Big Government wins

And individual rights lose in Supreme Court's Obamacare decision

  • Follow Editorials

The ruling Thursday morning by the U.S. Supreme Court should horrify you.

The high court said, in essence, that Congress can tax you for any reason it wants.

You haven’t bought an electric car? Extra taxes for you. You’re not eating a certain amount of Brussels sprouts each month? Extra taxes. You’re not sitting up straight? Taxes.

That’s the message the court conveyed when it handed down its long-anticipated, historic ruling on “Obamacare” – the president’s disastrous health-care act.

Constitutional experts bit their nails while waiting to see how the court would rule on whether Obamacare’s individual mandate requirement – effectively forcing people to purchase health insurance – would pass muster under the Obama administration’s flawed, sweeping interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

In Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion, however, five of the nine justices tap-danced past that issue to reach another conclusion on the individual mandate: As Lyle Denniston at Bloomberg Law’s Scotusblog put it, “the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t.”

So if there’s any mode of behavior that Congress doesn’t like – from citizens not buying health insurance to constitutional experts biting their nails – Congress conceivably can now tax you for it, thanks to the decision laid out by the Supreme Court on Thursday.

What does this mean? As Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard points out, you’re going to see a huge transfer of wealth, regardless of your income or your social status.

“It transfers resources from the healthy to the sick, from the young to the old, without regard to who has more money to begin with,” he said. “Democrats typically rail against supposedly regressive GOP tax proposals, but nothing the Republicans have ever cooked up compares to the individual mandate.”

Oh, and by the way, now that the individual mandate is legally interpreted as a tax, it very well could qualify as the biggest middle-class tax increase in U.S. history – after President Obama specifically and emphatically promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class.

Is that a popular decision with you? According to MSNBC’s Chuck Todd it is. He told viewers Thursday morning that the Supreme Court fight “was the last obstacle and now that that’s out of the way, you’ll get a clear sense of the popularity of the law.”

More government intrusion into our lives? That’s supposed to be popular?

Hopefully this shattering court decision will rally Constitution-loving citizens in November.

If you believe in what that founding document really stands for, there should be absolutely nothing stopping you from transferring the Oval Office to someone who will stand firmly for the principles of our republic – instead of leaving it in the hands of someone doing his best to rip those principles apart.

Comments (71) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
fedex227
11187
Points
fedex227 06/28/12 - 10:10 pm
7
14
My Goodness.
Unpublished

With the ACES leading the charge, Republicans have to be the biggest bunch of cry babies and whiners in the history of this nation.

I didn't agree with passage of the Patriot Act but I learned to deal with it. I didn't like the fact that the Supreme Court struck down Montana's right to regulate campaign financing- but I guess I'll have to accept it. The Bush tax cuts and subsidies to oil companies? Give me a break, we'll work on that. But, as a society, the fact that we've made roads to further the ideal that every citizen in this country is entitled to 'basic' health care. That it should be a right on par with access to basic education- not something that one has to 'earn' based on their financial status in life. Tweak the provisions in the Affordable Care Act, sure; cut waste and prosecute Medicare and Medicaid fraud, all for it; enact tort reform, go for it. But as far as providing basic health care for its citizens? You Go America!

Insider Information
4009
Points
Insider Information 06/28/12 - 10:28 pm
10
3
The un-sales tax

It's the first national un-sales tax.

Tax 'em when they buy. Tax 'em when they don't buy.

Tax 'em when they're born. Tax 'em when they die.

Tax 'em when they earn money. Tax 'em when they spend money.

Tax 'em until you can tax 'em no more, then tax 'em for good measure.

fedex227
11187
Points
fedex227 06/28/12 - 10:46 pm
6
10
Insider Information ...
Unpublished

Tell that to your next door neighbor, whose 12-year old daughter might be suffering from a catastrophic illness and whose parents' insurance company decided to drop them as clients for no particular reason (believe it or not, this was not against the law in the United States prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act). Tax me extra, I don't mind. I'll pick up the slack for ya.

KSL
143428
Points
KSL 06/28/12 - 11:35 pm
6
4
Pick it up for me too.

Pick it up for me too.

ultrarnr
944
Points
ultrarnr 06/28/12 - 11:39 pm
6
6
Same old propaganda
Unpublished

Glad to see the AC is going to the Republican default of no taxes. How about providing decent health care for everyone in this country. FYI-The world Health Organization ranks the US healthcare system 37th in the world. The US ranks 27th in infant mortality. Let's stop with the smoke screens and work to fix our healthcare system.

desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 06/29/12 - 02:42 am
10
4
Another lie. Another broken

Another lie. Another broken promise. Thanks for clearing that up SCOTUS. Now, can the conservatives just get down to beating the President and other liberals in Congress so we can correct course, and sail in the direction of fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets and constitutional freedoms.

carcraft
28438
Points
carcraft 06/29/12 - 05:18 am
5
1
One of the things not

One of the things not commented on by ACES is the restriction on Medicare. It seems that the states can' be forced to expand medicare but that is what the law depended on to provide health care to the majority of the young poor uninsured. It seems that Roberts gutted the provison for health care for the poor. The burden is now going to be on them,the poor and working poor, to find a product that doesn't exist, cheap health insurance or be taxed. Am I reading this wrong? Do you really believe congress can fix this?

nofanofobama
6993
Points
nofanofobama 06/29/12 - 05:20 am
8
5
fedex.no on is denied health

fedex.no on is denied health care..heck illegal's in this country get federal benenfits free and reduce college tuitition....great country unless your part of the 52 percent who pays the bill..you all are destroying the greatest most generous country on earth past and present. ...whos going to take care of the rest of the 48 percent when we who pay the bills say NO MORE!!

carcraft
28438
Points
carcraft 06/29/12 - 05:25 am
6
0
Fedex227- It seems that

Fedex227- It seems that Roberts may have declared the provision of the health care bill intended to provide health care to the poor unconstitutional-the medicare expansion provision- So no it won't provide health care to the poor is my take on it. May be you could provide some more knowledge. The ruling seemed muddled beyond belief!

carcraft
28438
Points
carcraft 06/29/12 - 07:01 am
6
1
Ultrarnr- Read those health

Ultrarnr- Read those health reports with a grain of salt please. Live births in America mean any child born breathing. In many countries live birth means a two or three day survival. In many countries a live birth DOES NOT include birth defects incompatable with life, in America a child born alive but with incompatable defects is a live birth. Much of our life expantancy comes from gang bangers ending life early. These young folks (that could look like Obama's son if he had one) seem to skew the statistics. One other issue is the fact that there is health care available but many people do not take advantage of it, look at prostate screening in the black community . There are social and economic issues that come into play as I have documented such as cost of getting to and from the screening site, loss of pay for the time required and fear of loss of man hood etc while the care is available it isn't utilized.

Marthajan
122
Points
Marthajan 06/29/12 - 06:04 am
3
8
I am thrilled that the law

I am thrilled that the law was upheld. Now we can move on toward single payer.

Marthajan
122
Points
Marthajan 06/29/12 - 06:10 am
4
5
One quote from the Charlotte

One quote from the Charlotte Observer.
Critics plan to build support for repeal by labeling the Affordable Care Act as a giant tax increase on the American people. In fact, it will only be an increase for the 4 million or so people (out of 311 million) who can afford health insurance but choose to risk not having it. And they are merely being forced to pay into a system that they will eventually need, rather than foisting their costs on to the rest of us. (Which is the rationale, incidentally, that prompted conservatives to create and for years support the idea of an individual mandate before President Obama adopted it as a compromise.)

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/28/3349198/supreme-court-makes-...

draksig
167
Points
draksig 06/29/12 - 06:27 am
6
2
The effects of this ruling go

The effects of this ruling go well beyond health care and it should frighten you all. The court has just ruled that the government's power to tax us is unlimited. They can now command us to do ANYTHING as long as they tax us for failing to comply, they no longer even need the commerce clause. Get rid of your gas guzzling cars or you pay a tax. Buy solar panels made by government supported companies for your home or pay a tax. Obesity is a big problem, you pay a tax for every pound overweight you are. You own a non-union made car, tax. You may say those are far fetched but the fact is that is how the court ruled. Could you ever have imagined the government would order you to buy insurance?

DuhJudge
206
Points
DuhJudge 06/29/12 - 06:46 am
5
1
I wonder if Obamacare will

I wonder if Obamacare will cover broken backs? Half of America just got one yesterday.

carcraft
28438
Points
carcraft 06/29/12 - 07:02 am
5
1
Marthajan-Pleae explain to me

Marthajan-Please explain to me Obama's compromise, not one Republican voted for it and all their ideas were rejected!

TParty
6004
Points
TParty 06/29/12 - 06:55 am
5
0
Can some of you guys help me

Can some of you guys help me out with some liberal talking points?

They are saying people are given tax breaks for certain things, and tax hikes for others. Examples of things for which we receive a tax break, but don't view as mandates:

- Marriage
- Child rearing
- Home ownership
- Donations to non-profits

An example of a tax burden for something is buying cigarettes.

carcraft
28438
Points
carcraft 06/29/12 - 07:00 am
3
1
Here is a link to the

Here is a link to the medicare provision ( I know it is from Free Republic but the article orginates in MSNBC) and the problems it will create for the poor. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900836/posts

Techfan
6462
Points
Techfan 06/29/12 - 07:04 am
3
9
How dare the US seek to

How dare the US seek to provide health care for its citizens. We're supposed to spend all of our budget on arms and wars. Way down the list on healthcare, but we're #1 in military spending and #1 in arms exports. Obviously because we're such a christian nation.

southernguy08
532
Points
southernguy08 06/29/12 - 07:05 am
1
0
Thanks, NOFANOFOBAMA
Unpublished

Your 6:20 post hit the nail on the head. I've been asking liberals what's going to happen when the top wage earners who pay the bulk of taxes and are hit with more say, "NO MORE!" and leave for friendlier shores. I'm yet to get an answer. Typical of liberals, when they get hit with hard facts, just ignore them. Maybe they'll go away. It would be laughable, if it weren't so tragic.

allhans
24860
Points
allhans 06/29/12 - 07:11 am
5
0
This will only work if more

This will only work if more people enter the work force. The way things are right now, more will go on Medicaid than will purchase insurance. Today's economy can't support this, not nearly enough workers to take on the expense of so many.
Legal doesn't mean it is affordable.

What sounds good is only good if everyone does his part, and we don't really think that will happen, do we?

effete elitist liberal
3191
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/29/12 - 07:16 am
3
6
"Big Government wins"????

Here's the danger of selective quotation: In its column titled "Big Government wins," ACES quotes liberally from Jay Cost's opinion pieces in the Weekly Standard on the ACA decision. But here's what Cost also wrote in the same pieces: " if you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win." Cost went on to say,"[T]he Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power." Read that again: THIS IS A HUGE VICTORY FOR THOSE OF US WHO BELIEVE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS A DOCUMENT WHICH OFFERS A LIMITED GRANT OF POWER. Why didn't MR include that quote? Simple: it gave the lie to the claim ACES wanted to make that the Robert's decision was simply a victory for more "Big Government." It is pure intellectual dishonesty to quote selectively, and so easy for informed and curious readers to discover ACES's efforts to distort and mislead.

allhans
24860
Points
allhans 06/29/12 - 07:20 am
4
1
The Medicaid program CAN be

The Medicaid program CAN be limited by states. States pay a large part of Medicaid - the program of course will now grow by thousands and thousands.. The time could come when a person who qualifies for Medicaid will apply and be told that the rolls are full..they aren't taking applications - no money.
The lazy will sit back enjoying the benefits while the needy do without.
Obama better find a better way to pay for this mess he has created.

allhans
24860
Points
allhans 06/29/12 - 07:24 am
3
0
Marthajan..4 million new

Marthajan..4 million new applicants with the money going to the insurance companies.
Many more millions applying for Medicaid. Now, which is more expensive, do you think?

effete elitist liberal
3191
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/29/12 - 07:25 am
1
2
"Big Government wins," continued....

But wait there's more! Of course you didn't see this part of Jay Cost's piece today quoted by MR either. "Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives...." One more time: THIS IS ANOTHER MAJOR VICTORY FOR CONSERVATIVES WHO CHERISH OUR SYSTEM OF DUAL SOVEREIGNTY. This is the "states' rights" argument, a big boost for the 10th Amendment. Again, what Cost wrote was not acknowledged by ACES today because of the editor's intellectual dishonesty. MR quotes only what serves his partisan political purposes and hopes we don't discover what he has left unacknowledged. "How sad."

Bizkit
35456
Points
Bizkit 06/29/12 - 07:27 am
4
2
Well the fine is now a tax

Well the fine is now a tax but it is still cheaper for the uninsured to pay the fine so the pool won't be that big and all those pre-existing conditions added to the pool will be at a huge cost. The mandate really won't do squat-we will still be paying for the same people who use to go the emergencey room, etc. just now we will be paying for their insurance which will be costly (or they will still use the emergency room). Impose an annual tax of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085. Exemptions to the tax in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs are permitted. I think I heard that in essence the law contains over 30 taxes that will effect every socioeconomic group-that could be false info though. The law was crippled with the Medicaid part of the ruling because a huge pool of Medicares were to be moved into it and it was going to open to millions more, but now I doubt the states will do so given the economy and fiscal states of most states. In any case, now as the law will be enacted it will add to the deficit and there will be no savings and likely more cost than if we had done nothin'.

Bizkit
35456
Points
Bizkit 06/29/12 - 07:33 am
5
1
The govt has always had the

The govt has always had the power to tax us to death, but if you remember this sort of antics start a revolution not ago. Even George Washington had to call out the militia to head for Pennsylvania to fight
Irish Americans revolting over a new tax levied on moonshine. They all just moved to the Kentucky hills. Despite all the political pandering and posturing, I sense in this country a division within the people of those who want the govt to tax, grow larger, and more invasive, and those who want less tax, less govt, and less invasive. It could be a civil war from the emotions I've seen. Scary.

Riverman1
93390
Points
Riverman1 06/29/12 - 07:37 am
2
1
John Roberts

Remind me not to buy lottery tickets with John Roberts and send him to the store to get them. If we hit it, he would claim the winner was another ticket that he bought alone. He's the baseball umpire that missed the call. He needs to make that up on the next pitch.

Bizkit
35456
Points
Bizkit 06/29/12 - 07:45 am
4
1
I tell you Robert's did this

I tell you Robert's did this for political reasons to make Obama own his failing health care law (no more blame game) and expose the fine is a tax along with numerous other taxes. Everyone soon will wake up that their health care cost just jumped and will keep on jumping. This is toxic for Obama so I think this is Robert's revenge. I'll hand you your victory but now ya gotta eat it. No more teflon president that nothin sticks. It sticks and stinks.

Riverman1
93390
Points
Riverman1 06/29/12 - 07:51 am
4
1
There is something to the

There is something to the argument the best thing that could happen to Romney is for the Obama Health Care "Tax" stay in effect. It is so unpopular with the voters.

desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 06/29/12 - 07:52 am
5
1
Techfan, Its not about the

Techfan, Its not about the government daring anything. Its about Constitutional powers, authorities and limits. I read the Constitution and I see these things in black and white. I don't see a federal government designed to provide handouts to able bodied people, provide cradle to grave health care, or treat people unequally based on thier income level in the base documents or ammendments.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs