?
Posted on 11/23/2014 10:12:56 AM PST by PROCON
The Supreme Court's surprising decision to hear a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act once again has focused attention on Chief Justice John Roberts, who cast the deciding vote in a 2012 decision that saved ObamaCare from being declared unconstitutional.
Many court watchers expect that he will once again be the swing vote in deciding a case crucial to the health-care law, this one involving questions about who qualifies for subsidies under the law. But Roberts' vote in a recent voting rights case suggests he might not step in to save the health law this time.
At issue in King vs. Burwell is a provision of the Affordable Care Act that authorizes subsidies in the form of tax credits for qualifying individuals who buy their insurance from exchanges “established by the state.” But 34 states did not set up their own health-care exchanges, opting instead, as the law allows, to send state residents to a federal exchange to buy insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at triblive.com ...
Screw the public. Only the executive and judicial branch can make law now. Roberts rewrote 0-care once and the jerk will do it again.
Roberts goes to Malta all the time for vacation, does he have some connection to the Hopitaliers aka Knights of St. John? I know that this order made a lot of money on the crusades.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s into some occult crap.
“Will Chief Justice Roberts redeem himself?”
No
He will ratify despotism because he is a coward above all other cowards.
Can a traitor turn himself back into a nontraitor?
“The penalty will be applied to your year-end federal modified adjusted gross income for each month you don’t have health insurance or an exemption.”
Help me to understand this. How can the penalty, which is a set dollar amount, be added to one’s MAGI? Then a person would pay the tax on the penalty, not pay the full penalty.
True, but they did answer the question I posed: Will Chief Justice Roberts redeem himself.
Anybody who dares to go against obama won’t have long to live.
And that's exactly what this thread has turned into...***shakes head***
All speculative crappola.
We were led to believe this butthead, Roberts, had it together in the first place.
As I read it the penalty amount is not what you pay but rather the amount added as income to offset your earnings thus raising your taxes. That rise in taxes is the true penalty amount. After all that means poor people never pay the same as the middle class. Thus, just another government scam to attack the middle class.
Some of us don’t get refunds……...
No, we do not. Pay, pay, and pay more!
Roberts’ “thinking” is not the question. Whether Roberts will yield once more to blackmail, is.
Me too. If you don't have ObamaCare or a qualifying policy then you are going to have a higher tax bill for 2014. It goes up in 2015 and again in 2016 and then it keeps going up as long as we have inflation which means forever.
Welcome to the United States of Obama.
Just in case anyone missed it, here is the summary of the penalties straight from HealthCare.gov:
***
If you don’t have coverage in 2015, you’ll pay the higher of these two amounts:
If you didn’t have coverage in 2014, you’ll pay the higher of these two amounts when you file your 2014 federal tax return:
1% of your yearly household income. (Only the amount of income above the tax filing threshold, about $10,000 for an individual, is used to calculate the penalty.) The maximum penalty is the national average premium for a bronze plan.
$95 per person for the year ($47.50 per child under 18). The maximum penalty per family using this method is $285.
The penalty increases every year. In 2016 it’s 2.5% of income or $695 per person. After that it's adjusted for inflation.
You’ll pay the fee on the federal income tax return you file for the year you don’t have coverage. Most people will file their 2014 returns in early 2015 and their 2015 returns in early 2016.
***
He may have injected a fatal cancer into Obamacare. The game is still afoot, Watson!
Roberts would consider his earlier ruling to be well-founded, not controversial. I doubt that there is anything in that ruling for which he is seeking redemption. In fact, reversing course might imply that there was.
That's not to say he won't strike down the subsidies on the merits, just not for redemption. The article provides one rationale.
I am praying the Roberts will see the error of his vote and vote the correct way!
I never get a refund, either.
Im sorry to say Chief inJustice John Roberts could not redeam himself by voting to uphold the law as intentionally written in this one case because his earler edict had already effectively given Washington Unbounded power.
This is just a technicality on how Congress wrote the law with the intention of coercing our States into “voluntary” compliance.
Im afraid John Roberts already slayed the Federal Constitution he cannot now bring that which is already made dead back to life, by nitpicking a lawless edict. He could at best save us from this one evil only to leave us to be slayed again and again by countless others he had already opened the door to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.