« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

SCOTUS Pwns Obama with a “Schrodinger’s Cat” Solution

.
“Bite me, Obama.”

In essence, I think that is what Chief Justice John Roberts just said to the spoiled child who set about to “fundamentally transform” this country. Obama just got hit right between the eyes with Justice Roberts’ Schrodinger’s Cat decision on the fate of Obamacare.

While all of the liberals are whooping it up and celebrating their “win”, they have lost sight of one very important thing:

The Supreme Court’s ruling gave them nothing.

In fact, in ruling the way that he did, Chief Justice Roberts may have, indeed, been playing 11th-dimension chess with someone who doesn’t appear to be able to see any further than his own naked ambition.
.

.
Let’s dig a little deeper into the weeds of the Obamacare decision, shall we? Here are the key points that Chief Justice Roberts raised:

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.

As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer.[340]

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A [of the Internal Revenue Code] would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.[341]

The MOST important thing that SCOTUS decided was that Congress does not have the right to compel citizens to enter into commerce. In ruling on the mandate under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, SCOTUS determined that the mandate – as an instrument of compulsion – is NOT constitutional.

That is a huge win for the American people – and really, that was the main argument that conservatives had with Obamacare. Citizens cannot be free if they are not allowed to make their own choices.

And now we come to the 11th-dimension chess game:
.

.
The people who were paying attention always knew that “Obamacare” was never about providing healthcare for American citizens. Obamacare was always about raising taxes – cleverly disguised as “insurance” – on American citizens. Chief Justice Roberts just laid that bare for everyone to see.

SCOTUS ruled that the ONLY thing that Congress can do under Obamacare if people choose to drop their health insurance is to impose a fine/tax on them – and you can bet that there are already lawsuits being drafted to question that power under the Constitution (and yes, this is a HUGE issue that needs to be resolved).

If people were to decide tomorrow that they are no longer going to purchase health insurance – they decide that they will just pay the “penalty” – there isn’t a damn thing that Congress can do about that under the Commerce Clause. A doctor/hospital can still offer their services to patients, and patients can pay doctors for the services that they need.

By the same token, if employers were to decide tomorrow that they are no longer going to provide their employees with health insurance, but opt instead to pay the penalty, they will be in compliance with the law, and Congress cannot penalize them any further. An employer CANNOT be compelled to provide health insurance to their employees.
.

.
Now, here’s the kicker: That “penalty” was added as a result of the RECONCILIATION BILL that was passed; it was never part of the original Obamacare bill. It is possible that Congress can repeal just two sections of this “amendment” to the healthcare bill without having to deal with repealing Obamacare, and they can do it with a simple majority in both the House and the Senate (or they can do nothing, and the entire reconciliation bill will expire in 2020).

Section 1002 of the Amendment – Individual responsibility: Starting in 2014 everyone will be required to maintain health insurance. If you go without insurance, you will be subject to a tax of $695 per year.

Section 1003 of the Amendment – Employer responsibility: Large companies will be required to provide health insurance as a benefit to its employees. Companies that do not provide this benefit will be imposed a tax of $2,000 a year per employee.

If those two provisions are repealed, anyone who wants to can refuse to purchase health insurance, and they can’t be penalized AT ALL
.

…..it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes.

The “regulated activity” in Obamacare is Health INSURANCE, not Health CARE. We are free to find healthcare however and with whomever we choose. So, we can go and see a doctor and just pay out-of-pocket costs as needed.

Legally, we can’t be turned away from any hospital – that law is already on the books (thanks to a previous Congress’ boneheaded decision). Whether we can prove that we have paid the “penalty” for not carrying health insurance or not, that law still applies.

Obama can squawk all he wants to about this, but there is NOTHING that he can do to prevent a scenario like this from happening. The Supreme Court just ruled that no American can be required to purchase health insurance – they can only be taxed for not having it.
.

.
The entire health INSURANCE industry can collapse in upon itself, and Americans will still be able to get health CARE. In fact, that has always been the case. The last time I checked, a doctor/hospital is free to offer care to ANY patient who is willing to pay them for their services.

You want to make it so that Congress can NEVER tax us for choosing not to participate in commerce? Amend the Constitution to protect us all from a penalty-happy Government (and, yes, Mr. Obama – the Constitution is most definitely a “Charter of Negative Liberties”).

It doesn’t have to be complicated; in fact, the simpler, the better. And to be honest, it’s possible that a Constitutional Amendment limiting the government’s power is EXACTLY what Chief Justice Roberts was going for with his ruling.

In the meantime, Mr. Obama has his bill – now let him try and implement it.***
.

.
*** (With sincerest apologies to Andrew Jackson….)
.
[Cross-posted at Koch's Tour]
.

COMMENTS

  • Viet71

    Thanks.

    FWIW, the equation is used to determine the probability of finding the electron in a hydrogen atom at any point in space.

    Atomic physics, Fall 1965.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      this mathematical/theoretical modeling from the 1930s physics world matches the 1869 introduction of the Periodic Table by Dimitri Mendelev in the experimental chemistry world.

      The solution to the equation–i.e. a functional form that satisfies the need for the left side of the equation to be equal with the right side–, gives the first three of the four quantum numbers listed below.

      Name Symbol Orbital meaning Range of values Value examples
      principal quantum number n shell 1 ? n n = 1, 2, 3,
      • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

        I’m gonna take your word for it on the quantum stuff – I’m one of the “Oompa-Loompas” of the Science world (bonus points if you get the “Big Bang Theory” reference :P ).

        There’s a reason I went into Engineering and not Physics…..

        • acat

          Specifically “Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency”?

          (or am I the only one?)

          Mew

          • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

            Especially after the mental gymnastics the Roberts decision has put it through…..

            I do know that “42″ is the answer to everything, though! :P

          • Right Reason

            Adams’ best ever. The follow-up, “The Long, Dark Tea Time of the Soul” is pretty good as well.

          • aesthete

            “Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn’t even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. The best way to get a drink out of a Vogon is to stick your finger down his throat, and the best way to irritate him is to feed his grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. On no account should you allow a Vogon to read poetry at you.”

        • 6eorge Jetson

          and theorist’s contemplations are informed by experimental evidence.

          Someone asked me this weekend if I believed in Global Warming. I replied that while I believe I’ll have another beer but don’t believe that the Cubs will win the World Series this year, I don’t think belief belongs in the climate discussion.

    • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

      I’ve got my high-water pants on, and there’s brand new tape on the bridge of my horn-rimmed glasses.

      Let’s do this….. :P

      • Viet71

        It’s largely about quantum entanglement.

        Fascinating book.

        Far more challenging is “Uncertainty,” a recent biography of Werner Heisenberg.

        6eorgjetson: I’ve always devoured math and physics; chemistry makes my eyes glaze over, but thanks much for the lesson.

  • funwithknives

    until it was mentioned on,….dare I speak it’s name(?)…

    “The Big Bang Theory” on CBS/TBS and who knows where else.

    But this post puts it in a whole new light
    . “Those eyes” have a funny aura about them…..

    • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

      Of course, we’re both Engineering geeks – we “know” every single character on there…..

      If Penny can “get it”, then anyone can!

      We’re always amazed at how many non-geeks love the show; then again, it’s so cleverly written that it appeals to just about everyone.

  • acat

    Every pundit who isn’t discussing the horse race is sure to be kibitzing on just where the limit on the power of taxation falls….

    Mew

    • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

      One that severely limits the Government’s ability to get in our business.

      This may or may not have been Roberts’ aim – he left a great big mess for us to clean up; then again, it IS a mess of our own making….

      It could turn out to be a “wise” decision, but only if we take advantage of what he spelled out as the peoples’ responsibility.

      Thankfully, it looks as if the country is becoming more conservative (the liberals killed off their future with Roe v. Wade) – I just hope it’s not too late to fix the damage that has been done.

      • Flagstaff

        although this is another expository masterpiece, the logic is abominable, as is the logic of the Roberts ruling.

        Roberts was not playing chess while we played checkers. As we were jumping about the board, he was playing “Go Fish.” By making a truly indefensible ruling, he hurt all of us. It’s not fair to leave it like this so I’ll be more specific.

        The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress

        • Flagstaff

          This is Logic error #1:

          “If the mandate cannot be upheld under the commerce clause, it can still be made constitutional by other provisions of the law.”

          This is Logic error #2:

          “There is some magic by which the federal government

          • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

            I do think, however, that Roberts just tossed this grenade right back in Congress’ lap.

            And he de-fanged it by taking the Commerce Clause and Medicaid Funding teeth out of it.

            Now, Obamacare is only “constitutional” as a tax.
            A tax on inactivity.

            Do you want to be the Congresscritter who has to go back to your constituents and tell them that from now on they can be taxed just for being here?

            (Look up “capitation tax” and the first thing that pops up is “Poll Tax” – that’s gonna go over well with the CBC, don’t you think?)

            I agree, the logic is dicey (which is why I referred to Schrodinger’s cat).

            But CONGRESS is the body that is going to have to deal with this.

            And if enough states refuse to add people to their Medicaid rolls, this thing blows up in the Fed’s face – the cost will be enough for the CBO to say that it can’t be done.

            It’s a Pyrrhic victory for Obama at best.

            Those around him will start to figure it out in the next month or two…..

          • Flagstaff

            If he had ruled constitutionally, we would be rid of ObamaCareRobertsTax today. A lot of people (not just voters and congressmen) are now going to have to expend a lot energy that would have been better spent elsewhere.

            A Pyrrhic victory for Obama is still a loss for us, and unless we can win the WH and both houses of congress (or nearly so, perhaps some sanity might creep back into the Democrat Party) his victory will be permanent.

            Do you want to be the Congresscritter who has to go back to your constituents and tell them that from now on they can be taxed just for being here?

            Don’t have to tell them, it’s now a fact, courtesy of the 11-dimensional Go Fish player.

            I do think, however, that Roberts just tossed this grenade right back in Congress

          • Common_Cents

            Agree, on this naive thinking this is some type of win?

            It will take an unprecedented herculean effort of tremendous resources to uproot ObamaRobertsCare. Wasted time/resources we need to work on the economy.

            Sheesh, why don’t we just agree to give Baraka a free pass on a couple more justices, THAT will REALLY rally the base!!!

            We should let the left implement gun control laws, boy that will REALLY REALLY get him in trouble!

            I can’t believe I am reading this line of thinking from many people. We are giving up what we are trying to prevent in the very first place!! All in the name of what? Maybe some political gain? If that’s all that matters, America is already sunk. Roberts delivering a smack down on obamacare would have delivered immense damage to obama. It would have taken the issue off the table and we could have gotten back to the economy. roberts could have made his “political point” in his opinion all the same.

          • Flagstaff

            I couldn’t agree more.

          • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

            Plus, it makes them “look” nicer than just all that text.

            And it’s fun to see what creative people have done with the issues of the day – I’m not talented enough to do graphic design/artwork, but I do appreciate good stuff when I see it! :P

        • Flagstaff

          Rather than “By his logic, if a law ordered us to donate $100 per person per year to Planned Parenthood under threat of being assessed a tax, it would be a constitutional law,” a better analogy would be

          By his logic, if a law ordered us to donate $100 per person per year to the Catholic Church under threat of being assessed a tax, it would be a constitutional law.

          Neither forced participation in commerce nor forced participation in a religion is allowed by the Constitution. It’s a nearly exact parallel.

          Roberts simply got it wrong. “Why?” remains a question. What to do about it? Can’t know for sure without knowing why, but a Constitutional amendment can’t prevent judicial error, and at this level, only impeachment can punish it. It can’t be remedied.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          You nailed it.

          The Constitution as a defender of a limited set of Enumerated Powers is flat-lining on that. Perhaps we can still resuscitate it, but that is a MASSIVE increase in the potential scope of government, IMO even larger in the long run than ObamaCare itself.

          Perhaps the ruling will help our side win some short lived victories, but I’m afraid that ruling means the sky’s the limit on what the Statists can do to us when they eventually get an electoral win. Republicans cannot hold the Presidency, House, and Senate forever.

          • Flagstaff

            at least as far as applying it as precedent goes.

            After all, Roberts himself is apparently unable to explain it. How could someone else apply it to something else? At least I can hope that. It’s weird enough that maybe it will be sliced and diced later.

  • wintermute

    “SCOTUS ruled that the ONLY thing that Congress can do under Obamacare if people choose to drop their health insurance is to impose a fine/tax on them

  • Flagstaff

    But it seems the law was already unconstitutional, so how do we write an amendment that will stop a Justice from misinterpreting the Constitution on purpose to reach a predetermined result?

  • trimulchio

    system?

    Given the antipathy in law to forfitures, I doubt it.

  • Viet71

    The analogy isn’t apt, however.

    Before we look inside the box and collapse the system, the cat is both alive and dead…at the same time.

    In Roberts’ opinion, the mandate is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-injunction Act (an act of Congress) but is a tax for purposes of the Art. I taxing power (afforded to Congress under the Constitution). One critter, two different labels for two different purposes.

  • tcgeol

    Maybe I’m just mistaken, but as far as I know, the ACA was authorized in the bill by the Commerce Clause, not under Congress’ taxing power. If so, Obamacare should have been judged based on the the wording in the law, not by the government’s third-string argument. Roberts had no justification whatsoever to rewrite the law to make it constitutional. He could have ruled it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, in the process slamming Wickard and making it clear the the federal government’ power under insterstate commerce is very limited.

    In no way did he have to rewrite the mandate to make it a tax in order to give us a real victory. If he truly believed that Congress had the power to force a mandate by their taxing power, then he should have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and then sent it back to Congress to officially pass as a tax, and let them die from it. God may use this ridiculous decision for good, but there is no reason to hold it in any kind of regard.

  • tcgeol

    Nothing personal, Teresa. Maybe I’m just mistaken, but as far as I know, the ACA was authorized in the bill by the Commerce Clause, not under Congress’ taxing power. If so, Obamacare should have been judged based on the the wording in the law, not by the government’s third-string argument. Roberts had no justification whatsoever to rewrite the law to make it constitutional. He could have ruled it unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, in the process slamming Wickard and making it clear the the federal government’ power under insterstate commerce is very limited.

    In no way did he have to rewrite the mandate to make it a tax in order to give us a real victory. If he truly believed that Congress had the power to force a mandate by their taxing power, then he should have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and then sent it back to Congress to officially pass as a tax, and let them die from it. God may use this ridiculous decision for good, but there I can see no reason to hold it in any kind of regard.

  • tcgeol

    nt

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    So much so I really don’t have anything to add except that I hope Roberts is haunted by his actions. The rest of us certainly are.

  • Common_Cents

    nt