The Supreme Court has been considering the constitutional legality of Obama Care (The "Affordable Care Act o 2010") for months. Most legal followers were expecting a decision based on whether or not it is constitutional for the federal government to demand that individuals purchase health insurance, even if they are young and in good health such they don’t need it. If the "Commerce Clause" allows such power in federal hands, then the law is legitimate. If the law overreaches the commerce clause, then the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers of the constitution and Obama Care is illegal.
The Supreme Court was divided along partison lines in December of 2000 when it decided to interfere with Florida’s voter recount in a manner that handed Florida’s electoral votes – and the presidency – to George W. Bush. Aware that the Supreme Court may be facing another such major decision with votes along strictly partisan lines, the present Chief Justice, John Roberts, undertook to write the opinion himself (a decision correctly predicted by pundits and court watchers). But what he decided to do was oppose the notion that the commerce clause empowers the federal government to demand universal insurance, yet, in the same decision, to deem the penalty for non-coverage a tax that is consistent with the constitutional power to impose taxes.
The four liberal judges on the bench agreed and a five-to-four decision came down today in favor of the legality of Obama Care. Superficially, the court looks unbiased because both left and a right judge voted for the majority opinion. The other conserative judges wrote a blistering dissenting opinion.
The future of the legislation will be determined ultimately by the winners of the Presidential and congressional elections in November.
Out there in blog land, the voting public seems to be waking up to a wider war that the Supreme Court has justed started. The court thought it decided that penalties constitute a tax, the power to tax is enumerated in the constitution, and that settles the matter unless Congress throws out Obama Café.
Here’s a pungent blogged response:
WRONG. This decision means that the Federal Government can tax its citizens for ANYTHING. For NOT doing something. It is no longer a limited government. Liberals, if a future administration decides to tax you if you don't buy a gun...thank Obama. If it decides to tax you for not attending a church of your choice...thank Obama. Both freedom of religion and the 2nd amendment are better arguments than a make-believe "right to health care". IT IS THE ERA OF BIG BROTHER AND THE DEMOCRATS MADE IT HAPPEN.
--Yahoo blog comment by "oblockcfp"
Footnote by the blog author: as a certified public accountant, I have been watching this situation closely since the legislation was being drafted by Capitol Hill lobbyists in the summer of 2009. I have a secret to share with you: the complexity and inefficiency of administration of Obama Care are horrendous. This is going to be stunningly expensive, and it will be paid for out of borrowed money (deficit spending) and stupendously higher insurance premiums for everyone. If Obama Care is a "tax," get ready for a whopping tax increase in 2014, 2015, 2016 and ever thereafter.
Supporters of Obama Care talk like it will cost about the same as the present system and humanely cover nearly everyone. Instead it will be atrociously expensive and still leave out millions of Americans.
Oh. By the way. For all that money, it still doesn’t cover everyone. It still doesn’t cover all medical conditions. And it still leaves, uh, termination of life at the end of chronic conditions up to panels. Death panels. The panels are right there in the boilerplate of the law.
The Supreme Court was divided along partison lines in December of 2000 when it decided to interfere with Florida’s voter recount in a manner that handed Florida’s electoral votes – and the presidency – to George W. Bush. Aware that the Supreme Court may be facing another such major decision with votes along strictly partisan lines, the present Chief Justice, John Roberts, undertook to write the opinion himself (a decision correctly predicted by pundits and court watchers). But what he decided to do was oppose the notion that the commerce clause empowers the federal government to demand universal insurance, yet, in the same decision, to deem the penalty for non-coverage a tax that is consistent with the constitutional power to impose taxes.
The four liberal judges on the bench agreed and a five-to-four decision came down today in favor of the legality of Obama Care. Superficially, the court looks unbiased because both left and a right judge voted for the majority opinion. The other conserative judges wrote a blistering dissenting opinion.
The future of the legislation will be determined ultimately by the winners of the Presidential and congressional elections in November.
Out there in blog land, the voting public seems to be waking up to a wider war that the Supreme Court has justed started. The court thought it decided that penalties constitute a tax, the power to tax is enumerated in the constitution, and that settles the matter unless Congress throws out Obama Café.
Here’s a pungent blogged response:
--Yahoo blog comment by "oblockcfp"
Footnote by the blog author: as a certified public accountant, I have been watching this situation closely since the legislation was being drafted by Capitol Hill lobbyists in the summer of 2009. I have a secret to share with you: the complexity and inefficiency of administration of Obama Care are horrendous. This is going to be stunningly expensive, and it will be paid for out of borrowed money (deficit spending) and stupendously higher insurance premiums for everyone. If Obama Care is a "tax," get ready for a whopping tax increase in 2014, 2015, 2016 and ever thereafter.
Supporters of Obama Care talk like it will cost about the same as the present system and humanely cover nearly everyone. Instead it will be atrociously expensive and still leave out millions of Americans.
Oh. By the way. For all that money, it still doesn’t cover everyone. It still doesn’t cover all medical conditions. And it still leaves, uh, termination of life at the end of chronic conditions up to panels. Death panels. The panels are right there in the boilerplate of the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment