I was in a meeting when this ruling came down, and have been trying to grasp its significance. As I understand from various posts, the individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. However, the act itself still stands as it is a tax on those who don’t have, or won’t buy health insurance.
If that is true, it indeed is a tax increase; one on a select group of Americans (those who don’t have or don’t want health insurance...the rest of us are already paying for insurance so it’s not a tax unless we have to pay more for less coverage). Also, that select group of Americans cuts through every strata of income. It’s not based on income but on lack of action by the taxpayer.
Can someone with more understanding than I have clarify this for me?
“As I understand from various posts, the individual mandate was declared unconstitutional.”
No. It was declared CONSTITUTIONAL under congress taxing power—even though the act declared it a penalty, not a tax.
Roberts just chickened out when Obama made his threats against the Court and reached for any way to rule in favor of the bill.
Easy, you have just witnessed a traitorous supreme court turn a Republic into a socialist cesspool. Furthermore the Republicans have installed a savior Candidate that will make sure we keep that status, just maybe a little more kinder and gentler, but New World Order in any case.