Chief Justice John Roberts: We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies.....We ask only if Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions..... Congress use of the taxing clause to encourage buying something is not new. Tax incentives already promote for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can...... The Affordable Care Act requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not paying for health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.......
This is judicial restrain and small "c" conservatism......clearly Roberts is trying to steer the Court to where it belongs.....as an arbiter of law. Justices Scalia and Thomas should resign and pursue a political career......they clearly do not belong on the SC....especially Scalia......
Justices Scalia and Thomas should resign and pursue a political career......they clearly do not belong on the SC.
Yes, that would be just great, than Obama could get two more withhis thinking on and there would not even be a reason to vote on anything.....
Just lie car insurance. The only difference it is called a fine instead of a tax. That really bothers you?
Just more pundit talking points instead of looking at the big picture. Typical.
So what happens when you get sick or injured, but cannot pay?
Do you even understand the impact that has on the rest of us who are trying to insure our families?
My guess is that you do not and that is the problem.
All we see here are different pundit talking points that do not address the actual issue and how the big picture affects everyone. That is what happens when opinions are formed from pundits talking points, instead of educating ourselves on the entire issue and how it impacts us as a whole.
Well said......hospitals cannot deny care even to ingigent persons. The result is all insured people pay for the uninsured....that requirement in law, btw, is from the Reagan administration.....Roberts is clearly adhering to the law....not a political agenda.
I saw my Dr. yesterday. He said he was amazed and very happy with the ruling......there is only one country in the developed world w/o universal coverage.....that is now going to change.
The political implications are irrelevant to the case....the Court should decide on the legal merits of the law.....period.
Why are you changing the subject again? You haven't answered the first question, now you want to move on to another question that is frankly, a pretty stupid question. When I was younger, I carried a cheap health insurance that had a high deductible. I made sure I had the money to cover that and then paid as I would need any kind of services, which wasn't all that often. It was better than paying for insurance that I really didn't use.
You can stop with the "pundit" BS as I do not listen to any of them as you have. That is the only way you can be ignorant enough to think that health insurance is the same as car insurance.