And by "you people" I don't mean anyone in particular. I mean a lot of freaking people though. That's for sure.
John Roberts isn't some Constitutional Yoda, trying to gut the Commerce Clause by siding with four liberals who literally believe that the Commerce Clause provides limitless federal power. And he also isn't the next Souteresque turncoat to betray his conservative backers and sell out to the dark side.
He's an honest man. That's all. Congress has the power to tax. Congress regularly (frequently?) uses this power unfairly and in a way that is an insult to a republican form of government. Our lying president's neverending lies notwithstanding, Obamacare's main vehicle of enforcement is a tax. Just like you pay higher taxes if you smoke. Just like you pay higher taxes if you drive a lot. Just like you paid lower taxes if you bought an overpriced home a couple of years ago. Just like you paid higher taxes if you didn't trade in an old car a couple of years ago. Just like you pay higher taxes if you don't get solar panels installed on your house. A tax is a tax is a tax. They decide which of us will pay a higher rate, for whatever reasons they damn well please.
Two years ago, they decided that healthy people who want to keep their money should pay higher taxes. We can whine about socialism and all the rest of it but, at the end of the day, Congress has the power to tax. And the taxpayers have the power to elect a new Congress. It's that simple.
Singling out one segment of the population for better or worse taxation than another segment of the population is nothing new. They do it all the time. They shouldn't do it. If common sense had always prevailed in this country, we never would have allowed them to do it. Bud we did allow it. And they do do it. Lying like a lying liar who lies a lot doesn't fundamentally alter the president's approach to Obamacare. He and Pelosi/Reid decided that people who act like good little soldiers will get one type of tax treatment while those who refuse to play along will get another type of tax treatment. This runs perfectly contrary to the ideals of the Constitution, yet it's perfectly Constitutional.
If you don't like the laws, elect better lawmakers. Dictating the purchasing habits of individuals is abhorrent and completely antithetical to everything for which America once stood. But a law passed by dubious means (the use of 'reconciliation' when it was clearly not about reconciling appropriations to the budget) has a weakness of its own. To wit, it can be repealed by the same dubious means. Either elect people who will repeal Obamacare or accept that your fellow citizens elected the people who enacted it. Stop counting on judges to enforce their views on the voters who choose to vote otherwise. Here's looking at you - gay marriage and abortion supporters.
Honesty is sorely lacking in our political system. But we can stand up and assert our rights at the ballot box, if we so choose. We chose not to do so when they lied to us about Social Security, and so it became a sacred cow. We chose not to do so when they lied to us about Medicare, and so it became a sacred cow. Within a few months, I suspect that we'll have chosen not to do so when they lied to us about Obamacare. And it too will become a sacred cow.
Cows taste pretty good when you devour them. But, left to their own devices, they grow fatter and fatter and basically stink like shit. There's a lesson in there somewhere, I think.
But enough with the overanalysis and pseudoanalysis about what John Roberts is or is not. You and I won't know what his strategic thinking was until he decides to tell us what his strategic thinking was. What we can look at is the opinion that was issued. The Commerce Clause would go too far by requiring us to purchase a product as a condition of being alive. Yeah, that's pretty obvious. And a payment required by the government, collected by the IRS, is a tax. Duh. The opinion was an honest one. That's all.
Cue the liberal outrage about a bitterly divided 5-4 decision in 3... 2... 1...
Heh, that... that was just a little joke. 5-4 decisions are only partisan when the liberal justices lose.
I don't claim to be smart.. and really i'm mostly mediocre, especially when it comes to politics but in my opinion this healthcare issue is truly a power play for both sides.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the fact is there are just as many people who like the law as who hate it. I can't claim to say I hate it.. just the individual mandate.. but the rest is good for americans. The fact that insurance companies can just cancel you now when someone who is sick costs them money is pure BS.
And, the fact that Romney enacted it for MA but says it's not good for the rest of the country and will repeal it when he's elected is hypocritical, a power play for his election to those who hate it, a way to get a republican congress elected so he can get his bidings done, and a means to keep the rich rich despite the fact that much of the bill is good for americans preventing insurance companies from doing whats in THEIR best interest.
Thats the only reason he's doing it... but as we've seen in this presidency, if Congress don't want it to happen.. it won't happen. Obama promised alot but didn't get much because of Congress and I suspect even if Romney gets elected it might be a fight.
I might be off base here or lack the intelligence to see the entire picture, but thats how the 'ol 'Ball sees it around these parts.
In other news, I might be coming to MI for 3 days at the end of July to see my parents and kids who are there for the summer if your still interested in that drink. 3 years late but.. you know the 'ol saying.
A lot of things are in flux for me at the moment, but if I'm around when you're in town I'd be glad to catch up with you.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the health care law, it's a long and tired debate and we've hashed it out for a long time in this country. Punishing insurance companies by providing them with millions of healthy customers who will serve to make them far richer seems pretty funny to me.
And dictating that single men have to buy maternity coverage is straight-up idiocy.
And dictating that Catholic churches have to pay for abortion pills.
And dictating that 26-year-olds are children who should foist their costs onto everyone else instead of accepting responsibility for their own lives.
I think it's a horrible law in every sense, but I've gone through that plenty of times.
If reforms need to be made, then make them. But common sense dictates that someone who is already sick should pay more for health insurance than a healthy person. Common sense dictates that a person who is likely to need more expensive care (a woman) should pay more than someone who is likely to need less expensive care (a man). The elderly consume care at a higher cost and frequency, so of course they should pay a lot more. And so on, and so on. In an effort to play on people's general selfishness and desire for security, we'll ban all such logical behavior and dictate that economic realities no longer apply.
I have no use for Romney, and my post this time honestly wasn't about politics. It was about the lack of any clear political motive for Roberts, as far as I can see. Four justices think the government can do almost anything other than ban abortion and gay marriage. Four judges think the government already does way more than it's allowed. And one thinks the government can't do whatever it pleases, but it can decide to tax whatever it pleases.
Choosing to smoke is taxable because it's bad for society, right? So skipping health insurance is now taxable because they've decided it's bad for society. I don't see any severely tortured logic there. (Maybe slightly strained, but you know...) It makes sense to me. I don't like it, and it gives the government way too much benefit of the doubt for my tastes, but it makes sense anyway.