This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Obama On The Topic Of Mandates
Earlier, we presented a slightly more idealistic, slightly less gray, slightly less mathematically challenged version of the president talking to ABC's George Stephanopolous on the topic of whether or not the Affordable Care Act should be treated as tax. Obama said "I absolutely reject that notion". The Supreme Court, however, whether with a last minute change of heart by Chief Justice Roberts for whatever reasons, or not, disagreed in what ended up being a shocking hail mary effort, and essentially said that Obama's entire spin campaign of Obamacare as 'not a tax' is wrong, in the process making Obamacare constitutional but also making it the largest tax increase in the history of the US. We are eagerly looking for the CBO's scoring of how the ACA will impact the parabolic charts of projected future US deficit and debt. In the meantime, once again looking back in time, we present an even younger version of the president, all the way back in 2008, sharing his thoughts on the now so very crucial topic of mandates. To wit: "If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don't have a house is they don't have the money." He is right. Hopefully, this rather insightful allegory into cause and effect from 4 years ago is not a preamble into what the SCOTUS may have just unleashed with the imminent arrival of the Affordable Housing Act.
Tangentially, for the best unbiased, and politics-free read of today's Supreme Court decision, we recommend the following piece by Reuters' Allison Frankel, titled "SCOTUS: What Congress can't regulate, it can tax." An excerpt:
"It is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance," the court wrote. "We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance."
In the majority opinion, Roberts raised the question of the propriety of such a tax. "If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce," he wrote, "perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something." But he concluded that's not the right analysis. "The court today holds that our constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes." The penalty is not a constitutionally barred "direct tax" (an ill-defined term that the Supreme Court has interpreted extremely narrowly), so, according to Roberts and the majority, it passes constitutional muster.
In her dissent, Ginsburg asked why the court needed to decide the Commerce Clause issue, since the majority's tax holding meant the law would be upheld regardless of its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause. Putting aside whatever intracourt politics underlie the splintered ruling, Roberts said the more natural reading of the individual mandate provisions of the ACA is that it's a "command to buy insurance," not that it's a tax. For that reason, he said, the Commerce Clause had to be considered first. "It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question," Roberts wrote.
Read the full analysis here.
- 10466 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


The "War on Women", "War on Drugs", and the "War of Poverty" has been supplanted by the "War on Liberty"
After some exploratory reading , with (Zero Yield). Potus has spun a web so intricate, that he on the verge of being "consumed" by Charlotte herself.
He has to lie to justify,his complete lack of common / financial sense!
What makes anyone think that the insurance companies are ever going to cover what ails you? If it is anything serious now, they disclaim coverage...and that is WITH folks paying $900+/mo for insurance.
So much for our increased longevity. I suspect that won't be the case for much longer now that we have Obamacare.
Next year they will announce a tax rebate as a stimulus program. The rebate will be in the amount of the penalty for not having health insurnace. In effect, free health care for his base.
Brilliant ... Do you work for the Administration?
This is part of my master plan for SPECTRE to rule the post apocalyptic world.
Where is James when we need him
I'm happy to see we'll have such an evil genius in the #2 spot.
The US government in all of its forms and functions is now no longer legitimate.
Plan accordingly.
'The absence of commerce (not buying health insurance) IS interstate commerce to be compelled and regulated by congress.'
And Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace and Slavery is Freedom.
What a disgraceful day for all human beings.
What else do you think Goldman Sachs/Federal Reserve lobbyists are cooking up RIGHT NOW?
Next bank bailout will be funded by forced transfer of American checking accounts to the Corzine Off-balance Sheet Financial Order Sustainability Fund, or a $1000 tax. Your choice.
Not even China, Castro and Russia are down this road.
Fuck you Roberts you human stain.
Let's be clear here. This has been planned for years on both sides of the isle. Roberts was positioned as a conservative constitutionalist. But if you remember the hearings he cleared the confirmation hearings with relative ease. The "opposition" kept going on about how brilliant he is. The conservatives thought they had Roberts vote in their back pocket and Kennedy was the swing vote. Roberts roll in this verdic served two purposes 1) it "validated" the ruling having the chief justice support it. 2) in demoralized any conservative opposition. Right now they are shitting their pants wondering what the hell happened. To quote FDR"There are no accidents in politics."This has been well thought out and well played by our one party fascist government.
Analysts I’ve been hearing are saying John Roberts manufactured a provision outside the Constitution as a tax in order to single handedly save Obama’s healthcare bill. Roberts actually said, apparently, that the court has a responsibility to find a way in the Constitution to salvage laws. The problem with this, according to analysts, is that it has set a precedent. If Congress should overturn the law, that precedent still stands and has created a legal tangle that would be impossible to unravel. At least this is what I am hearing.
Apparently, there’s no solution now for dissenters except a new government – a new system. Combined with the rulings on Arizona and healthcare, Roberts has single handedly begun the final destruction of the American system.
It was well known even on the night that the Democrats cheated to push this unread measure into law that the four liberal justices would vote to uphold it under any possible rationale. But the law was on its way to the trash heap of history with four Supreme Court dissenters identifying all of its parts as unconstitutional and with Roberts agreeing with them that it could not be found constitutional under the Commerce Clause – the rationale used by the Obama Administration.
Then, single handedly, Roberts in the final hour invented the tax mechanism and not only saved the legislation but put the stamp of precedent on this taxing provision.
One cannot help but wonder why this man would go out on a limb to destroy the American system.
We are going deeper into recession because of the Fed and Obama’s support of welfare programs. If there’s not enough support from the people for this additonal burden and if there is not enough money to support this massive economic mandate, the government either will fall or there will be revolution.
Perhaps others have heard additional legal comment in these early stages.
ut res magis valeat quam pereat
Earl Warren was proud of the liberal stamp that he made on law under which we are still suffering; and it set his country careening on a devastating course. And so maybe Roberts wants to, likewise, put his stamp on it. The thing that’s wrong with him and other politicos like him is that they intend this be an empire – spend and fight wars and conquer…
Wasn’t it John Marshall Harlan who was so proud of the Union after the Civil War; they’ve created through the court this central government that’s overrun state’s rights and state sovereignty. Roberts’ ruling on healthcare takes away individual sovereignty.
So J.R., If I'm to be read correctly. SCOTUS is now in business of , line item law making?
The ruling is incomprehensible, Yen. A week of constructed liberal destruction.
J.R. , as Rick Santelli so succinctly said. " The People will decide in November".
One thing is for sure. Rodney King is a carnival act.
LOL. Cant't we all just get along? sung by Obama and his Court Supremes.
JR makes a good case for IMPEACHING Roberts.
It's in the constitution, and the Founders expected it would be used often.
Bend over and lift up the black robe, gigolo. And hand me that gavel to jam up your ass.
SCOTUS Mandated that November is now the most important election of our lives (before the election to anoint BHO as Emperor)
Mandate this -
Put Obama in the O'Slammer
To to hell with POTUS. May it burn, and may it burn now and forever.
Yes, the only positive out of this is Obamacare taking America down to insolvency, bankruptcy, and currency collapse a bit sooner.
But on the way down the middle class will be raped and pillaged by skyrocketing medical insurance premiums while a handful of medical insurance companies reap enormous windfall profits making even the squid jealous.
This might well be the end of the middle class. The final devastating looting raping and pillaging
...except grabbing all their retirement savings ...made easier now with this ruling. Voluntarily transfer your 401k into Treasuries or pay a tax penalty of 50%, something like that.
I'd say welcome to the civilised world.. but the US has a long way to go before 'civilised' is an apt description.
The question the voters should be asking, is that why can't you afford to provide basic healthcare when so many other nations can?
You spend so much, and get so little. The big issue is your healthcare cartels and the prices charged...
Because we finace your cheap health care. Drugs and devices research is budgeted using an FDA/US market. The costs are amortized over the US geography. Once approved in the US, we sell overseas at lower costs (but high margins) since the R&D and manufacturing is already paid for. I know this first hand. Pesonally, I think we should charge more from OUS.
Rubbish.. aside from developing and some south american nations, US 'allies' have been bent over by various trade agreements that protect big pharma. The US gov. is highly protective of that industry.
Fair Trade deals are always fair to the US, thats how they work. We let you sell your stuff into our markets however you like; you tell us how and when and where and at what price, and under what laws, we can sell ours into yours. Anything else isn't fair trade we're told.
Big Pharma owns your congressman.
Well consider this: The population base of smaller geographies do not support the R&D costs of drugs/devices. If a drug company could only sell in Austrailia, Turkey, or some other small country, they wouldnt even open their doors. I admit, there are people doing good work for free, but the predominant motivation to develop products and sell them is profit. Plain and simple, Down Under does not have enough sick people to pay for drug development. Drugs are developed in the US (and to a lesser extent Europe) due to the potential for profit. R&D budgets are developed on Marketing models for US reimbersment. Drugs/devices are then developed, approved, and sold in the US at prices which will cover the development costs.
Afterward, they are released in other countries with all costs paid for. SUre there is a translation here and peculiar labeling requirments there. Brazil even requires verification testing in their country and wont except testing from the country of origin. Its all fine, the expenses are paid for by the US market and these smaller markets are pure profit. Are the costs for selling a few patients in Turkey worth the millions needed for development? no. But since the cost are already paid for, why not.
say good bye to new drug development- we already have.
name the last drug that came from france - ru486 years and years ago. or canada? (never). the usa paid for all the worlds drugs. Atlas is shrugging.
It will be interesting to see what happens to all these civilised nations when their unfunded liabilities come due.
Let's remember that Obama is saying he doesn't see affordable care as a tax is one statement, at one time, per the First Amendment, and Democrats, vis-a-vis the drumming and chanting of Occupy Wall Street, are enforcing their First Amendment rights in exactly the same level of conviction as gun nuts want the Second Amendment rights enforced. Throwing it right back in their face.
The individual mandate for buying insurance is throwing Republican ideology right back in Republicans' faces, given they're all about individuals taking care of themselves. Traditionally, buying insurance is about self-responsibilty, per the Republicans. Obama is just giving them a one finger salute.
Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and Karl Rove in front of the microphones today, and Mitt coming on fifth, shows that Republicans have a real leadership problem. The Republican nominee should have been first in front of the microphones. McConnell, Boehner, and Fallon should have come on after Jimmy Fallon. Oh, wait.
I'd venture a guess the second ammendment is next on their agenda.
I just went to McDonalds and ordered 2 Big Macs, a super-sized french fries and a 32 oz drink. A TSA guy standing in back of me tapped me on the shoulder and asked me to step out of line and submit to a body-fat check.
I told him, "Hey buddy, it's not 2014, yet..."
Do you get the right to refuse and submitt to a grope..er pat down?
You have the right to refuse, but then they say you're trying to hide something and escort you to a windowless room and start performing cavity searches. All you can do is hope your colostomey bag is empty.
Today, Obama just fitted himself with a pair of 20 lb. concrete voting boots. Obama is now standing on the boat's swimming platform. It's hard to rally your troops Forward, while he’s watching the boat wake from the rear swimming platform.
Jump Fucker
Pssst.. Mr. President.. If you think your stress level is high now, wait until J6P public finds out about that pesky little problem.
You're right Barry, I'll just give my house to an unwed mother of 12 and continue making the monthly mortgage/utility payments. I really feel guilty going to college, paying (off) all my bills (too better myself) while providing for my family. What the FUCK WAS I THINKING? DICK FACE!
reminds me of the days in '09, when O was on all the channels, everyday, I'm getting ill again.
So what it all boils down to is that the Progressive Democrats passed a regressive tax to penalize Americans for not doing something and the SCOTUS said that's OK.
'progressive DemonRats' -- fixed your typo.
A Most Dangerous Precedent.
Whatever one’s position, in favor or opposition to the president’s health care law, the SCOTUS decision was what can only be described as the worst of both worlds. The left will no doubt gloat that this decision is some sort of a victory for “fairness.” The Right will no doubt be energized and even more determined to achieve victory at the polls in November in order to repeal the law in its entirety.
Be that as it may for either side. The truth is we all lost something by this decision; just a bit more of our liberty. By the way the court framed it decision, they have in fact empowered government to tax non-behavior. This is not taxing you on your income, not taxing you for a purchase you’ve made. This is not even punishing you for having committed a criminal act. This taxation for not doing something that the government has decided is in your “best interest,” taxation for not participating.
Dangerous indeed. Were does it stop? Are we now no longer even be allowed to tell government that our choice to act or more importantly to not act is none of its business? The court has opened the door to even more intrusion into or private lives. They have in fact said there are to be no limits just so long as such intrusion is couched in terms of our “best interest” and enforced in the form of a tax.
No one in their right mind thinks that government will suddenly say “we’ve gone far enough.” There will always be politicians, from both sides of the aisle, who will seek to corral more and more power and control for government simply because they profit from it or some power group wants a law passed in its “best interest.” The need for which will be reinforced with campaign contributions.
What next? We have too much obesity so we all must participate in some government approved exercise program and if we don’t government will tax you because you didn’t do the prescribed number of push-ups? Or maybe they will tell us that we should eat a certain amount of what the government defines as “healthy” foods. You don’t really have to, but if you don’t, they’re going to monitor your grocery store receipt and tax you for not participating in what they have deemed is our “best interest.”
Perhaps my concern is overblown because there is no money to pay for Obamacare or any other pernicious program that may grow out of it. But have no doubt politicians will continue to expand the excesses of government until it collapses of its own weight. Maybe then we will get something approaching a clean slate and can start again to build anew a system based on individual liberty and personal responsibility rather than the sloth of demanding that government force everyone else to provide for us all those things we have become to lazy to do for ourselves. One where we tell central government to stick to its proper rolls of national defense and foreign relations and little else.
Good stuff, Bugsquasher. What many believe is that these people will stop before it's too late, but they never get enough; history shows they'll never get enough until they're stopped. Pushback is coming.
we will reduce your costs by over managing you
.
only we require some more taxes to do so
My sincerest apologies for being late to opine here. In short:
Fuck you. We hate you. Fuck you.
Apparently, I am the retard for not understanding why your fucking wet dreams require my participation, but not my approval.
Thank you for considering my reply to your idea. I guess we will get to test full faith and credit, instead of just taking it as gospel.
Doesnt matter if the sheeple can afford health care insurance. For those that can't, voila, the democrats will be there to "help," and all pay their health care for them. For their votes, of course.
I can't even stand to watch these videos. I think I have Obamaitis. Every time I hear his voice I want to puke. Not a tax?! BIG LIE!
And the Supreme Court? It's just as transparently corrupt as the other two branches of the government. This is a decision in search of a justification. It has just legalized forced commerce with private institutions, institutions whose corporate charters explicitly state that their sole purpose is to make profit. "Health care" costs will absolutely skyrocket now. This is one sector that has hyperinflation written all over it.
I think I now see the plan for dealing with all those unfunded pension liabilities.
This is a sad day for the American people, and a sad day for the Constitution. Another nail in the coffin of the republic.
I'm feeling in a Bill Hicks state of mind today... You are free to do as we tell you
Next up: Mandate that everyone purchase calls on JPM (health insurance is a put option on your health that expires every month) so the rich can exit their trades.
The word "bagholder" comes to mind.
It's ok they've promised health coverage to most of the country that they know can't be paid.
A lot of naive progressives gloating about they're first in line to get fucked.
What I want to know is: where are the fiscal conservatives? I don't spend more than what I earn, so why should states/FedGov be able to?
Republicans spend on warfare and Democrats spend on social welfare, but again I ask: where are the fiscal conservatives?
When congress passed this authoritarian atrocity, I immediately understood that I absolutely, positively would not buy health insurance, and I absolutely, positively would not pay for not buying health insurance. Though this atrocity was only part of my thinking process, I left the USSA 2+ years ago to avoid ALL such decisions, and the consequences they would impose upon me.
I now expect 1+ million to follow my lead and escape the USSA while it is still possible. That is, unless the entire population is now completely braindead.
In effect, Kongress and the Supreme Court have set 2014 as the deadline to expatriate, or else kneel down and pay their slave tax.
Nice to have some clarity.
Get off Barky's Plantation while you still can.
It is clear to anyone with half a brain that originally the sole purpose of the commerce clause was to break the tie when two states disagreed on the terms of commerce between them. This does not mean that politics cannot and has not changed the current outcome to give power to the (what I consider to be illegal) federal government to do whatever they damn well please and call it interstate commerce, because it might some day have some random interstate commerce involved. After all, the federal government has all of the guns behind them (except for the 270 million in private households). The federal government is the big bully dictating terms... to you ... to me .. to congress ... to the Supreme Court. Because they/he can ... and the military is gutless and morally bereft.
The constitution is a quaint artifact made obsolete by the DICTATOR IN CHIEF and his supporting military drones... mindless, non-thinking, unethical slabs of meat with guns.
New SCOTUS graphic of ten things we lose with Obamacare
http://i.imgur.com/2u5hh.jpg
It would have been much easier, cheaper and efficient to have legalized marijuana use and tax the people that don't use it
Yes indeed. Free the weed.
if you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when its free----- P.J.O'Rourke
How about if Obama takes up student education fees next and comes up with Obama Fees. There are many many students who are not able to pursue college education because they can no longer afford it.
Formerly lead lip-sync'er with "Barry, Rahm & The Man Dates"....
.... I now give you - you the mandaters demanded it! - the one and onlyyyyyy.....
Barry O'Pharma & The Supremes!
...with their latest No 1 Hit - Back in Big Pharma's Arms Again!
It's funny. I knew a few (presumable) mob guys when I was growing up on the East Coast. Although they were small fries, they alluded to much deeper infiltration of the more legitimate system. Now I think I understand what they were getting at, and am just amazed that there is seemingly no check on this sort of power.