Thanks to Republican Tax Cuts, Obamacare is No Longer Constitutional

[endicom]

Townhall
Justin Haskins
May 14, 2018

In one of its most controversial decisions, the Supreme Court in 2012 upheld the constitutionality of a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandating individuals purchase qualifying health insurance or else pay a fine, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote in favor of the law. However, nearly six years later, a provision included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed mostly along party lines in December 2017, may soon force Roberts to reevaluate his decision, potentially ending the health care law without a single vote being cast in Congress.

In Roberts’ majority opinion, which saved the ACA from what appeared to be its certain death, he reasoned the federal government has the authority to impose an individual health care mandate because, despite language in the ACA calling the mandate a penalty, it’s effectively a tax and Congress has the constitutional authority to impose taxes. (Currently, those who fail to purchase a “qualifying” health insurance plan are subject to a penalty of $695 per adult, up to a family maximum of $2,085, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.)

More... https://townhall.com/columnists/justinhaskins/2018/05/14/thanks-to-republican-tax-cuts-obamacare-is-no-longer-constitutional-n2480392

[endicom]

@Bueller

[Bigun]

VELLY interestink! 

Let's see how this plays out!

[endicom]

VELLY interestink! 

Let's see how this plays out!

Yeah, everyone wants to see Obamacare ditched and this may do it.

[XenaLee]

Townhall
Justin Haskins
May 14, 2018

In one of its most controversial decisions, the Supreme Court in 2012 upheld the constitutionality of a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandating individuals purchase qualifying health insurance or else pay a fine, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote in favor of the law. However, nearly six years later, a provision included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed mostly along party lines in December 2017, may soon force Roberts to reevaluate his decision, potentially ending the health care law without a single vote being cast in Congress.

In Roberts’ majority opinion, which saved the ACA from what appeared to be its certain death, he reasoned the federal government has the authority to impose an individual health care mandate because, despite language in the ACA calling the mandate a penalty, it’s effectively a tax and Congress has the constitutional authority to impose taxes. (Currently, those who fail to purchase a “qualifying” health insurance plan are subject to a penalty of $695 per adult, up to a family maximum of $2,085, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.)

More... https://townhall.com/columnists/justinhaskins/2018/05/14/thanks-to-republican-tax-cuts-obamacare-is-no-longer-constitutional-n2480392

It was never "constitutional" in the first place by virtue of the FACT that it negatively effected Americans in different and varying degrees.... ie no fairness or equality in how it "taxed" Americans. 

If forcing Americans to buy health insurance is “essential” to the ACA, then the unconstitutionality of that “essential” mandate could very well sink the entire health care law, accomplishing in an instant what the Republican-led Congress has failed to achieve since taking power following the 2016 elections.

Ok.   Then why hasn't it "sunk" yet???

I'm just wondering how many Americans stopped paying their taxes or stopped filing a return due to the fact that ObamaCare made paying their taxes unaffordable.  Goes right along with that "sooner or later, big Government will make law-breakers of us all" meme.

[endicom]

Goes right along with that "sooner or later, big Government will make law-breakers of us all" meme.

It's very handy to have everyone guilty of being in violation of some law. If someone becomes a problem then just threaten them with prosecution for violating some law they may never have heard of.

That's what Mueller is trying to do to Trump. Trump, or someone acting in his name, has violated some law so it's just a matter of discovering a violation.

[XenaLee]

It's very handy to have everyone guilty of being in violation of some law. If someone becomes a problem then just threaten them with prosecution for violating some law they may never have heard of.

That's what Mueller is trying to do to Trump. Trump, or someone acting in his name, has violated some law so it's just a matter of discovering a violation.

Exactly!

[Bigun]

@XenaLee  @endicom

"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any
government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
......just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

 Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, p.411, Signet Books, NY, 1957

[XenaLee]

@XenaLee  @endicom

 Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, p.411, Signet Books, NY, 1957

Spot on, Bigun!