If It It, It Is. If It Isn’t, It’s Un-constitutional.

Bookmark and Share

In keeping with my quoting former President’s in discussing the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare we will quote the (in)famous William Jefferson Clinton:

“It depends on what the definition if ‘Is’ is.”

The SCOTUS decision rendering the Obamacare mandate legal only under the Congresses power to tax is not even a week under the belt but has most still hot under the collar. Conservatives are up in arms that they were betrayed by one of their own at the last moment as Chief Justice John Roberts apparently changed his mind at the 11th hour and liberals are scrambling to explain how they can still support it as a ‘tax’ which will impact millions of middle and lower class families.

The President says it’s not a tax. His chief of staff says it’s not a tax. Pelosi says it’s not a tax. John Carney says it’s not a tax. Most Democrats, especially those up for re-election who supported the bill are screaming that it’s not a tax. ***BREAKING NEWS*** The Supreme Court of the United States of America says IT’S A TAX. You wanted a ruling in your favor…you got it.

So….as most pundits and armchair constitutional lawyers try and wrap their heads around what they feel is a very complex situation, allow me to simplify it for you.

The SCOTUS ruled it’s a tax. If you are going to continue to claim publicly that it is not a tax then you are making the argument against your own bill. Which by the way AS A TAX can only be disputed after someone has to pay it which will happen in 2014. If it is not a tax then you arguing that it is in fact unconstitutional. Good, we agree on something.

So, for those of us who believe this ruling to be a gigantic infringement upon one’s personal liberty as well as a Pandora’s box of the government’s power to tax, take a chill pill. The administration and it’s surrogates are making the disputing of the ‘tax’ easy for us by claiming, despite the ruling to the contrary, that it is not a tax.

It all depends on what the definition of ‘Is’ is.

Bookmark and Share

One Response

  1. The Terri Schiavo law made life a right. In the modern world that means health care is to provided to all if that enables life. Scotus has not said the bad law called obama care has to be the solution. But since few can afford a catastrophic illness or injury, society has to share the costs in some way. SCOTUS has said taxes are legal fro the purpose. Its that simple. Now Congress needs to come up with the best way. Ironic, the very ones who wanted Terri Schiavo to have the right to choose life are now the very ones that are upset with SCOTUS for upholding that mandate. As one in a life and death struggle with three federal contracted health plans and secret deals and all kinds of shenanigans gluing on, the federal model isn;t the best as its nothing but tax dollars funding an unaccountable Internationale conglomerated govt contractors running it with no oversight. Only looks good on paper, the part we feds are allowed to see.Life is an inalienable right and too many have died needlessly without some kind of system in place to share the costs in some way so all can live. That’s being prop-life. Years ago there used to be a real charity tax deduction so the rich could Share and gain real tax benefits for doing so as well as the middle class sharing smaller amounts and lowering their tax rates as a result. That was ended as ” it was controlling behavior.” If we are a nation that accepts the premise that we are one human family and all have those inalienable rights, then we need the most efficient system to share the costs and have delivery of life sustaining health care in the best and most efficient way possible. Govt contractors are now getting the right to have stock holders and is that the best way when denial of care will raise dividends? How about a new tax category for health care, somewhere between non profit and for profit? Its time for a new kind of model based on modern science. urgent care clinics are great when your doctor isn;t in the office and keeps one out of expensive emergency rooms for a few stitches and a tetanus shot, etc. Trying to keep patients in one state or another is ridiculous. If one lives a few miles from a specialty need, why should they have to go 150 miles to the one in their own state? Its time for some creative minds to be allowed to interject and doctors must be part of the discussion. Don’t See many of them testifying in front of Congressional hearings-oh there weren’t any hearings , were there! SCOTUS gave Congress and the states and the people the constitutional guidelines to uphold the right to live. Now we the people through our elected representatives need to see they get the job done/ Don’t wait until 2014 to appeal a wrong, you aren’t going to always get those appeals answered as that’s what occurs in the plans this was modeled after run by those got contractors that can;t be prosecuted for crimes and not allowed to internally audit for what they are doing. That’s the first correction congress needs to address by reinstating the laws that used to be for that simple solution. Linda Joy Adams

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: