Supreme Decision: The Best Possible Result for 2012

Politically speaking there couldn’t have been a better Supreme Court decision. If Obamacare had been declared unconstitutional, the Democrats’ campaign in November would have been those horrible Republicans have politicized the Supreme Court and denied affordable healthcare to everyone. The focus would be on the court’s “unfairness.” The Democrats would have a plausible if unfair case (and in politics lack of fairness is a given). Advantage Democrats. Advantage because the last things they want to talk about are Obamacare and taxes. And that’s the second big plus from this decision. The focus – thanks to Justice Roberts – is going to be on the biggest tax increase in human history on everyone, not just the rich. And on the lies of Obama which dwarf those of Clinton. Obama promised no tax hikes on the middle class and then defended Obamacare before the Supreme Court as …. a tax.

As for the constitutionalists. Roberts’ argument makes sense to me. Yes the power to tax is the power to destroy, but it’s in the Constitution. So this decision doesn’t really change anything constitutionally. If you don’t like Obamacare, the remedy is to repeal it. Let the elections begin.

  • Karen

    I hope you're right. Because it sounds to me as if the minority of people who do not have healthcare now, and for whom this bill was written, think that they will receive either free healthcare or "affordable healthcare" when in fact, the healthcare will not be free, and insurance/healthcare will not be "affordable" either. The uninsured now will be uninsured in 2014, because they will not be able to afford the "affordable" health insurance that will be lousy insurance. The fine/tax they will have to pay in that case will go toward funding the lavish healthcare of privileged victim groups, for which ironically, the uninsured will have to pay through the fine/tax. But as I noted this will be unknown to them until 2014, and by then it will be too late. Look for taxes on behavior that Obama, who will be re elected, does not approve of, or that his big assed wife does not approve of. Such as overweight people, who will never ever become a privileged victim group in society and will be punished within the healthcare system for their bad behavior.

  • Sage on the Stage

    So the PPACA is suddenly a tax? Well, in a general sense it is…because it's another burden on the lower and middle classes. But its more than that…the SCOTUS has just strengthened the coercive power of the Federal government, by upholding it. This was done for political gain. Mr. Horowitz has a good point–that Roberts' upholding the PPACA has taken the wind out of the Democrats' sails. But what if Obama wins in November, anyway? If you have the chance to destroy a monster, you put short-term political gain aside, and you do it.
    The monster–the PPACA–isn't about health care; its about total government control over the lives of individual
    Americans. In addition, the health care part of it is miserable. I sure hope Romney wins.

  • Jim C.

    As I understand the Constitution, David is very wrong in stating that the Constitution grants the "power to tax" to the Federal government. The truth is, the Federal government is strictly limited to only those taxes expressly granted to the Government in the Constitution – that's why the 16th Amendment was required for the income tax, which was not granted to the Government in the original Constitution. Only a Constitutional Amendment could legitimize the kind of tax that Roberts purported to authorize in his opinion.

  • stevefraser

    David, heard your great speech at the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley recently…what about this: "ObamaCare: Death Panels and the targeted death of the elderly" for the GOP to use?