originally reported that the Supreme Court found that the individual
mandate is not a valid exercise of the commerce clause and that it
appeared as if the Supreme Court had struck down the individual
mandate. Then CNN followed up with saying that the court
actually did uphold it under the taxing clause, with a narrow
reading of the U.S. Constitution. People are calling this a screw
Both reports were correct.
to Four, the Supreme Court has said though the individual mandate
(that everyone must obtain health care coverage) does not stand via
the commerce clause, in essence it stands via the provision in the
U.S. Constitution for congress to tax the American people. This is
because people who do not obtain coverage will have a fine "taxed"
onto their yearly income taxes, via the IRS 1040 income tax form and
or another form.
1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that congress is allowed
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."
Supreme Court is not saying that the health care law, in and of
itself is constitutional, as per Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution. But instead, it is saying that taxing people who don't
have coverage is constitutional under this section, because it is
viewed as "Providing for the general welfare of the United States."
By saying this, they are not saying "general welfare," as in our
personal health care welfare. it is saying that the taxation is
needed for the "general welfare," as in the fiscal welfare of the
United States, as in the money.
other words, the court is saying that if congress feels that the
fiscal (monetary) welfare of this nation is harmed by people who do
not obtain health care coverage, that it is in the best interest of
this "general welfare" of the United States, to tax such people in
order to make up some of the revenue that is lost each year by
uncovered hospital visits, doctor visits, etc. This is because
otherwise the cost largely goes to taxpayers and people who do pay
for health care coverage, which hurts the overall economy (the
fiscal) of this nation.
Basically, the Supreme Court has said
Obamaís health care actís core reason for being, is in fact to place
a tax on people who already cannot afford health care
had sworn he would not put any new taxes on anyone earning under
$250,000.00 a year. Many of us were fully aware that he was lying.
As were many of us fully aware that Obamaís health care act was
simply a back door to taxing of the poor and an increase the
overall cost of health coverage on most everyone else. This is of
course, excluding congress and presidents, who are all excluded from
Then there is the fact that this is all a just a
step to the liberals in congress working our nation towards the
one-payer system that will eventually make the government the
financial middleman in care of all of that money. And remember
that this health care act puts the health care of the average
American citizen into the hands of the politicians as a campaign
bargaining chip for each and every election
Where the challengers of the law messed up,
was failing to challenge the health care law in its entirety,
instead of challenging parts of it. The main reason the law is
unconstitutional was totally missed.
someone broke into your home, would you stand there arguing with him
as to what is okay for him to take and what is not? Of course you
wouldn't. And yet that is what has happened with the health care
law. People argued some things in the law instead of the fact that
the law is there to begin with and shouldn't
is no power given to congress that allows congress to take over the
privately owned health insurance industry and turn it into a
government ran health care system. The health care law is basically
saying that there is no longer any such thing as health insurance.
Obama-Care is a health "care" act, not a health "insurance" act.
Hence the reason that no one can be turned down. It is not
insurance. Insurance insures us in case something happens, not after
it happens. We don't get house insurance after our kitchen burns
is now health care, a government ran entity in which everyone has to
put into the pot. It is the government's take-over of an industry,
the dissolving of it and forcing those who were in that industry to
now work for a government ran entity or to find another source of
income. It is like this. You own a clothing store. The government
says that you can no longer run it as a store; you now must run it
as a place where people can come and just get whatever it is that
they need to wear within the government's standards; and everyone
who gets their clothing from you must pay a yearly amount to you
that does not go over a government set amount of cost to them. You
no longer own a store. You now work for the government in a
government ran clothing distribution place. And you are no longer
allowed to own and operate a true store again. You are not allowed
to make a profit above what the government allows you to have. The
government's claim is that it has a right to regulate what you do
for the good of this country, because everyone needs
J.M. Smith 06-28-12