Obamacare upheld — as the tax Obama promised us it wasn’t
UPDATE at 11:59 a.m.: The president is expected to comment on the ruling at 12:15 p.m. One wonders how his remarks will square with White House talking points from the Obamacare debate, such as:
What President Obama is proposing is not a tax, but a requirement to comply with the law.
and
People are required to obey the speed limit and have to pay a penalty if they get caught speeding? Does anyone consider that a tax?
and
People are required to have car insurance and can be fined if they are caught without it. Is that a tax?
In one of the court’s other decisions today, United States v. Alvarez, the justices upheld American’s First Amendment rights to lie about receiving military honors. In the Obamacare ruling, the majority upheld politicians’ First Amendment rights to lie about their policies. Not that anyone thought that kind of lying would ever stop.
UPDATE at 11:42 a.m.: At first blush, any cheers for the court’s declining to uphold Obamacare based on the Commerce Clause should not be too loud.
Writing for the majority, Roberts says, among other things:
People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act. That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.
Sounds pretty strong, huh? Maybe even strong enough to place a firm limit on congressional powers under the Commerce Clause?
Maybe so. My guess, however, is that Congress will simply rely less on its Commerce Clause powers in the future and resort to its taxing powers, because Roberts shortly makes clear that this limitation applies only to “police powers” — that is, Congress cannot criminalize inactivity.
Turning to Congress’ taxing powers, Roberts seems to undercut everything he wrote about regulating inactivity:
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. … That, according to the [Federal] Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition — not owning health insurance — that triggers a tax — the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. (emphasis added)
Viewed in the lens of taxation, then, inactivity is “just another thing,” like … wait for it … activity. So, everything Roberts wrote about Congress’ inability to regulate inactivity amounts to this: Congress can’t throw you in jail for not doing something, but it can take away your personal property for not doing something. This is hardly a comforting limitation.
UPDATE at 11:05 a.m.: The coalitions of justices on various parts of the ruling are a bit tricky to follow, but the bottom line is that Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, voted to uphold the law in its entirety, while Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee and the supposed swing vote of the court, voted to throw it out in its entirety. So, while Kennedy had been seen as the one who would decide the law’s fate, he went right and the court went left. That’s one of many ways this precise ruling — not the broad outcome, but how a majority of justices reached it — is completely unexpected.
UPDATE at 10:55 a.m.: Finally have the ruling. It’s pretty clear why CNN blew it — and, oh, did they blow it, reporting first that the mandate was struck down. From page 2 of the summary:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
But then you turn to page 3 …
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
And page 4 …
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.
So, it’s a tax. Which is exactly what the Obama administration said it wasn’t while it was trying to pass the bill, and then reversed itself and said it was once the law got to court. That distinction may also have implications for repealing the bill.
More to come.
ORIGINAL POST:
The Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare as constitutional; beyond that, I can’t say much yet. There have been so many contradictory reports — including about the size of the majority — that I’m not going to comment further until I’ve read the opinion myself.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
474 comments Add your comment
Mickey
June 28th, 2012
4:45 pm
I can’t help but wonder if Chief Justice Roberts upheld the Affordable Care Act as a subtle hit against Obama’s reelection campaign. After all, this is a HUGE win for Romney’s campaign as far as a great talking point to boot Obama out of office in November. And let’s not forget that in 2005 Obama voted against confirming Roberts as chief justice.
GFY
June 28th, 2012
4:55 pm
AmVet:
Did you approve of China’s former one child only policy? Did you cry when mother’s were forced to abort their babies?
bikerchick
June 28th, 2012
4:57 pm
So using that logic, the government can “tax” us for not doing a variety of things, such as using a particular type of currency, exercising, driving a particular type of motorized vehicle, using a particular type of cell phone, allowing the government to track your movements with a GPS device, not registering our guns, etc., etc., etc. If the “tax” is collected by the government and we don’t pay it, then they can take our property, real estate, vehicles, bank accounts, etc. and garnish our wages in order to pay the “tax”. Individual freedoms were just stripped from us folks. Prepare for the onslaught of government edicts on what is “good for all of us” and will be “taxed” for those who choose not to participate.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 28th, 2012
5:02 pm
retiredds, you miss the point (as usual).
It shows an energized electorate that probably hasn’t contributed before.
Middle of the Road
June 28th, 2012
5:04 pm
All sorts of theories about Roberts… It was a backwards way of undermining Congress’ power via the Commerce Clause. It was his way of keeping SCOTUS relevant. It was a devious way of helping Romney win the general election. I’d like to think that Roberts made his decision because deep down he grudgingly felt it was the right thing to do. After all, years from now they won’t be calling this the Scalia Court or the Alito Court or the Kagan Court.
common sense
June 28th, 2012
5:10 pm
So this precedent could mean that the government can force us to buy (tax) a electric car because it is “good” for the enviornment therefore for the American people .We must buy solar panels to “help” keep the nations electrical grid operating. We must start a compost pile because the nations dumps are “too” full without the dumps it would harm the health of Americans. All citizens must wear sunscreen outside becuase it “prevents” the nations health care costs from rising. All citizens must weigh in monthly becauase after all obesity is a major cause of health problems ,theerby affecting the governments health costs as they seek to “trim” the budget deficit!
Can’t happen? Did you envision a year ago that a city (NYC) can mandate what size drink you can or cannot buy?
Ted
June 28th, 2012
5:48 pm
I love how the SCOTUS ruling took the smiles off of all of the Republicans’ faces! You all are so full of anger and hate that you can’t se straight. What a pitiful, misguided, lot you right wingers are, constantly voting against your own interests, whether it’s the environment, jobs, etc. Poor white people have more in common with poor black people than they do with Mitt Romney. As a white, middle-class male, I have more in common with middle-class black people and President Obama. President Obama has my best interests at heart.
Nameless
June 28th, 2012
5:57 pm
I fully expect every large employer currently offering health insurance to its employees to immediately begin rescinding that benefit tossing the obligation to the employee and our government. Even if they pay a fine for doing so it will be less than the % paid toward an employee’s insurance and will allow every business to do away with a large portion of administrative personnel whose job it is to coordinate benefits. No salary increases will be made available to compensate the employee for the lost benefit but this new tax will cut into every middle class worker’s take home pay.
SavageNation
June 28th, 2012
6:53 pm
The LEFT has just had the BIGGEST FRAUD pulled on them in the history of modern LIBERALISM!
SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE: DEAD FOREVER
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE: DEAD ON ARRIVAL
INTEGRATED MEDICINE: YOU SAY POTATO, THEY’LL SAY POTATO
COMPULSORY, IRS ENFORCED MONETARY PAYMENTS TO MULTINATIONAL INSURERS & Big PHARMA pushing WESTERN Drug, Cut, Burn & Poison Medicine!
PRICELESS…
independent thinker
June 28th, 2012
7:20 pm
What it means now and in the future:
1. Another huge victory for Obama in which he got the biggest controversial piece of legislation through Congress since the Civil Rights Act and got it approved by The SCOTUS;
2. Killed numerous terrorists including Ben Laden making the USW safer and making George W. and madman Cheney look like wimps;
3. Together with NATO overthrew one of the worst supporters of terrorism and airplane mayhem- Quadaffi without losing any US lives;
4. Resurrected the American Auto industry;
5. Kept the US from going into a depression after the worst depression since the thirties was
his gift from George W.;
6. Put the State of Arizona in its place for usurping federal powers;
7. Ended the insane war in Iraq as promised;
8. Made all the Republicans look like fools today.
Aside from that I am waiting to hear about equal presidential type accomplishments of Willard.
Mike
June 28th, 2012
7:25 pm
The wildcard here are the illegals. If the system doesn’t have the backbone to turn these law-breakers away, or deport them after treatment, healthcare in America will be diluted to a low quality, assembly line where people sit in waiting rooms for many hours to see a doctor.
jim blake
June 28th, 2012
8:18 pm
If a person doesn’t have health insurance and he or she pays the imposed tax. Is that person then covered by the insurance he just payed a tax on. If that be the truth, then this is not a tax but a requirement to buy something that you might otherwise not want.
not telling
June 28th, 2012
8:47 pm
screw the Dems.
Craig Eliot
June 28th, 2012
9:32 pm
The problem is that over the twenty years the US has imported some thirty-million poor people who have to be taken care of. And there is no let up to the madness yet; if the are legalized, they will have their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, etc. etc. etc. coming too. And then? For the sake of cheaper oranges and kitchen help, a country is committing suicide. Well, then again: a country only gets the kind of government and future it deserves.
NB
June 28th, 2012
10:17 pm
Pat yourself on the back for voting and supporting more taxes. Maybe once the economy gets worst you can also dig that coffin or hole you all supported???
P
June 28th, 2012
11:18 pm
How do you think this plan is going to be paid for? Did you know that there is provision in the law that states that when you sell your home there will be a new government tax due? What does homeownership have to do with health care?
From UrbanLegends:
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 imposes a 3.8% sales tax on all real estate transactions.
It doesn’t. Here’s the real scoop, based on the best analyses I can find:
Among the several new taxes and tax increases provided for in the final legislation (see Kiplinger for a concise summary) is a 3.8% tax on investment income for “high earners” only. Revenues from the tax, which goes into effect in 2013, will be dedicated to the Medicare Trust Fund.
“High earners” are defined as individuals whose gross income is $200,000 or more, or married couples filing jointly with a combined gross income of $250,000 or more.
Moreover, the tax doesn’t apply to the first $250,000 of unearned income for individual taxpayers (or $500,000 for married couples filing jointly).
Given that most taxpayers make less than $200,000 per year and most home sales don’t clear profits exceeding $200,000, the vast majority of Americans won’t be subject to this tax.
Really!! A 3.8% tax on the sale of your home to pay for Obama Care? Something is wrong with this — as if the housing market isn’t already hurting.
Tim
June 29th, 2012
12:36 am
Enter your comments hereWhat about the 3% tax you will pay when you sell your home? Doesn’t this go to Obamacare? Sorry that our Supreme Court let America down, “or Judge Roberts” rather.
Claire Alexander
June 29th, 2012
7:45 am
Listen up people, you’re missing the larger implications of the ruling. It has opened the door, very widely, to new federal taxes. This administration seems determined to follow in socialist Europe’s footsteps. “Green energy” projects, socialized medicine, cradle to grave security and open borders are all ideas imported from Europe. There is also the VAT, the value added tax, which is very popular with all the European governments. We can expect that here next as the new sensible way to fund all our new big government programs. Chief Justice Roberts has just ruled there is no limit to the federal governments ability to tax. It won’t take Democrats long to realize he has just made it possible for them to pass the VAT. Next up, look for a financial services tax, another tax popular with the European governments. Of course they will drag out that tired old carbon tax and give it new life. Vote Republican and save your country.
Just saying..
June 29th, 2012
11:16 am
Mickey June 28th, 2012/4:45 pm: “I can’t help but wonder if Chief Justice Roberts upheld the Affordable Care Act as a subtle hit against Obama’s reelection campaign. After all, this is a HUGE win for Romney’s campaign as far as a great talking point to boot Obama out of office in November….”
Tortured Logic, meet Mickey.
gLENN
June 29th, 2012
11:47 am
@ Craig Elliot
The problem now is that those same 30 million people that come in the country get medicaid . They need to purchase insurance . We don’t need to be footing their bill anymore ……..and how is that thinking liberal ?
RUSH LIMBAUGH: ‘WE NOW HAVE THE BIGGEST ‘TAX’ INCREASE IN HISTORY OF THE WORLD’… - Tampa 2012 GOP
June 29th, 2012
12:02 pm
[...] Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Obamacare Upheld – As the Tax Obama Promised Us It Wasn’t [...]
Obamacare found to be the Single Largest Tax Increase in World History | The Guardian Express
June 29th, 2012
1:23 pm
[...] Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Obamacare Upheld – As the Tax Obama Promised Us It Wasn’t [...]
Obamacare found to be the single largest tax increase in world history | The Guardian Express
June 29th, 2012
2:11 pm
[...] Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Obamacare Upheld – As the Tax Obama Promised Us It Wasn’t [...]
Jerry Ballew
July 2nd, 2012
6:40 pm
Tax, schmax. The bill passed and it’s a first step to “the pursuit of happiness” for all citizen’s health. Everyone should pay their share and “freeloaders” that show up empty handed at the emergency room gets taxed by an entity that they can’t run from unless they leave the country.