The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, Obamacare and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. myiq2xu says:


    I’m going back to bed.

  2. yttik says:

    It’s all good, I’ve grown accustomed to poverty and having no insurance.

  3. WMCB says:

    Romney just won the election. The Left just shoved a MASSIVE tax hike down the throat of America. By stealth, claiming it was not a tax.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      True story.

    • Lulu says:

      Roberts may have just handed the election to Romney. Tricky devil.

    • cj says:

      Yep, Obama may have saved face, but he probably just lost the election.

    • Mary says:

      Yep. Another bait and switch from the Obama administration: told the public it wasn’t a tax, but argued before the SC that it was a tax, and thus, allowed.

      Romney wins in a landslide.

      • DM says:

        Roberts is very smart and saw through it. I agree with his ruling. It’s 2010 election all over again.

      • gxm17 says:

        Did they actually argue it, or was that just a convenient excuse Roberts pulled out of his hindquarters? Serious question. I’m not clear who came up with the tax shite. Was it Roberts or the Obama Admin?

    • gxm17 says:

      I think you’re probably right. Only problem that I see is that, IMO, Romney won’t do anything to fix this Obamacare mess. We’re screwed either way but, yeah, I think Obama just lost the election.

  4. lyn5 says:

    I think the Republicans will sweep the White House, Congress and the Senate in 2012. Who can afford the Obamacare tax?

    • I know liberals who were basing their whole vote for Romney based on this ruling, saying that if Obamacare passes then they will vote for Romney, when it was revealed that Obama argued it was a tax. Obama is toast.

  5. cj says:

    So SCOTUS ruled the mandate is a tax, even though Obama sold it as not being a tax? That doesn’t even make sense.

  6. Lola-at-Large says:

    There it is. They are ALL the enemy. The only thing left is revolution.

  7. myiq2xu says:

    All of a sudden the Proggers think Justice Roberts is a wise man.

    • catarina says:

      funny, that.
      who saw that coming?

      • r u reddy says:

        You mean . . . who saw the SC voting to uphold, with Roberts joining that vote? I strongly suspected that would happen and said so several times.

    • catarina says:

      yesterday they thought he was the devil incarnate.

    • DM says:

      Roberts just allowed the fool to be hung by his own petard. Americans and tax don’t go together.

      • Exactly. Am I correct that because its a tax, it only takes a simple majority to overturn it, assuming their is no presidential veto?

      • r u reddy says:

        That’s a hopeful interpretation of Roberts’s action. As to minding taxes, I wouldn’t mind paying my share of taxes dedicated and targetted to Medicare for All. I do/will mind paying taxes to enrich a parasitical private-profit health-insurance racket.

  8. votermom says:

    Justice Roberts, I think, has proved himself a cautious and even timid Chief Justice.

    • T says:

      The mandate violates the commerce clause but it’s okay because it’s a tax…..LOL, chief justice.

  9. T says:

    Okay, in my denialism, I guess this is a good thing. I’ve been thinking about dropping to the lowest insurance possible, but worried if I needed to change to a better plan I wouldn’t be able to (would be denied because of pre-existing conditions). Now, theoretically I can’t be denied.

    So, I’m going to reduce my coverage….of course, this ruling will mean the lower plan will end up being as expensive as the plan I have now….but hey, that’s life in a fascist country.

  10. gxm17 says:

    I’m such a pessimist. But it’s a sad day in Muddville when the pessimist is right and Team Corporate wins again.

  11. WMCB says:

  12. Glennmcgahee says:

    all you have to do is pay $695 and you’re off the hook and don’t have to use it. You still have to support others on it with your tax dollar and there won’t be any other insurance you can have but…..

  13. WMCB says:

    I’m not seeing a lot of despair on Twiiter.

    I’m seeing FUCKING FURY.

  14. Lola-at-Large says:

    I can’t wait to see what the GOP does with the precedent regarding abortion when they sweep the government next year. Think they won’t tax an abortion for the entire amount of lost wages that fetus might have eventually earned? I can see it now: Abortions! 1.5 million dollars!

  15. gxm17 says:

    There’s a good chance that this might hurt Obama because a lot of people are pissed and will vote R. But the truth is that the Rs are on the side of the corporations too. So even if Romney wins in November, nothing will change. We’re still stuck with this wretched Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act.

  16. Lulu says:

    I wonder how many other non-political types just threw a cussing fit over this decision like my husband? The end result is Romney gets some of his money. And we have good insurance which he says will cost double in three years. The backlash begins.

  17. catarina says:

    Great, Obama will be holding a gloating presser shortly.
    Anybody have a flask that needs refilling?

  18. cj says:

    Megyn Kelly, on Fox, is trying to figure out if individual states can opt out of extended medicaid coverage. It’s a bigger mess than I thought.

  19. gxm17 says:

    I’m confused. So if it’s a tax, who gets paid: the insurance company or the feds? If my money isn’t going to the feds, how can they call it a tax?

    • T says:

      The penalty associated with the mandate is a tax. If you don’t buy from a private carrier, you will be taxed. The tax will be used to pay others’ insurance subsidies.

      • gxm17 says:

        Insane. But it’s exactly what the state of Virginia does with auto insurance. I just don’t see how on earth SCOTUS ruled that the feds could do it too. And where does this end? We are going to bled by corporations now. And IMO not even get the level of health care, or whatever other services they decide we have to buy, that our money could buy.

    • cj says:

      Good question. I’m worried about how this is going to effect medicare; how much more $$$ are they going to divert from that.

    • Lulu says:

      From Scotusblog: “The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.”

      So Roberts did sneak in a narrower interpretation and limit Congress. A new Congress can obliterate Obamacare but they cannot roll back a legal interpretation limiting their power under Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses of which Congress is so fond. Did Roberts pull a bait and switch on the Democrats?

      • elliesmom says:

        I suspect he did. Since the mandate is a “tax”, repealing it is easier. Calling the mandate a “tax” gives the Republicans good talking points for the election. “Largest middle class tax hike in history”. The medicaid limitations will allow more states to “opt out” of the medicaid expansion w/o losing their current level of funding. Since it was a Bush appointee who swung the decision in favor of ObamaCare, the “but what about the Supreme Court” argument for voting for Obama has less weight. I think this might be as good as striking it down.

        • DM says:

          I agree. I see Robert’s decision as a devious move.

        • Lulu says:

          Good. I thought for a while I was becoming a conspiracy nut. I think he pulled a real move on them. The affirmative action case is this fall term and I wonder if he is going to use some of this new “thinking” on it. I see Roberts playing the long game.

        • cj says:

          Very interesting. I think I’m going to stay emotionally neutral on the whole thing until I see how everything plays out.

      • angienc says:

        While I find this to be a lot of legal trickery on the part of the SCOTUS, my entire focus looking at this was on the Commerce Clause & the N&P Clause. As I explained in an earlier post, not only I could not imagine Roberts extending judicial interpretation on those to allow the mandate to stand, I didn’t believe it was proper to do so. My view on that has been affirmed by the Court’s ruling. Let’s be clear on that — Nancy “Are You Serious?” Pelosi was wrong; the Obama “the Constitutional scholar” was wrong; the administration was wrong; the Congress was wrong. Everyone stating the mandate was constitutional (because they were all looking at it the same as I was under the Commerce & N&P Clauses) was wrong.

        I (and those arguing it was unconstitutional) was right. But we were also wrong because we didn’t consider the tax question. I personally didn’t think the Court would bend over backwards to try to uphold the law under the tax code — yes, I know it was argued, but it is so unsupported in the law itself that the Court just basically rewrote the mandate for Obamacare. Roberts, while I don’t like what he did, is an effing genius. Still doesn’t make the law good — it’s Brown v. Board of Education — no real legal way for the Court to do it, but the Court does it anyway because they think “it is the right thing to do.” That’s why I said no one knows what the Court is going to do until it hands down the opinion. Unlike Brown, (desegregation of schools), however, no one is going to argue the Court was wrong; but here, as a TAX, I think people will be pissed off enough to make sure it is repealed.

        • I am trying to wade through reading the ruling- and what I am reading is that Roberts said no fucking way you can force people into commercial activity. No it is not necessary and proper and no you can’t force people to buy anything. Congress can regulate commercial activity- but not compel the same

        • angienc says:

          Exactly, PMM — the mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause; but OK as a TAX. The ruling is not the win the progs think it is — the Federal power to force us into commerce has been cut off at the needs by the Court’s refusal to expand the Commerce Clause. It’s the ObamacareTAX.

          Plus, Roberts just ruled that Obama is a liar.

    • j says:

      exactly. extortion would be a better term.

  20. Lola-at-Large says:

    My husband voted for Obama in 2008. He had not registered to vote since we moved to Indianapolis last year because he was disappointed in Obama and didn’t want to vote for Romney. He just registered online so he could vote for Romney. “This is too important,” he said.

  21. gram cracker says:

    The Left is right… blame Bush… he appointed Roberts!

  22. WMCB says:

    IF IT’S A TAX, THEN IT CAN BE REPEALED WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY. Them’s the rules. Call your senator NOW.

  23. j says:

    i’m wondering out loud here. So if the tax is cheaper to pay then to self insure, will my company take $ off of me since they don’t have to build in health care costs into my salary?

  24. Lola-at-Large says:

    ED of the DNC on twitter: “It’s constitutional. Bitches.”

    Then sort of apologizes.

  25. DandyTiger says:

    The more I’m reading through this and hearing about it, I sort of like the ruling. It basically says the use of the commerce clause to compel purchase is unconstitutional. But congress can always tax, because voters can more easily undo such a thing by voting them out. And so they basically said even though Dems lied through their teeth that it wasn’t a tax, they figured it was just a tax. But the more interesting bit is about the states. The biggest burden of this bill will be on the states in a few years via expansion of medicare (and medicaid I think). The ruling includes language that the feds can’t do anything to states that decide to not pay that, or that can’t pay it. So the states can effectively opt out. Roberts may have done something clever there.

    • votermom says:

      He’s clever but, as I said, cautious to the point of timidity. He had 4 conservative judges saying the whole thing was unconstitutional but he decided to thread the needle, again.

      • DM says:

        It was a devious move. I don’t see it as timidity. The fools here are the liberal justices that agreed on the “tax” label. The lefties wanted the mandate to stay and went along with Justice Roberts. This ruling energizes the Mitt campaign even more.

        • Lulu says:

          Absolutely agree that he played the libs on the court. By making it a tax it does make it easier to vote out. The Medicaid and the states is a big deal. Then it energies the Republican base and brings out independents to vote for someone to repeal it. Then making the lib judges eat the restriction of Commerce and Necessary and Proper on Congress. Overall the libs, progs and Dems may have got the worst of it so Obama has a few days of bragging rights.

          Excuse any typos. I have a two month old kitten alternately eating my sneakers and climbing on my keyboard.

        • votermom says:

          I think he’s timid because he’s gone out of his way not to confront the Obama admin despite the unbelievable public contempt that Obama has shown SCOTUS. Maybe I should call him non-confrontational.

        • gxm17 says:

          Maybe I should call him non-confrontational.

          Or just a really good poker player.

        • @ Lulu- a two month old kitten eh? lol Why the Uppityites just had a great kitten relay yesterday lol

      • But isn’t revenge a dish best served cold? I don’t know how much more chilly Roberts could have got? This is just too brilliant of a move and he played everyone. Did you see his pic on Drudge this am, he’s got a huge smirk.

  26. Anthony says:

    Tried posting this a minute ago, maybe its in spam?

  27. it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out politically. For the time being, lock yourselves in the house or you will have to endure the Obots dancing in the street. Let them have their party cause it won’t last…….

  28. cj says:

    Ed Henry‏@edhenryTV

    Old WH blog post still online says hcr is absolutely NOT a tax but in fact a “substantial net tax cut”

  29. WMCB says:

    Mitt’s website crashed from the rush of donations. Back up now, but running slow. I just sent him some cash.

  30. WMCB says:

    Obama now has to run on the biggest middle class tax hike in US history. Good luck with that.

    • cj says:


      Bethany Mandel‏@bethanyshondark

      If you cannot afford healthcare, I will now tax the snot out of you. Love, @BarackObama

  31. catarina says:

    The asshat presser has begun.
    *hurls tomato at tv*

  32. WMCB says:

    I’m beginning to think Roberts was crazy like a fox, here. The expansion of the Commerce Clause was effectively struck down. That’s HUGE. And he may have led the liberal justices into a briar patch in their eagerness to uphold the mandate, by getting them to agree to call it a tax as the price for his vote.

    • DM says:

      That’s how I see it. Justice Roberts just handed down a huge loss wrapped with a paper that says “win”

    • DM says:

      I see how Justice Roberts sees it and I agree with him. The government can tax any way it sees fit. That’s the 13th Amendment for you.

  33. DM says:

    The Twilight Zone, To Serve Mankind: is a recipe.
    Justice Roberts: It’s a tax

  34. gxm17 says:

    IMO, whether it hurts Obama or not, benefits Romney or not, IMO this decision is a huge blow to the American people. SCOTUS has ruled that the feds can make us buy a product even if we don’t want it. We are no longer a capitalist society, we are now a consumer-by-force society. Even with all the smoke and mirrors “it’s just a tax” crap, that is what this ruling, IMO, has wrought. Please, someone who knows more about law and legislation, tell me I am wrong.

    And how on earth anyone who calls themselves left-leaning could support this crap is beyond me. The folks who can’t afford health insurance (and I’m predicting that will soon be a lot of folks) will be hit with a tax penalty. They will not only be taxed extra, they’ll have no health care. How’s that for a shit sandwich.

  35. Holy crap. This is the first time I’ve thought, “Thank GOD we’ve left America.”

    Because we are lower-middle income with kids, you know how much we pay in taxes/social charges for our excellent health care?


    How much would equivalent Blue Cross insurance have cost us in Oregon? $1300/month.

    At this point, I can’t really imagine that we will ever return to the US.

  36. gxm17 says:

    ThinkProgress just sent me an email to tell congress I support Obamacare. Which button do I click to tell them all to fuck off?

  37. trist says:

    So this crap stands because it’s not a mandate it’s a choice according to what Roberts wrote. Because you have a choice to either buy insurance or pay a penalty for not buying it. However, since they also voted to keep the Gov. from withholding funds to the states who don’t take on new Medicade customers what happens to those who don’t have the money to buy health insurance and get rejected by Medicade? They would then be forced to pay the penalty, but not by choice. So wouldn’t that negate the court’s whole argument?

    • gxm17 says:

      Exactly. It won’t help people who can’t afford health care or health insurance. And IMO that will soon be a lot of people. All it will do is burden already strapped people with a penalty tax.

      I explained it to one of my co-workers this way: the woman who died because she couldn’t afford health insurance or health care would still be dead. She just would have been taxed extra, lost money she didn’t have in the first place. The woman I used as an example was a real person that we both know of who died because she could not afford health care or insurance. His face dropped as that sunk in.

      This horrible mandate does not help people. It helps the health insurance industry. Again, SCOTUS has sided with the corporate overlords.

      Sad, sad day.

      • catarina says:

        As a tax professional I can hardly wait to tell my uninsured clients how much their Federal penalty will be.

        And it will be ON TOP of the one they already pay to Massachusetts.

        What the F*CK!

      • gxm17 says:

        And her family had to sign over their house to pay for her too-little-too-late medical care.

        Wish I could say I made that up, but I didn’t.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        It really is a sad day. Here’s my story, posted elsewhere:

        I just escaped poverty a few years ago via my education and after the Great Unjobbing of 2008-2012, have slid back to the lower end of the working class.

        Now I have some choices to make. I can find a way to catapult into the bottom of the middle class someway, or I can go back to poverty. I don’t see how I can do the former given current economic conditions, and I won’t willingly do the latter. They have trapped and enslaved me, and no one in Washington DC has my back. No one.

        I make half of what I did two years ago, and I only made that salary for 18 months before the bottom fell out, I lost my job, and the insurance that went with it. Right now there is something very scary wrong with my lady parts, and I can’t find out what it is because the crappy health insurance I pay too much for has denied every single claim made based on a “pre-existing condition.” (So much for that bullshit about that already being a thing of the past.)

        I have wracked up over $2,000 in medical bills in the last four months as a result, and they still don’t know what’s wrong. I’m afraid to accept any more appointments, so I don’t. I just keep bleeding (heavily), which I have been since January of this year, with no break. The pads alone (tampons are out of the question) are breaking the budget.

        I already can’t pay my student loans, and they want me to buy a health care plan that is better than the piece of shit I have now (which won’t even be available after 2014, ftr)? So now, I am facing down a life-time garnishment of my wages due to student loans AND a tax penalty for shit I can’t afford but is required to avoid the penalty. As long as I am working, I don’t qualify for aid, and I LOVE working. It’s like they want to FORCE me back into poverty and into not being a productive member of society. I won’t go willingly. I am almost to the point of being suicidal over it, considering divorce so my husband isn’t stuck with the burden of my debt when I’m gone. I feel for my kid, who is and will continue to suffer due to my economic plight.

        And people wonder why I’m mad. It’s a murderous rage, I’ll say that much.

    • Sandress says:

      Technically, you have a choice to pay your taxes or to go to fucking prison. Some choice.

      • gxm17 says:

        I don’t mind paying taxes. I just want my taxes to go to providing services for the American people not help the health insurance industry extort money from them.

        If the AHA was really about providing health care, I’d gladly pay into it. But it’s not. People who can’t afford coverage will now have an extra burden: No health care and an extra tax.

  38. Glennmcgahee says:

    “Also starting in 2014, employers with more than 50 workers will have to pay penalties starting at $2,000 per employee if they didn’t offer a set level of health benefits. “ – I’ll never find a job now.

  39. aNNNNGRYbg says:

  40. r u reddy says:

    As I suspected it would, the SC voted to uphold the Forced Mandate and Roberts was part of that vote.

Comments are closed.