Now the Fun Really Starts …

Ten seconds before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, liberals were wailing about how this is the most partisan court in memory.  They told us that thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative cronies, the court had lost its way, that if it wasn’t exactly illegitimate, it was something close to it.  Ten seconds after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision, John Roberts was a regular Oliver Wendell Holmes as far as the Left was concerned.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that if the conservative justices had prevailed, the court would be seen as hopelessly partisan and recklessly activist by liberals.  But since the liberal side won, the court is wise and restrained.

I don’t know if, as some conservatives have presumed, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals in order to preserve what they’re calling the integrity of the court; if he ruled the way he did knowing that a 5-4 decision, with all the Republicans appointees voting one way and the Democratic appointees the other, would do great damage to the image of the court.

At this point, it doesn’t matter.  ObamaCare is constitutional because five justices said it was.  Case closed.

Except for the political part.

I hope Mitt Romney reminds the voters, over and over again, that President Obama told us that the individual mandate was not a tax.  Here’s what he said to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News:

STEPHANOPOULOS: … your critics say [the individual mandate] is a tax increase.

OBAMA:  My critics say everything is a tax increase.  My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy.  You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but …

STEPHANOPOULOS:  But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA:  I absolutely reject that notion.

But President Obama’s Solicitor General, who argued the case before the Court, didn’t reject the notion.  He said the mandate was a tax, knowing that was his only shot at winning.  And five justices bought the argument.

Now President Obama is stuck with it.

He also told us that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 a year.  But if you choose not to buy health insurance, you’ll be taxed – even if you’re making a lot less than $200,000.  In fact, it’s estimated that 76 percent of the payers will earn less than $120,000 a year.

And remember when the president told the American people that if they’re happy with their current plan they could keep it.  Wanna bet?  Watch and see how many companies drop health insurance and opt for paying a fine – sorry, a tax — which in many cases will be cheaper.

ObamaCare is more unpopular today than when it was passed.  Laws may be constitutional and crummy at the same time.  To many voters, ObamaCare  isn’t simply about medical insurance.  It’s about the size and power of government to control our lives.

President Obama may have won the battle.  The war has just begun.


Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • terry


  • Ted Wight



  • Wil

    Roberts handed the far right gift-wrapped dynamite with which to demolish the New Deal. And he knows it, even if his less cunning or intelligent pals don’t realize it yet.

  • Wil

    Hey Bernie, Romney has refused to answer direct questions about major policy issues central to the campaign. For example, Romney has still not stated whether he would undo Obama’s order ending deportations for many young undocumented immigrants.Romney campaign spokesman Lenny Alcivar recently outlined how the campaign will avoid journalists and cooridnate and communicate their message through Fox news, and the Drudge Report:” What say you?

    • redeye123

       What’s wrong with any of your assertions? They make good sense. It’s the White House occupant’s policies and actions that anti-American, seeking to make America a second and third class country. Go Romney!

  • Count_E_Limerick

    We waited over a month to learn Obamacare’s fate,
    Agonizing over Kennedy ’til it was too late.
    Those robed supreme fools,
    Followed Roberts’ Rules.
    Now only ObamaBoy looks forward to the man-date!

  • Count_E_Limerick

    In perfect repose, in position lotus,
    Jarred out by the decision of SCOTUS.
    Health care made me ill,
    A taxing, bitter pill…
    The one to pay the penalty, our POTUS!

  • Kathie Ampela

    Welcome to the world of the British healthcare system, also known as the NHS (and to America’s future:  But of course, we don’t know for sure if this is our future, because no one read the 2,700 pages before they jammed it through congress. The IPAB was NOT removed from the final version of the law as the Left would have you believe, that much we do know.

    • Wil

      Kathie,  Are you people scared, I mean really scared? 

      Then terrorism has won!

      • Kathie Ampela

        I’m scared of The Man, Wil, how about you?

        • Wil

          Romney? Hell yes! 

          • Kathie Ampela

            Really, Wil, you’re OK with giving the government this much power just because the dems are behind Obamacare…how sad! And socialized medicine will hurt far more than it will ever help. Tyranny and the destruction of our healthcare system…Happy Independence Day!

          • Wil

            You are an American, right? And, you do not trust our government? Who do you trust?

          • Kathie Ampela

            I trust but verify.

          • Wil

            Christian Republicans (you) really going to vote for a
            guy (Romney) who thinks God lives on Kolob?

          • Kathie Ampela

            I don’t care about Christian Republicans…you don’t know anything about me…stay away from me…I know I don’t want a Marxist president..I will vote for who I damned well choose because we still have free elections in this country no thanks to tyrants like you!

          • Wil

            I know you are a Rush Limbaugh listener and a Fox news watcher!

          • Kathie Ampela

            You’re so caught up in name calling and bullying you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  I haven’t been to Mass in 20 years…not that it’s any of YOUR business. Obama told us he wanted to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM the U.S in 2008..he didn’t lie. I don’t want that. I have a lot of reasons for not liking Romney, but he won’t radically change America into something I as a voter, don’t want. At least, not if I have anything to say about it. The only argument that the Left keeps putting forth is “It’s Bush fault” and “You’re a racist if you don’t vote for Obama” Screw you, you don’t know anything about me.

          • Redeye123

             Romney’s  Mormon. So what. How’s that going to affect his decisions? Your concerns are childish.

  • Wil

    Bernie, Have
    you heard the hysterical sobs of conservatives who think health care reform is
    the “death knell,” for the USA?  These are the same people who whole-heartedly
    supported George Bush’s national security state, but are now wetting their pants
    over health insurance.  Seriously, what’s wrong with these drama queens?  Are
    they just stupid or cheap or both? Or racist.

    • nameless

      Shut up nigger! Go sleep with your pal Bob Hadley, you fag! Then go sleep with the monkeys in the White House as well as with the Wicked of the West Pelosi.

      • EddieD_Boston

        Wow. Pretty harsh. Are you a dem operative trying to soil this site with hate and venom?

      • Wil

        Shouldn’t you be standing on a high ledge somewhere, threatening to jump?  

    • Jeffreydan

        The USA was founded on the principle of freedom and limited government. The Constitution’s purpose, regardless of what technicalities get past the SCOTUS, is to limit the federal govt’s power over the citizens.
        Roberts just told the nation that the federal govt can coerce us to do anything, I mean ANYTHING, under threat of taking more of our money.

        Tell me, what is preventing Congress from taking money from you if refuse to buy a gym membership? Or a bicycle? Or non-fat yogurt?    

      • Wil

        Tell me, what is preventing Congress from taking money from you if refuse to buy a gym membership? Or a bicycle? Or non-fat yogurt? >>

        I’d say ‘common sense!’

        • Jeffreydan


            The correct answer is “Nothing.” This ruling has given Congress, which already had far more power than the framers ever intended, a level of control that you shouldn’t have in a free country. If you want to sound smart, never claim that politicians can be counted on to use ‘common sense’.

            Before you do any more obnoxious gloating, remember that Roberts gave this unprecedented power to a Congress that is now controlled by Republicans, and the Senate could be as well later this year. 

            I’m sure if you wind up forced to do something against your will as a result of your side’s policies, you’ll just smile and quietly comply, right?   

          • Wil

            Congress that is now controlled by Republicans>>

            During the years when the GOP held both houses of congress (1995-2007) not once
            did they propose their two policy points that have come recently during this
            current round in the healthcare debate–tort reform and purchasing insurance
            across state lines–they never brought anything to the floor when they could

          • Jeffreydan

              “–they never brought anything to the floor when they could have.”

              While you veered off-point, I’ll dignify this at least: Republicans’ failure to do that does NOT justify the 2,700-page unread, unlawful behemoth we’re stuck with now.  

          • Wil

            Not to worry, Mitt is going to get rid of it and replace it with…NOTHING!

    • Jeffreydan

        The name-calling is your admission you lost the argument. The race card is your admission you had no business arguing in the first place.

  • Tommyg54

    Goldberg, you didn’t mention that your buddy O’Reilly would tell his people  that he was a stupid person if  Obamacare was upheld. Were waiting. You also didn’t mention that the people on Fox news after the desison looked like they lost a loved one. Look, this will help people that need help, you and O’Reilly  and any talking head on the tube  will never be effected by Obamacare. Congress has a poor  rating and needs to work on this law rather than fighting about it. 13% of people think Congress is doing a good job. This 24 hour news cycle is whats bring this country down and you know it. You are pretty one sided, I guess what Glenn Beck said is ok with you. I remember when you were on the main stream media,thats when a news reporter just reported the news. 

    • ph16

      Did you watch the show last night? He did apologize and played the clip. I don’t remember he ever saying that he would say he was a stupid person.

      • Wil

        Bill O’Reilly is a boob. Bernie know this, but he won’t come out and say it. But, in a sorta kind way, he almost did, last night.

        • Pholland16

          That’s your opinion, I respect that. Even if you disagree with his opinions (I don’t always agree with him), I do think he’s generally a smart man who’s not afraid to say how he feels and what he thinks no matter what anyone thinks which is a good thing. He can overbearing, annoying, and boobish for lack of a better word. However I do think he’s entertaining and overall his shows brings great conversation of the discussion of major issues to the table from both conservatives and liberals.

          • Wil

            O’Reilly, Is also, a sexual predator. Andrea Mackris can attest to that!

  • Wil

    Health Care Reform Quiz:

    Bernie, I answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than
    99.6% of Americans.See how YOU do.

  • Homer

    The supreme court ruling might be a good thing eventually.
    The only way to eliminate that law is to repeal it. For that we need a republican majority/
    Ergo, vote republican.

    • Wil

      Bull.   Every public institution whose mission is
      to give everyone the freedom and tools to prosper is being raided and dismantled
      to pay for a massive redistribution of wealth to the wealthiest in the form of
      tax cuts.  Conservatives are gleefully dismantling schools, transit
      systems — even post offices — in every state. The rest are desperately trying
      to prevent the institutions that create opportunity from

  • James King

    The pro or con about the constitutionality is not the question or the answer because this is not a proper function of government. What is a proper function of government is to provide protection for individual citizens from physical force.

    We need government to protect us in this way, but it cannot protect us and attack us at the same time. It must be one or the other, and it looks like Americans are not willing to elect people to office who understand this basic morality.

    So what happens now? My opinion is: Obama wins re-election, selects two more liberals for the court to create a multi-year guarantee of the new United Communist States of America with a great difference from Russia. This time they will “allow” private enterprise to “almost” thrive so as to not completely stiffle it. And then America remains a place to live where the people fear their own government but continue to vote for the two political parties that caused this American death.

    How did it happen. Americans decided long ago that entertainment and movie star adoration was more important than education and caused the American death without even having the intellectual power to even see it. I’m too old to see the final nail, but it is coming, and very soon.

  • Kathie Ampela

    What worries me are many drive by Americans will assume that because the individual mandate has been ruled constitutional albeit as a tax, that everything is OK, that’s the end of the story. “Time to move on” as POTUS said the other day. But do we even know who authored this law? Senator Max Baucus takes credit for writing it, then claims he didn’t read what was in it, experts were hired to read it:  (As Pelosi said, we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it)  A 2,700 page bill..the length of about 9 best selling novels, was not written overnight. Logic and common sense reasoning points to the bill being written long before and tucked away by a member of congress, or maybe a special interest group that helped Obama get elected. My guess is that a far left think tank authored it. The bill was posted online before it was passed in 2010 and a blogger put together an outline of unusual provisions in the bill: I can’t confirm that these provisions are actually in the bill…I couldn’t print out 2,700 pages at the time and the internet version of the bill I had saved has been taken down. But now is the time to go back and ask matter what side of the political aisle you are on, left or right. More light needs to be shed on the IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board…Why was the IPAB left off the Supreme Court’s argument list: Don’t count on Big Media to ask questions…they will be at the same WH cocktail parties as Chief Justice John Roberts (on the taxpayer dime, no less!) The IPAB is the most terrifying part of the law and no one seems to notice it. According to a study by CATO Institute, Congress has until 2017 to repeal the IPAB portion of the law…or they will be POWERLESS to do anything about it: The GOP better not wimp out and avoid the IPAB portion of the law during the next 5 months.

  • ph16

    I’ve been thinking a bit over my thoughts and I think this. Too often what people don’t get is that the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to decide what the best policy is, but does the Constitution prohibit the law in question….like a neutral umpire. That said, too often I think the Supreme Court is seen as infallible as incapable of make bad decisions which isn’t true seeing as the nine justices are no less human and no less influenced by their environment than the rest of us are. Just because they decide something doesn’t means it was automatically a good decision.

    That said, I don’t think it’s useful anymore to harp over the Supreme Court’s decision. Good, bad, or indifferent, the current Court is unlikely to change its mind on the matter and Obama and the Democrats don’t care about what argument was used to have the bill survive, as long it’s passed.

    I do think it’s going to be a big election this November and ultimately, the people are going to have to decide whether they want a country where there’s a strong federal government with the power to tell people what they can or can not to do and to provide and care for them from the cradle or the grave or do they want a smaller government with domestic issues left up the voters, the states, and towns as they may seem fit with the right as one conservative radio host said, “to be left alone.” I’m not arguing for either side in this particular post, I’m just saying the people are going to sooner or later decide what type of society they want to live in with what I have described above. So it’ll be interesting to see how the Presidental, House, and Senate elections come out in November.

    That’s my final word of this particular matter.

  • Wil

    Bernie, When people and their love ones get seriously ill, do you think
    their are concerned about
    the size and power of government to control their lives? 

    • Pep1ron

      If one is seriously ill they get treated right now. No one is turned away. Unless of course you are a senior under obamacare.

      • Bob Hadley

        Yes, they can get treated right now if they’re uninsured – in the ER.  That’s an expensive way to go for more than one reason.  And guess who pays for this burgening cost?  Wouldn’t you rather be forced to pay for others’ mainenance and, if necessary, treatment at the front end than be forced to pay far more for other’s treatment at the back end?

        I had a girlfriend on the mainland who could not afford health insurance.  She had pains in her ovaries.  She saved up the money to see a doctor.  The doctor told her she had a large cyst on one of her ovaries that needed removal.  She told the doctor that she couldn’t afford surgery. 

        The doctor told her to go to the ER and she’d be taken care of.  She followed the doctor’s advice, was admitted for surgery through the ER and incurred a huge bill that she could not pay.  Nice? 

        • Tim Ned

          Bob, you are a very reasonable debater here and I totally respect your opinion.  However under Obamacare the facts you point out don’t change.  If health insurance is not made more affordable, the point you make about your girlfriend doesn’t change.  This was pointed out during the SCOTUS questioning of the attorneys representing the bill.  If your girlfriend falls within the income level to get on Medicaid, then she will receive free health care.  If not she will need to purchase it or pay the fine, tax, donation or what ever the president calls it today.  Upon arrival at the emergency room the non-insured will be offered Medicaid, if their income level fits, but can opt out.  So emergency rooms will still be taking patients.  They will continue to take non-citizens as they do today.  The question remains who will pay for this?  It is assumed that non-citizens will have the same option to get emergency care as well as to opt out.

          You mentioned above that I believe it is ok for a state to be tyrannical versus the federal government.  I would not use those words but to an extent you are correct.  I notice that Hawaii has one of the highest state income taxes in the country with a 4% excise tax?  Hawaii chose to address their health care issues at the state level just as Massachusetts did.  Do you believe in a minute that your local taxes will decrease with Obamacare?  And you must be very comfortable that the taxes your girlfriend and others will pay will go to states that don’t have the tax structure of Hawaii.  I own a company with employees.  I pay health, dental, life insurance, and disability.  Finally we have a reasonably cost plan with the higher deductibles of $5k.  I pay the health care and my employees contribute to their health care savings accounts.  This has reduced my personal insurance by $800.00 per month.  I could care less about checkups and preventative maintenance.  These services by physicians are “Cheap”.  It is the situation as with your girlfriend that I want to protect my employees against.  But the way, I hope she is doing fine.  Having once been extremely poor I can only add this.  There is no shame in owing money and I wish her the best!!!!

          • Bob Hadley

            “I HAD a girlfriend on the mainland…”  Emphasis added!
            Just in case my wife reads this.  :)

            Thanks for your well wishes but I need to emphasize the past tense.  I lived in the Boston area for several years when i was a student and even stayed there a short while afterwards. 

            My understanding is that, under Romneycare, health insurance rates are not increrasing nearly as fast as they were before Romneycare kicked-in.  Yes, under Obamacare health care premiums should start to go down after the mandate kick-in.  Yes, there’ll still be ERs, but the uninsued will pay what amounts to catastrophic health insurance.

            And, as we all know, our health care system is also burdened by unhealthy consumption and lifestyle habits.
            Obamacare and Romneycare will not change this. 

            It’s difficult to understand why you think that’s it’s OK for state governments to chip away at what you consider individual rights but it’s not OK for the federal government to do so.  The majority of the voters of individual states can chip away at freedoms but the majority of the voters of the country cannot?

            Legally, a state cannot take away individual rights protected by the U. S. Constitution.

            For example, contrary to what many elsewhere  believe, Hawaii has a lot of conservatives here.  I’m sure that when the employer mandate here was frist proposed there was the same type of resistance and forecasts of economic doom here as there was (and is) for Obamacare on the national level (although on a smaller scale). 

            There must have been similiar controversy in Mass. when Romneycare was first introduced.

            I’ll be on the road for a week or so.  I’ll take the health care decision as my traveling companion.  Hopefully I’ll know more about it….

      • Wil

        Go to a Pharmacy with a prescription and no money and see what happens?

    • EddieD_Boston

      My brother is on a $6,000 a month cancer drug that is made by a British pharma. People in England can’t get on this life saving drug b/c the government says so.

      My brother’s insurance company balked at paying and the hospital fought back on my brother’s behalf and they changed their minds. He would have died w/o it.

      Liberals don’t get it. 100% true story.

      • Bob Hadley

        Godspeed to your brother. 

        But wouldn’t he have died if he wasn’t insured and if he couldn’t afford medical care?  Under Romneycare (assuming your brother is in Massachusetts) hospitals and doctors can fight the insurance companies.  Likewise under Obamacare. 

        Here in Hawaii we are lucky to have an employer mandate for the past 40  years.  My Dad had cancer and was kept alive and well for 10 years due to his first class medical treatment.  Without the employer mandate, he may well have died much sooner and under much more miserable conditions.

        When Wil refered to the “power of government to control” our lives, I think he was refering to the individual mandate and the tax/penalty for not purchasing insurance.

        • Tim Ned

          First, I don’t believe Wil had any deep thought pertaining to the individual mandate or tax penalty.  I believe this is just one of his blurts.

          In response, I would think that Eddie’s brother would fall under current laws since Obamacare hasn’t kicked in yet and I can just assume that he is rationalizing the differences between our system and England’s.  But to your point in Hawaii.  I agree that a state has the right to mandate as the believe.  But I am totally against the federal laws.  In MN, we are one of the highest states in taxes.  We are also the lowest in federal money invested back.  By state and per capita.  Look at the states that get the most federal aid and you will find states that have some of the lowest taxes.  I am against my taxes being spent in states where their citizens don’t share the same burden as our citizens.

          • Bob Hadley

            I think you’re being blinded by some of Wil’s other posts.  I’ve taken issue with Wil substantively elsewhere on this website.  I also sometimes dislike his style even if I agree with him.  But in his post above and elsewhere in the commentary to this article, he makes a valid point.

            Gov. Romney has stated that he wants to keep the rights of Obamacare but he doesn’t say how he will pay for them.  It doesn’t take any deep thought to realize that Gov. Romney knows that there are essentially two ways these rights can be paid for in a health care bill: have a mandate of some sort and, if the mandate is personal, have a penalty/tax along with it; 2) watch health care insurance premiums skyrocket.  If Gov. Romney admitted this, he’d look like a fool.

            Judging from your post above, I guess you’re against any POTUS, including Gov. Romney if elected, making federal health care laws.

            If Eddie’s brother lives in Massachusettes then he falls under Romneycare, i.e. he either purchases health care insurance or pays a penalty/tax.  Eddie apparently lives in the Boston area and apparently was raised there, so I made the assumption that his brother is also in Mass.  I could be wrong on that.

            Yes, Eddie brought up the British health care laws.  But Bernie’s article above and all the commentary here below his article (including Wil’s posts) have been about Obamacare and, to a much lesser degree, Romneycare.

            I also gather from your post that you may think it’s OK for state governments to be tyrannical but not for the federal government. 

          • EddieD_Boston

            Yes, my brother is in MA. He is on his wife’s benefits plan she has at her work.

            My point is the private sector works and the federal government doesn’t work very well. Make no mistake. We’re on a slippery slope to a single-payer healthcare system which is what the left wants. Unfortunately, the left doesn’t get it even a little that we’ll end up with significantly higher taxes and inferior healthcare.

            Also, as the senior economics writer at the WSJ stated yesterday, 75% of the cost of Obamacare will fall on people making less than $120,000 a year.

          • Bob Hadley

            But you do admit that under Obamacare your brother would receive the same treatment he receives under Romneycare?
            Whether Obamacare or Romneycare are slipery slopes is another issue. 

            Much more than 75% of family and individual incomes are less than $120,000.  When you distribute the costs, it isn’t nearly as burdensome.  But that statistic sounds suspect.  The problem here is that you can find so-called authorities to justify almost any belief.

            Truth be told, we don’t know fro sure how Obamacare will play out.  But as long as we try to make it work optimally, it should work better than what we have now.

          • EddieD_Boston

            I know this for sure: the costs are going to bankrupt us and significantly lower disposable income for the middle-class.

            Book it.

      • Wil

        So, you blame liberal for your brothers plight. You said he did get the medication, so what is the problem? BTW, your story is full of holes.

    • Jeffreydan

        Wil, do you think the Constitution should be violated?

  • Mari Jo O’Neill

    Bernie: You hit the nail on the head. This is such an affront to the American people.The Court knew that at least 60% of the population does not want Obamacare and that made no difference. So Justice is “Blind”. I don’t believe in the Supreme Court of late because I think that anyone appointed to a position to uphold the Laws of this Country should not worry about being political but to be guided by the Constitution. In the health care fiasco I believe that Roberts caved to pressure by Obama  and nothing else. This is a disaster for all of us. These people sit & play God with their opinions and what makes them any smarter than you or me???? There should be term limits for them because like politicians they get too much power after years of sitting on the bench. I hope Roberts can live with his decesion because most people will not. Keep up the good work, I look forward to seeing you on the Factor and try to give O’Reilly a hard time.

    • Bob Hadley

      What the MSM (especially the conservative MSM) doesn’t tell you is that a significant portion of those opposing Obamacare, oppose Obamacare because it doesn’t have a public option or a so-called single payer system.

      Probably a majority strongly favor some kind of comprehensive health care system with cost controls.

  • Drew Page

    Does it really matter what was on Justice Robert’s mind when he decided to rule the way he did?  What’s done is done.  He ruled that the commerce clause of the Constitution did not give the government the right to mandate that people purchase anything.  I agree that the refusal to purchase something is not commerce and therefore cannot be regulated.   He also correctly ruled that the Legislature has the right to pass laws and the right to levy taxes to support those laws.  Laws can be written to strike down prior laws and taxes previously approved by the Legislature can be revised and/or eliminated by future legislation.   Hopefully, that will happen.

  • J. Vega

    Mr. Goldberg, sometimes you have to look at Obama in the same way that a carpenter looks at a piece of furniture  – it needs a second application of shellac.  This November, we can take care of that.

  • sunnyinaz

    Like the way you can sort through the oldest, newest, etc. comments now.  Thanks for that.

  • T. Ivison

    I am not happy with the Roberts decision, but in the long run, the whole thing is going to be repealed anyway. This Rube (no kin to Bernie) Goldberg mess is never going to be workable.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Look on the bright side. The court did save us from President Gore.

    • Wil

      That was a bright side? Amazing!

  • gke

    A question:  Does a law become constitutional because the Supreme Court has ruled it so?

    • Gregg

      A law is validated as enforceable when found not in conflict with the Constitution.  Laws can be changed, the Constitution is ammended.  The questions now politically before us are: “when is a tax not a tax?  when is a penalty not a penalty?”

  • FloridaJim

    Romney must hammer Obama daily on 21 new taxes spelled out exactly what they are and whom they effect. “If you make less than $250,000/year you will not receive a tax increase, not one dime!” said Obama. 21 new taxes many on those he promised would receive none.

  • Wil


     Now before eveyone goes off the deep end with repeal repeal, repeal, Please
    explain to us what the plan is to replace it.
    We are all in for another round
    of Republican mantra of, “Oh is that what you want” We can do that and even more
    at no cost to you?
    O.K. Gov. Romney show us your plan? I forgot you all
    ready have when you were Governor.

    • Bob Hadley

      Good Point!  Romney stated that certain of the right of the current federal health insurance law should be enforced, but he has not said how we are to pay for it.

      And Gov. Romney was the one who said that the mandate for the Mass. health insurance plan invoked personal responsibiltiy. 

    • ph16

      You do realize that the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is that the mandate which comes from the state which is definitely constitutional while Obamacare is federally mandated which is questionably allowable under the Constitutional.

      • Bob Hadley

        Uhhhhh, Obamacare IS constitutional, but for I think one provision.  I thought we agreed on that.  The court of last resort has spoken.  We’re a nation of laws, not of men.  etcetcetc.

        So, if a state imposes a health insurance mandate on its residents, that state is ensuring that everyone take responsibility for their health care, but when a country does it it’s tyranny?

        • gke

           Here’s a question I think is interesting: is a law constitutional because it was ruled so?

          • Bob Hadley

            yes, if the SCOTUS says it ’tis, it ’tis, even if it ’tisn’t.

            If an umpire makes a call that you think is wrong, whose opinion becomes official?

    • underwriter1

      Why should Bernie or anyone else have to explain what the GOP plan is to replace Obamacare ?   No one bothered to explain what Obamacare was, or even read it before it was signed into law and jammed down our throats, based on the repeated promises that no family making less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes increased, not even by a dime.   Let me give you some of Nancy Pelosi’s advice, you will need to pass the GOP replacement health care plan in order to find out what’s in it.   You apparently thought that was good advice when she gave it. 

      • Bob Hadley

        Wil was calling for Gov. Romney to explain what his replacement it.  Romney stated that he wants to keep many of the rights in Obamacare but he doesn’t say how we will pay for it.  Gov. Romney knows that if you keep the rights in Obamacare one of two things must happen:  1) there must be a mandate to pay for it or 2) health insurance premiums will rise dramatically.

        I agree that President Obama and the Decmocrats did a lousy job of explaining the health care law.  But we all knew for a long time what rights would be in the law and that there would be a mandate and a tax/penalty for those not purchasing health insurance.  The health care bill went thru several revisions.  It was a subject of long and heated debate.

        You butchered Rep. Pelosi’s  statement.   She said that we’d have to pass it to find out that what’s in the law isn’t what the anti-Obam a noise machine says is in the law (death panels, etc.). 

      • Wil

        How about this: For 20 years, Republicans have been telling us that there is a common-sense
        way of reforming health care. Well, what is it?

        In the early 1990s, Republicans defeated President Bill Clinton’s health
        bill. Over the next six years after they took control of Congress in 1994, where
        was their plan to reform health care, reduce the costs and cover the uninsured?
        During the eight years of the Bush administration, where was their plan?

        Republicans have done everything to block health care reform during Barack
        Obama’s entire presidency, even when he incorporated key Republican proposals
        such as the “mandate.”

        Republicans always seem to have a better plan, but they never tell us what it
        is or do anything to bring it about.

        • Bob Hadley

          Actually Wil, Republican Senators came up with a health care plan to counter Hillary Clinton’s proposal in the mid-1990’s.  It was also endorsed by Sen. Bob Dole. 

          But guess what?????????????  This Republican proposal involved an individual mandate!  Whatever happpened to that plan?

          • Wil

            During the eight years of the Bush
            administration, where was their plan?

          • Bob Hadley

            It evaporated as soon as the Democrats quieted down about a health care bill.  It must have been written in disappearing ink!

      • Wil

        The Affordable Healthcare Act  has been enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President. Romney wants to repeal and replace it. My question is, with what?

        BTW, In my opinion, Nancy Pelosi is a boob! 

  • Lar9291

    I’m anything but a Constitutional scholar, but if Obama and Co. sold Obamacare to Congress as a penalty and the court ruled it to be a tax, isn’t that misrepresentation and shouldn’t it be resubmitted to Congress for a new vote, recognizing that the original submission was  false?

  • Will Swoboda

    You can put a fork in me, I’m done. I think I’ll buy a pontoon boat, learn how to fish, move near a fresh water lake in NC, stop reading the paper and hope the government just plan leaves me alone. Washington a nothing but a cesspool full of crybabies.
    Will Swoboda

  • Pbogood

    Bernie, my blood pressure is up!!!  This is just insane!  We cannot afford this “tax and spend” healthcare bill. Yes, something had to be done about healthcare, yes it was costing us out the wazoo  in every aspect, BUT, not this!!  Washington needs an enema!

  • Webmaster

    Amen, Bernie!

    I sent the following HTML e-mail to my list last night on this very subject titled, “Liberalism is not only a disease, but it’s obviously fatal.”

  • RedinDenver

    This may end up being a blessing in disguise.  I actually saw a comment today from someone who said he was a Ron Paul supporter; but that yesterday, for the first time, he donated to Romney’s campaign, and would be voting for him in he fall in order to try to prevent the obvious growth of government that is happening and will continue to happen if Obama is re-elected.

  • Bob Hadley

    Bernie, I must listen to different liberal pundits than you.  I don’t remember hearing any say that the SCOTUS is partisan.  I’ve heard many, however, say that it is the most conservative SCOTUS  in recent history.  I hope you realize that there’s a big difference.  I suspect that Justice Scalia might proudly agree with that, perhaps before the recent decisions on immigration and the health care law.

    When conservative ideologues dislike a decision, they tend to call it activist and condemn certain justices.  Some conservatives blame it on turnoats like Justices Blackmun, O’Connor and the recently retried justice from New Hampshire.  When liberal ideologues dislike a decision they tend to blame it on a conservative court, and some ape their conservative counter-parts by calling it activist.  What’s new?

    It seems that all, or at least most, of the pundits look for political motivations in justices reaching controversial decisions, i.e. they appear to assume that the justices, or at least the ones who appear to swing, are result-oriented.  They base their decsion on what they want the result to be.  Has anyone considered that the justices reah their decisions on the basis of legal analysis and their interpretations of the constitution?

    As for the health care mandate and what you have to pay if you do not purchase health insurance, to invoke Abraham Lincoln, a horse has only four legs even if you call a tail a leg, because a tail is a tail even if you call it a leg.  Did CJ Roberst call a tail a leg or did Pres. Obama call a leg a tail, or was it vice versa?…..Who the f—k cares?????????  It is what it is. 

    I haven’t read the decision yet, but from listening to various lawyers and pundits talk ahout it, I glean that CJ Roberst said that it’s the SCOTUS’ job to look for a constitutional justification when passing on a law enacted by Congress.  He concluded that the mandate and what one pays if he does not purchase health insurance can pass as a tax.  In other words, CJ Roberst found that legally it COULD pass as a tax, while for political purposes Pres. Obama called it a penalty. 

    As Bernie indicates, the health care law is now constitutional.  Or, as Archibald Cox put it (paraphrasing what his Dad said about his Mom), if the Supreme Court says it ’tis it ’tis, even if it ’tisn’t.

    The higher concern should be the strangling of institutionalism.  This country was founded on the respect and, to a degree, the reverence for our institutions of governance.  In other posts, Berni has hinted at this.    There has always been a certain disdain for these institutions, but officials would usually respect them publicly.  The real war that both liberals and conservatives should be concerned about is the war on institutionalism.  With the advent of the 24/7 news cycle and the commercialization of the news, this war is approaching a fever pitch.

    • ph16

      “As for the health care mandate and what you have to pay if you do not purchase health insurance, to invoke Abraham Lincoln, a horse has only four legs even if you call a tail a leg, because a tail is a tail even if you call it a leg. Did CJ Roberst call a tail a leg or did Pres. Obama call a leg a tail, or was it vice versa?…..Who the f—k cares????????? It is what it is.”
      Let me start off by giving you Merriam-Webester Dictionary’s definition of the word tax:
      a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
      I don’t think the individual mandate can technically fall under the definition of the word tax because essentially it’s charging people for NOT buying something, not for anything they have bought or any property they own.
      Essentially people care because essentially what this means is that the federal government can now mandate that you can have to buy something or pay money for not buying it by calling it a tax seeing as a penalty would be unconstitutional. Along those same lines, the federal government could possibly force you to buy anything (like a certain type of car, cell phone, or food e.g.) or basically anything at the risk of making you pay money for not doing so by calling it a tax and it would more likely than not pass through the Supreme Court because of this decision. They can get around penalizing people for not buying something (because a penalty has been deemed unconstitutional under the Commerce and the Necessary and Proper clauses) by simply calling it a tax.
      In any case, you and Bernie are right, the Supreme Court has deemed it constitutional and now what’s possibly left to do is to repeal it which means this will become a major campaign issue in the upcoming months for all politicians involved. I was just basically explaining why people do care about definitions and word usages and what some might think it politically implies.

      • Blutarski

        Wouldn’t it be interesting if a Republican administration and congress mandated each adult own a gun for protection or pay a fine as offered by Allen West. I believe that is plausible, now.

        • ph16

          Haha, I didn’t even think of that one. That would be VERY interesting to see the Democrats’s reaction to that penalty…oops I mean “tax”! 😉

        • Wil

          Or, how about paying for two unnecessary wars? Wouldn’t that be something!

      • Bob Hadley

        OK, let me spell out my point.  In his article above, Bernie spoke as though the SCOTUS maj. decision magically revealed that Pres. Obama lied when he said that the mandate and the amount you had to pay if you didn’t purchase health insurance wasn’t a tax.  Oh, yes!  Pres. Obama was hiding the true character of the mandate and the consequences for not abiding by it.  Bernie spoke as if it was a true “aha” moment or as if the SCOTUS majority opinion actually changed the character of the law. 

        No such thing.  The character of the health care law did NOT change.  The character of the health care law was known and was the same from the beginning to the time of the majority opinion.  It’s just that Pres. Obama expressed the opinion (that he may or may not have believed) that it did not involve a tax, which you seem to agree with.  On the other hand, the majority opinion said that it had the character of a tax, even if it also had the character of a penalty.

        It is my understanding that CJ Roberts’ opinion stated that the manddate and its alternative, while possibly being a penalty, also had the character of a tax.  Just like light can be both a wave AND a particle.  Since netiher of us (and i hope I’m not maknig an incorrect assumption here), we both need to keep an open mind for now. 

        My point was that the character of the mandate and the consequence of not following it was well known from the beginning. 

        The SCOTUS’ maj. opinion left it to the other two branches of gov. to sort out the politics of the law. 

        Yes, if the Congress were to pass a constitutional amendment that everybody must own a gun, and if enough states ratified this amendment, the SCOTUS would have no choice but to use this amendment as a premise.  If congress were to pass a law that everyone own a gun or pay a certain amount to the feds, then the SCOTUS would use it’s analysis to determine if this was within the interstate commerce clause or if it was within the taxing powers of congress, pursuant to the constitution amendment. 

        That’s one reason why our founders made it difficult to amend the constitution.   If a bad law is passed but deemed constitutional, the voters should mobilize to overturn it.  If they can’t overturn the law, then that’s the consequence of living in a democratic republic.

        • ph16

          I’m surprised you don’t care about living in either a free state or a nanny state. Honestly though, you’re right, just because a law is constitutional doesn’t make it automatically good. Hopefully we can kick Barack Obama out and Republicans can take control of the Senate in November.

          • ph16

            One more point: “When conservative ideologues dislike a decision, they tend to call it activist and condemn certain justices.”

            You’re absolutely right, but liberal ideologues do it as well. So it’s not an unique thing to one side or the other.

          • Bob Hadley

            I do care about what kind of society I live in.  I just recognize the reality that the judicial branch isn’t supposed to legislate.  It interprets.  Some judges interpret narrowly and some interpret broadly.  But they interpret nonetheless. 

            As you have indicated, it is the political realm – i.e. the legislative and executive branches – where policy is made. 

          • ph16

            Good point. I do believe a narrow interpertation of the Constitution which limits the federal government’s powers to those listed in the Constitution is a more proper ruling.

    • Paul Courtney

      Bob:  You DON’T remember lib pundits calling SCOTUS partisan?!  After Bush v. Gore?  Citizens United?  And here’s a clue-those lib pundits use “conservative” as an invective, interchangeable with “partisan”, even if you get the distinction.  Even the house libs on FOX were doing this, right up to thurs. morn., SURELY you saw THEM.  This point is laughable,sometimes your urge to say something contrary to Mr. Goldberg seems to override your internal editor.
      To your point below that I shall surely end up in ER someday, somewhere, this too is a canard badly overstated by your side.  What if I choose suicide?  In a supremely patriotic act, I donate all my fica payments to uncle sam, sparing him any ss or medicare costs.  Another even stranger option would be-to pay?  Med providers do take payments, you know, and for my part, I’d do everything I could to pay.  My point below is that problem supposedly identified by Dems is people who don’t pay, don’t care, won’t even be bothered to get on medicaid when they do qualify due to tidy unreported income. Obamacare solves this primarily by taxing the working class who can least afford it.  You brush this aside with a breezy, Obama called a tail a leg?!  Oh, well, both sides do it, don’t they?  Except Rs want to cut gov’t programs, not make working class pay for the problem.  You do realize, don’t you, that as your guy Barack travels around demanding to tax the rich, his action (as opposed to talk) was to tax-someone like us?
       My first choice would be to have insurance, but that’s out of reach, it was getting to $8k for family plan a few yrs back.  You folks seem to think this govt exchange will set me up, one would think if Nancy P prattled on for over 2000 pgs, she ‘d say something in there to lower a premium, but we have yet to see that.  Setting up a gov’t cartel may get a few more folks covered, but at what cost?  Such cartels pump costs up, not down.  And forget for a moment the whole “birth control required” debate-why should I be required to pay for ins. that covers another guy’s viagra?  I’m morally opposed to paying for men who can’t grow old gracefully.  Who decided that gets covered?  Who sorts out the real “disorder” from the merely narcissistic?   I had hopes CJ Roberts understood ninth amendment stops fed gov’t from doing this, as a tax or otherwise, but us conservatives are regularly disappointed by the “conservative” SCOTUS.
      To Wil’s valid question above, at this point Mitt proposes repeal and muddle along, which is better (yes, better by far) than Obamacare.  I blame big Ins. Cos. even more than gov’t for this mess (not exactly a conservative talking point here, but kinda like blaming GM management for that mess), and Obama’s answer is a fatal blend of gov’t handing me over to big Ins. Cos.  I can muddle along better without it.        

      • Bob Hadley

        First, in his article Bernie said that up to 10 seconds before the health care ruling was announced  liberals were saying that the SCOTUS was the most partisan in recent memory.  I watched all the “pre-game” commentary from 8 a.m. EST (2 a.m. my time) onward on Thursday.  I flipped between CNN, FNC and MSNBC.  I don’t remember anyone calling the SCOTUS partisan. 
        Yes, i remember the vitriol over Bush v. Gore and hubub over Citizens United.  Although I don’t remember the SCOTUS being called partisan during those periods, admittedly they were called worse.  And yes, some liberal ideologues use partisan Republican and conservative inter-changably.  But I’m not a liberal ideologue.  Liberal ideologues often tend to consider me conservative. 
        Just to digress a bit, remember how Pres. Regan ingeniously hijacked the term “liberal” and made it into a bad word?  In droves, liberals began calling themselves progressive.  To win an argument, almost all you had to do was call someone or something liberal.  It poisened the well. 
        In the ’96 Republican primary campaign, there was a Republican backlash against Pat Buchanan just as he was starting to catch fire.  Ralph Reed and Mary Madtlin  went on CNN and urged Republicans to stop the name calling:  one said “That’s what liberals do” and the other said “That’s what THE liberals do.”  And what was the name various Republicans were calling Buchanan?  What else!  One of the names they were calling him was a liberal, liberal, liberal. 
        And I didn’t say you’d surely end up in the ER some day.  I said you MAY end up there.  Hopefully you will never get seriously sick or injured between now and the day you die.  And even if you do, the ER may not be in the picture   Yes, you may die quickly and before you get all your contributions back.  But you may also live long, need pro-longed medical care and receive far more than you put in.  Many do.  And most uninsured cannot repay their ER bills, even on a payment plan.  And to the extent they do repay their bills, they and kids their are impoverished.  Most elderly whose medical care far outdoes their contributions cannot pay the costs.
        Again, we live in a democractic republic.  Many laws bring cases of individual injustice.  Do you know how many cumulative  hours of my life have been wasted stopped at red lights when there were no cars using the green light?  And what about someone who was morally opposed to invading Iraq?  What should happen to his federal tax dollars? Or what about those who are morally opposed to providing ANY medical care to someone who can’t afford it?
        The point is that laws aim to maximize benefits while minimizing the downside.  Even if you don’t agree with the laws, we have to respect them for our society to function.  Certain rights have been granted to protect against a certain tyranny of the majority, however.
        As for Pres. Obama taxing the middle class, you do realize that taxes for the middle class have been at historic lows during Obama’s presidency?  As for the health care law, it’s hard to predict how it will play out.  Not surprisingly, you’re predicting the worst.  Was that a partisan prediction or a conservative one?  :)  The law may well NOT impact the middle class. Parts of the law may well need to be modified.  But we just don’t know how it will play out.
        As for you disagreeing with the SCOTUS’ health care decision, to think that way you surely must have carefully read the decision and be well-versed in the constitution (including the 16th amendment) and all the pertinent legal precedents (e.g. the case law).  As we all know, judges are to make their decisions based on legal authorities and legal precedents, and on legal analysis therefrom.   Otherwise, they’re activisst judges.  i sume you’re against that. 
        BTW, have you noticed the venom hurled at CJ Roberts?

  • Brushfour

    I’m wondering what % percentage of doctors are for this.  So far from what I’ve read and seen, the majority of docs are not down with this.   Many say the added pressure will now be on THEM!  It will be interesting to see more discussion about this from doctors.  I’ve read that the Senate only needs a simple majority (51% percent) to repeal this law.  A Romney win and a simple Senate majority will send this legislation to the ash heap anyway.

  • Daniel

    I don’t know it we can post linc’s here but you can always copy and paste.
    I really like this theory and Charles Krauthammer seems to agree. Roberts may be a hero rather than a traitor. Give it a read, very interesting.

    • gke

      I’ve seen three commentaries to the effect of the one you’ve linked (The link works – thanks…)  I agree, very interesting indeed. 

  • criolle

    Are there ANY provisions for DENTAL care in this act?

  • SouBelle

    Now we can watch Obama dip and dodge every opportunity to be asked about this blatant lie. Of course the lame stream corrupt white house media will probably ask him how he enjoyed his golf outing. All Americans should be outraged with inept reporters and administration!

    • OceanGram

      I c an hear him now in all replies to questions about the high tax and the myriad problems with this massive unknown…..It’s CONSTITUTIONAL…LET’S MOVE ON… GAG…..HE IS SO DISGUSTING

      • gke

        Gag.  That’s good.  I’ve never had a gag reaction to any presedent in all my years – before this one.  I’m not alone.  That’s reassuring. 

        Kind of interesting that so many people want to vomit when they hear this guy speak – -especially when he tells us how good he’s being to us.
        I wonder what it means…never seen anything quite like it.

  • Rkk451

    Here’s a slogan for Romney,

    Obama lies and healthcare dies.

    What do you think?

  • John Colburn

    It’s a tax, but one that only people without insurance will pay, and remember that these people cost us all money when they are uninsured and go into the emergency room.

    • Paul Courtney

      John, what about people like me, who only get medical care we can afford to pay, and avoid trips to ER by avoiding risks and unhealthy behavior?  I make alot less than $250k, but your friends Nancy  & Harry just popped me with a big tax increase, breaking a promise BO has made so many times you can’t count ’em.  I bet many are in my shoes, no employer providing health ins. and make too little to afford it (have you tried it on less than $50k annual income?).  We don’t go to the ER unless we have no choice, because we know it means bankruptcy.  There are plenty of folks who go to the ER without insurance, like prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, why not tax them?  If the problem is people who go to the ER, why are you so comfy taxing those who don’t?  Bottom line-many who don’t have ins. are working class who can’t afford it, and YOU WANT TO TAX SUCH PEOPLE????

      • gke

        Bring it!  I hear this loud and clear.  Ditto here.

      • Bob Hadley

        Paul, No matter how risk averse you are and no matter how healthy your lifestyle , you may, heaven forbid, be scraped off the pavement any day and be delivered to the emergency room.  Maybe you’ll be able to  pay for all this, but most people can’t. 

        In addition, no matter how risk averse you are and now matter how healthy your lifestyle is and no matter how good your genes are, you may, heaven forbid, develop a serious degenarative neurological disorder, have a heart attack, have a stroke or any number of medical maladies beckoning for medical attention.  Are you going to wear a bracelet saying not to call an ambulance and not too deliver you to the emergency room unlss you are conscious and unless you verify that you can  pay for whatever treatment awaits you?

        In a democratic republic, any law may result in individual cases of injustice, even if the law has certain exceptions.  The point is to weigh the injustices against the benefits of the law. 

        Why should the childless have their taxes funneled to public schools?  Why should my automobile insurance rates be jacked up when I have a spotless driving record?  Why should my health insurance rates rise much faster than inflation (i.e. before I was lucky enough to get on my wife’s emploeyr’s plan) when I  only visit the doctor to confirm that I’m in excellent health (knock on wood)?

        Perhaps an answer to your problem would be to apportion the tax/penalty accordnig to your lifestyle, diet and a physical exam, similar to what a life insurance company would do. 

        • ph16

          “Perhaps an answer to your problem would be to apportion the tax/penalty accordnig to your lifestyle, diet and a physical exam, similar to what a life insurance company would do. ”

          That would be a good idea, plus allow you to choose what you want it to cover based on your needs. For instance, a childless person would not have to pay for pedeterical care and would lower costs thus.

  • Viscounttom

    Mary, when you say Edwards put the ball in Romney’s court, this is a metaphor, not a pun.  Outside of that, I agree that he’s given Romney the opportunity to gain more votes through his decision.  Was that his plan?  He’d never admit it, of course, but keep in mind: Edwards IS a conservative.

  • Steve

    Justice Roberts just handed Romney the election.

    • Noonien_Soong

       On this adjudication by Justice Roberts, the Tea Party is in the process of being real fired up. The fire will be just as rampant as a mid-western forest fire. I would suspect there will be sweeps in the election, a trifecta if you will. After this, Obama will lose significantly. I suspect somewhere in the neighborhood of a near avalanche, but more likely a landslide with a mandate.

      It is going to burn

      • OceanGram

        I know we can defeat Obama ….but will he corrupt the election…and his thugs…Romney had better hire all he can…Romney  could win right now if the election is not stolen..spend time on preparing for the cheaters at the polls

  • kayakbob

    Ok Bernie. I admit it. I have come to be a reader of the comments first. THEN I read your commentary.   Sorry, but it is a lot more fun that way.  

    I’m not sure if this is Obama’s George H. W. Bush “read my lips, no new taxes” moment.  But I can hope…for change.

  • Dave O’Connor

    The interpretation of an interpretation:  By calling a tax a tax seems to be all that Roberts did.
    Frankly, it’s a shame that too many – far too many – don’t see what I see in a wry hint by him that suggests: “You got what you paid for.” To me, he  finessed a prudent caveat.
    No, the voting public won’t get it.  They’ve been dumbed down to barely marginal competence over three generations.
    Nor will the Ready-Fire-Aim reactionaries get the whiff through their own cordite.
    What I haven’t heard too much about is the relationship between presidntial elections and the future appointees to the Supreme Court.  Look at the Courts actuarial factors. The next presidential election will cast the die.
    So, now, if nothing more than climaxing a high anxiety drama, the country has been provided food for thought.  Can it digest it meat and potatoes anymore?

    • gke

      Dang good reflection.  As for digesting more than potatoes, I doubt it.  But I hope so.  Would to be pleasantly surprised, eh?

  • J. Lane

    I am a physician trained in the  USA where I walked out of an Amerian Medical School ( a trade school where they teach you how to make the most money) and finished my treing in six Uiversities in the Germanic states. I will never see 83 again. All I have to live with a maybe six very late tern abortions. It is a thing I cannot forget. You have to be a member of the NSDAP and have been trrained under a treaher who was follower oc  Baldur vor Siracht’s cap.

  • Kathie Ampela

    The liberal wing of the Supreme Court NEVER, EVER moves to the conservative side, only the other way around. So let’s not kid ourselves about the SCOTUS not being politicized. I think this makes the case for term limits (8 years) for Supreme Court justices. One more lefty judge appointed to the Supreme Court and the fascist takeover of America will be complete. Count on it….they’ve NEVER failed to deliver.

    Chief Justice Roberts made a cynical political decision. Obama can keep his law, but he has to call it what it is…a HUGE, MASSIVE tax on the middle class. We, the middle class will have to eat the cost of this monstrous law and suffer the consequences of it as well. I’ve relied on employer health benefits for my insurance coverage since I’m 19. Many employers will no longer be able to afford to offer health insurance to what are our options here…a government doctor that we didn’t choose or a private doctor that we can’t afford!! And if we manage to live to a ripe old age under this horrendous law we will face a death panel..otherwise known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board..sorry granny, we can’t afford to pay for that bypass surgery, drop dead! For all of Obama’s class warfare rhetoric about the evil rich…the middle class will suffer the MOST from this disaster! And I just loved all the happy horseshit that Obama and the dems fed us back in 2009/2010 when they were selling us this train wreck…this WASN’T a tax and you CAN keep your doctor…RIGHT! Why should I believe ANYTHING they say after this!

    I am currently taking the 75 Hour NYS Real Estate Salesperson course online. At the completion of the course, you need to take a 3 hour, 75 question, multiple choice exam in order to obtain a RE license in New York State. I’d like to give a similar exam to Obama and the members of Congress on the content of this bill..does anyone think they actually read the 2,500 pages of the bill before they jammed it down our throats?  Think about THAT one…it’s HARDER to get a NYS Real Estate license than it is to turn America into a Socialist/Noveau Fascist hellhole!

  • MikeinCT

    I will hang onto the hope that the outrage this creates will motivate otherwise uncommitted independents to come out and vote BO out of office.

    Thanks for fighting for us, Bernie! 

  • ph16

    Great article Bernie! This whole thing has been a mess from the beginning! I can’t believe how Obama kept trying to tell everyone the mandate wasn’t a tax when in fact, that was the only reason it was ruled constitutional in the first place. Boy, oh boy, what politicians will do.

  • Bruce A.

    I would not say the fun has started.  In truth, this really made it hit the fan.

  • CCNV

    The most we can hope for is that Romney gets elected and that debacle is not funded. None of this health care crap will matter to libs until it hits them financially or through incompetent medical care. THEN, and only then, will the realize the monster they created.

  • Pedwin

    “Watch and see how many companies drop health insurance and opt for paying a fine – sorry, a tax — which in many cases will be cheaper.” They could have dropped it before without a fine – this staement makes no sense

    • MikeinCT

      He means the fine will be cheaper than the cost of the insurance!

    • Paul Courtney

      Your post begs the question, why provide it in the first place?  Many employers don’t, you know.  Those who do likely conclude they must to stay competitive.  Maybe a few do it out of a sense of obligation or because they feel it improves the quality of work.  What Obama, Pelosi and Reid did, they think and say, is gonna reduce the cost of health care, but they can’t explain how.  More people buying insurance through subsidized exchanges won’t force premiums down at all, but the subsidies will raise the cost to the fed govt.  Others say it will run premiums up, and they make a pretty convincing case (how can the fed govt require MORE coverage and expect the cost to go down?).  As premiums rise, more employers will be forced to drop coverage. They won’t do it by choice, and they won’t have a choice of not paying a tax, so they’ll pay.  This extra money will, by Nancy’s calculation, more than offset the extra cost to the govt.  You can tell she’s calculating when her eyes open real wide.  Her best calculation is spending $1 to make it $1.50. 

  • Cyndee

    As usual you summarized it perfectly.  Thank heavens for people like you, Bernie

    • Bernie

      Many thanks, Cyndee.  I appreciate the kind words.


  • Elemconeil

    Roberts clearly wants a legacy, akin to Oliver Wendell Holmes, instead his name is Mudd, (pun imtended), with the American electorate.

  • Roxiebell

    Just think we will all be “taxed” to pay for the “mental” health of CJ Roberts when its clear he is terminally insane and its a HUGE waste of money. 

  • Brhurdle

    We will probably never know the motivation for Robert’s vote, but it certainly has the appearance that he succumbed to the intimidation from the MSM. What the ruling did was establish a precedent for a “punitive tax”. But Mr. Goldberg is correct in that it has been ruled constitutional and we shouldn’t obsess over past events. I have Medicare and an employer provided supplemental insurance so I don’t expect to be impacted directly by the mandate. However, what I will see is a degradation in the quality and level of care as providers adjust their services to maintain profitibility. The one thing this event vividly illustrates is the disingenious principles of the punditry communit. It just seems that we can get no unbiased opinions or analysis from any facet of the MSM. You can’t go from being a goat one day to a hero the next based on one outcome.

  • Mary

    I believe Roberts put the ball in Romney’s court[pardon the pun] it’s Romney’s to win now! Let’s hope the people of this country wise up before it’s too late.

  • LM

    I wonder if Obama will now admit that his healthcare plan was actually a tax on the American people.  The floodgates are now open for liberals to expand their agenda now that the SCOTUS has ruled in this manner. 

     Every freedom loving American had better vote Republican this November if they want this abomination repealed.  This is our last chance.

    • ph16

      I’m sure Obama will go along with the Supreme Court’s argument, all that matters to him is that Obamacare survived the Supreme Court. Honestly, at this point he only cares about two things: getting reelected and distributing the wealth. Whatever it takes doesn’t matter to him.

    • Wil

        You’re paying now, you fool – every time someone with no healthcare coverage goes to a hospital, we all get to pay for it…now everyone can be included and can pay their own way..Obama 2012!

    • Wil

      It’s a “tax” in the same way that not having another child means you will pay
      more in taxes.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    First of all it is NOT FUN!  The Supreme Court is not suppose to be political and this rant by Roberts changed that forever.  Roberts just told Americans it is fine if the President of the United States, the Democrats in Congress can all lie to us.  They swore to us that they were no TAXES involved in this Obama care.  Do you remember how everyone was laughting at the numbnuts that Eric Holder sent to defend Obamacare?  I do!!  Oh, they were all beside themselves at how stupid he looked.  Well, so much for acting “stupidly.”  Stupidly wins everytime.   Roberts, who is suppose to be the smartest judge in America (CHIEF JUSTICE) took the LIE and made it the truth.  He should resign and become the next Democrat Speaker of the House.  This rant by Roberts ranks right next to Roe vs Wade for crying out loud.  Roe/Wade kills babies before they are born and Obama care will eventually use a 15 member pannel to kill off those old folks who have become a drain on society via health care.  We have come full circle.  At this point I hope Roberts has prepared his living will to avoid the death pannels.

    Sitting back and HOPING this brain dead electorate dethrones Obama is insane.  It is now prove that Obama and the Democrats can lie through their teeth and there is no media that will expose the lies.  I suggest the RNC and the Republican Superpacks have more than enough money.  Send your money to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and to Attoney Larry Klayman.  Arpaio has criminal evidence to dethrone Obama and Klayman may win his Obama ballot challenge in Florida proving Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen.” 

    • geezer

      Politicians have been lying to us forever! Justice Roberts is correct in saying that SCOTUS is not responsible for the quality of law passed by Congress, only whether it complies with the Constitution. One hopes that this decision will give us a new President along with a new, rational Congress.

    • Jeffreydan

        I’m impressed. Most of your post was actually on topic, and you waited until the end to share your sad little obsession. Nice effort.  

      • SendTheClunkerBackToChicago

        And why are you not obsessed with the fact that a radical Progressive was given the opportunity to usurp the office of the POTUS and has done so by the use of fraudulent documents, documents that can be proven to be criminally forged if given a platform to do so.  Roberts is a product of trickle down corruption.   Hell, if it is okay for a man to usurp the office of the POTUS what would be wrong with the Chief Justice of the United States given credibility to a lying President and a lying Democrat Congress.  That would be a minor offense when one compares the two.  You need to get your head out of your ass and get on the bandwagon that is fighting to bring this criminal to justice.  Fast and Furious is a walk in the park compared to the usurping of the office of the POTUS.  Congress is walking around thinking these crimes will just go away if they refuse to deal with it.  I hope the numbskulls at Fox keep pushing for Marco Rubio as their favorite VP choice for Romney.  That will force them to deal with thge “natural born Citizen” issue because there will be many challeges to that choice and Obama’s failure to meet that requirement will then be made know to the American people.   Shame on you Jeffreydan, you seem to be a petty intelligent person yet you seem to enjoy having your head in the sand.   I am more than obsessed, that word fails to describe my anger and frustration with people like yourself.  Libtards are libtards but you seem to be coming from the conservative side of the tracks.

        • Jeffreydan

            And you’ve now regressed to classic form.

            You may have a point on one thing, that you’re more than obsessed. You can rest easy that there are plenty of therapists out there to address that. I’m not sure about your inability to grasp that you’ve made your point, though. 

          • Michael Bittner

            No Jeffreydan, you are the wrong one here.  SendTheClunkerBackToChicago is right on this one.  I did the research..did you?

    • Dave O’Connor

      “Sitting back and HOPING this brain dead electorate dethrones Obama is insane.”
      Regretfully, we’ve been maintining the brain-dead on ‘wishcraft’ for years.
      What, many of us must do, and I mean really man-up and do it, is face the fact that while the dumbing-down was happening, we were right here.
      Sure, some of us addressed it, some in the best of faith, too. Maybe, we lacked the articulation (which is only human).
      I’d love to see this Three-Card-Monty-Dealer fold.
      “This rant by Roberts ranks right next to Roe vs Wade for crying out loud.”
      “crying out loud.”? But, who’s listening?

  • Nancye

    And Chief Justice John Roberts, in my not-so-humble opinion, wimped out and sided with the libs.  Shame on him.

    • DrSique

      Worse!!!!! Roberts has given the federal government limitless powers of taxation. If you can be taxed for not buying insurance, non-action, what else can people be taxed for not doing? There seems to be no limit BUT just wait to hear the liberals howl when a Republican president decides to levy a tax for not going to a gun range once a month in order to be ready for military service. Or, how about not going to a gym in order to stay fit and, therefore, bring down healthcare costs. Any inaction is now taxable. Thanks a lot Justice Roberst, you pinhead.

      • ph16

        Yep, that’s what liberals tend to forget. Any power in the federal government you give to a liberal one, a conservative one can do the same thing. Vice versa as well.

        • Wil

          Yep, Like  Bush cut taxes on the rich and doubled military spending. (Off
          budget) Started  two wars.  And don’t forget collapsing the economy, forcing
          people onto unemployment and food stamps. That is why we have a deficit. We have
          a deficit because of tax cuts for the rich, huge military budget increases and
          the consequences of deregulating corporations.

      • Wil

        Nonsense! The the federal government had limitless powers of taxation, before the Roberts decision!