Syllabus of the decision - And my opinion of Roberts' opinion

Basically, Roberts states that because it looks KINDA like a tax, and that Congress isn't allowed to do what it wants under the Commerce clause, and just because there's nothing describing this situation in the Constitution....and something MUST be done... then its a tax.

Hmmmm, Congress is not allowed to mandate a penalty. In fact, can't use the Commerce clause at all for this....but can be allowed to tax us to encourage us to utilize what is mandated.....but its not a mandate...because its a tax.....and we now have a choice.....to pay. Or break the law.

Roberts is a progressive bastard. A lying, progressive crapweasel.

Here's a summary of what the sane people on the bench said. The Dissent.


For entire decision, go HERE.

Bolding mine.
OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012*
In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain“minimum essential” health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. §5000A.For individuals who are not exempt, and who do not receive health insurance through an employer or government program, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). The Act provides that this “penalty”will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties. §§5000A(c), (g)(1). Another key provision of the Act is the Medicaid expansion. The current Medicaid program offers federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care. 42 U. S. C. §1396d(a). The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover. For ex——————
*Together with No. 11–398, Department of Health and Human Services et al. v. Florida et al., and No. 11–400, Florida et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

2 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS

Syllabus

ample, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage by 2014 to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children only if their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. §1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII). The Act increases federal funding to cover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage. §1396d(y)(1). But if a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage requirements, it may lose not only the federal funding for those requirements, but all of its federal Medicaid funds. §1396c.

Twenty-six States, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business brought suit in Federal District Court,challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Medicaid expansion as a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, but concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the individual mandate. Finding the mandate severable from the Act’s other provisions, the Eleventh Circuit left the rest of the Act intact.
Held: The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–15.

2. 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. Pp. 16–30. (FINALLY, SOME RESTRAINT. BUT HE COULD HAVE SAID THIS WHILE DISMISSING.)

(a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.(AT LEAST THIS IS RIGHT BUT HE COULD HAVE STATED THIS WHILE DISMISSING.)

(b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. (SO...MANDATES ARE ILLEGAL. PERIOD.) Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and n service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27–30.
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.(SO THE MANDATE IS ILLEGAL. BUT WE'LL TAX YOU IF YOU DON'T HAVE INSURANCE SO GO BUY IT.)
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285
U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
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. Pp. 33–44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35.
(b)
Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations (OF COURSE NOT. YOU CAN BUY INSURANCE AND PAY THE "TAX), as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. (WHAT THE HELL? THIS IS WHERE HE STRETCHES THE LOGIC. ITS NOT A PENALTY. YOU ARE JUST FORCED TO PAY THE IRS FOR NOT BUYING INSURANCE. THIS IS A CROCK OF CRAP.)See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
(c)Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population. Pp. 40–41.(EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE BEING DIRECTLY TAXED FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.)
5. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 45–58.
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 5

(a)The Spending Clause grants Congress the power “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Congress may use this power to establish cooperative state-federal Spending Clause programs. The legitimacy of Spending Clause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17. “[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 178. When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislation runs counter to this Nation’s system of federalism. Cf. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 211. Pp. 45–51.
(b)Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion. The Government claims that the expansion is properly viewed as only a modification of the existing program, and that this modification is permissible because Congress reserved the “right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision” of Medicaid. §1304. But the expansion accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree. The original program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire non elderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. A State could hardly anticipate that Congress’s reservation of the right to “alter” or “amend” the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically. The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 51–55.
(c)The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaid funds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. See §1303. The other provisions of the Affordable Care Act are not affected. Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whether to participate in the Medicaid expansion. Pp. 55–58.
6. JUSTICE GINSBURG, joined by JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, is of the view that the Spending Clause does not preclude the Secretary from withholding Medicaid funds based on a State’s refusal to comply with the expanded Medicaid program. But given the majority view, she agrees with THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s conclusion in Part IV–B that the Medicaid Act’s severability clause, 42 U. S. C. §1303, determines the appropriate remedy. Because THE CHIEF JUSTICE finds the withholding—not the granting—of federal funds incompatible with the Spending Clause, Congress’ extension of Medicaid remains available to any State that affirms its willingness to participate. Even absent §1303’scommand, the Court would have no warrant to invalidate the funding offered by the Medicaid expansion, and surely no basis to tear down the ACA in its entirety. When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 328–330. Pp. 60–61.
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part,and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
_________________
_________________

The Republic's No-Good, Horrible, Very Bad Day....and Chief Justice Roberts is a lying sack of....

In honor of the horrible, no good, crappy, dishonest, clusterf#ck of a SCOTUS opinion by that coward Roberts who stretched logic to absurd lengths to justify his capitulation of his duty, stretched it so thin that even I could tell that he contradicted himself within one paragraph, to justify REWRITING the law, and thus giving power to Congress to tax us for ANYTHING....



A RE-POST OF TWO VERY RELEVANT PIECES BY CONCRETEBOB


Its a Dessert Topping, Its a Floor Wax

Heritage Foundation Morning Bell

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made imminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

Its a Dessert Topping, Its a Floor Wax, Its A Fine, Its NOT a Tax

"Legal arguments for Obamacare's individual mandate fail the 'Alice in Wonderland' test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration's legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat.

'The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,' Judge Steeh ruled.

This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday's preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress' power is far less extensive.

Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a 'penalty,' explicitly changing its description from a 'tax' that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice's admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can't 'mean so many different things' as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, 'Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing ... [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.'

Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it's not a tax.

His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -- and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it's the Obama administration's fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce."

--The Washington Times

The Imperial President: Obama Wages War on SCOTUS, Congress

The Imperial President: Obama Wages War on SCOTUS, Congress

President Obama’s latest attack on the Supreme Court is just the latest evidence of his deep-rooted disdain not just for the Constitution, but for the system of checks and balances it represents. Prior to his election, Obama told Americans that we were just days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He didn’t mean that simply in terms of policy, although he certainly wanted redistributionist policy to take center stage. He meant it in terms of governmental structure.

Obama doesn’t like that “big, messy, tough democracy.” He wants what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once called The Imperial Presidency. He wants the Supreme Court to do his bidding, or shut up. He wants Congress to get out of the way. He wants power, in its purest, most unbridled form. Should he win re-election, he will undoubtedly pursue that vital goal. After all, how are you going to get “fundamental change” without fundamentally undermining the Constitutional structure?

Cronyism, Bambi-Style (Chicago)

ObamaCare Rewards Friends, Punishes Enemies
The administration waives allies through the health law's onerous restrictions.

A primary task for the new Republican House majority is to undo as many of the pernicious effects of ObamaCare that it can. One of these effects is the spectacle of employers going hat-in-hand to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for waivers from some of the law's more onerous provisions.

In September, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius began granting waivers to companies that provided workers "mini-med" coverage—low-cost plans with low annual limits on what the insurance will pay out. This followed announcements by some employers that they would have to drop these plans because they did not meet the new health law's requirement that 85% of premium income be spent on medical expenses.

By early December, HHS had granted 222 such waivers to provide mini-med policies for companies including AMF Bowling and Universal Forest Product, as well as 43 union organizations. According to the department's website, the waivers cover 1,507,418 employees, of which more than a third (525,898) are union members. Yet unionized workers make up only 7% of the private work force. Whatever is going on here, a disproportionately high number of waivers are being granted to administration allies.

If this healthcare bill is so damn good, why is the administration granting waivers? Why does it exempt Congress?

Snake in the yard, folks. Get the hoe. Time to kill it once and for all.

Effects of BambiCare On Jobs

House Majority Releases Report Documenting ObamaCare’s Devastating Impact on American Jobs
New Report Finds ObamaCare Will “Eliminate Jobs” & “Exacerbate the Nation’s Dire Fiscal Condition”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) today joined Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and several House committee chairmen in releasing a report entitled ObamaCare: A Budget-Busting, Job-Killing Health Care Law.

The report, which can be found online here, provides a compelling case for taking immediate action to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms that will lower costs and protect jobs. Boehner released the following statement:

“The evidence is clear: by raising taxes, imposing new mandates, and increasing uncertainty for employers and entrepreneurs, ObamaCare is already destroying jobs in this country. And it will continue to destroy jobs unless we do something about it.

The report released today shows how the health care law is making it harder to end the job-killing spending binge that threatens our children’s future. When you look at it dollar by dollar, the numbers just don’t add up. This report presents a very sobering picture, and every lawmaker and taxpayer – no matter where you stand on this critical issue – should take a look at it.

“With nearly 10 percent unemployment and massive debt, the American people want us to focus on cutting spending and growing our economy. That’s why tomorrow the House will take the first steps towards repealing this job-killing health care law and replacing it with reforms that will bring down costs and protect jobs.”

NOTE: Joining Boehner and Cantor on the report are Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Ways & Means; Rep. John Kline (R-MN), Chairman of the Committee on Education & the Workforce; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the Committee on the Budget; and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy & Commerce.

Patriot Post-The Brief

Opinion in Brief

"The implicit argument for the legality of Obamacare is that the country hasn't taken the Constitution seriously in decades. So why start now? Since all branches of the federal government have colluded in ignoring and violating the Constitution for this or that 'good' cause over the years, why insist on returning to it? Nancy Pelosi relied on this implicit argument when she sputtered 'Are you serious?' to a question last year about Obamacare's constitutionality. Her scoff meant that the matter isn't even debatable anymore; America's de facto new Constitution -- the 'living' one that resides in the wills of modern pols and judges -- permits Congress to do anything it pleases in the name of the 'general welfare.' ... That Congress can establish whatever tax it pleases in the name of the 'general welfare' or ludicrously stretch the Commerce Clause to mean that nonactivity counts as regulatable 'interstate commerce' was rejected over 220 years ago. Forcing every person in every state into purchasing health insurance was not one of the enumerated powers of Congress." --columnist George Neumayr

We Already Knew This

20 States: ObamaCare Unconstitutional

President Obama's landmark health care reform law is being challenged in court by a coalition of 20 states. Lawyers argued in Florida that Congress does not have the authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance or face penalties.

Attorneys also told the judge Obama care is a bank buster and if cash strapped states are forced to pay more to expand Medicaid programs, they will go broke.

Earlier this week a federal judge in Virginia ruled that citizens can not be forced to buy health insurance. Supporters of the Florida lawsuit want the judge to go further and stop the federal government from enacting health care reform. But so far, two other federal judges have upheld the law.

President Barack Obama's administration says all Americans should have health insurance because everyone requires medical care sometimes to cover catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.

From the "Oh Really? Ya THINK!!!??" Dept

Turns Out ObamaCare Really Might Undermine Employer Health Coverage

WASHINGTON (AP) — The new health care law wasn’t supposed to undercut employer plans that have provided most people in the U.S. with coverage for generations.

But last week a leading manufacturer told workers their costs will jump partly because of the law. Also, a Democratic governor laid out a scheme for employers to get out of health care by shifting workers into taxpayer-subsidized insurance markets that open in 2014.

While it’s too early to proclaim the demise of job-based coverage, corporate number crunchers are looking at options that could lead to major changes.

“The economics of dropping existing coverage is about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private,” said Gov. Phil Bredesen, D-Tenn.

That’s just not going to happen, White House officials say.

“The absolute certainty about the Affordable Care Act is that for many, many employers who cover millions of people, it increases the incentives for them to offer coverage,” said Jason Furman, an economic adviser to President Barack Obama.

But at least one major employer has shifted a greater share of plan costs to workers, and others are weighing the pros and cons of eventually forcing employees to strike out on their own.

“I don‘t think you are going to hear anybody publicly say ’We’ve made a decision to drop insurance,’ ” said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. “What we are hearing in our meetings is, ‘We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.’ We are hearing that a lot.” Deloitte is a major accounting and consulting firm.

Employer health benefits have been a middle-class mainstay since World War II, when companies were encouraged to offer health insurance instead of pay raises. About 150 million workers and family members are now covered.

When lawmakers debated the legislation, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected it would only have minimal impact on employer plans.

Morning Reads

IN THE NEWS:

ObamaCare Already Causing 47% Increase in Health Care Plans

What was Written on the Miners' Shirts?

Social Security: An "Innocent" Baby That Grew Up To Be a Monster?

Obama: Blacks Probably Don't Watch "Meet The Press"

Illinois Elections Officials Caught Lying About Military Ballots

The Democratic 'D' Now Stands for Demagoguery and Desperation

Obamanomics Paints Ohio Red

Reid Lost the Debate to Angle

Links For Your Saturday Morning Read

IN THE NEWS:
REPORT: Dems Planted Tea Party Candidate In NJ...

The Coming Islamic Invasion

Feds May Ban All Phone Use by Drivers

MoveOn Website Misinforms the Voters About Social Security

Some Funny Stuff to Brighten Up Your Day

Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown Faces PR Disaster Over 'Whore' Remark About Whitman

Top 10 Movies Banned in the Middle East

Mike Pence says Supreme Court Will Overturn Obamacare

Blogger Blames Christians For Gay Suicides

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview Proves He's Out of Touch

Democrat Pollster: GOP Poised to Seize House and Senate

Its a Dessert Topping, Its a Floor Wax

Heritage Foundation Morning Bell

The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”

The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made imminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.

PISA-Paper Industry Salvation Act of 2010

Obamacare: Paperwork You Can Believe In
by Deroy Murdock
05/17/2010

NEW YORK -- President Barack Obama promised Americans “health care reform.” So far, “health care form” is more like it.

ObamaCare is devolving into the Paper Industry Salvation Act of 2010. This new law spans 2,562 tree-killing pages. Far worse, it will force Americans to spend countless, irritating hours completing, transmitting, and filing endless reams of federal paperwork.

The scariest news for America’s forests may be a brand-new mandate that will compel each business — from General Electric to the neighborhood handyman — to file an IRS Form 1099 for every business on which it spends at least $600. Form 1099 today applies only to independent contractors, e.g. a graphic artist who earns $1,000 for designing a sales brochure. Come 2012, ObamaCare vastly will expand 1099s to sellers of goods as well as services, and not just the self-employed, but also businesses — large and small.

“This will create a two-fold whammy for small businesses,” predicts Rep. Dan Lungren (R – California) who is sponsoring legislation to repeal this provision. “They will have additional accounting costs that will consume time and money,” Lungren tells me. “They will be required to keep a running tab with every vendor, all the way from restaurants to anything they buy — a piece of equipment, an airline ticket, or a hotel room. And when they reach the $600 threshold, they will be required to file 1099s for each of those vendors.”

Read the rest here.

Do You Support the Healthcare Plan?

NewsMax is asking for our input on healthcare.
They're running a poll we need to answer.

Do You Support Obama's Health Care Plan?
Vote in This Urgent Poll

Link is here.

REPEAL!!!!!!

Why Obamacare Can Be Repealed

BY John McCormack

Sean Trende has an important piece at RealClearPolitics, which I won't excerpt because you really should read the whole thing.

Update: Also not to be missed is Jeffrey Anderson's A Three-Year Plan for the Repeal of ObamaCare.

Change We Can Believe In

LET THEM EAT CAKE.

via Barking Moon Bats Early Warning System, LC Aggie Smith at Hookers & Booze, via Ed, via good ol’ CmBlake6 I think. From Logistics Monster, who gave it the Marie Antoinette caption but found the picture at Dale Toon’s Out of Order blog. Help spread the image.

This Site Supports Attorney General Cuccinelli

Statement of Support for Litigation to Stop ObamaCare

I believe that government-mandated requirements for individuals to obtain health insurance are unconstitutional. Congress is not granted the power to force Americans to comply with such a mandate. Likewise, I believe requirements that employers provide such insurance coverage are also unconstitutional.

If Congress had the power to force Americans to have health insurance, then individual liberty would be overpowered and thus become meaningless. No matter what certain elected officials may desire, there are some things Congress simply cannot do under our Constitution. I do not want the federal government or any group of bureaucrats policing my private medical decisions. The legislation that passed Congress on March 21, 2010, popularly known as the ObamaCare healthcare reform bill, contains such a “mandate,” and is therefore a threat to individual liberty and the sovereignty of the States. I therefore support legal action to stop ObamaCare.

When Losing a Battle,

Fix Bayonets.

ObamaCare is signed.

Obama Caught in ANOTHER Campaign Lie.

Other than Drudge, no media outlet is noticing (Look! A Squirrel!) that Obama broke yet another campaign promise.

He had that bill on his desk. Total control. And he signed it immediately. I thought he promised to hold all bills for FIVE DAYS before signing it......

Has he told the truth about ANYTHING?

Obama Care as seen from a Doctor's point of view

"...your increasing premiums are a tax that you are paying to cover the losses that are Medicare and Medicaid."

Of course, Team Obama says, "Never waste a crisis":

"Ok, so now- how can anyone not see the obvious outcome? Government patients = significant loss of profitability. Initally the private insurers will do their best to continue to subsidize this loss, and there will be a huge escalation of premiums. But within a few months this will be unsustainable....
.....creating health care delivery and access to care crises; Where can you go to get care?; Loss of access reported nationwide....."

Here's the problems with Medicare and Social Security:

Medicare's future liabilities are far more ominous, at more than $89 trillion. Medicare's total unfunded liability is more than five times larger than that of Social Security. In fact, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2006 (Part D) alone adds some $17 trillion to the projected Medicare shortfall - an amount greater than all of Social Security's unfunded obligations. (THANKS GEORGE! - This is one of the reasons why Republicans lost.)

Tell me again why this government control of health care is such a good idea? Has there EVER been a government program that came in at the predicted costs, much less reduced the national debt? EVER?

So, all you Deemocrats out there............F........well, I can't write it......but you get the drift.....