Political Ramifications of SCOTUS ruling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RMD

I can't remember the precedent, but it seems like I read a case that basically said they could.

So "medicare for all" would be constitutional - everyone pays 1% of their income to set up government-run health care. Obviously, this isn't what they did, but it would have been legal had they chosen that route.

But the dems swore up and down back in 2010 it was NOT a tax, until they had to argue in front of SCOTUS a few months ago. It was almost a side note...but I think Roberts ruled the way he did so that it MUST be considered a tax or else it wasn't constitutional.

---

The only direct or capitation tax congress has the power to levy is on an individual's income. The amount of the "penaltax" (I just made that up, penalty+tax=penaltax) for not buying insurance is based off of your income, but is not a tax on your income. At least that is how I understand it. Other than an income tax, congress has the power to collect duties, impost, and excise taxes. The penaltax is none of these.

Did they argue that it was a tax in front of SCOTUS? I thought that was just something Chief Justice Roberts decided on his own, since the bill calls it a penalty. And again, if it is a tax, the bill is unconstitutional since it didn't originate in the House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridge

Not really. The rebate is a credit for purchasing something you can fully choose to opt out of.

Now if you didn't get windows and they gave you a tax for global warming because your energy needs are higher than others, that would be similar.

---

I agree here. Levying a tax against people for not having health insurance is complete bullshit. Like said before, what next? A hybrid tax for not driving a hybrid vehicle? Typically liberals don't get it. They suggest taxing vices and other things, but they don't realize that taxing things like, say alcohol, is no big deal for the rich, they can afford little things like that, but if you raise the tax on liquor the poor are also effected and thus it hurts them at a higher rate than the rich. The same thing will happen here- out of everyone who doesn't have insurance it will hurt those who refuse and make less money as 1% is a larger number for someone who makes $30,000/year than someone who makes $250,000/year, even if 1% of 250,000 is a bigger number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridge

Not really. The rebate is a credit for purchasing something you can fully choose to opt out of.

Now if you didn't get windows and they gave you a tax for global warming because your energy needs are higher than others, that would be similar.

---

Which there is nothing stopping them from doing that, since you can now be penaltaxed for not doing anything.

I see the similarities in the argument. If they raised medicare taxes, then offered a rebate if you buy medical insurance, would it suddenly be okay?

I can't find evidence of the government raising taxes and then offering the window rebate, but I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

The only direct or capitation tax congress has the power to levy is on an individual's income. The amount of the "penaltax" (I just made that up, penalty+tax=penaltax) for not buying insurance is based off of your income, but is not a tax on your income. At least that is how I understand it. Other than an income tax, congress has the power to collect duties, impost, and excise taxes. The penaltax is none of these.

Did they argue that it was a tax in front of SCOTUS? I thought that was just something Chief Justice Roberts decided on his own, since the bill calls it a penalty. And again, if it is a tax, the bill is unconstitutional since it didn't originate in the House.

---

From what I have read, it was proposed as a "fee" at first by the democrats, republicans called it a tax. obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle and lower class ($250K).
But in discussions, they democrats still tried to propose it as a "fee" but the justices said it really is more of a tax, they didn't really deny the fact and kind of accepted the fact that it could be a "tax" if it would get passed as such.
With that in mind, Roberts sided with the liberals, "supposedly" in an attempt to look like an "umpire" and rule solely off the laws on the books, not based on judgements of opinions...as was intended of SCOTUS originally. He said elected officials are the ones the people put into power to make and vote for the laws, he simply judges whether the laws are legal and that is why he made his decision that way.
It has also been mentioned that Roberts could have used this as a way to show the American people that Obama did in fact "tax" them, like he said he would not do, in an effort to unseat him from the white house come november.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

Which there is nothing stopping them from doing that, since you can now be penaltaxed for not doing anything.

---

That is my biggest problem with this entire thing. Getting taxed on something you don't have. Yes we all "own" health. it is called life. But to tax someone just for being, I don't and can not agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeusExMachina

Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad? It's a fee for people that wait until they're sick to get health insurance. Sounds kind of fair to the insurance companies.

---

The precedent has also been set that tax is no longer income based (punishing those who work hard) but is now behavioral based. This opens up a whole new can of worms that I do NOT want to see in a few decades if it continues to remain in place. I can't wait until the government decides that because I'm overweight I should pay an 'unhealthy' tax based on whatever THEY decide is healthy. I know people within an 'acceptable' BMI that drink, smoke and all sorts of fun things that make them unable to keep pace with me on anything physical. Do you think the gubment will be willing to sit down with each individual tax payer to make sure they're healthy or not? Either way, we're straying awfully far from a free nation on this one. Shit's going to get real on this one...

Besides... who is the single largest drain on the health and tax systems right now... people who don't pay tax. You see a philosophical problem here?

I can't believe I'm the first person to say this, but as someone with Tricare I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, not even Congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

I can't believe I'm the first person to say this, but as someone with Tricare I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, not even Congress.

---

Lol, me too. Thank God I've never had to use it.

To add to the discussion, there is wide disagreement even among conservatives, particularly lawyers about the ruling. I recommend reading different commentaries from conservatives, many of them lawyers. David Limbaugh has a good column at townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh. Hugh Hewitt aslo has some thoughts. Here are some good links generally to solid commentary pjmedia.com/jchristianadams, pjmedia.com, legalinsurrection.com, nationalreview.com, americanthinker.com, and volokh.com where David Kopel posts.

The takeaway is that the Supreme Court is not the great guardian angel ready to strike down laws to preserve liberty. While I am loath to admit it, the proper role of the court is not to act as a super legislature. While this court has provided some good rulings, including Heller, other times the Supreme Court has not struck down laws such as McCain Feingold.

Elections have consequences. As some comments here stated voters need to remember as Mike Rosen says Party matters. The Republican congress provided this result because they abandoned their principles, voters retaliated by electing a Democratic congress. Third party votes are a waste of a vote. Also the over reach of the liberals should demonstrate that judicial nominations and staffing of the executive branch are extremely important. No right is more endangered than the right to bear arms, so when someone is nominated it is better to support a conservative who agrees with us most of the time, than to criticize them on an issue and get a moderate or progressive.

We must also hold elected officials accountable, so that they appoint true conservatives, not squishy moderates, because the media says that is what people want.

A. Scalia is my favorite justice I have heard him speak a couple of times and he is opinionated and articulate. Moreover he is clear that the nine justices are not endowed with greater wisdom or intelligence than any of us, such that they should decide how we live our life. Nonetheless, I read the dissent regarding the taxing issue, and the majority opinion, I have to say that Roberts was right in both guiding the Court in its proper role, and the scope of the taxing power.

While the taxing power has been bastardized by Congress, far from the range of the founders, we have stood for it and sometimes supported it. There are many income tax provisions directed toward behavior: mortgage interest deduction, student loan deductions, and the employer insurance deduction that does not count health insurance benefits as income to employees. Roberts conclusion is the mandate is a tax, mainly because it is assessed through the IRS on income tax returns. In contrast to a "penalty" such as an OSHA violation assessed through another department, such as labor. Neither opinion goes into great detail about characteristics or factors to decide when a penalty is a tax or vice versa.

The courts, particularly in tax issues, analyze the substance over the form. So when Obama and progressives say it is not a tax, remember that is propaganda for the masses, and not evidence of what it really is, or how it functions. The Court found if it looks like tax, then it is a tax.

The ramifications are to elect Conservatives, repeal this monstrosity, and clean up the tax code in total so that it is not based on who hired a lobbyists. Anyone who has analyzed Obamacare realizes that it will not punish the health care industry, but rather is a payoff to them: everyone insured, prescriptions, etc.