Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
BERT ATKINSON JR. JUNE 28, 2012 3:59 PM


Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it's important that you think carefully about the meaning - the true nature - of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here's what really occurred - payback. Yes, payback for Obama's numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.



Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can't compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said 'hey, a penalty or a tax, either way'. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land - beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states - 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in "national" health-care? Suddenly, it's not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

-------------------------
"Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw

-------------------------
"Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw

The link for the above article:

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

-------------------------

 

Wow is that stupid. 

"It will be a short-lived celebration."   Explain this.

 

Because it is officially a "tax".....taxes can easily be repealed. Thats why Ohbummer did not want it called a tax.

-------------------------
"Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw

Another in a LONG list of Odumbo LIES!!

-------------------------

 

 

 

 

"The problems we face today exist because the People who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for their living."

Romney/Obama-Care
Try telling the truth for once, FK.

Doesn't matter what plan Romney had in MA. States' rights differ from those of the Federal gov't. Quit trying to shift the blame to someone else (like Bush, etc). For now, gloat about your victory with ObamaCare. Savor it while it lasts. Fact is, Obama lied; it's going to be funded by a tax, and that's that. Problem is: taxes can be repealed by Congress, and there's not a damned thing the president can do about it. Remember: he can't force Congress to fund it.

 

• 

  Despite the Supreme Court calling the ObamaCare fine a 'tax,' the White House still claims it's only a 'penalty.'

-------------------------

 

Fixed it for you

Really? Whats your estimated day/ year that this one is easily repealed?

-------------------------
And Bob will ALWAYS be my numero uno. -Tiffanys

Sorry for quoting the 'evil' witch Pelosi, but I know how it makes you guy's squirm....LOL...

"The point being you can call it whatever you want, but it is a penalty for free riders, who get health care without paying for insurance, increasing the cost to others."



-------------------------
surf forecast

I have a quick answer to the free-loaders.  Block the doors of the hospital to anyone that can't provide proof of ability to pay and/or jail those that receive services and then default on the payment.  People want insurance to be optional, then health care should be optional since under the current system the cost of the uninsured is just passed to the rest of us anyway.  If we aren't going to spread the cost to all then each needs to pay for his own.  Let's hear it GOP faithful, you don't want single payer or ObamaCare and you shout from the roof tops that health care is not a right; put your money where your mouth is and get your politicians to start advocating for a proper pay as you go system.  No pay, no care.  Government doesn't provide everyone with a car, why should it provide everyone with health care?  Right?

-------------------------

...

Actually, it is a GOP idea. Lets start calling it Obomney Care now. LOL.

Obomney Care beneifits not only the people but also the insurance companies. Why the GOP is against this is beyond me and I think it is a losing strategy for them to talk about repeal and replace... ...replace with what?



-------------------------
surf forecast

-------------------------
"Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw

Romney claims he will remove it as soon as he is in office.

-------------------------
"Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw

-------------------------
"Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw

The GOP is freaking out, the Tea Party woman screaming on the steps in DC says it all.

Now the Right is trying to save face by saying Roberts did the right thing by passing it in a round about fashion? Please...a no vote would have killed it forever.

Looks to me like Roberts was tired of being the GOP bitch.



-------------------------
"Born fine the first time."

get back to us after that happens, and keep us posted. 0/5.

-------------------------
And Bob will ALWAYS be my numero uno. -Tiffanys

Gov. Rick Scott: Florida won't comply with health care law

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - Florida Gov. Rick Scott is saying Florida will do nothing to comply with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Scott recently said he would follow the law if it were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. But he went on national television on Friday night and said Florida will not take any steps to help carry out the overhaul.

Scott said on Fox News that the state would not expand the Medicaid program in order to lower the number of uninsured residents. The governor also said that Florida would not set up a state-run health exchange, or a marketplace where people needing insurance policies could shop for them.

The governor said that expanding eligibility of Medicaid to those just above the poverty level would not help the citizens of Florida.

-------------------------
"Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw

Well, then, it looks like the rack for Brother Rick, that and the whip and chains, of course. In fact, it look like that's the forecast for the governors of a number of other states.

Means the Federal government will have to pick up a larger chunk of the change to provide coverage, since SCOTUS ruled that the feds can't apply punitive methods to forcing the states to cough up more Medicaid monies (which would've come from we Floridians).

Sure hope the states that are in compliance don't mind covering our share of the bills.

 

Reluctance in Some States Over Medicaid Expansion

WASHINGTON — Millions of poor people could still be left without medical insurance under the national health care law if states take an option granted by the Supreme Court and decide not to expand their Medicaid programs, state officials and health policy experts said Friday.

Republican officials in more than a half-dozen states said they opposed expanding Medicaid or had serious doubts about it, even though the federal government would pick up all the costs in the first few years and at least 90 percent of the expenses after that.

While upholding the most hotly debated part of the health care overhaul law — a requirement that most Americans have health insurance or pay a penalty — the Supreme Court said in its ruling on Thursday that states did not have to expand Medicaid as Congress had intended — leaving a huge question mark over the law’s mechanism for providing coverage to 17 million of the poorest people.

In writing the law, Congress assumed that the poorest uninsured people would gain coverage through Medicaid, while many people with higher incomes would receive federal subsidies to buy private insurance. Now, poor people who live in a state that refuses to expand its Medicaid program will find themselves in a predicament, unable to obtain either Medicaid or subsidies.

MORE

-------------------------

 

Edited: 06/30/2012 at 11:19 AM by B4UAccuseMe