Yes, but the others did not have myriad and unknown unintended consequences. It’s waaaay too much in this case. Best to just say no and have legislature repair. Not doing so would be a stretch of unimaginable proportion.
True, and if I recall correctly, SCOTUS scrutinized the problem of interdependence at the hearing. They definitely had that on their radar.
The individual mandate (IM) was always a head fake, a red herring.
Obama never cared for the IM, his people wanted a massive tax increase from the beginning but they could not package the legislation as a tax increase.
In Title IX of the Act there are Revenue provisions. These are taxes on incomes and taxes on Employer Sponsored health Plans (ESHPs), as well as myriad other taxes.
The taxes on ESHPs are 40% above a certain value. The ‘value’ is determined by the government and the level is arbitrary. IOW the fed government has the power to force employers to abandon ESHPs.
The taxes on incomes are small and apply to incomes > 200k but these taxes will grow as they always do.
Severability was not included because to have done so would have invited an analysis of whether the plan would work with severability and they were touting the IM was essential which it is not because the taxes in Title IX can be expanded and amended at midnight until they have the massive tax and control that they were after.
This is a poker game and the dems are good at it.
Pelosi said we would have to read the Bill to see what was in it. Well we have and we know it’s a massive tax increase to be rolled out in the next 5 years.
And the awful reality is that Romney if elected will follow through with the tax provisions of Obamacare and he will increase them.
It’s been known since 1996 and before that the USA has to raise tax rates to 86% to meet entitlement obligations. Nearly all legislation coming out now is driven by NWO persons to avoid the US insolvency by cleverly passing tax increases. This is the motivation behind Obamacare, not anything to do with health care.