[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...

Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.

It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.

Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.

Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?

And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.

NOTE TO ALL: I have been accused by TracyCoxx, in another thread, of letting the post just above languish for two weeks without answering the questions. Putting aside that the questions were not directed to me, TracyCoxx makes this accusation regardless of whether there is any proof of intent on my part specifically so he can try to paint a picture of me as not knowing about something and thus, by refusing to address the post, attempting to hide my ignorance. This method of "discussion" is something we have come to expect from TracyCoxx.

The truth is that I simply missed the post. Otherwise, I would have written my answer, quite simply, as follows.

I don't like the Affordable Care Act. I think it's a miserable compromise and that it's shameful that we don't have single-payer, universal healthcare like other advanced economies.

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar. TracyCoxx raises some legitimate points for discussion regarding how the Supreme Court made its decision and how one might interpret this or that aspect of law, tradition, documents, and so on. For me, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court is empowered to INTERPRET, and I accept this interpretation as legitimate according to the Constitutionally mandated powers given to the Court.

Were I like TracyCoxx, I would demand an apology for inferring that I deliberately avoided answering the post above. But as I have written elsewhere, an apology from someone who deliberately concocts such inferences would be meaningless.