SCOTUS on ObamaCare: “We have to find it Constitutional before you can find out what is really in it.” Part I.
SCOTUS on ObamaCare:
“We have to find it Constitutional before you can find out what is really in it.” Part I.
July 2, 2012
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ominous wording seemed to set
the template for how this economy-crippling legislation was going to survive…
I tendered the following letter to our Senator Tom Carper when
the Senate was engaged with the House version of ObamaCare (that one didn’t
Rather than passing the House version, the Senate actually
doubled down on its government takeover and confiscatory policies of the House
version in HR 3590, the Act the U.S. Supreme Court dared to say was actually
Please note that even before the Supreme Court handed down
its decision last week, I had already gleaned from the law that this was TAX
reform and not true healthcare reform.
(I was right then… And Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed
it last week!)
With all due respect, have you actually READ this bill? I have!
And it's becoming painfully obvious those who support this
bill have NOT.
Once again, the Democrats have shown themselves to employ
their “political weapon of choice: the US tax code.”
ref : Glenn Beck, with Joseph Kerry, Glenn Beck’s Common
Sense, (New York: Mercury Radio Arts /Threshold Editions, 2009), p. 36.
First off, the title:
America's Affordable Health Choices Act 2009?”
(NOTE: HR 3200, the House
version of ObamaCare. The Senate version, HR 3590, became
the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act of 2010—ObamaCare. Differences shall be highlighted in red.)
Well, after reading the bill, the only 'choices' offered are for
individuals and businesses alike to purchase Obamacare or suffer taxes
"IMPOSED." Funny, I never saw
the words, ‘mandatory’, ‘compelled’, ‘obligated’, or ‘ordered’ with respect
toward the individual U.S. citizen, anywhere in the Constitution much less
‘imposed’… have you?
Meaning of the word Imposed:
Main Entry: impose
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: set, DICTATE
Even a cursory look at this bill (a detailed one would have you
losing your lunch, as well as provide proof of the loss of liberty) would
easily demonstrate WHERE the priority was placed when penning this bill, and it
certainly had nothing to do with affordable health care choices, but government
control over our liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.
And no, the tired argument about “promote the general
welfare” never meant what it means today; case in point: Gay no longer means
meaning of the word Welfare in the
Constitution is different from its current usage. The constitutional meaning of welfare is: 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
Welfare in today's context also means organized
efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or
simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the
We have only to see how many times that true health care
choices were mentioned versus the tax burden contained within its 1018 pages.
Affordable Health Choices: 27 times but only in the context
of restating the title throughout the bill.
There was no clear offer of choices. (Mentioned
twice in ObamaCare, but only as a passing reference to the House version of
Quality health care: 6 times (only
ONCE in ObamaCare!)
Affordable choices in health care: 0 times (Only twice in ObamaCare… and the first was in the table
So if this bill is not about AFFORDABLE health CHOICES, then
WHY is it so damned important to pass it before August? Could it be so that no logical person could
have time to read the bill in order to discover its true nature, that being a
tax increase on ALL American citizens?
So much for 44’s
promise to the 95 percent who thought their taxes would not be raised.
One would have thought this bill to be an Internal Revenue
Code reform bill for all the references to taxes, rather than an Affordable
Health Choices bill as described by the title.
Tax Imposed: 12 Times (30 times in ObamaCare)
Internal Revenue: 27 times (197 times in ObamaCare)
Taxpayer: 30 times (141 times in ObamaCare)
Taxable: 44 times (207 times in ObamaCare)
And the overwhelming word,
Penalty: For a bill designed as a positive step in offering
affordable health care choices, penalty was mentioned 99 times!!! (I guess they couldn’t bring themselves to
mention it one more time to bring that number to 3 digits!) (In ObamaCare,
Penalty is mentioned 132 times!)
And if you don’t believe this bill to be punitive in nature,
just READ the verbiage directly from the bill:
Toward the Individual:
‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health
‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does
not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable
year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the
taxable year, over
‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section
6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
EXCISE TAX WITH RESPECT TO FAILURE TO MEET HEALTH COVERAGE
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any employer who fails
(during any period with respect to which the election under subsection (a) is
in effect) to satisfy the health coverage participation requirements with
respect to any employee to whom such election applies, there is hereby imposed on each such failure with
respect to each such employee a tax of $100 for each day in the period
beginning on the date such failure first occurs and ending on the date such
failure is corrected.
A $100 per day penalty?
Are you kidding?
(NOTE: ObamaCare actually allows
the Secretary to assess penalty fees as high as $40 a day per covered life, “for each day that the plan is not in
compliance with the requirements.”
(f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2012.
And exactly WHO stands to gain and who stands to lose?
Penalties are punitive enforcement and nothing more. I
suppose Beck was right all along:
“The tax code has never really been about raising revenue as
much as it is about punishing opponents (and) helping friends…” (Ibid, p. 41.)
This is bill is NOT
about health care at all, but a revamping of the US Tax Code; to the
considerable appreciation of government power!
News & Politics