Obama: The mandate is not a tax - it is constitutional under the Commerce Clause
4 Justices: Agreed on both counts, but willing to call it a tax to keep it
4 Justices: Agreed that it’s not a tax, disagree thats it’s covered under Commerce
1 Justice: Disagree that it’s not a tax, disagree that it’s covered under Commerce
Why does anybody have to be a liar here?
I think Roberts has the best understanding, and places the most emphasis on how the court is viewed by the public. I think he understood how bad a 5-4 reversal of this would have played in the general public.
Somewhere, in the depths of the Whitehouse, the guy they had argue for the mandate infront of the SCOTUS is finally being let off the rack he was put on after oral arguments.
So the example of a health care bill being passed despite the intense lobbying of PAC-backed conservative interests shows that the system doesn’t work? And what exactly is it you want stopped, the adoption of UHC which has been shown to work in every other industrialized country in the world? or is it just the threat of mandatory broccoli?
So when did “This-is-good-because-I-don’t-want-to-pay-higher-<whatever>-for-myself” become an acceptable argument? I ask because this board is rife with lefties decrying that sentiment from righties who often times state they’re against something because they don’t want to pay higher <whatever> (i.e., righties decry the government expanding entitlement programs because the burden of paying for those programs tend to fall more heavily on conservatives/Republicans).
Or is this one of those cases where lefties get to use two different set of standards for the way they argue?
I like broccoli.
Gotta give Boehner credit for not spiking the ball when the decision came down.
You should really get insurance. It’s a very very bad idea to not have it unless you’re Wolverine. You do know you’re made of meat, right?
In any case, by not having insurance you’re shifting the cost of your care to the rest of us once you get ill. Because I’m not seeing you as a wealthy heiress.
In any case, aside from this nonsense, I’d like to say that Roberts agrees with Justice Lobohan from two years ago:
Because Obama is the liar. The ACA doesn’t stand because of the commerce cause, but because it’s a tax, which Obama flatly said it wasn’t, even though it is. But you can keep grasping at straws there.
Just like motorcycle helmet laws, I would be in support of an opt-out procedure. If you want to affirm that you will not get treatment that in any way increases my costs when the shit hits the fan, great!
Unfortunately, it would require some pretty calloused people to make sure you didn’t drag your bleeding ass into the ER when you did need help and realized your conservative principles seemed a lot better when you were railing instead of ailing.
Are Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy all liars too?
I’m sure that the Obamacare Tax will be foremost in the minds of many voters in November.
The Obamacare Tax = IRS agents becoming involved in your healthcare concerns. Woohoo. If that ain’t a campaign platform, I don’t know what is.
Well done!
You are having trouble understanding his argument. He’s saying that several justices agree with Obama. So obviously highly trained people can differ over this.
That doesn’t make Obama a liar, and maybe you shouldn’t characterize him as such when it isn’t warranted.
Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy weren’t telling the taxpaying voters that they wouldn’t raise taxes and that Obamacare was not a tax.
Obama did just that.
Do you think the Obamacare “Tax” will have an effect on the upcoming elections?
I’ve started a dedicated special thread for all this talk of lying hypocritical liars, etc, to provide an outlet. Go ahead, it feels good to thunder about someone else’s intellectual inconsistency.
What if you were to get hit by a car tomorrow, end up disabled for life (and totally unable to work anymore), and incur a 100,000 medical bill in the ICU? What if you get diagnosed with cancer out of the blue?
This is why everyone NEEDS health insurance. Because you can’t predict the unexpected on an individual level. We can only predict health care needs on a large scale, using statistical evidence to calculate likely expenditures over a long time for a very large pool of people.
Question.
If the law is implemented, can it still be challenged on con law grounds as it’s applied to a specific individual? Say for instance, someone who had a religious belief against medical care, and chose, on those grounds, not to participate by refusing to obtain the coverage or pay the “tax” (fine).
Don’t forget to make them armed. And wearing jackboots.