Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Supreme Court, Obamacare, and Cooking the Books

Not that it really matters, but I disagree with the Supreme's Court's decision.  In my opinion, the government ALREADY has the power to tax, therefore, there's no need for a half-baked substitute for a tax.  If the Democrats wanted everyone to have health insurance, they could have raised taxes and spent the revenue buying/providing health insurance.  Why didn't the Democrats do that?  Because they couldn't.  The Democrats did not have the support, either popularly or politically, to support a spending increase of that magnitude.  Instead, they moved the tax and spending off the books with the individual mandate.  It may not be unconstitutional, but it's still cooking the books to override the checks and balances of the system.


Blogger Yoel Natan said...

True. But there is a decades old precedent of unfunded mandates to the states. This is only new in that it is an individual mandate.

Also, I think that the proposed penalty was $2,500, which was less than the cost of Obamacare that the individual was supposed to buy. Hence, one could argue it was more a tax than a penalty since responsible people are supposed to have health insurance anyway. I wonder how they would have ruled if the penalty was, say, three times as much as the Obamacare or what people pay for bargain health insurance (that still covers a lot without a huge deductable).

8:54 PM  
Blogger Octavo Dia said...

I think there's a great deal of difference between an unfunded mandate and a fine for non-compliance. If there was no fine, it would have been an unfunded mandate.

9:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home