Ammo For Sale

« « Wrong side of history | Home | Deal Alert » »

Obamacare

So if I understand the ruling, the law mostly stands. The mandate is unconstitutional under commerce clause but it’s legal as a tax. That’s pretty fucked up right there.

25 Responses to “Obamacare”

  1. CTD Says:

    WTF? Aren’t capitation taxes specifically prohibited by the Constitution?

  2. CTD Says:

    “[n]o capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

  3. Andy Says:

    The whole time is was sold as is not being a tax. Now it’s a tax. I wonder what else I can be taxed for not having or buying. If there is a BHO 2.0, I guess we’re going to find out.

  4. Cormac Says:

    I always thought revenue stuff had to start in the house… or is this a non-revenue tax?

  5. noflashbang Says:

    From opinion….”Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population.”

  6. CTD Says:

    noflashbang,

    That’s just a assertion, not an argument. How is it not a capitation tax? It’s a tax of a uniform, fixed amount per taxpayer. The court is just brushing aside a thorny constitutional issue by asserting that is doesn’t exist.

  7. Bubblehead Les Says:

    And the “Fundamental Transformation” just keeps on Going and Going and Going…..

    Roberts is an Idiot.

  8. Divemedic Says:

    The next Republican who tells me that the Supreme Court nominees are a good reason to elect a Republican, I am going to be sorely tempted to punch them in the face.

  9. markofafreeman Says:

    I still think the most egregious outcome was averted here: a possible new more expansive view of the Commerce Clause. The direct tax question is surely concerning, but I think that since the Commerce Clause issue was avoided, the entire thing can be repealed with minimal remaining legal precedent. Albeit, not without significant damage to the insurance market up to this point.

    If, of course, Robama can be convinced that it needs to be repealed in its entirety.

    Don’t get me wrong, this is still a hot mess. But that’s just a typical SCOTUS opinion. More tyranny of the black-robed.

  10. HL Says:

    So the government can tax a negative now. This is pretty big. For instance, if you DON’T buy an electric car, you can be hit with a special tax.

    Does that mean that if you DON’T buy ultra expensive gun-owner liability insurance, you can be hit with a big tax?

  11. noflashbang Says:

    CTD – I agree with you. All I was getting at is that they DID brush it aside….

  12. Tirno Says:

    Thanks to precedent, we can now proceed with the National Security Defense-In-Depth Tax:

    Any citizen or resident the United States, over the age of 18, residing in US territory, who does not keep an arm and practice with it during the tax year as evidence of bearing said arm, shall be assessed a tax of $300 per annum, adjusted for inflation, which shall be distributed equally to their city police (or county sheriff for those ouside of municipal limits), their state police, and national crime investigation agencies.

    This tax shall apply equally to any that are prohibited to possess firearms or forebear firearm as a matter of conscience.

    Any agent of government, at any level, employed, elected or appointed, that attempts to prevent otherwise qualified individuals from possession of arms or the accoutrements thereof shall be imprisoned for 5 days per individual affected. They shall also be fined $100 per individual, per year or part of a year that the individual was affected. If more than 181 individuals have been affected by the agents actions, in their lifetime, the 182nd and all following instances instance shall be treated as a felony with all disqualification this might bring.

    Authority for this measure comes from Article One, Section 8, the power to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia, and also from the power to lay and collect taxes, and finally from the power to provide for the common defense.

  13. lee Says:

    So a mandate is unconstitutional, but a tax to enforce a mandate isn’t. huh?

  14. wkeller Says:

    My thoughts on the SCOTUS ACA ruling:

    http://eiaft.blogspot.com/2012/06/commentaryscotus-upholds-aca.html

  15. HL Says:

    wkeller, your points give hope…but I don’t think the tax law has to be written in this case does it? It is already in the legislation.

    I may be mistaken.

  16. Bill Says:

    Guys, private health care died today. No employer and no private insurer will be ablt to survive this measure as it stands.

    Within 5 years medical research will be at a standstill, (contrary to popular belief, the government funds almost no research, that’s done by companies hoping to make money, and with the one payer system, there won’t be an reason. And there is no way that the government can fund it, they are broke!)

    Small clinics and hospitals will fold like accordians without the high paying private insurers to offset the minimal pay government plans, (in Eastern Washington small and medium size hospitals have taken a beating in the last 2 years, and most are losing money or cutting staff to allow break even survival.)

    Health care providers have been burdened over the last 2 decades with ever increasing government paperwork, and that requires more and more people to administer that paper. Thus we have lots of people who provide no patient revenue, care, or benefit, but have jobs to satisfy government requirements that provide no patient care or benefit. The overhead to do so is ridiculously high and the system has no way to avoid paying it.

    The lemmings have run to the cliff and are throwing themselves off.

    John Roberts revealed that we have no hope choosing judges who actually pay attention to the Constitution.

  17. ATLien Says:

    Can’t say what I feel. Loose lips and all that.

  18. markofafreeman Says:

    Any citizen or resident the United States, over the age of 18, residing in US territory, who does not keep an arm and practice with it during the tax year as evidence of bearing said arm, shall be assessed a tax of $1900 per annum, adjusted for inflation, which shall be distributed equally to a) municipal or county government for the sole purpose of developing shooting range facilities and b) a reduction in the Pittman Robertson Act. In both (a) and (b) cases the taxes will be apportioned in greater amounts to localities with a higher percentage of legal arms ownership.

    This tax shall apply to any that forebear firearm as a matter of conscience.

    Any agent of government, at any level, employed, elected or appointed, that attempts to prevent otherwise qualified individuals from possession of arms or the accoutrements thereof shall be imprisoned for 5 days per individual affected. They shall also be fined $100 per individual, per year or part of a year that the individual was affected. If more than 181 individuals have been affected by the agents actions, in their lifetime, the 182nd and all following instances instance shall be treated as a felony. All funds collected under this Act shall be distributed to the individuals affected. The official found in violation of this Act shall personally distribute these funds, in form of precious metals (i.e.: not fiat currency) or ammunition of the caliber, brand, and type chosen by the recipient to each affected individual. On foot.

    Authority for this measure comes from Article One, Section 8, the power to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia, and also from the power to lay and collect taxes, and finally from the power to provide for the common defense.

    [As amended by markofafreeman: removed felony prohibition references (anyone not to be trusted with a gun should not be trusted without a custodian); increased fine for non-possession from $300 to 1900 to match the Obamacare fine; added requirement that the official attempting to infringe on this Act be required to distribute the funds to those affected.]

  19. Mu Says:

    Weirdest decision in years, 4 say you can, 4 say you can’t, and Roberts says you can, but not because of what you think but because of what I think. It’s one opinion with 8 dissenters.

  20. PawPaw Says:

    As Justice Roberts says in his opinion: It is not the job of the Court to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

    He gives us a clue, right there.

  21. Tirno Says:

    Amendments as proposed by markofafreeman are accepted as proposed.

    Further amendments:
    1) Silencers are moved to Title I and shall be treated as individual firearms.
    2) Distinctions such as handgun, machine gun, any-other-weapon or destructive device, short barreled rifle or shotgun, sporting purpose or any other derivative classification are repealed. All firearms shall be regulated under the present laws for long arms, no further distinctions shall be enacted, and no further taxes levied aside from uniform application of sales taxes, where enacted.
    3) “Arms” protected shall include knives, swords, tasers, chemical agents not classified as Chemical Weapons by treaty that the US is party to, and any other arm or implement (or device of similar suitability of purpose) that might be borne or operated by a soldier or squad of soldiers.

    Like you said… if you can’t be trusted with this stuff, you can’t be trusted free with a fork.

  22. Dustydog Says:

    3 years down the road, when none of the promises have been kept, fewer people have healthcare and everyone pays more for it, and everybody who is for ObamaCare now claims they always hated ObamaCare, then the Supreme Court will find a reason to pull a switcheroo.

  23. Sebastian Says:

    You don’t need any special power to require people to buy a gun. Congress can do that directly, and apply criminal penalties for failing to do so, under it’s militia powers.

    Also, what is and what isn’t a direct tax is a matter of reasonable debate. I’m surprised and disappointed Roberts went for a further narrowing of what a direct tax is, but it’s not a radical expansion of federal power. Not nearly as radical as upholding it under the commerce clause would be.

  24. Stormy Dragon Says:

    I always thought revenue stuff had to start in the house… or is this a non-revenue tax?

    Technically, it did begin the House. PPACA began life as the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” HR 3590. The Senate has for decades gotten around the revenue provision by taking a revenue bill passed by the House and then creating an ammendment that replaces the entire contents.

  25. Braden Lynch Says:

    @Bill:
    I would like to add to Bill’s insights on the death of private health care and “medical research” which would include pharmaceutical research. Since the government controls medication approval through the FDA and will really control reimbursement through the mechanisms of the ACA we can guarantee the destruction of investment in this area. No sane company would stay engaged in this arena.

    Currently, who makes the new drugs in the world?
    Is it England? France? Egypt? Cuba?
    No, it is nearly all done by the United States. Forget ever getting a new drug with socialized medicine. Your hope for a cure for AIDS or cancer will be dashed.