We've been pretty silent on the Constitutional fate of ObamneyCare© as it wends its way to the SCOTUS. For one thing, we've already made it perfectly clear how we feel about the (Evil) Individual Mandate, and the other myriad of problems inherent in the bill we had to pass to learn what's in it.
But today, the folks behind ObamneyCare© let slip the mask, and perhaps tipped their hand:
"In a hearing of the House Budget Committee ... pressed [Acting Budget Director Jeffrey] Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not." [emphasis added]
Of course, characterizing the fine as a tax is what gets them under the Commerce Clause umbrella, and hence (potential) legitimacy. One wonders if Mr Z was inspired by Tom Brady.
But today, the folks behind ObamneyCare© let slip the mask, and perhaps tipped their hand:
"In a hearing of the House Budget Committee ... pressed [Acting Budget Director Jeffrey] Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not." [emphasis added]
Of course, characterizing the fine as a tax is what gets them under the Commerce Clause umbrella, and hence (potential) legitimacy. One wonders if Mr Z was inspired by Tom Brady.
0 nhận xét:
Post a Comment