More thoughts on Obamacare

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on June 28, 2012

I encourage you to visit the various legal blogs to get well-reasoned analysis of this morning's travesty against the Constitution and the English language. As a layman and someone who respects language and words, a few thoughts:

I wouldn't have been so disappointed with today's ruling if Justice Kennedy had wielded the dagger.

So, instead of expanding the Commerce Clause beyond what it's ever been understood to allow, Chief Justice Roberts decides to extend the federal government's power to tax beyond any understanding.

What is it Congress passed exactly? A penalty or a tax?

What's the weather like in the Land of the Sophists?

So, you can't regulate inactivity, but you can tax it.

Can anyone name something else that's taxed for not buying it? Anything?

If not repealed, I will very likely lose my insurance because of Obamacare. I have a high-deductible, catastrophic policy and a Health Savings Account, neither of which is legal under Obamacare. So much for "if you like your policy, you can keep it."

Mitt Romney needs to update his website.

Addendum (11:36 p.m.): If this is a tax, then it needed to originate in the House. This originated in the Senate. Of course, if you’re going to ignore plain English and read “penalty” as “tax,” the one house of congress probably looks the same as any other.


@ZebraFactCheck @PolitiFactBias The majority of posts I saw talking about the 1% were noting the accurate 40% stat. It's telling PolitiFact went searching for the claim they could swat down as "false," rather than fact-checking the accurate claim as "true." Reminds me of this exchange


@kentorianu @ZebraFactCheck @PolitiFact Since there's concern about bad faith arguments, I'll make it simple.

Vaccinated people can spread variants. True or False?

Load More...


June 2012



pencil linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram