Taxation, Representation, House, Senate, Government, Obamacare

We have seen many flip-flops on part of Obama administration since the time when Obamacare was first proposed. President Obama and his administration kept denying that it is a tax until the fight went on to Supreme Court which upheld the law based on the fact that it is a tax. The basic argument in the Supreme Court case was that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce. But, it does not have the constitutional authority to enforce the mandates on consumers and businesses to buy health insurance. Contrary to what Obama administration was saying, so far, the government lawyers maintained that Obamacare is a tax.

Supreme Court, including Justice Roberts accepted this argument and declared that Obamacare is a tax. Since it does not have mandates and is a tax, hence, it is a proper exercise of constitutional authority that Congress has. Here is a quote from official document released by court, “(b) such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal-ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf.

Bailey

V.

Drexel Furniture Co.

, 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See

New York

V.

United States

, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174.Pp. 35–40.”

The major problem here is that the law was sold to American public as “not a tax”, as mentioned by Obama himself and many in his administration, repeatedly. Still, in accordance with the Supreme Court decision and as accepted by government lawyers, it turns out to be a 700 billion dollars tax, the largest single tax hike in known human history. I mean, how can Obama keep his face straight and maintain his integrity while he has denied the accusation of it being tax many times.

The lying does not end here. It was said that you keep your current health insurance, if you like it. Ironically, millions of Americans lost their health insurance, as soon as the law went into effect. It was also said that it is going to reduce the cost of health insurance. This too turned out to be false. The cost of health insurance is rising, even faster, since the Obamacare became a law. This was absurd to begin with. This claim was against the proven supply and demand principle of Economics. If you are increasing demand for health insurance by adding millions of new, tax payers’ subsidized people to the health insurance pool, how can you expect a decrease in cost?

Another claim that was made suggested that it would reduce budget deficit and hence would help in reducing rate of increase in federal government debt. This too turned out to be false. The federal government debt is still on rise, pretty much like it was, before. Keeping in mind the millions who lost their coverage, the net increase in insured people is still dismal. At a cost of 700 billion dollars to tax payers, this does not sound like a good deal, at all.

The worst execution of law is another story. Almost everyone is aware of the problems with over 200 million dollar website, and the pain, and difficulties it caused to the people. This also points out to another major issue with public sector. Since, it is tax payers’ money, nobody really cares. First of all they spent too much on website, and then it did not even work. Not enough time is a totally a lame excuse. This drama has been in making for years, now. Worst is that the Obama administration is still insisting on the credibility of this idea.

How can you call it a credible idea when it has virtually failed to deliver almost every promise attached to it, even at a very exuberant cost to tax payers? This is the same type of experimentation which was practiced in socialist and Communist countries. They wanted to feed everyone but end up not feeding most of the fellows, specially the quality food. They wanted to provide clothing to everyone and with the exception of very few privileged, they were not able to provide quality clothing to anyone. They wanted to provide home to everyone, and most people end up in shambles.
Western and other Democracies in developed countries did a relatively better job with universal healthcare. But, almost all of them are now realizing that the burden of universal healthcare is becoming unsustainable. Sovereign debt in more and more of these countries is increasingly becoming insolvent. Extensive welfare programs and continuous state of war has caused a huge pile of debt on us, too, as much as over 17 trillion dollars. Why do we want to do something that will only accelerate our journey to bankruptcy? These programs are not just causing unbearable burden of debt, they are also draining out the precious resources from economy.
You want to help poor. Sure. Do it with the only proven way in human history. We are the only nation in entire human history which can say that we narrowed the gap between rich and poor to an unprecedented level and created the largest and richest middle class, ever, until, of course, when our government started growing rapidly and interventions in economy and business became the order of the day. You have to be a completely blind and idiotic to not appreciate this fact in history. As long as the individuals were really free, as intended by our constitution, we created the greatest economic miracle in human history, within a very short period of less than two hundred years.
Senate Shop