I’m no lawyer, but I don’t need to be to tell you what is coming in the near future. Predicting the events of the near future is easy: all you have to do is read history to see and understand what is happening now. That will also tell you what is about to happen next. The truly hard part is accepting the reality that America is dead and the world is entering the early stages of a long, dark, evil period in the history of man – a period there is little chance mankind will ever escape unless we stand and fight now.
The Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional because it exceeds the scope of the Commerce Clause. The Court then upheld the whole law by saying the mandate is actually a tax and that the Constitution does grant the power to tax a non-action. So let’s examine the truht of these two ‘findings’ before we look at the implications.
First, as it is written, the mandate was not a tax and the Obama Administration agreed in oral arguments before the SCOTUS that the mandate was not a tax:
Flashback Video: ‘Absolutely Reject That’ — Obama, HHS Sec., & Budget Director All Say Mandate Not A Tax
In the Blaze’s short research we have uncovered three high profile, on-the-record declarations from the Administration strongly repudiating the notion of the Individual Mandate as a tax.
1. The White House Budget Director, Jeffrey Zients: “No.”
2. Health & Human Services Secretary Sebelius: “[The IndividualMandate] is not per-say a tax.”
3. The President: “I absolutely reject that notion [mandate is a tax].”
Simple put, this means the SCOTUS just legislated from the bench. SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to do this. To me, this would constitute a rogue act, which would then fall under bad behavior. If you will read the constiutution, this actually opens the door for Congress to remove the judges who voted to uphold Obamacare. If you do not believe me, instead of acting like the north end of a southbound Democrat, read the Constitution: specifically the section that specifies the term of a Supreme Court Justice. Implicit in the text of that section is the ability to impeach, which was a matter of common practice at the time and why it was not specifically spelled out in the constitution: because the founders never expected the people of this nation to become “rock stupid.” (they sure got that one wrong).
So now the SCOTUS says that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to tax something that is not happening. The power to tax the individual is found in the 16th Amendment. Have you read it lately? Here, let me help you:
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Now, unless I have forgotten how to read – or, more likely, I missed the latest Progressive bastardization of the English language – there is absolutely no language in that Amendment about taxing something that has not happened or you are not doing. So, this time SCOTUS hasn’t made law, it has actually Amended the Constitution by decree – which takes me right back to that bad behavior thing.
Now, let’s look at what this means. The federal govt. now has the authority to tax anything you are NOT doing:
You are NOT buying a Chevy Volt — A TAX ON YOU!
You are NOT exercising — A TAX ON YOU!
You are NOT losing the weight Michelle says you must — A TAX ON YOU!
You are NOT using ‘green energy’ — A TAX ON YOU!
You have NOT gone ‘vegan’ — A TAX ON YOU!
You are NOT voting Democrat — A TAX ON YOU!
You think I am exaggerating? Well, those of us who believed we were still living in the land of the free and home of the brave were wrong, too.
I want to tell you where all of this is coming from: CASS SUNSTEIN! You know, he is the “Regulatory Czar” that Glenn Beck tried to warn you about, but instead of listening, you followed your Alinsky conditioning and laughed at the ‘drunk comedian.’ Well whose laughing now?
Sunstein wrote a book in which he explained exactly how your world is about to work. You might want to get a copy and give it a read because it will tell you how this nation is going to work from now on:
Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness
In this “innocent” book, Cass explains how the government will not “tell you” what you can and can’t do, it will just make it VERY expensive if you do not do as they want. For the idiots out there, this let’s Cass claim he is not forcing anyone to do anything. These people believe whatever the Left sells them. they are pathetic, but they form the power base for the Left. They are the thieves who cloak their greed and demand the government take your money and give it to them in the name of “charity” and “social justice.” In return, the Tyrants who control or government get to use the political power these greedy thieves provide them to enslave the rest of us.
THAT is what this ruling means to you.
The Rio Norte Line 
Article III. Section 1.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, …”
That is the only qualification for a Judge to hold office. “good Behaviour” is a very broad term….
“good Behaviour” DOES NOT include offences like child molestation, murder, or treason ONLY.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
A Judge doesn’t need to be an Attorney, nor even a citizen.
Treason has a very specific constitutional definition. Does “good behavior” include subversion?
Good behaviour is something different than crimes and treason, although it could be that….It was a “term of art” known to the founders, which “we” have forgotten…. Here is Anti-Federalist Paper Brutus 15:
http://constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm
Looks like whoever wrote Brutus 15, had a crystal ball…..
you are overweight and therefore you will require additional medical treatment………………….extra tax
you smoke and you will therefore require additional medical treatment………………….extra tax
you live a dangerous lifestyle and therefore you will require additional medical treatment………………….extra tax
you have a dangerous job and therefore you will require additional medical treatment………………….extra tax
your family has a history of some medical problems and therefore you will require additional medical treatment………………….extra tax
this is never ending……………………
No, actually, that gets into the second part of this law: the actual “health care” part. I’ll get to that next, but the short answer to all of those things is:
IF we decide to treat you.
“IF we decide to treat you.”
Change th word “treat” to “cover” and you’re quoting most insurance companies today.
And right now, of course, insurance companies charge more or deny coverage for the same sorts of things. Yep, never-ending.
If the SCOTUS says it is not against the Constitution to require the mandate only because it is in fact a tax, but the OWEbozo regime adamantly denies that the mandate is a tax, then it should be found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL…period.
” The power to tax is the power to destroy. ” Chief Justice John Marshall citing Daniel Webster, 1819
I’m giggling because on my computer it reads as, ” Do you really understand the O? I think I do…….. It’s a short-term feel-good thing. And we all want to “understand” the O, don’t we? Only problem is what happens when the O is spent?
Obamacare greatly expands Medicaid. Medicaid patients already have trouble finding a doctor for their chronic problems, because the reimbursement is so low. An overwhelming majority of clinics have already refused to accept Medicaid. So where will they go? They’ll go to the only place that can’t turn them away: the Emergency Room.
At present, Medicaid patients are 2-3x more likely to use the ER as their Primary Care Doctor, and this will get worse as physicians revolt against Obamacare.
The ER reimbursement rate will be nowhere near the market-rate, or even Medicare rates. Medicare is already growing at an annual 8-9% rate, even as the economy remains stagnant. They can’t afford to pay a decent reimbursement rate across the board. So what will happen? The lines at the ER will be longer and longer as private clinics start shifting their practice away from the Government’s option.
So to you employers ….
Under this healthcare law, if you choose not to provide insurance for your employees, you will be taxed of $2000 per subsidized employee. Under “SEC. 45R. EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSES OF SMALL EMPLOYERS.” you would be required to pay up to 50% of subsidized employee’s insurance, which has already jumped upwards from $10,000-$12,000/year for a family in 08′ to approaching $16,000/year 2011 (see graph below).
So would your plan be to pay 50% of that premium as an employer, or just pay the $2,000 tax fine?
And to the private sector ….
Word is already spreading through local neighborhoods …. Young folks have already figured its cheaper to pay the $75.00 annual fine, and then pick up the $6,000.000 premium once they get sick. The know full well their rates are 3x higher than that of seniors (the scheme Obama had planned to pay for this mess), and are deciding not to pay it. With no pre-existing clause, you can literally grab your debit card and cellphone while riding in the ambulance, and secure your insurance at a time when you really need it.
The math is clear now that we can read it, it’s cheaper to pay the fines. But in doing so, we de-fund the program itself, which is coincidentally is ultimately a bonus for all American citizens. This “Act” will implode on it’s own, but hey that is going to be “Bush’s fault” as well. 😀
Augger, read FARTHER into the law – past 2014. You’ll find that those fin– er, taxes for not buying insurance eventually become GREATER than the policies. Now, when that happens, what reason will there be to hold down the cost of the policies?
I’m upset because too few understand the ramifications of this ruling. We’re too short-sighted these days to understand that this makes FDR and Social Security look like an armatures play for power.
If you disagree with me, that’ll be a $1,000 tax, please 🙂
So are you really suggesting that people go without insurance until they have a health problem, and hope that works out for them? I assume you’ll be giving up your own coverage, then, assuming you have some? (And as a “responsible” conservative, I’m sure you have insurance now.)
Why do some people insist on missing the point of what others are actually saying?
James, what Augger is trying to point out is that people will make an economic decision based upon the way this law is written. For the next few years it will be cheaper for individuals and businesses alike to NOT buy healthcare – a LOT cheaper. So this is what many will do.
This is also what the law was actually designed to do: bankrupt the private insurance industry. Because no one will buy insurance until they need more in care than the policy costs, and the company is now forced by the law to sell that policy even though the customer has a per-existing condition, the companies will go out of business in quick order. This law destroys the entire concept of insurance.
But the Left is finally correct in their claims of corporate greed as the insurance companies see what they think is an opportunity to use the force of govt. to increase profits. That’s why they signed on to this monstrosity: and their own short-sighted greed and the fact that they were allowed to help write the law kept them from seeing that it was a trap. In the end, the only companies that will remain in business will be those in political favor and that, my friends, is the very definition of fascism.
While I think you could let Auger answer for himself–because my question is serious, based on part of what he said–I agree with you about the greed aspect. In fact, I recently spend seven hours in a car with some buddies, one of whom happens to be a doctor. He says greed–by insurance companies, by lawyers and by doctors, by both liberals and conservatives–is the single biggest barrier to change.
By the way, he actually favors Obamacare, which he calls far from perfect but which he hopes will lead to further improvements from a Congress that had traditionally been unwilling to do anything meaningful on health care. As he pointed out, we now have corporate bureaucrats–whose primary job is to make money for their companies–making the same decisions that we fear government bureacrats will make. We have by far the most expensive health care in the world, thanks to a combination of greed, the fact that so many get their primary care in the most expensive way (through emergency rooms, and we pay for their care), and because everyone thinks everyone should have access to all care.
One example, from his own experience on an advisory board. A new drug will improve the life of kids who have a disease that usually kills them by the time they’re in their early 20s, and may prolong their lives for up to a decade. The cost, set by the drug maker? $30,000 per MONTH. Any insurance company that covers it for even one patient faces the very real aspect of going broke (especially if it’s not a major corporation). And if an insurance company doesn’t cover it, the company will be viewed as heartless.
Keyword there B … “eventually”. I am telling you. The cost hit to this act will long consume it prior to reaching the balance point.
Augger,
Cloward and Piven. We are not supposed to solve our budget issues/debt: they are supposed to be used as a reason to “restructure” America – especially since it was Capitalism’s fault, don’t you know.
Watch what happens in Europe closely. It’ll be coming to a country near you next 😉
And B, I get the whole punitive tax angle. I am not so stupid as I cant see the extension of powers just handed to the Feds allowing for any initiative to be passed based on a punitive tax.
I didn’t mean to imply you or anyone is stupid. I apologize if I gave that impression (you see that, Kells?)
I’m just not sure how many people realize just how bad this ruling was. For example: have you realized that Congress no longer has to appeal to the Commerce Clause to make an excuse to tax/regulate something? Now, thanks to Roberts, they can tax anything they like – or nothing at all – and they don’t even need an excuse.
This ruling turned the COnstitution from a limitation on Government to a license to do whatever it wants. How anyone can tell me nothing has changed and we are still free is beyond my ability to comprehend.
I suppose I’ll just have to start smoking whatever is going around in Washington. At least that way I’ll never realize I am a slave and might have a chance to be happy. No, no, I can’t do that. I took the red pill, damn it! 🙂
Yeah, you need to get laid.
Now things are gettin’ interestin’
U 2
The ruling was catastrophic, but we as individual citizens cannot always leave things to the government. For instance, now 28 Governors are on the hook stating that their states will not participate. We an all exert added pressure by paying the lesser of two amounts (further pushing this act into insolvency). Physicians are already backing out of Medicaid, and as TriCare and Medicare continue to be defunded to pay for Obamacare, you will see them back out of those programs as well.
Every little bit helps. 🙂
That is all I am advocating: legal FORCE that doesn’t just push back, but affects real change where our politicians were too weasly to do their duty.
“We an all exert added pressure by paying the lesser of two amounts (further pushing this act into insolvency).”
So, to repeat my earlier questions: Are you really suggesting that people go without insurance until they have a health problem, and hope that works out for them? Will you be giving up your own coverage, then, assuming you have some? (And as a “responsible” conservative, I’m sure you have insurance now.)
It’s obvious that you do not actually work in healthcare, so I will give you a pass on that one, but I strongly suggest that you re-read what I wrote, and then go do some research out there. The push back on the individual level will be two pronged … the physicians are going to bail on providing services from Government insurance plans (until Hitler up there forces them through lawsuits to do), and the patient’s (or potential patients) will (and rightfully so given their poor fiscal situations) will simply pay the lesser. Either way, it goes right back to how unpopular this thing is, and how poorly it was planned for spending.
@ black – I have many friends that are lawyers, and believe me, they are looking for ways to litigate this thing. I think when the other 2,700 pages of this act are made public, and the tweeking starts, maybe … just maybe … we can pile up more lawsuits. Till then, I am going with collective wisdom and plan on pulling the lever the way I feel we can get the states, and ourselves more immediate relief. I know your not going to like hearing that answer, but in our own way, we each do what we can where we can.
Hopefully both of our approaches collectively work to root this nonsensical cancer out of our otherwise wonderful way of life. 🙂
Augger,
I truly, honestly hope you’re right. But I’m not as optimistic as you. On this issue, I am going to follow the wisdom of one of my favorite founders, Patrick Henry:
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”
You know the rest of my rant from there 🙂
Let’s see, would that be the same slave-holding Patrick Henry who opposed the Constitution before it was ratified, then later became a flip-flopping Federalist? 😉
Actually, I’m also a fan, and have been privileged to stand where he gave his most famous speech.
@ James – you really want to take this down the road of political flip-flopping? We can, but I promise you by the time I get finished posting about Oblamer’s flip flops – you’re feelings will be hurt.
Augger, you apparently haven’t read a lot of what I’ve written here or elsewhere–nothing you say about Obama will hurt my feelings. But I think the whole flip-flopping meme has been overdone, going back to at least John Kerry. After all, virtually every member of Congress is a flip-flopper. They do things for procedural reasons, or because like Patrick Henry, they change their minds. Or because like GOP Republicans, a Democrat starts favoring what they once liked (individual mandates, cap-and-trade, etc.), and politically they can’t be on the same side as the president.
note- The first paragraph was @ James. I just forgot to annotate it.
@Black – Attorneys vs Attorneys: The Ultimate Clash of the Titans. Even if I am wrong, it still remains a show not to be missed. 🙂
True 🙂
@ James
“While I think you could let Auger answer for himself–because my question is serious, based on part of what he said […] By the way, he actually favors Obamacare …”
I just caught this. And there is no easy way to ask, so I just will….
What in the hell makes you think that anything I wrote lead you to believe that I am in favor of Obamacare? Good God man, seriously?
You want a good draft of a healthcare initiative? I can certainly draft one, but this abomination that Oblamer has passed as “Good for Americans” is not it.
Augger, the person I referred to as favoring Obamacare was my doctor friend, not you. Sorry if it was unclear.
And this doctor friend of yours, what is his/her discipline? What comprises the largest percentage of his/her payer base?
My doc friend is a GP, but I don’t know where most of his patients come from.
I’d find out more before you take his opine on anything then. I do not know what side of the fence he is on, but with over 47% percent Medicare cuts this year alone … on top of roughly 38% in cuts last year, I can tell you with all certainty, he is not accepting Medicare/Medicaid patients or is in fact, limiting the numbers of patients with that payer to his practice.
As of Jan 1 this year, we lost 28% of our billing with the simple removal of Hypertension from the DRG.
What is the DRG?
Reblogged this on Elkhart County Grassroots Hub.