Obamacare-Vic's Comments

June 29, 2012

Vic’s Review of Obamacare Case:  Decided 6/28/12

Act requires “minimum Essential” health insurance coverage. 

In 2014 those whose employers do not supply health insurance and those who do not buy coverage privately for themselves, which is required by law, must pay a “shared responsibility payment” to the Federal government.  That “penalty” will be paid to the IRS with the individual’s tax return and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties.

Medicaid expansion.  The current Medicaid program offers federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care.  The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of Medicaid and increases the number of individuals the States must cover.  Under the new Act, by 2014 provides coverage to adults with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level (which for 2012 would be about $30,600 for a family of 4), whereas many States now cover adults with children only if their incomes are considerably lower and do not cover childless adults at all.  The Act also provided that if the States do not provide this expanded coverage, they would lose all of its Medicaid funds, not just the expanded funds.

With respect to Chief Justice Roberts’s prior comments on the role of the Court in reviewing legislative acts of Congress, Justice Roberts has stated:

"The Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform. ... It's a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory.

"Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison, to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called judicial activism, that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic."[17]^{[citation needed]}

         With this in mind, the question arises, would Justice Robert’s approve of his own monumental decision to answer the question:  Did I go to far or am I a judicial activist?

         Answer that one for yourself, for this is what he decided along with Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Bryer and Kagan (Solicitor General under President Obama when nominated in 2010).  Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, dissented. 

Twenty-six States challenged the Constitutionality of the Act based upon the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion.  The Chief Justice concluded that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, which the Court has defined many times in the past as “regulate commerce and presupposes a commercial activity to be regulated”.  He says “the mandate compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product”.  So commerce is doing something and doing nothing.  Congress does not have the power to compel something, just the power to regulate it once it is being done.  So far, Justice Roberts favors freedom.

         Although the government argued in passing the Act, that “This is not a Tax”, when it came time to argue the case in front of the Court, the government Solicitor General argued “Art. I Section 8, cl.1 as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes”.  This is where Roberts gets into trouble.  He says “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality” and is it “fairly possible” to interpret  the mandate as imposing such a tax” (even though it is not called a tax in the Act).  Kind of strained logic, if you ask me.  So, Justice Roberts says, since it is to be collected by the IRS and it is not “too high” so as to be a penalty, it must really be a tax and hence is a Tax. 

         Justice Roberts then gets around to his conservative view of federalism when he says that Congress cannot pressure the States into adopting the expansion of Medicaid by threatening to cut off their other existing Medicaid funding.

          And so, all of the other taxes (and there are about 20 additional taxes in the Act) are OK with the majority of the Court.  Those provisions which are clearly taxes are fine under the tax power of Congress.  He says “We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies.  That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.  We ask only whether congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions”.  He goes on the recite history, “The Federal Government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers”, but, all the rest are reserved to the States.  At this point in the opinion, you would think the mandate should fail the test of Constitutionality.  He then goes on the say Congress may tax and spend.  So, I guess with Mr. Roberts, it is OK to impose a penalty (as long as it is not too much), and then tax and spend us into oblivion.  He essentially blames it on Congress and those who vote for those idiots who passed the Act without reading it.  This all sounds crazy, but, it is not a movie, this is true and it just happened to all of us.

         The Court did not allow the threat of withholding funds to the States if they failed to expand Medicaid, but, the Court did OK slamming low and moderate income families and individuals with a “penalty” that is really a Tax.  I wonder why Justice Roberts did not just call the withholding of funds from the States a Tax and call it a day.  I really do wonder who actually wrote this Act because either they: 1)planned the convoluted reading and interpretation of the Act; 2)contrived this as a manner of not calling it a Tax and blundered into Justice Roberts rational; or;  3)lucked out.

         Under this decision, I see not reason why Congress could not mandate you eat pizza, broccoli or anything else and if you don’t, you must pay an additional Tax on your income tax return and that makes it OK.  Sounds crazy, but, the same logic applies.  Justice Roberts protects us from being regulated under the Commerce Clause, but, not from being taxed for ridiculous reasons.

         For all those of us who value our Freedom, the answer is clear.  Throw out all the bums who voted for this Act, especially those who read it.  In November, we have the opportunity to strike a blow for good government and freedom.  Less government is better government.  They are taking over our lives, limiting our freedom, taxing us to death and over-regulating everybody and business as well.  This prevails at every level of government today.  Join me, vote in November and I will be providing you the names of all the representatives who voted for this Act so you can vote them out and replace them with those who stand for WE THE PEOPLE.

         THANKS FOR READING.  I HOPE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN BORED.

VIC MEITNER