U B doin' jus dandy Justice Roberts!

[charly_t]

Thanks for sharing that, U. Bill. Hope it plays out as this article seems to say it will.

[Gerry Clinchy]

I read that same piece, Bill ... but what worries me ...

One is the recent post I made that implies that although it was ruled a tax, it will be immune from being challenged (after a the tax is actually in effect). I did not realize that; nor did I realize that it was a possibility to have that occur. In other words, this is it, folks.

A precedent has been set that the govt CAN, indeed, tax citizens for failure to buy or do something the govt has decided is for "the greater good". That is HUGE.

Economists are now beginning to look at who will be most impacted by this. If you're poor enough, you'll get a subsidy. If you're rich enough, you'll just pay the increased costs. The ones who will suffer most are in the middle ... a family, for example, earning around $120K. If the cost of health insurance goes up (as predicted), that tier of taxpayer could also join the ranks of the uninsured.

Most unfair of all is that certain companies and unions will have their employees/members keep the plans they are happy with ... but lots of other people will have to take whatever is left available that they can afford.

Also slipped in there is the increase in deductability qualification for medical expenses. Remember when it used to be 2.5% ... it will now be 10%. Donald Trump may not feel the pain of that, but the fellow making $120K, and two kids to raise (and send to college) certainly could feel some pain.

[teddyg]

The fact that Judge Roberts wrote in his opinion that it is a tax just makes it that much easier to overturn. That is if the GOP can win the Senate in November.

If Obamacare lives, it will cost all those that work for a living more. There is no way to add 20-30 million uninsured without someone paying for it! Not only is this another major step towards socialism, this grows the Fed Government by leaps and bounds when we should be cutting the size of the Fed Government.

You are spot on Franco.

[Gerry Clinchy]

I couldn't help but see the irony in this ...

LicenseAndRegistration.jpg

Is it really too hard to imagine that this will actually occur?

[LokiMeister]

...it was ruled a tax, it will be immune from being challenged...

Why can't it be challenged?

[Gerry Clinchy]

Here's Judge Napolitano's view of the ruling. And I guess this was what I was trying to say.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...federal-power/

He also brings up another point: that a "tax" must originate in the House; and this law did not!

Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts really means what he wrote -- that congressional power to tax is without constitutional limit -- and his opinion is a faithful reflection of that view, without a political or legal or intra-court agenda. But that view finds no support in the Constitution or our history. It even contradicts the most famous of Marshall's big government aphorisms:

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

I wonder whether the chief justice realizes what he and the progressive wing of the court have done to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.

Even The Beatles understood this.

f you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
-- The Beatles in “The Taxman”

Another opinion was that by accepting that the govt can decide, without limit, how much of one's after-tax income we can keep (the O-care tax is from after-tax funds), we are becoming like children who are allotted an allowance by our parents.

Ayn Rand may have been an atheist, but she sure called this one right. The value of the individual is sacrifice to the altar of "the greater good."