“Juliet: What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” ~ William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. ~ Chief Justice Roberts, Ruling, Natl. Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Apparently, like Shakespeare, the SCOTUS, really doesn’t hold what the Congress says in their public statements, or what they write in the law is a true definition of Congressional intent for determining the constitutionality of its law. As long as somewhere in the Constitution a legitimate reason can be found then the SCOTUS should uphold the law.
So for those who aren’t poor enough, or covered with company insurance, or in some other ways eligible not to be taxed I wonder what that bill will look like. I look forward to my 2014 tax form. It won’t affect me as I have elected to pay for insurance, and as a retired veteran have automatic coverage for life, but I think there will be a pretty sizeable pool of tax payers, mostly in the 26+ year group, with a new bill.
We probably need to unionize the Doctor’s so they can benefit from this new system by organizing to ensure they don’t have to work more than 32 hours a week, with credit for two rounds of golf to equal a 40 hour work week. Otherwise the workload will drive them to really long days and that wouldn’t be fair now would it?