Go back and read post # 75, I cleared up what I meant with Red.. Which was before you responded to my original post...
Well aside from what you are responding too was not about the tax, but about state level functions, you are wrong. This is what he has said... So you would say the structure you put in place in Massachusetts—exchanges, subsidies, and an individual mandate—is essentially a conservative structure? "what I'm saying is that the right place for health reform is at the state level. In a federalist system we don't need the federal government imposing its will on the individual states. The federalist, conservative approach is for states to solve their problems as they feel best. We solved it in a way that worked in our state on a bipartisan basis. Out of 200 legislators, only two voted no. And other states can solve it in the way that they feel best." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/18/mitt-romney-on-romneycare.html Do some research......
Let me preface this by saying that I am not a knee-jerk Republican ideologue. My initial reactions are very much how I end up feeling about things but I do listen to the opinions of others. I have had the weekend to focus on other of life's little things and to calm down from the initial shock and awe of this decision. I have rethought the events and my reactions. I still have Roberts under the bus, so to speak, and I think that he chose the path of least resistance rather than the correct path. I feel he did not want himself or the court to be labeled as 'activists'. He bought into an argument that was not a correct interpretation of the law but was the interpretation necessary to allow the law to stand. I am over the notion that this is a tax. It is not a tax. It is a penalty. A penalty for not following the requirement that one must obtain insurance. It is a penalty for failing to abide by the mandate and the law should have been struck down on this basis. Roberts found a way that he could side with the left 4. In his view the end justified the means. This ruling is the Republican's Waterloo (not their Alamo). There is not enough Americans that are truly outraged by the decision or Obamacare all together. Republicans will not be able to use this to rally the troops and increase their support enough to win. I am not voting for Obama but this does not make me want to vote for Romney either. Obama will be re-elected in Bush vs. Perry fashion. After 4 more years of implementation, healthcare is here to stay.
I don't think that was what he was trying to do. He said it best himself when he stated that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to decide if legislation is bad or to save us from the consequences, good or bad. Only to decide if it was legal.
Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense so I will skip to the next piece of mouth-diarrhea that you have concocted: Mitt Romney's spokesperson was on The Daily Rundown this morning and he said that Mitt Romney agrees with the President that the mandate is not a tax, it is a penalty. You guys need to get your stories straight. It doesn't really matter what Mitt says about it today because his story is likely to change tomorrow.
You need to learn to read b/c I do have have a issue with the mandate, tax, or whatever you want to call it. My comment was about state level functions, Romney care, is not the same as Federal, Obama care... Post # 80. Read it again..
Lets slow this down for you. Sorry I do not have color pictures for you to follow along. This is exactly what I said: Um, yea there is. Each state is different and can be regulated as such at the local level. You followed up with: You still there? My comment was about you comparing Obama care to Romney care. State and local level policies are not the same as federal. As such, Obama care and Romney care are not the same.. But yes, Romney does agree with the mandate, tax, or penalty. I didn't argue that nor did I care. The supreme court ruled it was constitutional as a tax.. I can careless what Obama, a constitutional scholar THINKS it is because he was WRONG..
"3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. " "(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, [d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. " http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11-393c3a2.pdf
