by whining about the comment’s age could just as well actually directly respond. But apparently people who like to call others “cowards” prefer to find excuses rather than deal with discussions like a grown adult.

            Perhaps you should pay attention to the actual SCOTUS decision I quoted above in this thread, wherein the mandate is ruled as not a tax – it’s just constitutionally permissible as falling within Congress’ taxation powers. Oh, oops. : )

            Oh, and there is a comment above in this thread which I posted 4 days ago, which you’re still avoiding.

            [Rest of comment edited, as I'm choosing not to insult you back.]

          • 914

            “Its a penalty not a tax”

            And the penalty is you pay big fines and or go to jail. There is no difference.

          • Guest

            Romney’s folks agree that it’s a penalty, not a tax.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            DERP! DERP! DERP!

          • 914

            Then Romney’s folks are as naive as you. Call it what you will. Out of pocket expenses like a fine are a tax pure and simple.. Taxation without representation even..

            Quit trying to twist the truth to suit an ideology which steals from on segment of society to placate another and in turn skims from the kitty to benefit its own crooked desires.

      • Owen007

        It’s all part of the same bill, junior. That makes it a tax.

        • Guest

          So the mandate that you file tax returns each year is a “tax”?

          no, it isn’t.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Zimms/100003653414389 Jack Zimms

            What happens if you don’t file your tax return? What happens if you don’t file buy health insurance
            under Obamacare?

          • Guest

            In both instances you have to pay a penalty.

            In the case of the tax return, you pay the penalty AND the tax.

            With ACA, you only pay the penalty because you’ve chosen to pay the penalty rather than get insurance.

    • TomInCali

      You are not being ordered to buy anything. You can still choose to not buy health insurance if you don’t want it.

      • herddog505

        Yeah, and I can still “choose” to sell crack to schoolchildren if I want, too, so long as I’m prepared for the minor inconvenience of being tossed in prison.

        When you are given the choice between doing a thing and being punished for NOT doing it, that’s really not a “choice”.

  • jim_m

    At least the left responded with it’s typical racist remarks following Justice Thomas’ dissent. http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/justice-thomas-dissents-left-hurls-vile-racial-slurs-house-nigga-uncle-tom/

  • mechanic540

    Those are good questions but the poor have an out in the law as respect to what percentage of health care cost is in relation to gross income.An exemption is allowed if the threshold is reached but even so they will have to file the paperwork so its a big win for Turbo Tax on that score.

    • jim_m

      I am sure that every poor person will run to their PC and use their internet connection to take care of that.

  • Vagabond661

    Hey Obama, cure unemployment. Mandate that you must get a job or pay a tax!

  • Liberty At’Stake

    “And, like Federal income tax, compliance is not voluntary;”

    Yes, but earning income *is* essentially voluntary, whereas simply existing is *not*. And that’s why the court upholding the mandate by miraculously re-classifying it as a tax has just granted unlimited federal power to regulate any imaginable behavior via taxation.

    • Sheik Yur Bouty

      Yes. Now anything the Federal Government can’t do under the commerce clause, they will simply do as a tax.

      There is no longer any limit on the power of this government.

      Thanks ‘Justice’ Roberts.

  • Par4Course

    This signals the end of any effective limit on federal power. Whatever the feds want to regulate, they can regulate by imposing a tax – do this and follow these rules or pay the tax. We no longer have even the semblance of limited government.

  • KenWD

    So I guess anything Congress wants its citizens to do (which is anything they decide), just place a massive tax on non-compliance and drive the nation’s citizens into submission. According to the majority of the Supreme Court there is no limitation on this power.

  • ackwired

    Regardless of the ruling, there is still much work to be done on health care. The cost of this program is completely unsustainable. I would favor eliminating the corporate subsidies included in Medicare/Medicaid as a start. But I will be happy to see someone in power working to address the cost issue rather than demagoguing for political gain.

    • Vagabond661

      The best thing that can be done for health care is treat it like automobile insurance. Get the government out of it and make it available across state lines.

      • ackwired

        I’m not sure that I want the feds regulating it instead of the states. I’m also unsure that it would result in more choice when the insurance companies no longer had to write policies to conform to each state’s regulations.

        • Vagabond661

          get the government out. when they regulate something they screw it up. insurance should be based on risk not what the state thinks ought to be covered.

          • ackwired

            I’m afraid that non-regulated insurance was a disaster. Not a good idea to go backward in this case.

          • Vagabond661

            I’m sorry but this idea is even worse.

          • ackwired

            I’m afraid that non-regulated insurance was a disaster. Not a good idea to go backward in this case.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      “But I will be happy to see someone in power working to address the cost issue rather than demagoguing for political gain.”

      When the entire thing was about political gain, you’re not going see any attempts to ‘fix’ it. I’d bet you a quarter that any attempt to moderate, adjust, change or alter the ACA will be met with fanatical resistance.

      Talked with my wife – she’s in the medical field, over at a local hospital. Nobody where she’s working is happy about this.

      • jim_m

        Anyone who works in the medical field knows that this means that there will be fewer jobs and that we will be watching a lot of people suffer and die unnecessarily.

      • ackwired

        I’m afraid that you are right about the chances of someone working to fix the problems.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          That’s assuming this ever actually gets implemented.

          If it never gets implemented (IE if it gets repealed) then this is going to be the most perfect program ever to be passed.

          If it DOES get implemented fully, then there’s a whole lot of ‘unexpected consequences’ that are going to hit. The big print giveth, the fine print taketh away… you know the drill. And a lot of people are going to be really surprised that the gold-plated health plan they thought they were getting is, if they’re lucky, going to provide a little bit of service for a whole lotta money.

          Plans on paper always look good. It’s when the plan contacts reality that things get messy. And the folks in Washington are convinced that all that’s important is a good-looking plan.

          • ackwired

            Health care costs are out of control whether it gets implemented or not. If it gets repealed we need to face up to the large number of uninsured and the fact that medical insurance just refuses to pay the big claims.

          • herddog505

            They do? Really?

            I think you are confusing the insurance companies with Barry: HE gets to decide which laws he wants to obey, not them.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Okay, look – give me some stats.

            Give me some sort of numbers on how many people don’t have insurance. I’ve seen 5 million, I’ve seen 15. Let’s take the average on that – 10 mil uninsured. Now pull out the young and healthy who don’t think they need it, and are voluntarily not insured. What would you think that number is – 1, 2 million? Oh, hell, let’s just lump them in. 10 mil.

            Give me some sort of number on how many people have medical insurance that refuses to pay big claims. 200 people a year? 200,000? I hear anecdotal stories, but it’s hard to track down. Let’s figure 2,000 a year, unless you’ve got a better number.

            So we’re looking at 10,002,000. Your numbers might vary – but it’s important to at least have some idea of what the payout is.

            Now, divide those numbers into the approximately $200 billion this mess is going to cost us each year. (I’ll be surprised if it’s that low, actually.)

            Damn. That can’t be right. I’m getting… $19,996 per person covered.

            You can buy a hell of an insurance plan on the open market for that.

            A while back I floated the idea of a ‘Health Care Account’ that’d be attached to the usual unemployment/welfare card that’s issued to the poor. You’d get $1k year for each person in your family. That money could be used for doctor/dentist visits or prescriptions. If you use it all, you’d get more. If you don’t use it, it’d roll over to the next year. If you need to go to the ER, that’d come from a separate account. You couldn’t buy food with it, you couldn’t buy booze – it was for health care only.

            Sadly, there wasn’t sufficient opportunity for graft, kickbacks, or social engineering. It wasn’t complex and arcane. and could be easily handled at the state level (which is where unemployment and welfare is managed anyway) – so there wasn’t much chance of it ever seeing the light of day.

          • ackwired

            Your numbers may be a little light. According to the U.S Census Bureau in 2007 there were 45.7 million uninsured. Other studies placed the number as high as 86.7 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_patient#The_uninsured Obviously we do not know the actual number. The same is true of non payment by insurance companies. Before the housing crunch the number one cause of bankruptcy was medical bills. In 2006 there were about 596,000 non-business bankruptcy filings.http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics.aspx I don’t know what percentage of non-pays by insurance companies this would represent.
            I’m glad that you are thinking about solutions. It is a significant problem for our country. We pay about twice as much for healthcare as other developed countries and we rank about 35th or 40th when results are measured. There is much work to be done.

          • ackwired

            Your numbers may be a little light. According to the U.S Census Bureau in 2007 there were 45.7 million uninsured. Other studies placed the number as high as 86.7 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_patient#The_uninsured Obviously we do not know the actual number. The same is true of non payment by insurance companies. Before the housing crunch the number one cause of bankruptcy was medical bills. In 2006 there were about 596,000 non-business bankruptcy filings.http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/BankruptcyStatistics.aspx I don’t know what percentage of non-pays by insurance companies this would represent.
            I’m glad that you are thinking about solutions. It is a significant problem for our country. We pay about twice as much for healthcare as other developed countries and we rank about 35th or 40th when results are measured. There is much work to be done.

          • ackwired

            Health care costs are out of control whether it gets implemented or not. If it gets repealed we need to face up to the large number of uninsured and the fact that medical insurance just refuses to pay the big claims.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          That’s assuming this ever actually gets implemented.

          If it never gets implemented (IE if it gets repealed) then this is going to be the most perfect program ever to be passed.

          If it DOES get implemented fully, then there’s a whole lot of ‘unexpected consequences’ that are going to hit. The big print giveth, the fine print taketh away… you know the drill. And a lot of people are going to be really surprised that the gold-plated health plan they thought they were getting is, if they’re lucky, going to provide a little bit of service for a whole lotta money.

          Plans on paper always look good. It’s when the plan contacts reality that things get messy. And the folks in Washington are convinced that all that’s important is a good-looking plan.

  • KenWD

    Is the Supreme Court now a division of the IRS? This was not presented as a tax by Congress. I guess we’ll need 16,000 additional IRS agents after all.

  • cirby

    Here’s another problem for the Dems:
    Since it’s a tax, it’s a “budget bill” to repeal it.

    All the GOP has to do is hold on to the House and get 51 in the Senate.

    At that point, it’s a straight majority up-or-down vote, with no possible Senate filibuster.

    The Republicans really, REALLY need to capture the Senate this fall, along with the White House. That means four Senators to flip. There are more than enough vulnerable Democratic Senate seats to make this happen. There are FIVE Dem incumbent Senators who aren’t running for re-election…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Zimms/100003653414389 Jack Zimms

    Now the government including States can tax abortions,
    having unburied fetus parts, not owning a gun, those convicted of drug crimes
    within the last 5 years, etc.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      If they tax you for not owning a gun, and tax you for owning one, they get you either way.

      Think of the money!

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      If they tax you for not owning a gun, and tax you for owning one, they get you either way.

      Think of the money!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Zimms/100003653414389 Jack Zimms

    Power grab especially large ones by the government is not a
    good thing. I don’t care who is in control
    at the moment. Sooner or later the other party will be in control and will use
    the new power. For that much I don’t
    care for how my party often uses it current power to take freedoms. Democrats
    are 10 times worst.

  • Kurt Duncan

    ” is it also be a crime and an infringement of civil rights to mandate
    that poor/minority citizens must now go to the expense and trouble of
    getting their taxes in order, and file an accurate tax return each
    successive year?”

    No, but it’s racist to expect that poor/minority citizens must actually file the return, and therefore, pay the penalty for not having insurance.

  • retired.military

    I am all for republicans now passing a bill next year (when Obama is no longer President) that says every American must own a gun and if they do not then they will be taxed until they do. Say ohh, $10,000.
    If Roberts was browbeat by the administration about this (and I believe that he was) than let him vote for the above resolution pointing to Obamacare as a precedent.
    We are now being taxed for the mere act of breathing. The govt can mandate any behavior it wants as long as it dictates a tax if that behavior is not followed.
    FOr the liberals celebrating that this is now considered constituational, remember this. Prohibition and slavery were also once considered legal as well.

    • LiberalNitemare

      Why pass a bill? Issue an Executive Order.

  • UOG

    I was away for most of the day and just got around to reading this thread so I could catch up on what everyone was saying.

    How many times did I read Grumpy proclaim that the Mandate was not a tax… that the tax was what you paid if you didn’t comply with the Mandate (to buy health insurance).

    Grumpy, tell us all when in the past you have been compelled to “pay a tax” on something you didn’t have?