I guess we now call it the -- "Medical Care Tax"? ""Healthcare tax"? Tax on the sick?
The DNC Tweeted two things..
" Its Constituional...Bitches!"
"Take that MOTHERF***ers!"
What a class act these depraved Liberal Marxists are.
As for Roberts, he is a repugnant puke who has an agenda other than the welfare and rule of law in America. Never has so much hope for a person been dashed so completely as that for Roberts. He is one of them.
If the Supreme Court is upholding the mandate as a tax, doesn't that mean they are infringing on the powers of the legislature. Doesn't that mean they are essentially re-writing the law?
If this is upheld, even if ObamaCare is repealed , America is finished. It will be a constant battle with progressives attempting to control everything we do and using this decision as a precedence, except that from what I am hearing now the Supreme Court is not upholding the law, it is re-writing it.
Does our constitution provide for a remedy to the Supreme Court operating outside of it's constitutional powers?
This sets a precedence that if the legislature makes a mistake in the way they write the law, the Supreme Court can interpret it , not in accordance with the letter of the law, but with whatever they interpret the intended purpose of the law to be - and then just re-write it - and that could apply to any law what so ever. So what we need the legislature for? It's redundant.
It's more likely to be a tax on the healthy, TJC. Younger, healthier people are the ones who are less likely to buy insurance.
I blame Bush for nominating that weasel Roberts, and tell me why I should vote for Romney again, because he will nominate good SC justices?
Because Romney will repeal Obama Care.- and you have no idea who he would appoint to the court. Why not stick to what is known and/or statements actually spoken - not whatever you feel like hypothesizing.
Since the Supreme Court didn't actually uphold the mandate- it doesn't set a precedence for the actual mandate. It just sets a precedence for the Supreme Court rewriting a law in order to fit the constitution.
I hope this upsets Congress. In one week we have the administration announcing that it will not uphold laws written and passed by Congress and the Supreme Court rewriting a law passed by Congress.
Looks like the legislature just became an unnecessary government function.
....."Does our constitution provide for a remedy to the Supreme Court operating outside of it's constitutional powers?"......
The same "remedy" we used with the British King.
Those of us who belive in Liberty are being left with fewer and fewer choices in order to maintain that freedom! Even a rat will fight if you force him into a corner.
It's more likely to be a tax on the healthy, TJC. Younger, healthier people are the ones who are less likely to buy insurance.
I'm confused- All my friends who voted for Obama told me it was because he would provide free health care. Now the public is forced to buy insurance of be taxed by our current secular theocracy? Where's the free health care?
At least we can save some money to cover the cost of a mandated state religion by no longer having to pay congress- who no longer has a function within the balance of powers.
lets not forget Snowe
Your friends were misinformed.
If true, that should be put on lots of posters by the Romney campaign. Arguably, that sentiment is the real genesis, rationale and motivation for this legislation. If I were in the DNC, I'd be thinking about some heavy damage control.
Now that the young and the healthy will be taxed so that the old and the sick can have subsidized health insurance, let's enjoy watching insurance premiums fall.
Yes !A fundamental requirement to be an Obama supporter.
Maybe some massive civil disobedience is in order, use an Alinsky tactic, overwhelm the system. Some much for the promise of no new taxes.
I just heard it on Fox news- Justice Kennedy and other dissenters opposed it as a judicially imposed tax.
Islander- I would rather use this as a model of descent:
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.
I would rather use this as a model of descent
Mackenzie, "descent" means "going down hill". We don't need a model, we've been on that path for quite a while. I think you wanted "dissent". Just be careful what you "alter or abolish" - it will be very difficult to replace it.
Nothing happens in a vacuum.
Turns out ANOTHER Bush gave us a squishy, "conservative" Supreme Court judge, who turned out to be a big disappointment. I detect a pattern. Jeb??
There may be a slight internal movement towards conservatism as any individual ages. But we clearly now know that there is a huge worldly, social pull towards liberalism. Few can resist it. I don't see that changing any time soon.
This is just one more (big) nail in the coffin; the State controls almost everything. I don't see that changing any time soon either.
All hail the State.
Yes, let's do hear from Olympia! on this. She's always been a good Statist or opponent of the State or something or whatever.
It's so funny and odd to see so many volunteer for slavery, when you consider the brutally difficult 100-year long struggle which our country went through to free itself of slavery. Now, we rush to sign up as slaves. Especially young people. "I'm young; where do I sign up to be a slave?" Silly youth.
C'est la vie.
Office of the Maine Senate President
State House Station 3
Augusta, Maine 04333
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 28, 2012
STATEMENT OF SENATE PRESIDENT KEVIN RAYE
ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON OBAMACARE
Today’s Supreme Court ruling means it is up to the voters to elect a Congress and a President who will repeal a ﬂawed and unworkable 2,700 page law rammed through with the kind of heavy-handed partisanship that disgusts the American people and has left Washington broken and dysfunctional. It is now clear that, if the law stands, it entails an unprecedented coercive new tax on the American people. Congress has a responsibility to start over and work together to enact true bipartisan health care reform that will give working families more choice and ﬂexibility and help reduce the cost of health insurance without exploding the deﬁcit, burdening struggling small businesses and destroying American jobs.
Among those reforms should be measures to:
* establish Association Health Plans so small businesses can pool together to negotiate lower rates;
* allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines;
* make it easier for Americans to keep health coverage if they lose or change jobs;
* ensure guaranteed access for those with pre-existing or chronic conditions; and
* provide consumers with choice and access to clear information about health care options available to them.
I am eager to get clariﬁcation of one potentially encouraging aspect of the Court’s decision that may help us achieve needed MaineCare reforms by striking down ObamaCare’s troubling provision requiring states to spend more on Medicaid at a time when states are struggling with budget shortfalls.
# # #
Maine Speaker of the House Robert Nutting
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 2012
Office of the House Speaker
Statement from House Speaker Robert Nutting on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Affordable Care Act
“I am disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act. Despite the president’s earlier insistence that Obamacare is not a tax, the Supreme Court justices made it clear today that it is a tax, one the American people cannot afford in this struggling economy. I am, however, encouraged by the Court’s finding that the federal government cannot penalize individual states by withholding Medicaid funding for failure to comply with eligibility requirements.
I also believe that what happened on the federal level today underscores the importance of the groundbreaking legislation, passed by Maine’s 125th Legislature, to provide affordable health insurance for all Mainers. As the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, the approach of introducing more competition into Maine’s health insurance market has already led to declining premiums. It has also made health insurance more accessible to those who could not afford it in the past. As we phase out the Democrats’ failed Dirigo Health program, I believe Maine’s approach to solving our health insurance problems, not Obamacare, should serve as the national model.”
House Speaker Robert Nutting (R-Oakland)
People who are posting these "press releases" from Republican politicians: Please.
It was Olympia Snowe!, a Maine Republican, (and mentor/boss to Kevin Raye!) who provided the vote to get it out of committee. Among those whose name is stamped all across Obamacare are all Maine Republicans who ever supported Snowe. Don't deny it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You supported her; she voted for it; your name is written all over Obamacare. Just deal with it. Erick Erickson, Rush, etc. all name names, and that includes Snowe and Maine Republicans.
It's about the decisions we make in life.
2008 Obama Speech -- Health Care Should "Never Be Purchased With Tax Increases On Middle Class Families."
The "Liar in Chief." Watch and remember.
Well, the news isn't all bad. The "liar" meme has traction. How is a "tax increase" a victory for Obama?
Republicans will be able to campaign on the claim that it’s a massive, nationwide tax that lets the federal government intrude on their private lives and interfere with the relationship between individuals and their doctors.
Stephen Green asks us to take a deep breath.
President Obama is now the owner of the biggest tax hike in history, he wields the most powerful IRS in history, has effectively been called a liar by the Supreme Court, and the Commerce Clause finally hit a wall future congresses will find it difficult to scale.
and just in case anyone forgot.... these maine democrats signed on to the progressive states network letter to obama, pelosi and reid to pass obama care.
Rep. Herbert Adams
Sen. Justin Alfond
Sen. Philip Bartlett, Senate Majority Leader
Rep. Henry Beck
Rep. Seth Berry, Majority Whip
Sen. Lawrence Bliss
Rep. Anna Blodgett
Rep. Andrea Boland
Sen. Peter Bowman
Sen. Joseph Brannigan, Chair, Health and Human Services
Rep. Sheryl Briggs
Rep. Mark Bryant
Rep. Steven Butterfield
Rep. Emily Cain
Rep. James Campbell, Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Michael Carey
Rep. Alan Casavant
Sen. Margaret Craven
Rep. Patsy Crockett
Rep. Timothy Driscoll
Rep. Robert Eaton
Rep. Mark Eves
Rep. Sean Flaherty
Rep. Elsie Flemings
Rep. Adam Goode, Member, Joint Standing Committee on Insurance and Financial Services
Rep. Anne Haskell
Rep. Teresea Hayes
Rep. Jon Hinck
Rep. Robert Hunt
Rep. Melissa Innes
Rep. Peter Kent
Rep. Charles Kruger
Rep. W. Bruce MacDonald
Rep. Veronica Magnan
Rep. James Martin
Rep. Jeffrey McCabe
Rep. Elizabeth “Lisa” Miller
Rep. Wayne Mitchell
Rep. Mary Nelson
Rep. Andrew O’Brien
Rep. Leila Percy
Rep. Anne Perry, Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Health and Human Services
Rep. Matthew Peterson, Member, Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Hannah Pingree, Speaker of the House
Rep. Diane Russell
Rep. Linda Sanborn
Rep. Michael Shaw
Rep. Sara Stevens
Rep. Peter Stuckey, Member,Health and Human Services Committee
Rep. Sharon Treat, Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Insurance and Financial Services
Rep. Richard Wagner
Rep. Joan Welsh
Senator Susan Collins
Jun 28 2012
Senator Collins' Reaction to Supreme Court Healthcare Decision
WASHINGTON,D.C.—U.S. Senator Susan Collins released this statement following
the U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act.
“The Supreme Court has the responsibility to decide whether or not a law is constitutional and has rendered its verdict on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. I continue to believe that President Obama and Congressional Democrats overreached their authority when they enacted a partisan law that will ultimately increase health care costs, decrease choice, impose billions of dollars in new taxes and penalties, and greatly expand the role of the federal government. Our nation faces overwhelming financial challenges, including a nearly $16 trillion debt, and this health care law will only make avoiding the coming fiscal cliff even more
“There can be no question, however, that our nation’s health care system requires
substantial reform. A clean decision by the Court to overturn this law would have paved the way for Congress to start over in a bipartisan fashion, as we should have from the start, to draft a health care bill that achieves the consensus goals of improving access and quality, providing more choice, containing health care costs, and making health care coverage more affordable for all Americans.
“The Supreme Court was right to concur with the 26 states, including Maine, that
challenged the healthcare law’s mandate to dramatically expand their Medicaid
programs or risk losing their Medicaid funding. Maine already has a generous Medicaid program. Had the Medicaid mandate been upheld, financially-strapped states would have been forced to make draconian cuts in other critically important areas such as transportation, education, and many others in order to comply with this expensive federal mandate. Ultimately, this provision was a false promise because it would not have been sustainable.
“I also am particularly concerned about the impact that this law will have on Maine’s
small businesses, which are our state’s job creation engine. The law discourages small businesses from hiring new employees and paying them more. It could also lead to onerous financial penalties, even for those small businesses that are struggling to provide health insurance for their employees. Even where the law tries to help small businesses, it misses the mark. For example, I have long been a proponent of tax credits to help small businesses afford health insurance for their employees. The new credits for small businesses in the health care law, however, are poorly structured. They are phased out in such a way that businesses will actually be penalized when they hire new workers or pay their employees more. Moreover, they are temporary and can only be claimed for two years in the insurance exchanges.
“In the wake of the Supreme Court’s divided decision on this law, I continue to hope
that Congress will work together to change the law substantially not only in response to the Court’s decision but also to respond to the very real health care concerns of the American people as well as the budget realities we face.”
Obamacare :: free health care as EBT :: free lunch.
As someone said on Howie yesterday, Democrats hate movers and shakers, and love moochers and takers.
Why Justice Roberts deserves a severe punishment (Obamacare).
There is perhaps no greater tyranny then when a Justice of our Supreme Court, charged with enforcing our written Constitution, uses their office of public trust to side with and defend domestic enemies who work to seditiously overturn the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. This is what Justice Roberts is guilty of and will herein be confirmed by the very words of our founding fathers!
In upholding Obamacare Justice Roberts relies upon that part of our Constitution which declares:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States“
These very words were likewise used by our tyrannical members on our Supreme Court in 1937 to uphold the progressive’s assault upon our Constitution under their Social Security Act ___an act designed to create a captive voting constituency dependent upon the federal government for a monthly subsistence check.
The two cases upholding the Social Security Act are Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 and Steward Machine Co. (1937).
In these cases the Court stated:
"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents"
What is important to note is, the Court cites the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and, the Court will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court is not interested in reviewing the historical record during the making and ratification of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood by our founders during its framing and ratification process. Instead, the Court is eager to use an irrelevant comment made by Hamilton concerning the phrase “general welfare” which was made after the Constitution had been adopted in order to uphold the progressive’s Social Security Act as being constitutional.
But, the truth is, the Hamilton “view” which the Court relied upon was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution and is therefore inadmissible in determining the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. It was made after the Constitution had been ratified and when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury and trying to gain support to financially encourage specific manufactures.
In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, See Page 136
“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”
But these words were written by Hamilton after the Constitution had been adopted and are in direct conflict with what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83 to gain support for the adoption of the Constitution. In No. 83 Federalist, which is applicable to the meaning of “general welfare”, Hamilton, in crystal clear language refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. See Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 through 11 for the subjoined “specification of particulars”.
"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."
This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:
Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."
Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."
Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention
"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]
For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause as being a general legislative grant of power, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.
And so, Justice Roberts has spat upon the universal meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood by our founders during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process, and he has sided with domestic enemies who are constantly working to seditiously broaden the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government by our Constitution. For this he needs to be punished!
Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs [subversive progressives on our Supreme Court]; know likewise the remedy…..
___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.
Jim Cyr in #52 let's get the facts straight.
Olympia Snowe voted yes in committee. She was one of 14 who did so. Nine voted no.
Her vote was wrong but was NOT the "deciding vote."
Snowe Press Release
June 28, 2012
Snowe Says Supreme Court Decision to Uphold Health Care Law Deeply Regrettable
Continues to urge full repeal of egregious government overreach
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold the 2010 health reform law passed by Democrats in Congress, U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), a senior member of the Senate Committee on Finance, issued the following statement:
“Regrettably, today’s Supreme Court decision was a victory for a massive legislative overreach, broad and expansive government, and its power to tax – and in this instance, to impose an onerous new tax for Americans on a product which the health care law now requires them to purchase, regardless of cost of the plans which has yet to be determined. Indeed, the Court accurately describes the individual mandate as a tax, which Americans can ill afford especially at this time of continued economic peril. This law represents an imposition of additional burdensome costs not only on individuals, but on our federal government – far beyond the original projections.
“The bottom line is, regardless of the Court’s decision, it is critical that Congress fully repeal the law so that we can go back to the drawing board. Only then can we work together to enact workable reforms that would result in more competitive health insurance markets by expediting the ability of individuals and small businesses to purchase health insurance across state lines, which I have been a longtime proponent and champion of, and that would inject unfettered competition and new coverage options into stagnant insurance markets like those in Maine.
“Frankly, if Congress had passed the simple, targeted legislation I first introduced in 2003 to allow small businesses to pool together across state lines to leverage their purchasing power to negotiate health insurance at lower costs – instead of succumbing to the special interest forces aligned against it – we wouldn’t be in this position. We would already be ahead of the curve in lowering the outrageous costs of health care.
“Instead, we were presented in the Senate with a bloated monstrosity of 2,700 pages that imposed a new mandate on businesses with more than 50 employees to offer health insurance or face penalties; a $210 billion Medicare tax increase that would disproportionally hurt small businesses and do nothing to improve the Medicare program; and a law that’s resulted in a total of $500 billion in additional taxes and more than 10,000 pages of new regulations.
“We still don’t even have answers to the most basic questions about the plans under this law such as what the premiums, copayments, and deductibles will cost – questions I had specifically requested from the Congressional Budget Office, but that were never provided. Shouldn’t we know if it’s affordable?
“That’s why I have voted to repeal the health care law, and why I signed onto court briefs arguing against the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Now, it remains necessary that we fully repeal the health care law and replace it with reforms that increase the competitiveness of policies such as those I’ve authored, as well as develop a plan for affordability by maintaining certain widely agreed upon elements of reform – such as outlawing unconscionable insurance industry practices, banning preexisting condition limitations, and allowing parents to keep children on plans until age 26.”