What I don't understand is when that Gruber guy was getting Obamacare manufactured, he said that they expressly worked so that it would not be considered a tax. As if it were considered a tax that it would somehow have disastrous consequences for their work.
I don't get it. If it is a tax and the Obama administration worked hard for it to not be considered a tax, then what is the deal with Roberts calling it out as a tax?
Tis a quandry.
No, you understanding is fine. I believe that Roberts had to do mental gymnastics to arrive at his opinion to call the "fee"" a tax. Keep in mind, that Gruber was not party to the bill as a voting member of Congress and I doubt he was ever called to testify in the SC case. The other thing to note is that Congress could repeal Obamacare and override a presidential veto if there was the political will to do so. That is Robert's ultimate argument for not wanting to override Congress's intent.
That's mostly the point of a different lawsuit that's still out there.
If it were a tax, then all revenue raising bills must originate in the House. This bill did originate in the House as a minor insignificant bill (the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009") that was amended in the Senate to gut the old bill and replace it with Obamacare. The amended bill was sent back to the House for approval. There is another lawsuit out there to challenge Obamacare on the basis of the Origination Clause and the House's power of the purse.
Also, Obama said that Obamacare would lower people's health care costs. If this is a tax, it has the dual appearance of 1) raising people's health care costs, and 2) paying money as a tax for someone else's health care costs. A tax goes to the general welfare, not your own family's health care needs.
Calling it a tax undermines everything that Obama said about the Affordable Care Act.
-PJ