http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...t-supreme-court-guide-to-the-health-care-law/ I wonder if anyone has done the analysis on exactly how much the tanning bed taxes and tax on the rich is actually going to bring in?
Explanation of the new taxes (all part of the legislation): http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-new-obamacare-taxes-2012-7 And the Penalty Tax broken down: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-is-the-obamacare-penalty-tax-2012-7#ixzz1zZyzkP6Q
I found this and felt it was applicable to the conversation at hand. I also feel Justice Roberts has done a great service in turning back the clock on Unconstitutional uses of the Commerce Clause. Hopefully the Demoncratic Party defeats will be so great in November 2012, We The People will be heard and we can continue to repeal Unconstitutional Laws that have gone on unchallenged for way too long. Tacmotusn --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article, written by I.M. Citizen, gives a much different perspective of Justice Robert’s decision. Comment below and let us know what you think. Also check out I.M. Citizen’s blog – quite interesting. . I.M. Citizen: . Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them. It will be a short-lived celebration. . Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS. . Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. . That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. . This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be. . Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. . Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. . Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law. . Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. . Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. . Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. . This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it? . Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases. . Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded. Oh, And he did this without creating a civil war. Brilliant.
Yeah. Upon careful thought and consideration over the past few days, I have to say I agree with the analysis of the WSJ. Roberts screwed us. Badly. He should have struck this POS down and forced the Dems to go back and re-write it. Obutthead was not as hurt as many would think. While it is a long way to November, on this July 4th, I feel the need to state that We the People need to sit back NOW and contemplate whether or not voting will truly make a difference. IMO, we are too far gone, it is time to consider other options.
A problem I see, though insurers are really the only ones benefitting from this whole set of shenanigans, will be access to care. The healthcare system will be flooded with people and our waiting times for seeing doctors, getting tests or surgery will become longer. Remember that many Canadians come to the US for healthcare. They do not want to have to wait 3-6 months for care. It doesn't address people who are here illegally. The taxpayer will be getting a rude awakening beyond belief. The government doesn't realize the cost of spending of healthcare, yet it agreed to go All In. We need less government, not more. All of this unregulated spending supposedly going to people making $250k/year will not cut it. Increasing deficits for programs that the country cannot afford? Piss poor planning. Can you imagine taking a loan for a $2M house, $200k boat and a $500k sports car on a $40k salary? (These are arbitrary numbers by the way just illustrating someone is going crazy with a credit card and credit lines, here). That is what is happening to with government. We are going in the wrong damn direction. No one, though, has the answers. Borrow more money, tax the "rich" and lower corporate taxes? Disaster in the making. So small businesses with 50 or more people have to take it in the rear to pay health care for an employee? I think people will be replaced by self service check out lines, computers and automated robots that will continue the slump of unemployment/underemployment. Someone MAY be a constitutional professor, but an economics guru he is not. His buddy, Warren Buffet, is his advisor? What age is he? 95? Sure he will agree to more taxes for now, he won't have to pay them much longer. "Robin Hood Government" will not work. There's too many hands in the pot, and everyone is taking a share. A $100 taken will lead to $30 after everyone has had a piece of the pie. This will ruin us all in the SHORT TERM and LONG TERM.
