Chief Justice Roberts threw America a big curve ball today by joining the left-leaning justices in affirming that the individual mandate contained within the health care bill is simply a tax, and thus within the powers of congress to regualte. I have two major issues with the latter statement.
First, Obama promised over and over that passing his sweeping health care overhaul would not present any tax increases on the middle class: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv9iueuI3Sw&feature=player_embedded) The "no tax increase" was a big reason why Obama was able to garner so much support behind the bill. However, as soon as the argument was presented to the Supreme Court, Obama's lawyers flip flopped and tried to argue the mandate simply was just a tax increase on those people who happen to not have health care. They knew that calling it a tax was the only way they had a shot at having the bill pass as constitutional. Forget that over 50% of Americans still want it repealed, or that the bill passed as a "reconciliation" since the Democrats couldn't overcome the filibuster. Basically, the whole passage of the health care bill has been full of backroom deals, non-
transparency, and straight up lies.
My second problem lies in the mandate (let's call it what it really is). Through a very loose interpretation of the powers of Congress to levy taxes, the Supreme Court now maintains that congress can essentially force you to either buy a product or be penalized. Obviously in this specific case, the product is health insurance. I find it very scary that one of the liberal Supreme Court Justices said "It is not your free choice" to stay out of the market for life... As a young healthy adult it is completely my decision whether or not I decide to buy health insurance. Here's another interesting way of looking at the whole health care debate: If the governement can regulate health care and demand everyone buy health insurance through implied powers , then by the same logic could they mandate everyone buy a hand gun as well? After all, having that extra protection would be nice wouldn't it? I don't mean to pander to the slippery slope fallacy, but it truly is pivotal that the justices realize the U.S. Government can't force me, as a free citizen, to purchase something, even if they call it a "tax".
Having said that, the only way to get rid of Obamacare is a full scale repeal at this point. Even though Eric Cantor already reports the House Republicans are drafting a repeal bill, it's a complete waste of time with Obama still in the White House. However, the bill being declared constitutional actually might help Romney's campaign. Consdering that every major poll shows that the majority of Americans still want Obamacare repealed, they now know the only way that will happen is electing Romney.
Take the time to read the opinion(or at least the 4 page brief at the top) because your post has several falsehoods.
ReplyDelete"However, as soon as the argument was presented to the Supreme Court, Obama's lawyers flip flopped and tried to argue the mandate simply was just a tax increase on those people who happen to not have health care."
They tried to argue it two different ways before resorting to calling it a tax. From the opinion, they first argued it was a penalty, when that was rejected, they then argued the lawsuit was not valid due to The Anti-Injunction Act, after that was also rejected they then resorted to arguing it was a tax. That's more like a last resort than a flip-flop.
"Through a very loose interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, the Supreme Court now maintains that congress can essentially force you to either buy a product or be penalized."
Actually they ruled it's not constitutional by the commerce clause. It's constitutional through the power of tax.
"If the governement can regulate health care and demand everyone buy health insurance through implied powers contained within the commerce clause, then by the same logic could they mandate everyone buy a hand gun as well?"
Well, it looks like the answer is yes, so long as the penalty is not an undue financial burden to anyone (the hand-gun legislation would not be able to fine any of the poor for instance as the health care law doesn't either) the penalty also must not ever exceed the cost of the item (as per the opinion of the court).
Maintaining parity with the ACA, the penalty for not buying a hand gun would be about $60. Curiously buying a hand gun cost about the same as a month of health insurance.
Thank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how long it took them, the fact that they ended up calling it a tax at all certainly warrants the phrase "flip-flop".
And you are correct about the commerce clause. Those details didn't emerge until just after I posted and I will edit the post to reflect the correct reasoning.