Skip to comments.Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?
Posted on 06/29/2012 9:40:23 PM PDT by Revel
According to Ben, then if Obamacare is a tax as per the USSC, then the bill had to originate in the house. He claims that it did not. Watch the Video. Can anyone with great understanding validate if what he says is true. Did the final bill not originate in the house? Someone at youtube suggests that the senate used a gutted bill from the house. True or False?
A link to the Video:
It was a House bill.
My understanding...Reid knew he needed a vehicle from the House, so he pulled the cheap trick of using a bill that came over and simply replaced what was written on those pages with what he wanted it to say.
It was all a technicality. The content was not a House bill.
Nevertheless that’s what he did and he got away with it. How often such things are done there, I don’t know.
If it’s a tax they overturn it with a simple majority, filibuster-proof, via reconciliation
Here's the House vote on that bill before it was gutted by amendment in the Senate: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll768.xml
Notice the bill history
They used every trick in the book to overcome opposition.
It was a House bill but, interestingly enough, it was not the House healthcare bill. That one never got taken up by the Senate.
Take it up with the Supreme Court. Yeah, that's the ticket. They are sure to void the law based on that technicality. /s
Thanks for checking it out. I guess Ben got it wrong and his claim was too good to be true.
Moderator- Please remove from front page news.
” How often such things are done there, I dont know.”
And IMO you really don’t WANT to know. Same thing with exactly how sausages are made (not to mention chicken nuggets;)
“According to Ben, then if Obamacare is a tax as per the USSC, then the bill had to originate in the house.”
All of these articles decrying the legality of ObamaCare, or attacking it on procedural grounds, assume that Obama gives a rat’s *ss about the customary rules and regulations of the American legislative process - or even the constitution.
Clearly, he does not.
And all of the opinions rendered about how the Republicans are going to nullify it later ignore the twin facts that: 1. RomneyCare preceded ObamaCare by several years, and it is therefore highly unlikely that Romney - assuming he’s elected - will do anything at all about this new law; and, 2. The Republicans are a fighting bunch - they’re most certainly not; they’re all out to pasture baaaing while the democrats shear them or simply asleep and serving time while they collect enormous salaries, gigantic benefits, and generous pensions for doing absolutely nothing but posturing for cameras and writing fictional letters home, mailed with their franking privileges, telling everyone what a big job they’re doing.
Hate to rain on anyone’s parade, but when Roberts blew it, it was thereupon destined to stay blown.
“Hate to rain on anyone’s parade...”
Read the decision. The pertinent legalese is between pages 39-44. It's a logical abortion worthy of Alice in Wonderland.
Bookmark. Great post, thanks!
Romney might have a difficult time ignoring a Republican-dominated Congress in 2013. If this scenario pans out, there will be a mandate that Obamacare be repealed and since Romney’s not black he’ll be held accountable for inaction. The repeal would have to take place if the Repubs sweep Congress.. No two ways about it. It’s the ‘replace’ part that’ll get ugly because we’ll end up with government intrusion of health care no matter what, to appease the news media. MUST answer to the news media, right?
You've got it exactly backwards. The Republican-dominated Congress is going to have a hard time saying no to Romney, who will be the leader of their party.
They're going to give him what he wants, and the Dems will go along with it, because Romney will continue to forward their agenda. Just like he did in Massachusetts.
A shell bill really ought not to count as to its original origin if refilled. That’s seriously warping the entire process.
This is what the RATs were afraid of. We need the Senate.
It will be easier to repeal because it’s a tax bill now.
Why can no one understand the difference between what a State government is allowed to do and what the Federal government is allowed to do?
There is a BIG difference. It is entirely legal for State governments to have this kind of law for it’s citizens. But it is NOT legal for the federal government to have this kind of law for ALL STATES. Not in the same manner as the Massachusetts law was set up, anyway.
The decision by Roberts was poorly thought out and drafted. I wrote a similar article prior to this one concerning the way this bill was drafted in the Senate, though I did not know it was rewrote legislation that was taken from the House.
Here is the article I wrote earlier today about this same matter:
These people we call idiots may be idiots with respect of a lot of things but never underestimate them when it comes to political deceit, pushing through their agenda and stealing elections. They know how the government works and they know how to make it work for their benefit.
Obama's EP on Fast & Fuious may appear like the action of an idiot but ALWAYS assume he's got something else up his sleeve.
Deep down inside I feel at the very least Obama was and is trying to prove to America that the constitution no longer matters which is why he refuses to prove his eligibility.
After seeing how the man has governed, how he has trashed America and intentionally destroying our economy I suspect now that he may be an enemy from the outside which is another reason why he cannot prove his eligibiity.
That being said and though I am one who others may consider a "birther". I've always wondered if Obama was hoping the birther issue would become the MAJOR issue of an election so that on Nov. 5th he would present an authentic BC proving the opposition wrong therefore leaving us without an issue the day before an election.
These people are not stupid when it comes to lies, deceit and stealing an election. They must be considered dangerous. We have at least 2 border agents who would probably agree with me - if they were still alive.
The people, via the Constitution give the government the power to tax to raise revenues to run the government not to punish the people if they break a law.... that what fines are for (if a tax is a fine for breaking a law what law did you break to "own" income or sales tax?)...seem to me using a tax as a punishment is an "unusual" if not cruel punishment
So can the government use a tax, not for revenues but as coercion to force a person to do something and or to punish a person?...
Seem that if the government has decides it can use the tax system as coercive force....
The Constitution can clear be amendment to stated that the power granted to tax may NOT BE USE AS A coercive force on the people...some time you have to spell out the obvious for the stupid
No. Read the opinion (said the lawyer) And, believe it or not, saying it is “taxing authority” doesn’t make it a tax.
Yup. But remember, the number of uninsured that was always originally talked about was something like 20 million. (I dont know the number exactly - it may be much less). ObamaCare supposedly covers 300 million which is OVERKILL. Millions of these people already had insurance through their employer. The man's not only insuring illegal aliens but encouraging them to continue coming in at the same time. The most liberal version of path to citizenship from our side 5 years ago was for those here longer than 20 or 25 years with no criminal record. Obama's "path to citizenship" has worked itself all the way back into the streets of present day Mexico.
At one time there were actually multiple republican pundits suggesting a simple expansion of Medicaid would have covered the small number of uninsured. I don't know where I stand on that but it goes to show you how Obama cut off the limbs of America to fix a cold sore on the lip.
Obama needs to go in November. If he does not, this nation is doomed like we've never seen doom before.
What I’m trying to say is that IF there’s the same wave of rebellion against the status quo as their was in November 2010, Romney AND the Repub majority Congress better whack the heck out of Obamacare. Obama being able to go tyrannical on America is because he’s shielded from accountability due to his race card. Romney won’t have that luxury. He’ll be expected to do something and the voter’s mandate will loom large over the Repub’s heads. Am I dreaming?
They are going to whack the heck out of Obamacare, and it's going to be a hole in one. It might not be called Obamacare when it gets there, but it will get there.
Maybe you haven't been listening to Romney (the grand father of Obamacare) when he said "repeal and replace".
Even if we gain a majority in both houses of Congress, and Romney becomes the 45th president, you still have to contend with the fact that Romney will be in the same position as Obama is now, and can pull many of the same levers to move his own brand of Socialism down field.
Listen carefully to Romney's recent responses to current events, and pay even closer attention to those events he's been silent on. None of it bodes well for the future performance of this man, and in fact, tends to bolster the view that he's going to repeat his performance as Massachusetts Governor, in the White House.
As I said previously, don't rely on a Republican dominated Congress to hold the guy in check. The dynamic works the other way 'round. It's the people who will have to hold Congress in check, from bending to the will of their 'boss'.
It has taken me a while to realize finally that it makes no difference who controls Versaille on the Potomac. Whether it is the Democans or Republicats, the result is the same. Elections have become the modern day equivalent of bread and circuses, designed to placate our desires for excitement.
In 2008, we had the “choice” of McLame or 0bambi. Let’s see, they agreed on abortion, immigration, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bailouts, healthcare and everything else of consequence. Wow, some choice!
In 2010, we elected a bunch of new representatives who were going to take back our government. How’s that worked out? Name one accomplishment that has restored our freedom from the previous session of Congress. You can’t because NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.
Now, in 2012, we have a “choice” between reelecting 0bambi or electing a white 0bambi. Nothing will change. They will continue to take our freedoms away, one by one.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”
IF SECESSION IS NOT THE ANSWER, THEN REVOLUTION MUST BE.
What I think is more important is that I don’t believe HHS can issue waivers to a tax. Waivers would have to come from the House. As soon as those unions found out they can’t be waived out of a tax, they’ll be the first to scream about this law.
Even though many on this forum are singing the praises of Roberts and believe that his wisdom is greater than Solomn's, he royaly fucked us, including the parasites. It will just take longer for it to catch up to them.
As far as the waivers go,they will be enforced by the IRS and they will simply give them to who they are told to. Who got/gets them will never be publized nor reported.
Enforced by the I R S
There is a lie (probably many) being told by some Obama spokesman. They say this tax will only affect a tiny few who can afford health insurance and don’t buy it, and will go to emergency rooms for care and “freeload” on the rest of us by not paying for the care.
That’s nothing but a lie because if someone can afford thousands per year for health insurance, then they have income and/or assets. If they then go to an emergency room and do not pay, the hospital will use every collection method available to collect from anyone with income and/or assets. They would not be allowed to “freeload”. They’d have income garnished or have assets seized. The only people who could get away with that scenario at present are probably illegal aliens.
Just one more way in which Obamacare is misrepresented to the American people.
The law is so convoluted in process and principle that there will be multiple effects things that just render it obsolete. First, people are required to comply with the law but there’s no enforcement mechanism that can force them. Second, states are not required to expand Medicaid and are required to balance the budgets so now how is the Government going to add the 30 million to the state’s rolls?
You are missing the point - the Roberts decision boils down to “the only rules that will be enforced are those that advance the revolution”.
Especially a shell bill that received zero “nay” votes from either party when it passed in the House.
Most of these problems were mentioned in the decent by the conservative justices. They touched on the problems that the bill did not originate in the Senate and also the question of whether it was a direct tax requiring apportionment.
What I did not read from them was the flip side of that argument that was settled in Hylton v. United States. If it is not a direct tax requiring apportionment, then it is required by the Constitution to be uniform. But even Justice Roberts admits that this tax is not uniform because, as he cites, Indian Tribes (and others) are exempted.
It was a scathing decent and well worth the read. Roberts, who was described during the nomination process as the smartest guy in the room, has written an historic opinion that will become an exemplar of bad constitutional law. I think he wanted to be a John Marshall; he will be a Roger Taney with a Bill Clinton type legacy.
I have this feeling that people still trying to work within the Framework are behind the curve. That Framework is now being selectively used to keep us on the plantation.
Invalid or not, with this ruling Congress can now prescribe or ban any and everything that individuals would do or possess or buy or sell by passing a law and punishing unapproved behaviour with a tax penalty rather than with judicial trial and jail time. There is no limit now to wha the government can regulate. It is officially Congress that can do it but Congress will delegate everything to Departments and Bureaus and Offices. This grants total regulation of everything in life to Congress and functionaries and tax collectors.
Rush said yesterday that Reid took a House bill, gutted it, and came out with ObamaCare. If that is true, then it did originate in the House. The Senate is supposed to propose their version of any law, and it can be 100% different than the House version.
More of interest to me is how a tax can be levied against some and not against others based on what they do not have.
That doesn’t sound to me like equal treatment under the law.
Revel, you can’t afford a car, so we’re taxing you, but not your neighbor, for being a transportation deadbeat who makes it necessary for us to run trains.
That doesn’t seem to pass the equal treatment requirement to me.
How are they going to track/enforce this? If you never go to a a doctor how in the world would anyone know if you had coverage? Will they change the tax forms and add a section for insurance info?
I have a draft of the bill but its long and I’m no lawyer or bill expert.
Inquiring minds would like to know. Anyone???
the issue in play is that it is not in the enumerated powers and not justified by the "commerce clause" so it should have been overturned as unconstitutional , PERIOD ! simple as that !
the Supreme Court should have made that clear, they are woefully incompetent lawyers in robes judging over socialist utopia bizarro world
That is true, but this is the government we have, run by crooked lawyers in all 3 branches.
I believe they do plan for the IRS to enforce the penalty/tax on people who supposedly can afford health insurance, but don't purchase it. They're hiring thousands of new IRS agents, and I guess they assume that practically everyone who falls into the "can afford it but not buying" category will be in the gunsights of the IRS, and should be filing returns.
And the House can repeal that tax. That’s what Roberts did. He gave the ball back to Congress and Obama so that they could do it right.
Stay tuned. I think we win as the House repeals Obamacare.
You will have to provide proof of insurance, such as a policy number or a form from the insurer, with your Income Tax return.