6 votes

The ONE person to blame for Obamacare (Outside of Obama himself)...

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

If Roberts had agreed with his fellow conservative judges on the court, and ruled it a PENALTY or a FINE instead of a TAX, he would have ended it right there.

Even as bad as taxes can be, at least we GET something for our taxes (police, fire fighters, national defense, roads, infrastructure, postal service etc).

But if you don't buy health insurance, you pay a PENALTY and you don't get anything for it (to my knowledge).

Which makes it a PENALTY not a TAX - even though it's enforced by the IRS.

Roberts could have single-handedly stopped Obamacare in its tracks that day and it would have been end of subject.

Was Roberts possibly bought off or threatened? Because the vote was 5 to 4 along ideologic lines with Roberts being the only "conservative" agreeing with the 4 liberal judges.

If he had ruled it a penalty, Obamacare would be dead and neither congress nor Obama could have done a thing about it.

So outside of Obama himself, (who was the architect of government-run health care), John Roberts is the single biggest offender in my opinion.

~~~Here is why this was such an awful decision...

A TAX is ALWAYS a consequence of a POSITIVE action by a human ie: You BUY or SELL something (Sales tax), or you USE something (User tax), or you EARN something (Income tax), or you OWN something (Property tax).

All of these are POSITIVE actions which cause a taxable event.

But Roberts (and the other 5 traitorous judges) have ruled that by simply EXISTING, you can be TAXED for a NON-ACTION (or a NEGATIVE)!

Do you realize the gravity of such power by a government?

Now we all know that you can be FINED for a non-action (ie; crossing a bridge WITHOUT paying a toll, NOT buying car insurance if you drive, NOT paying your income taxes, hunting and NOT buying a license etc).

Roberts has turned personal liberty ON ITS HEAD by saying that just by virtue of existing as a human, you are subject to a tax!

It opens the door for the government to force us to do anything else they deem necessary at some point.

That was one of the most damaging rulings ever made and the full consequences of it can only be imagined at this point.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I don't blame Obama or

I don't blame Obama or Roberts. If you want to know who to blame, look at their butts, then follow the arm sticking out all the way until you see the puppetmaster.

I blame the Central Banking Empire... but who knows who is running that show so its probably best just to give them all a garbage can lid and a pool stick and make them fight to the death, then imprison the single survivor for treason against the human race.

This thing is wrong on so many fronts, but I blame:

1) Tax bill as defined by the SCOTUS, that originated in the Senate, but not struck down.

2) Republicans made no election issue of Ben Nelson's sweet deal for NE to gain his deciding vote.

3) Republicans fighting for a one year exemption for individuals while Obama has already granted extension for employers. The Republicans fight by Boehner and Cruz will only be succesful in 2014 elections if the burdens begin next year.

I think Roberts made the correct decision.

If it is a TAX, it must be apportioned equally. If it is a Tax it has to originate in the House, not the Senate like it did. It's an illegally originated Tax and does not have enforcement of law behind it. The first person they arrest for not paying this tax will beat it in court and the the Tax will be abolished. Mike Lee had a great explanation on this subject during the filibuster. You still can't force someone to buy something they don't want, but you can tax legally.

The pain of Obamacare during its implementation will be quite painful and that is somewhat Roberts fault, but in the end I think the purpose is to teach us a lesson we will never forget.

fireant's picture

Roberts should be impeached.

The statute was passed specifically not as a tax, but as a penalty. His only recourse was to remand it to the legislature in order to constitutionally pass a tax. Him declaring it a tax is a usurpation of legislature.
I believe you are correct though, that it will be challenged as soon as they start applying the "tax". I know I will.

Undo what Wilson did

It's NOT a TAX. No more so than a speeding ticket is a tax.

It's a PENALTY for NOT having bought insurance which they CAN'T force you to do.

But the thing that differentiates a TAX from a PENALTY (or a FINE) is whether you GET something for your payment.

If you actually GET something for your money, then it's a tax.

If you don't get anything for your payment then it's a penalty.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

"If you actually get

"If you actually get something for your money, then it's a tax"?

Where did you come up with that one?

I thought I explained it pretty well. A TAX supposedly buys us

...the services of our government because that is how the government gets the revenues needed to function (it never produces anything at a profit).

A FINE or PENALTY is only a punishment for something you did (or didn't do) for which you have received NOTHING in return.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul