Posted on 12/11/2013 10:10:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Why is this man smirking?
OK, not really praise; Roberts’s failure to strangle the Obamacare baby in its crib when he had the chance will go down alongside the Dred Scott decision as one of the greatest moral disasters in the history of the republic. The man in charge of enforcing the Constitution blinked when confronted with a triumphalist party and a then-popular president, forgetting that he, Roberts, would likely be in Washington long after Obama was gone. In an attempt to save the Supreme Court’s reputation and standing, he destroyed it.
Still, even if inadvertently, Roberts got one thing right: the Patient Deflection and Unaffordable Care Act is a tax, and nothing but a tax. A punitive, regressive tax, to be sure — but a tax nonetheless. A tax on ideological stupidity, as its supporters are just now learning. Just wait til the “employer mandate” kicks in.
Remember that the PDUCA has nothing whatsoever to do with “health care.” That was just the heartstring-tugging pretense to mask a breathtaking power grab by the Democrats. No one’s health will be improved by the passage of this law, although many may well be adversely affected. Nor it is even really about “insurance.” For how can we call covering pre-existing conditions “insurance”? You can only insure against something in the future, not something that’s already occurred. Call it a socialized risk pool, or some such, but don’t call it “insurance.”
No, what Obamacare is — and was always meant to be — is an onerous tax on the middle class, wearing the usual Leftist disguise of “compassion.” With soaring deductibles and higher premiums for all, but “subsidies” for some, it’s a huge transfer of wealth from those who can least afford it, prostituting the insurance companies (through which the monies will flow) in the service of a governmental enterprise both unasked for and constitutionally uncalled for.
In effect, what Obamacare does is destroy the concept of insurance completely: if your deductible soars to $6,250 (the “bronze” plan) — meaning the amount you will have to pay out of your own pocket — then you might as well not have “insurance” at all, and simply pay a fee for service, at much lower rates. Meanwhile, your “premiums” become an entirely new, unplanned-for expense that will net you… nothing you didn’t already have before. Far better to simply buy catastrophic insurance and otherwise pay as you go.
What big teeth you have, Grandma
But that would defeat the whole point of Obama’s enterprise. As I wrote over at NRO’s The Corner in March 2012:
Does anyone on either side really think that the Patient Deflection and Unaffordable Care Act is about health care?
For if its about health care, arent there a myriad of ways in which the system could be improved without a comprehensive top-down solution? At a time of extreme economic dislocation, was there a nationwide clamor to make health care the top priority of the new administration?
Or is it really about the exercise of raw governmental power, to teach the citizenry an object lesson about the coming brave new world, one that surely will get even worse once Obama is safely past the shoals of his last election?
To believe in the good intentions of the former as soft-headed conservatives are sometimes wont to do when crediting the hard Left with anything but sheer malevolence toward the country as founded is to have to pretzel ones mind around the internal contradictions of the bill itself (its a tax! Its not a tax!) and the way in which it was imposed just a couple of years ago by a one-party Congress that no longer exists, having been rebuked and sent packing by an outraged electorate.
Far easier to believe in the latter that Obamacare is just the canary in the coal mine of whats coming next. That, once having established the hammer, the administration will use Obamacare (should the law be found constitutional) as the anvil upon which to smash the Republic once and for all. And the progressivess Long March through the institutions will finally end in the all-powerful centralized government for which theyve long yearned.
Sure, it’s fun to watch Obamacare implode — but it helps to remember that its very impracticality is a feature, not a bug. For the cure for “Reform” is always more “Reform,” not less. This isn’t the end. It’s only the beginning. Maybe the next time the Roberts Court has a chance to put this thing out of its misery, it’ll take it.
It’s never to late for a lawsuit. In order to have one, the plaintiff needs to show harm. There’s plenty of harm evident now that O-care is rolling out. I suppose a State could try to sue on behalf of its citizens. Maybe a real lawyer could opine on this.
It’s never to late for a lawsuit. In order to have one, the plaintiff needs to show harm. There’s plenty of harm evident now that O-care is rolling out. I suppose a State could try to sue on behalf of its citizens. Maybe a real lawyer could opine on this.
I don’t give a rats behind! He could have killed it and didn’t, plain and simple. As long as I am on Gods green earth, I will remember him as the chief enabler who allowed socialism full control of the USA.
Roberts is a traitor and a man who violated a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution, but he is comparatively low on the scale of evil. Betrayal just hurts more than opposition from a known enemy.
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
That alone would not be enough. Whatever it is, it is either even more universally excoriated, or cause for prosecution.
No, Judge Roberts. By your definition, all fees, fines and penalties are taxes. That’s a load of crap. Any difficulty separating taxes, fees, fines, and penalties can be removed by relying on the definition within the legislation itself:
>> In the dissent, Scalia1 says this is horseshit. The law itself repeatedly calls it a penalty, it’s not primarily designed to raise revenue, and it is plainly designed to punish people who decline to buy insurance. “We cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not,” Scalia says. “We have never heldneverthat a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress taxing powereven when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.” <<
It’s important to note that only ONE SINGLE SUPREME COURT JUDGE called Obamacare’s penalties a tax; the other four who decided Obamacare was legal did so with alternate legal reasoning.
This IS it - totally. Anyone following the dots can see this. Again I say please look at getting out of here if you can.
Roberts needs to be impeached.
If he is correct on being a tax, then he needs to be impeached for violating the Constitution. A tax cannot be levied by the Senate.
Either way, Obamacare is unconstitutional. He blew it.
Thanks SeekAndFind.
And I think Roberts knows this now, which is why I think he'll over turn it at any opportunity ..
I don't think he can bring himself to overturn it.
The Obama/Holder blackmail that got him to abandon his principles and oath of office in the first place is still in effect.
Of course it can be challenged*, but you should bring guns.
* The courts are all too eager to throw out the individual's complaints, or any challenge or limit to its power/authority: see president, standing, stare decisis, and all manner of rejecting/reinterpreting the Constitution[s] binding the court.
To debate a theoretical blackmail until there is some evidence is just a waste of time. I suppose it’s possible, but it’s like discussing a theoretical vapor .a waste of time.
Ultimately Technology will make the whole argument moot, however the solution will likely be 10 years after your expiration date, as usual.
- Gave your bank account info to a fed or state healthcare website?
- Washington state is already illegally grabbing huge amounts from checking accounts - in some cases twice :
- http://www.kgw.com/news/Enrollees-report-erroneous-debits-by-WA-Healthplanfinder-235244701.html
Finally someone gets it.
I’m actually tired of having to post this crap over and over and over but seems very few here “get” it.
Obamcare has nothing to do with a tax or whatever it was supposed to be according to Roberts.
It has everything to do with Roberts having the sh_t blackmailed out of him by the regime!!!
Roberts (barren?)wife insisted on adopting blue-eyed blond- haired children from her parents home county of Cork, Ireland.
She found two mothers willing to give up a boy and a girl. Turns out it’s really hard to adopt them directly from Ireland to the US so they had the birth mothers go to Central America where they were adopted by the Roberts and sent to the US.
Evidently this fast and loose game did not go unnoticed by the regime.
When the time was right they most likely asked Roberts to choose between “0” care and his kids. Guess what he picked?
Here’s some documentation that is hard to refute since its from the NYT among others!
Heres’s a clip from the link.
“(Editors Note: Found the below post when reading headlines over at WhatReallyHappened dot com. The headline reads How Roberts was blackmailed to support ObamaCare and it was written by a poster at the Liberty Caucus blog who goes by the user name Trip. This poster has done some digging into Supreme Court Justice John Roberts adoption of two Irish children born months apart by two different mothers, which in and of itself is fairly benign, but there is a problem, the laws governing adoption in Ireland are clearall adoptions go through [a] government board, An Bord Uchtala including what Americans call private adoption. Yet, the Roberts adopted these two children through an unspecified Latin American country. If, and this is a really BIG IF, but if the Roberts adoption of these two children circumvented Irelands laws by having the mothers transported to a Latin American country with friendly adoption laws to give birth, well then the Chief Justice may have very well have broken a few laws and IF, again, this is a really BIG IF, if someone in DC learned of these facts who is to say they may not be using them to blackmail the Chief Justice? We know former Illinois Sen. Ryans sealed divorce records mysteriously became public when he was running against Mr. Obama in 2004. Who is to say a similar tactic wasnt used to convince Roberts to be the swing vote that brought us Obamacare? Its as good a theory as any other. Roberts did switch his vote at the last minute why?) - See more at: http://www.t-room.us/2013/01/unraveling-the-mystery-behind-chief-justice-roberts-sudden-switch-to-rule-in-favor-of-obamacare/#sthash.hU6N1Aqn.dpuf"
I predict this will turn into a 5% tax...right out of your paycheck. It will be called Mediscam.
Thanks for the post; FReepmail
The “supreme” court sanctioned a PRE-MEDITATED LIE, that was supported in lock-step by a party of deceivers.
FUJR
FUUSSC
FUCONgress
FUBO
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.