Did Roberts Actually Help Bring Down Obamacare?

reply to post by BluFenix

I wonder how many of you have actually read the law, or are just mad that a black man passed a piece of legislation.

Race baiting? 

Really??

It's the largest tax increase in the history of mankind and it's partly the reason for the economic slump we have today. What more do I need to know? It's bad!!

Originally posted by BluFenix
I wonder how many of you have actually read the law, or are just mad that a black man passed a piece of legislation.

www.healthcare.gov...

So...I take it, that's the only card in your deck....it's getting old and worn. This has nothing to do with race. It's about being taxed when we were *promised* we would not be. The Supreme Court Justices have declared it a *tax*. They said nothing about race....but you did. What does that say about you, I wonder....

Des

REMINDER

Please stay on topic............

Did Roberts Actually Help Bring Down Obamacare?

No. Roberts did not help bring down Obamacare. That question is presumptuous and hinges on a Republican majority come next year. It all comes down to one word really: "Tax". Just because Roberts used that term doesn't necessarily mean that's what it is. So he's the Chief Justice. Does that make him an English major as well?

Part of his job is determining the constitutionality of laws. This is his mindset going into reading them. He's not thinking about the political ramifications of what he's doing because that would only cloud his judgement. It's the politicians who are going to interpret his words to fit their agenda.

He called it a tax, I think, for lack of a better term that would fit into the context of the constitution, and all the politicians are going to call it something that fits into their agenda.

This is the reason I'm putting my 2 cents worth into this discussion because I see this more as a problem of interpretation rather than intent. People are nit-picking the word tax when it's clear that no matter how you word this health care bill, it's a good thing for everyone. That may be why this bill passed all 3 branches of Government. You think?

People can be very shortsighted, so when they hear the word"tax", they get all freaked out. They need to settle down, forget about political affiliations and see this for what it is. A health care bill that helps everyone.

reply to post by paxnatus

There are 21 tax increases in this bill, and what you don't realize is you will not get the care you want or need! Doctors are not gonna go for this... The care you receive will be decided by some slick pencil pusher at the whitehouse...good luck with that!

So you believe in Sarah Palin's Death Panels???



Need I say more?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You tried to use that to say Obama is raising taxes on everyone...which is false.

You left out the part where it does raise taxes for everyone who has a job and receives health benefits from their employer. According to the bill, 2012 will require employers to start placing the amounts of each employees health benefits from their employer on their W-2's so the individual can pay taxes on their health benefits as though it was considered additional income.

If this is not the case, please correct me.

Nope.

It is reported on your W2, it still isn't taxable and isn't considered income.

Sorry...you have been lied to.

www.factcheck.org...

Q: Does the new health care law require workers to pay income tax on the value of employer-provided health insurance?

A: No. The value will appear on employees’ W-2 forms for information purposes, but will not be considered taxable income.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


You probably bought into Clinton's what is, is, too...huh...

Roberts didn't just pull the word *tax* out of his arse because he couldn't think of another one. He *chose* the word tax, because it is one.

Des

Wasn't roberts the deciding vote/won only by a vote? So how did Roberts do a good thing if his vote essentially made it legal? If he wanted to help bring it down he could have just voted against it. Principle over politics, when will the supreme fail realize this?

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Taupin Desciple

 

You probably bought into Clinton's what is, is, too...huh...

Roberts didn't just pull the word *tax* out of his arse because he couldn't think of another one. He *chose* the word tax, because it is one.

Des

He didn't decide it was a tax....Obama's administration told him it's a tax.

That was one of their three arguments as to why it was Constitutional. They lost two of the arguments, and won the "Tax" argument. Something only needs to be covered once to be considered Constitutional.

It's hilarious that people think that Roberts magically declared this a tax. Always was a tax...always enforced through the IRS...always written in the tax code.

All we are seeing is desperation from the Right...that and wilful ignorance to pretend that this was really a victory for them.

It's very transparent...and funny.

The terrible thing about this ruling is what it can establish as precedent law. Forget about who "won"... we all just lost.

A tax, by definition must be applied fairly. If you make income, you pay income tax. If you make purchases that qualify for tax credits, you still pay the tax, but the Federal government considers a certain amount of that purchase as a tax already paid, a tax credit. If you purchase things that are deemed to be tax-exempt, for example, essential living needs, you claim a tax deduction to offset your calculated tax to reflect those purchases. Example: the "standard deduction".

But everyone is subject to the tax.

In addition, only government duly elected by the people can levy a tax. No business can legally tax you. They can collect taxes in lieu of government, as in the sales tax, but they do not get to keep that money or even to use that money. Collected taxes must be paid every quarter back to the government, and if you really really want to be in a world of hurt, tell the auditor that you don't have it... you just admitted to theft of US funds and you will wish soon enough you had never heard of the IRS.

Taxes can be levied on certain activities. If you purchase cigarettes, you pay additional taxes on those cigarettes. That is legal (if immoral IMO, but that is another thread). It is not legal, however, to tax someone for not doing a thing. For example, to tax someone for not buying cigarettes or for not buying insurance.

At least that was the case Wednesday. Today... who knows? Roberts did not specifically state the penalty for not buying insurance was a tax, but that it could only be implemented as a tax.

So that means one of three things must happen for Obamacare to proceed:

• Corporations (insurance companies) must now be allowed to lay and collect taxes kept for their own use. Even I don't believe this is going to happen. I only include it for completeness.
  
  
• It will now and henceforth be legal and court-sanctioned to tax anyone for anything, be it an activity or an inactivity. A tax on non-drivers would be completely legal, or a tax on non-skydivers or people who don't buy asparagus. This is seemingly implied in the opinion, although not specified.
  
  
• A tax must be levied on everyone to pay for their insurance. I consider this option the most likely. This then leads to another series of options:
  
  
  • A tax credit will also be implemented so those who purchase their own health insurance can be reimbursed for tax paid in lieu of cash. I do not foresee a methodology that will cover individuals with employer-provided insurance accurately this way, as they do not actually pay for their insurance; the employer does. More likely, employers who provide insurance will receive the deductions/credits for such as "incentive", and the employee will see the new tax in order to keep the overall cost lower for those who are not able to insure themselves.
    
    
  • The entire insurance industry will be reduced to governmental contracts to provide insurance for those being taxed. Whoever receives these contracts will make the decisions for newer treatments until the specific treatments are addressed; it has never worked any other way. This destroys the previous policy of allowing people to "keep their insurance if they like it".
    
    
  • The Federal government will take over the task of insuring people, effectively minimizing the insurance industry (and eventually taking over the medical industry as well for "efficiency"). In this case, the insurer will still make the decisions on newer treatment options, but the insurers will no longer be CEOs; they will be politicians. This also destroys the previous policy of allowing people to "keep their insurance of they like it".
  
  Either of the last wo options also has the effect of severely damaging the insurance industry itself... ironic since they are the ones initially behind this scheme as it brought them an entire new influx of customers.

I foresee no case where the American people win in this debacle. The war raging between the Democrats and Republicans has finally claimed freedom as their prisoner. Either constitutional power has been expanded to a massive degree, or we all just got hit with the single largest tax increase in American history at a time when the country is struggling to buy food... a recipe for guaranteed disaster!

If Roberts did this to defeat Obamacare, he should, especially as a SC Justice, been a little more forethoughtful. There is much more to this than the silly, meaningless, dangerous, and purely idiotic battle between red and blue. The battle was always about freedom versus slavery to rulers. The problem is that despite greater numbers, the people fight themselves instead of the enemy, all over a label that doesn't even have a static meaning.

And in the end, Roberts may have dealt the winning blow to the rulers, by aiming at his own people for wearing the 'wrong' colors.

Some victory.

TheRedneck

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

He didn't decide it was a tax....Obama's administration told him it's a tax.

Do you keep a straight face when you defend Obama’s lies? I can't!!

He said it wasn’t a TAX….before he said it WAS a tax!

Flipflop much?

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The bill already had plenty of taxes in it...defining one more portion as a tax doesn't change anything at all.

Glad to see you admit that!!!! After all, didn't Obama say it wasn't going to raise taxes?????

All Obama does is LIE. His supporters don't care about that. They have accepted his Lies ,because they have been drinking it, since 2008 ! When he first came on the scene from nowhere !


Edit: All Roberts did was play his part, and hopefully this get repealed......

OFF TOPIC:

Originally posted by WeRpeons






Maybe conservatives should have had the same amount of outrage about the bias 9/11 investigations, the passage of the patriot act, the war in Iraq and other criminal activity during the Bush administration. Instead of attacking a law that will help save lives, instead of illegal wars and occupations that have killed thousands of young men and women because of a lie.

Sigh... ok I'll tell it again since people seem to be very thick headed on this. The investigations could not have been biased because there is no proof to any of the truthers theories, until someone can come up with irrefutable proof ( ie a bucket of military grade thermite found in the dumpsters out back) everything is just theory, you cant twist facts to suit theory.

The Patriot Act under Bush was to spy on people suspected of ties to terrorist networks, to sweep email only for certain keywords ( ie anything to do with explosives landmarks etc.) and only after these criteria were met, were they allowed to wiretap these individuals. I'm a conservative, and yet this did not bother me, because I have nothing to hide.. so what reason do I have to fear this? what Obama and his DOJ does with the patriot act now, is a completely different story but again I'm not afraid of it.

Explain what criminal activity, and how the wars were illegal please. Obama committed a crime when he did not seek congressional approval for anything military going on in Libya, He had 60 days to seek that approval, and another 30 day extension after that. to which there was no approval sought. that is an example of a criminal act of war, as well as an illegal war. Bush went directly to congress after 9/11 where he got full approval from both sides, as well as international support within the UN. he even got the same approval for Iraq, because lo and behold SH did have wmd's but as soon as we got into Afghanistan he knew he needed to get rid of them.. and no. we didn't take any oil, all we did was broker the deals for the new Iraqi govt and their oil exports. so perhaps you need to cry for the arrest of the world?

ON TOPIC:

I wonder what the repercussions for Roberts would have been had he struck it down? Seems like it would have been the easier route instead of this back door maneuver, If it indeed is that. Either way I'll be glad when this thing isn't hanging over our heads.. there are better ways to get people some care. If it is struck down and stuff maybe the Dems should give their vast amounts of money to those without HC so they can buy some... that would seem like a very charitable and liberal thing to do is it not? -sarcasm off

reply to post by filosophia


This is a copy of a letter I wrote and sent to some people who are interested in this matter. This is just my thoughts, but maybe it explains some things? I don't know. Any comments are appreciated.

Chief Justice John Roberts: GREAT AMERICAN HERO!!! (hear me out.. lol)

"WHAT???!!", you say. Oh, yea.. I was saying the same thing, and more when I first heard the news. I called the Honorable Justice Roberts a lot of names, traitor being one of the kinder (for which I humbly apologize, Justice Roberts).
And then I thought about it..........
He is brilliant!! Absolutely BRILLIANT!!
Let's take this one step at a time.
First, he said it was Constitutional. Well, I can't really argue that. I'm not a Constitutional expert and, from what I've read and heard, he may be right. I don't have to like it, but since I do love our Constitution, I'm sure there are other things about it that I'm not so keen on, but overall, it's the greatest governing document on this earth!
Justice Roberts then proceeded to call a spade a spade, or in this case, a tax a tax. Wait... a tax. hmmm....
Let's say Obamacare had been declared unconstitutional by the Judges. The Republicans would have forever held the spoon of 'selfishness' in their mouths for not wanting to help others in their times of need. (hold that thought for a minute)
We are living in one of the greatest recessions in our history. The unemployment rate is higher than we can handle, jobs are scarce, and income is down. Global economy is shakier than ever in modern times and countries are crying for help to just stay, well, countries.
We are in over our heads. We are in wars with countries, in hock with digging private companies and banks out of their bankruptcies and Obama has enjoyed handing out tax dollars like it was candy at halloween. Financially, we are trillions of dollars poorer than when he started with nothing to show for it.
But remember when he was running for office that other time and he kept promising (along with his Democratic cronies) that he wouldn't raise taxes? Remember that??
Now, back to Judge Roberts calling a tax a tax. If Obamacare goes 'as planned', it will be the greatest tax increase in the history of our country! So now what are the Democrats going to do? Holler 'no tax increases' in November, or hold the spoon of maximum taxation in THEIR mouths?? I'm thinking they just found themselves between a rock and a hard place!
The Republicans had a plan to help those in their times of need. Former President George W. Bush gave us the idea to help each other through faith based incentives. He opened the doors for charitable organizations to accept funds while giving the donors maximum tax benefits for supporting them. That isn't sounding like such a bad idea right now, is it?
We already have the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 to take care of indigent patients in county hospitals. (Federal funds are provided for indigent care as long as there is no discrimination, the facilities are to remain viable, etc.) So Republicans ARE helping others unselfishly while NOT putting a tax burden on ANYone!
And then the genius of Justice Roberts continues with his statement of stopping the Supreme Court short of making up the people's minds for them, but rather to let them govern themselves! (read: VOTE in November and get the bums out!! Defeat Obamacare in Congress as a LAW and it can't be contested!) Sheer brilliance, I say!!
So in a single sweep, Justice Roberts dumped the WHOLE TAXATION of EVERY CITIZEN in this country at the feet of the Democrats AND he gave the power back to the people via representation, knowing he would take the heat for his unpopular vote.
I think the man just may be the greatest American patriot we have in our government today!
It's up to the Republican's now to use this power that he has given to them for the good of our country. I know that they must call him names to keep up the facade, but if they would just open their eyes for a moment and see the historic opportunity we have been given, we may actually have a chance to get this country back on track and once again, be the greatest country in the world!
There is a whole plethora of ins and outs of this thing that are way too intricate to discuss in one message, but the bottom line for me is...
Chief Justice John Roberts: GREAT AMERICAN HERO! (pass it on!)

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


The Obama admin said it wasn't a tax it's a penalty. Scotus says it's a tax. In effect, Roberts said it is a tax to make it Constitutional so he won't have to deal with the most Marxist socialist radical administration in American history giving him a hard time and calling SCOTUS partisan, that is, he did it to "protect the integrity of the Supreme Court".
Thanks a lot Roberts. .

reply to post by tadlem43

Let's say Obamacare had been declared unconstitutional by the Judges. The Republicans would have forever held the spoon of 'selfishness' in their mouths for not wanting to help others in their times of need. (hold that thought for a minute)

So we should just let Roberts destroy whatever is left of our freedom so that Republicans won't have a bad reputation of being selfish? OMG that's so lame. Do the crummy thing so we don't have to look bad. No, he should have done the RIGHT thing which would be to declare the whole darn thing unConstitutional and throw it out. He could have but he chose not to. As it stands now, there is a precedent for Congress to just pass any old piece of legislation to make us do and buy stuff and tax us if we resist. It's just plain disgusting.

A tax on something we don't buy...the sheer insanity of it....have these people gone out of their minds? Or is roberts just a tool for the NWO?

As much as I dislike republicans, I agree with them that the bill should be repealed, though the reasoning is different. It's actually kind of funny because people all over social media sites have been going crazy about how this bill is the end of our freedom, you can tell they only listen to what there spoon fed by the MSM, specifically FOX.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The Obama admin said it wasn't a tax it's a penalty. Scotus says it's a tax. In effect, Roberts said it is a tax to make it Constitutional so he won't have to deal with the most Marxist socialist radical administration in American history giving him a hard time and calling SCOTUS partisan, that is, he did it to "protect the integrity of the Supreme Court".
Thanks a lot Roberts. .

The Obama admin argued that the mandate was Constitutional three ways. The Commerce Clause, The Necessary and Proper Clause, and as a Tax.

Roberts didn't magically make this up...this was one of the arguments presented by the Solicitor General.

reply to post by tadlem43


Excellent summation!! I particularly like this part:

 So now what are the Democrats going to do? Holler 'no tax increases' in November, or hold the spoon of maximum taxation in THEIR mouths?? I'm thinking they just found themselves between a rock and a hard place!

This move by Roberts framed the issue and left the dems stuck between a rock and a hard place. The group of liars who constantly want class warfare now find themselves having to answer for the largest tax increase in history that will affect everyone making over $14,000 per year!

As I stated before, this will also serve to galvanize the republican base and bring conservatives out of the woodwork to defeat everyone up for election in November with a "D" before their name! 

As far as it being unconstitutional, I think it is and it should have been struck down. However, that would have guaranteed democrat victory in November. Republicans would have been labeled "the selfish bastards that stole your healthcare" and we would have been swept!

Brilliant move IMO...that is if it works.

This thread is full of ignorance. Most of you are just repeating what you've read and heard off right wing media. Do some research of your own.