Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For all of you who keep telling me...

Steve, I'd be interested in your commentary on my post above.

Don't get me wrong. I want the abomination that is obamacare (nay, the naked assault on a. liberty and responsibility, b. the taxpayer i.e. "the productive", and c. the medical profession, one of the few semi-autonomous actual "professions" in existence and hence a threat to commies) gone, ground into the dust, and shamed out of existence.

And in the knee-jerk sense, wanted the abomination struck down soundly. Had been harboring a funny feeling this may come to pass, however.

And it's not all bad.

There is wisdom in this outcome, if put aside the penalty cum tax interpretation by Roberts. On the balance, he asserted some defintion to the commerce clause (of future import). And, most importantly, he essentially said to the voter, "You made this bed, you sleep in it or change it, but that is a legistlative issue."

And we all saw how slimy the process was (if those shenanigan's could be called legislative process). How was that permitted to come to pass? This was, in the end, a parent admonishing his slack-azz children to wake the [bleep] up and take positive, affirmative control of their country back through the intended means: scrutinization of who we appoint to represent us in the legislative process.

Zero own's this disaster of a law 100% now, with no one to scapegoat. All I have to say is, "Good luck, mutherphucker! And look forward to seeing your commie azz on the curb of 1600 Penn. shortly."

So Scalia isn't bright enough to do the same?

They could easily get around that by giving people a deduction for having healthcare, you know, like giving people an extra deduction for purchasing an electric car, having kids, being old, etc. Roberts likely considered the difference between a deduction for healthcare and a penalty for not having healthcare too fine a line upon which to declare the mandate unconstitutional. Besides, he only went with the tax shtick because he wanted to preserve the perceived independence of the court rather than it always voting along predictable ideological lines.

So, just a general increase in income tax (it would need to be huge), with a 100% deduction in the amount of whatever you spend on your private medical insurance?

The House is going to vote to repeal July 11th.

By calling it a tax, it puts the representatives in the hot seat due to the planned vote to repeal. They will answer for whatever choice they make at the polls. Well, a good portion of them anyway.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-co...-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html

Well, a 100% tax credit would be much more advantageous than a tax deduction, if the Congress and POTUS wanted to cut the balls off this thing.

Issue waivers to states and tax credits to those that pay health insurance premiums.

No revenue = no funding = dead for all intents and purposes.

Well then, vote for obama or a loosing 3rd party dude. Certainly their picks for SCOTUS may be better than Romneys choice. Not. Lesser of two evils. Doesn't mean I like that. Does mean I"m smart enough to make the better of the two attempts every last time though.

Supreme court justices are something like backup systems, where one equals none, two equals one, etc. Five equals four under that scenario. We gave Obama two picks this time. If he gets enough the next time I won't have to waste my time voting for the rest of my life. I'll take Romney's worst picks over Obama's interpretation of conservative picks any time.

The amount you spend on private medical insurance plus medical and dental costs is currently deductable in the amount that exceeds 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. They could just change that so that healthcare insurance is its own deduction apart from the 7.5 percent threshold and with a maximum deduction up to the so-called penalty amount. They could work it to be revenue natural and extend it to those who don't itemize deductions.

Being such a deduction passes constitutional muster, the extra complexity only benefits tax accountants so it's better to just leave it as a penalty.

Apart from having to pay a penalty, the liability for unpaid medical bills is still an issue. The idea that you can get insurance on the way to the hospital is nonsense. Insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage, but they can take a reasonable amount of time to process an application and grant coverage and that period could be 10 or even 30 days. The individual will be responsible for all medical costs they rack up in that time and if they have assets above a certain threshold as determined by state law, they could lose them in forced bankruptcy proceedings.

Where the taxpayer gets hit is with people who qualify for free or subsidized healthcare or healthcare insurance. Also, Obamacare doesn't do anything about rising healthcare costs, so we'll all pay more over time.

"You ever hear of the electoral college? Their votes count; not yours and mine."
.
But, your vote determines how the electoral college voters cast their votes! Unless, the law has been changed.

It really sounds like to me that Roberts was getting a little pay back for Mr. O's dis at the State of the Union address. Obama's theme was the health care act was NOT a tax. Roberts says it IS a tax and Roberts has the last word.

Yes, Mr. O' it is a tax.
signed Chief Justice Roberts.


kwg

This reminds me of a boxing match where you want to see a TKO by Justice Roberts siding with the conservative side rather than leave it up to the judges (no pun intended) and calling it a tax.

But in the long run, the idea of this being a tax my do far more harm to Obama and I bet he realizes it. I can see Romney's political ads already. It will be the interview with George Stephanopoulos where he tries to pin Obama down on this being a tax and O says "It's not a tax." And then the video gets stuck and continues to repeat "tax..tax...tax.."

no one will bring up that brobam said " no tax increase...."

Too late. They are already on the trail.

"The ruling is likely to drive voters toward Romney as "people realize they just got hit with a massive tax increase," the Romney adviser argued, adding that the tax argument is simpler than any previous criticism that Romney has leveled at the president regarding Obamacare.

"Frankly, to be able to tell you your taxes have been raised by this bill and you didn't know that, as opposed to trying to explain Congress's powers under the commerce clause, it's easier," the Romney adviser said, referencing the issue of the law's constitutionality."

"I didn't see the tax issue coming" says a senior Romney advisor

Rubio is already doing interviews about the SCOTUS ruling and that Obama said no tax increase.

The President said no tax increase on the middle class

Not so fast, take a deep breath and a second look.

CURL: Roberts to the Rescue for Romney

TWTimes: By Joseph Curl
Thursday, June 28, 2012

Traitor! Turncoat! Benedict Arnold!
Those contemptuous epithets and more were hurled by Republicans and conservatives at Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. moments after he single-handedly saved Obamacare, joining liberals on the bench to break a 4-4 tie.
The Supreme Court has abandoned us,� Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared. �Simply disappointing,� Florida Gov. Rick Scott moaned. �Activist court,� Rep. Michele Bachmann cried.
Even Ari Fleischer, the former spokesman for George W. Bush, who appointed Chief Justice Roberts to the court, joined in. �I miss Justice Harriet Miers,� he whined.


But they all miss the point, and, more, by looking purely at the political, miss the forest for the trees.

In voting to uphold Mr. Obama�s disastrous health-care overhaul, the chief justice took away the president�s main line of attack that surely would have been deployed had the court voted 5-4, along party lines.

The Divider in Chief, already bent on stoking cultural warfare � upper-middle class vs. lower-middle class, white against black against Hispanic, gay against straight, believers against non-believers � had no doubt hoped to win one more target for his bilious bifurcation.

Were the five justices appointed by Republican president to have stuck together in opposition, Mr. Obama would have toured the country (at taxpayer expense) to decry the court�s action as nothing more than an act political usurpation � how dare those five men take away the will of the people?!

But Justice Roberts did just the opposite (and, bonus, also strictly adhere to the original intent of the Constitution).

Obamacare is unconstitutional if it were to be enacted via the Commerce Clause, but not if it�s simply a tax, the justice wrote. �Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.�

In so doing, Justice Roberts has just busted Campaign 2012 wide open.

The high court�s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases costing nearly $700 billion.
Of those taxes, 12 would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year.
Now that Obamacare�s penalty is a �tax,� not a �fee,� Mr. Obama is breaking a 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000.
This new �tax� will hit across the economic spectrum, despite his campaign declaration that health care should �never be purchased with tax increase on middle-class families.�

Now, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have enacted the largest tax increase in history.

Chief Justice Roberts has given Mitt Romney a key attack: The president is a tax-and-spend liberal bent on expanding government to unprecedented levels.

And the presumed Republican nominee knows it:
�If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we�re going to have to replace President Obama,� he said from a rooftop in Washington overlooking the Capitol. �What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president.�

Mr. Obama, of course, gloated about the win. �The highest Court in the land has now spoken,� he said. Indeed it has: And a majority of the justices are calling your �fee� a �tax.�

So, for Campaign 2012, it�s game on.

And for his part, Mr. Fleischer regained his pithy pundacity after digesting the high court�s ruling.
�Mitt Romney will appeal this decision to the American people on November 6th. Oral arguments are already taking place.�

� Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurlwashingtontimes.com

"But Grandpa, why did America have to fall and all those people have to die?"

"Well, for lots of reasons, my boy, and not very good ones. But in a nutshell, it was because people believed politicians."

DITTOS +1,000.

"Obviously this is absurd. It can't possibly be true that the Founding Fathers wrote into the constitution a very elaborate, complex process of amending the Constitution and [then] said, 'Hold up, if the Supreme Court is split four to four between liberals and conservatives and Justice Kennedy wakes up in the morning, he becomes a one-person constitutional convention."

Gingrich said "judicial supremacy" was not the vision of the Founding Fathers and is unconstitutional.