fter all of the chaos when the decision was announced, and even though this friend is a Conservative, it does seem to summarize the Supreme Court Decision.
Do we NEED better Health Care, I say YES!
Did we NEED Obama-Care, I say NO!
So, what do we do?
Well, From what I see here, I think we need to push representatives in Congress to start again and give us, the Public a better, more realistic health care plan that can be implemented in pieces that can be managed at a reasonable cost........ And make it a Tax!
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it's important that you think carefully about the meaning - the true nature – of his ruling on Obama-care.
The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here's what really occurred - payback. Yes, payback for Obama's numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical.
His ruling means Congress can't compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax.
It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said 'hey, a penalty or a tax, either way'. So,
Roberts gave them a tax.
It is now the official law of the land – beyond word-play and silly shenanigans - that Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states - 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled that is a no-no.
If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding.
Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12,
25 states not participating in "national" health-care? Suddenly, it's not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government's coercive abilities.
He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases. and tax increases can only be levied by Congress!!! Not by executive order!!
Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner.