Nevertheless, the House did originate the bill to which "penalties" were added during reconciliation. According to the rules of the House and Senate, "reconciliation" has a very broad scope. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29 for a good discussion). Reconciliation can, as in this case, be very badly abused -- and yet remain within the letter of Constitutional authority in accordance with the sections I cited.
I did, earlier. Roberts ruled that, whatever the wording was -- "penalties," IIRC -- in reality they were taxes in all but name, and as such Congress was authorized to levy them. (The full opinion lays it all out: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf)
Specifically:
Rather amusingly (in a train wreck sort of way), prior to the bill passing we were all arguing that the penalties were in reality a tax and should be called such. Indeed, I think most of us would still agree that the "penalties" were, and still are "taxes."
So I've always thought it a bit disingenuous that the same people would subsequently direct such anger at Roberts, who in his opinion merely acknowledged the reality of what we were saying all along.
IF the Congress had honestly owned up to the fact that it was, indeed, a tax on breathing, the populace would have marched on DC. Instead, they went to great lengths to define that 'tax' as a penalty for noncompliance, and insisted voluminously that that was the case. Their statements make both the language and intent of the penalty quite clear.
I can't recall how many times I heard or read the 'not a tax' line during that time frame.
To have Roberts
redefine it as such, and still find for the law is just wrong.
It isn't his job to change the letter of the law, just to rule on it. The law says what the law says. If the Congress can't write a law that is worded right on such a seminal issue, send the damned law back, there are liable to be a multitude of other nuggets of carelessness and imprecision contained in it--especially one that extensive. Make them do
their job, don't do it for them. Because that was not his job, nor is it the purview of the courts to write legislation, he exceeded his Constitutional Authorization and violated the separation of powers.
Does the Congress rule on whether laws are Constitutional? No. Their job is to write the laws. Not enforce them, not rule on whether or not they pass Constitutional muster.
Without that separation, there are no checks nor balances, and the system, OUR system of government is not functioning as designed. (I know, that's a real 'sherlock moment').
Of all the opinions on the court, his was the one which people were sure would overturn the law. The premise of the tax is that a person is living. Nothing more. If no other act is performed, the tax applies. Just keep breathing.
The only way to avoid the tax, short of being deprived of property, is by dying.
It is a tax on life itself, a most fundamental and unalienable Right.
Don't tell me about Medicaid or subsidies, I know for a fact that there are instances of people with zero income who were denied. Therefore they will be subject to the penalty/tax, and have to pay out of pocket for health care or insurance. A single male in this state would pay over 24K a year for insurance (enough to live modestly off of), and still have to pay for deductibles, medication, and copays provided they actually need medical care. I know of people whose insurance companies got out of the health insurance business and who lost coverage they had been carrying for decades in some cases.
Nope, that blood is on Roberts' hands.
Time for my little Reynolds Wrap chapeau, but I'd say the intention is to kill off older folks, partly because those who remember a more free America are a pain in the asses of those who want to enslave it. /tinfoil.
