Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Great Lie

Obamacare stands. The Supreme Court upheld the law not because of the commerce clause, but because it’s being administered as a tax. Justice Roberts pronounced the Courts cannot bar the Federal Government from levying a tax on its citizens. Obama lied to us by saying the healthcare penalty was not a tax, when the Supreme Court now upholds the law soley on the fact that Obamacare is a tax. Not sure why people believed Obama when the penalty itself is collected through Form 1040 by the IRS.

But, there is a problem for Obama. A major part of the success to the implementation of Obama is for Medicaid expenditures funded by the states to increase. The Supreme Court ruled Obama cannot penalize the states for not participating in increased Medicaid spending by denying Medicaid funding from the Federal Government to those states. Many states are unlikely to comply, especially considering their already stretched deficits.

Hopefully this ruling will energize the right wing base enough to repeal the law after the November elections.  


HANK said...

Open for discussion: Do you think the penalty should be considered a tax under the Constitution?

Patrick said...

It shouldn't. If it is then what isn't?

Tough to tell what Roberts was thinking with this one. The dissent didn't criticize Robert's argument on the taxing power, which likely means Roberts switched his vote late in the game after having sided with what would have been the majority.

HANK said...

Even if it is an actually tax, shouldn't the Federal government be barred from charging taxes used to coerce the citizen's economic decisions; i.e. to force the purchase of health insurance?

So if the health care "tax" is allowed under the Constitution, than what's going to stop the Feds from charging an extra fee on our tax returns for not buying enough healthy cucumbers, not excercising, buying Foreign owned autos, not purchasing a house, energy efficient light bulbs, etc.

I'm not real sure if the health care penalty is or is not a tax but. Either way, I disagree with the law because the Federal government's ability to tax should not be based on coersion of an invididual's economic behavior. The 16th amendment did not give the government that right. Right?

Patrick said...

I don't know. I think what we need are justices who are committed to restoring limits on the federal government and shrinking its size. Legalistic arguments, stare decises, and words in general can and will always be twisted and watered down to serve the interests of those that want to expand Washington's powers, as the last 100 years has shown.

If I were on the court, my opinions would be less than a page long, and all of them would be based on whether the law makes the government bigger or smaller, not on legal arguments. Here's an example of how one of my opinions would read:

"Today we are presented with the issue of whether Health Affordability Act should be upheld. The way I read this act, it seems this will make the federal government bigger. Therefore, it should be struck down, because the federal government is already way too big. End of story."