Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CPalmer (Talk | contribs) at 08:36, 4 July 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

ObamaCare is upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States (5-4) as a tax, not as a valid exercise of government power under the Commerce Clause:

The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. ... In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes ...."


The Supreme Court did not say that Obamacare is a good piece of legislation, or that it is right for the country. It merely said it is legal, which is hard to deny. It may be job-killing, it may not solve our health care problems, but it doesn't violate the Constitution. Jpope14 11:55, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

As bad as this law is, SCOTUS was right to say that, as a tax, it is constitutional. On a personal level, I'm glad for this ruling, because it will force Congress to act to repeal it; and given the fact that they have been ceding their power to the executive and legislative branch for the last 30 years, this would be a good time to retake some of it. EricAlstrom 15:14, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

Personal responsibility is an important part of being an American. The law gives every American a choice: either get some form of health insurance or pay a penalty that will grow over time to be equal to the cost of a typical health insurance policy. The Supreme Court has held that that penalty provision is constitutional under the taxing power. The problem with the current system is that many people do not have health insurance and then go to the hospital emergency room and demand free health care. That is irresponsible and imposes a high cost on all other users of the health care system. Currently, hospitals are recovering the cost of their free care from the other paying customers. Much of the free care is provided at emergency rooms, when the same care would be less expensive if it was done at a clinic or doctor's office. Wschact 07:59, 29 June 2012 (EDT)


"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" 1.8.3

Even if it was a tax it would mean those who have healthcare would be getting a deduction, therefore making taxes non uniform, in violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" 1.8.1

Also, regardless of whether or not it is a tax, it is clearly in favor of those who purchase healthcare and is an attempt to force people to get healthcare, which is in violation of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 6, suggesting that individuals are also included (which they aren't because it is specifically stated earlier that individuals are not to be subject to regulatory clauses at all) in regulatory clauses which is clearly what the Obama admin believes: "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." 1.9.6

Interesting points, but couldn't your argument equally apply to mortgage interest deductions? Or the child care deduction? Or charitable giving? I'm inclinded to agree with you, but given that our tax system is so screwed up, this tax isn't that different. EricAlstrom 15:11, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
You are misreading the very portion of the law that you are citing. "Duties, Imposts, and Excises" shall be uniform. Taxes do not have to be uniform. For example, the more money I earn, the higher percentage of taxes I pay. Taxes have never been "uniform" because the law does not require them to be. Jpope14 15:58, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 1.9.4. Also this isn't even a tax question, the tax code has not been changed at all. There was no raise in taxes and there was no deduction added for people who have healthcare, this is clearly nothing more than a penalty. Back when this was going through congress Obama laughed at the notion that it was a tax hike and said critics only said that to make it look like a commercial regulation was a tax, but now that its constitutionality has been questioned its a tax!?
And yet, the whole time President Obama said it wasn't a tax, conservatives derided him and (rightly) pointed out that it was. Now that their own definition is being used to call it constitutional, conservatives are trying to take it back. It was dishonest of the president, but we all knew that for political expediency's sake he would never use the word tax. But that's precisely what it is, which makes it perfectly constitutional. Jpope14 00:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
There is no separate power in the Constitution for imposing penalties. It is covered by what we call the taxing clause or perhaps the necessary and proper clause. There are many fines and penalties in federal law. Please stop and think carefully before you argue that they are all Unconstituional and that American should move to a "jail time for every violation" approach. Wschact 08:08, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Brace yourself for the backlash Democrats: It's coming!

Obama NapoleonBellyHandCrM.jpg

All is not quiet on the ObamaCare front. ObamaCare may ultimately prove to be Barack Obama's Waterloo.[1]

If you think the ObamaCare battle is over Democrats, you are sadly mistaken. Conservatives have not yet begun to fight on this political front and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling may prove to be a pyrrhic victory.

This isn't really on topic...move to the talk page perhaps? EricAlstrom 22:22, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
I created this web page. This is my mic! Conservative 22:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
Fair enough EricAlstrom 23:44, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
I would be amazed if Republicans managed to do as much as repeal a tiny portion of the ACA, even if they win control over the Senate in November. There isn't the remotest chance that they will gain a filibuster-proof majority, (not with lackluster Romney at the top of the ticket) and given the amount of stalling and blocking the Republicans have engaged in these past few years, I suspect that the Democrats will be more than ready to repay them in kind.
The problem with government gridlock, of which many Americans seem to approve, is that it's just as difficult to repeal legislation something as it is to pass it in the first place.MarkJW 00:13, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Through economic necessity, every aspect of liberalism which requires public funds is going to be fair game in the USA. What is happening in Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland will come to the USA sooner or later. Conservative 05:13, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
Hooray!--CPalmer 05:30, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
I don't think this country can bear to wait any longer. The Liberals have been gutting every aspect of American life, and it's about time we changed that. RickyV 09:15, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Polling data shows that a number of aspects of the ACA are very popular: 1) allowing children up to 26 to be covered by their parents' insurance, 2) insurance without regard to preexisting conditions, 3) end to lifetime dollar caps on coverage, 4) full coverage of the cost of doctor visits for preventative care and physical exams. The ACA is not a single payer plan, it does not "socialize" medicine, and it keeps private insurance and private hospitals and medical groups. If the Republicans want to "repeal and replace" the ACA, it will be hard to find a replacement that does all of that without being very similar to the ACA. Wschact 00:37, 4 July 2012 (EDT)