Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax

In a victory for President Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual mandate in a split decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, according to SCOTUSblog, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal wing of the court.

Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was actually only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.

Before oral arguments in March, polls of Supreme Court experts and scholars showed that most believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.

House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen.

Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That's when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, Medicaid will be expanded by 16 million low-income people, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health.

Only about 6 percent of the population will actually be required to buy health insurance or face a tax under the mandate, since most people already have coverage or will get it through Medicare, according to the Urban Institute.

Many of the more popular provisions of the law have already gone into effect, including a regulation saying insurers have to let children stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 years old, which 2.5 million Americans have already taken advantage of. Insurers can also no longer turn away children with preexisting conditions, and sick uninsured people can buy coverage in high-risk pools set up by the government.

what the fuck is this motherfucking bullshit!!!!

fucking niggers man, civil war part ii

Now we are Le Fucked. Not only does this set a terrible precedent of the government being able to compel Americans to buy a product, I think it also greatly increases Obama's chance of being reelected.

Fuck me.

.


... too stunned to post anything intelligible



.

Johnny_Ola wrote:

Now we are Le Fucked. Not only does this set a terrible precedent of the government being able to compel Americans to buy a product, I think it also greatly increases Obama's chance of being reelected.

Fuck me.

Why? Niggers and other welfare queens were going to vote for him regardless.

when the country degenerates to communism and civil war, we can thank John Roberts.

The thing the pisses me off after Robert's act of treason is that obama knew months ago what the out come was.

i wonder how much stimulus money was used to buy roberts' vote?

Still buying Ammo?

geebart wrote:

Johnny_Ola wrote:

Now we are Le Fucked. Not only does this set a terrible precedent of the government being able to compel Americans to buy a product, I think it also greatly increases Obama's chance of being reelected.

Fuck me.

Why? Niggers and other welfare queens were going to vote for him regardless.

Because wishy-washy moderates (who will make or break this election) are now going to view him more as a winner whose policy has the seal of approval from the Supreme Court. All the valid points from the right about how unconstitutional this act is just look like sour grapes now. Now the left is going to be electrified and raise more money for Dear Leader to run this country into the ground.

Perhaps our countrymen will see that the supreme court will not protect us from tyranny so WE have to get rid of obomo


the people cannot rely on any branch of gov to ensure their liberty, that should be clear

time will tell if this is the death of liberalism in the voting booth

This was to be expected, based on precedent.

The government has forced you to contribute to Social Security and Medicare for decades. They force employers to contribute to unemployment insurance. Most states require you to purchase automotive liability insurance. These are individual mandates as well. If these are considered constitutional, there's little reason to think that a court operating under common law would consider the Obamacare mandate to be any different, in principle, and it isn't.

This isn't to say I agree with Obamacare. In fact, my objections to the act are probably far stronger than those of the Republicans here. I'm just saying it was a reasonable ruling to expect, given the precedents involved and the drift of the country's prevailing philosophy over the last several decades.

Of more concern is what will be done now. The Secretary of Health and Human services has ENORMOUS discretionary power, unchecked by anyone, to make rules regarding insurance and health. THIS is the real thing we should worry about. The free contraception bit of a few months ago was just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Free viagra and free sex-change operations are coming, you just wait and see. There's probably even some whack jobs who are arguing for free boob jobs, since having bigger tits will boost the self-esteem and thus the psychological health of the recipients.

The end result of the plethora of new requirements that are and will be imposed on the insurance companies, such as forcing payment for pre-existing conditions, free birth control and the like, and allowing "children" up to age 26 to remain on the policy, will be the destruction of the private insurance industry. At this point, the government will be "forced" to become the single-payer. And this was the goal all along. Leftists aren't stupid. The goals of liberals might be insane, but they know how to achieve them by stealth, right under your nose.

You can almost smell the smoke from the constitution burning.

Well, we are already MANDATED to have car insurance, house insurance etc. etc.
So, all this is doing is forcing those that DON'T want to buy
health insurance to be responsible and keep ME/YOU/THOSE THAT PAY
TAXES from having to pay for THEM. I'm fine with that.

I am a veteran with full medical coverage for life so this is no skin off
my nose BUT, my taxes will now not be used to pay for any of those
that want the REST of us taxpayers to pay for THEIR irresponsibility.

I think the republicans have fought the wrong battle. They are
just out to hurt the pres. plain and simple. When ideology gets
in the way of doing the right thing I am suspect.

And remember, Romney did this VERY same thing in Massachusetts. Hard to
throw shit at something he himself has done. Crazy.

VAVD, the government doesn't force you to buy car insurance because you can choose not to buy a car thus avoiding the cost.

PistolPierre wrote:

VAVD, the government doesn't force you to buy car insurance because you can choose not to buy a car thus avoiding the cost.

Let's say tomorrow that the government imposes a $10 a can tax on soft drinks in the name of "fighting obesity". Or requires a license, with a hefty fee, to walk on the streets. You can simply choose not to drink Coke or talk a daily walk for exercise, right?

A few minutes and you can think of dozens of examples of the principle you espoused that range from the silly to the entirely possible.

By what philosophical principle does the government, any government, have to dictate your possession and use of an automobile(or anything else) that does not infringe on the rights of others? Similarly, by what right does the government dictate, in any way, what is "good for you?"

Wait until your company insurance open-enrollment period!
What? $2500/month for my formerly $1000/month health insurance?

and idiotic rhetorical goodies like:
- How come everything is getting so expensive?
- Why do I have to drop my health insurance plan?
- Why can't I make an appointment with my doctor?
- Our hospital is closing? Why are they all closing?
- Where did all this paperwork come from?
- How come no one sells life insurance anymore?


The best and brightest among us will avoid medicine as a career. I'd be upset if I were an M.D.

Have a question for the more astute law minds out there.

Reading some of the opinions, not all of them yet, it appears Roberts basically kicked the can, tossing the "hot potato" back over to congress to act on? I know many are pissed that he looks at this like a tax but let me explain, cause there is going to be a helluva a lot more litigation coming from this decision!

My only question, from what I gathered from the Roberts opinion, how can a private company levy a tax on a private citizen? I know what the law says maybe I am seeing something that is not there. Taxes, as described by law, is levied by government to operate government, not to purchase items, from private companies, through the government. Short of say, declaring all insurance companies illegal tomorrow, all I see is more bullshit from the house and senate, to include more litigation from this ruling.

Hell maybe I am wrong, which I usually am. All these morons are doing, with each stupid decision, and ruling, is putting this country one step closer to open revolt. I don't like that ending but the morons are only going to learn from the cold end of a barrel some day.

VAVD, all I'm saying is that government should not be able to force you to buy anything.

Have a question for the more astute law minds out there.

Reading some of the opinions, not all of them yet, it appears Roberts basically kicked the can, tossing the "hot potato" back over to congress to act on?

I agree.

He's saying that it is up to us to get rid of this, not him. There are elections. Hasn't the complaint for years been that the judges are not accountable? Well, he said, "Here ya go."

I clarified what I meant in the second paragraph by editing it a bit. My argument is this: the tax isn’t just on non-compliance, which is what Roberts and the court ruled constitutional. The law forces people to give money to private industry, in the form of buying health insurance. That’s a tax too, imposed by force on Americans, in this case the force of the penalties and the legal consequences of not paying them.

hotair.com . . .

Just found this over at HotAir.com by Ed Morrisey, says it better than than I can, hell, anyone could have said it better than me.

I got it wrong in my initial post, kinda patted myself on the back thinking I thought of it first, guess not! Still it does leave room, a lot of room for future litigation just on this ground.

It will prolly take a month or so to get through the spin, from both sides, before all the chips fall into places and when they do I think it will benefit the Republicans more than the Demoshits.

lboru wrote:

i wonder how much stimulus money was used to buy roberts' vote?

The question to be addressed by the Supreme Court is the legality of the Obamacare reform. You wonder why a Justice COURT member may dismiss a claim based on the legality of a matter? It just shows that this member does not use his political opinion to judge, which is a sign of independence. Whether he agrees or not with the reform is not the point. And this is sound for a Supreme Court.

Let's say Romney wins the election and manages to repeal obamacare. because the mandate is now constitutional the govt force you to pay a tax on anything. essentially the govt now owns your paycheck. it is only a question how deep into your wallet the govt cares to claim.