Here's another voice expressing what I meant, "Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You" - Emmett Tyrrell:
Firstly, he reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at The New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.However, the key is to get out the vote and use it to boot out supporters of this awful law.
Secondly, for the first time since the New Deal, the Court rejected a law for exceeding the spending power of Congress. The Court invalidated the part of Obamacare that gave the federal government the power to coerce state governments to spend money on Medicaid.
Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous as the power that the Court limited, namely, the commerce power. Laws passed under Congress's power to tax and spend may only take our money. Our recourse against this tax is the same recourse we have been employing since 2009, to wit, mobilizing and going to the polls. In 2010, it led to an historic sweep at the state and federal level. In 2012, the sweep will continue landing Mitt Romney in the White House, where he says he will make repealing and replacing Obamacare his preeminent priority. He can also refuse to enforce the tax by executive order. The next Congress can repeal it using reconciliation to avoid a Senate filibuster if necessary. (emphasis added)
It is foolish to fault the Court for failing to protect us from the ideologues we allow to be elected to Congress.
What is going on here? New law says that the bums that don't have insurance but show up at hospitals are gonna have to either get insurance or pay a fine (tax, fee, penelty whatever). Whose dog is in this fight? Captain, as a retired US officer, I'm guessing you don't have insurance problems. I know lots of folks that do. Like the guy between jobs that fell off a bicycle and broke his back without insurance. And on the flip side, as a first responder, I remember Ambulance drivers complaining about folk that would call an ambulance because they didn't want to pay for a cab. I suspect that if you put your politics aside for a bit and just think about it, You would laude the fact that finally these deadbeats are going to finally contribute to the society they want to be a part of.
ReplyDeletePeople who pay taxes, including the some of the "bums" and "deadbeats"
ReplyDeleteyou describe, are already paying a tax for the indigent and those who show up at e-rooms with a cold or use ambulances as public transport.
People who don't pay federal income tax are being subsidized already if they qualify for Medicaid or a zillion other programs to provide health care to the poor.
Far better if we allowed interstate health insurance and greater group policies as well as coverage for "catastrophic" health issues. We also need to recognize that over 80% of health care costs are incurred by the elderly, payment for which could be assisted if contributions a health savings plan were encouraged so that the elders had money in the bank to help defray their costs.
As for my "insurance" situation, well, I planned ahead and served in the military for 30 years to "earn" that benefit (for which I wish the government had bought some sort of annuity, instead of funding it out of current tax dollars). I was informed that putting up with crummy pay and bad working conditions were going to be worth it when I turned 60.
Still, because I was a reservist, I also paid for private insurance for all of my civilian working life (either out of pocket or as part of an employer's plan). I bet, even after various medical expenses, that if I had been able to bank that money (after paying for a catastrophic insurance policy), there'd be a few $ in my health savings plan if I could have gone that route.
Meanwhile the point of the post was that Justice Roberts got it right - it's a tax.