LAMBRO: Surprise cost of Obamacare

Million of Americans of modest means will pay more

Several issues are being distorted in the wake of the Supreme Court’s contradictory, backdoor ruling that up-held President Obama’s health care law on a disputed word definition. Others are virtually absent from the discussion, such as who will pay the onerous penalty tax and what it will cost them if the uninsured refuse to obey Mr. Obama’s order to purchase medical insurance?

It turns out, the court’s decision means Mr. Obama’s tax will fall most heavily on lower- to middle-income people whom he has vowed to shield from his proposed tax increases. It will be a lot costlier than you think, but more on that in a moment.

First, it’s not exactly true, as often misreported on the network nightly news, that the high court found that the law did not violate the Constitution.

In fact, the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. specifically ruled that Congress could not order uninsured Americans to buy health insurance under the commerce clause of the Constitution - the legal grounds on which the Democrats and Mr. Obama built their statist plan and defended it in oral arguments before the court. “The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Justice Roberts wrote in the 5-4 decision.

Indeed, Justice Roberts went to great lengths to say he flatly disagreed with proponents of the law who argued that the commerce clause gave them the authority to force citizens “to act as the government would have them act.”

“This is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned,” he wrote. “The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions.”

If there was any victory in this ruling for the opponents of big, unrestricted government, it was the court’s ruling that this time, Congress‘ use of the commerce clause to poke its nose into every aspect of the nation’s commercial life had gone too far.

“If it had declared that this provision could be used to compel private citizens to engage in commerce so the federal government could regulate it, the court would have put our basic freedom as Americans at risk,” writes Grace-Marie Turner, a noted health care analyst.

But even though Justice Roberts said, “The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” he acknowledged that it clearly had the power to tax - in this case, the power to imperiously “impose a tax on those without health insurance,” one of 20 new and onerous taxes in the Obamacare law.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats fiercely reject the notion that the punishment they would inflict on Americans who will not do what they are ordered to do is a tax. They still insist it is a penalty or fine, no more of an imposition than the charge bill collectors may impose for late payment.

Besides, if their punishment were defined as a tax, crafty White House strategists feared Republicans would use it against them in the upcoming election. But a tax it is, the chief justice ruled, handing the GOP a lethal political issue in the presidential and senatorial elections on Nov. 6.

Not only is it a tax, but it’s one that will be levied on people who can afford neither to buy health insurance nor to pay an annual tax to the government.

Certain Americans will be exempt from the tax, such as those who would have to shell out more than 8 percent of their income for a health care policy, those who fall below the tax threshold, those who are exempt for their religious beliefs, members of Indian tribes and those in prison.

But the rest of us without insurance will get a tax bill from the Internal Revenue Service - $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016, with annual tax increases after that.

Nearly 4 million uninsured Americans will pay this tax, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, though there are estimates running higher than that.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

About the Author
Donald Lambro

Donald Lambro

Donald Lambro is the chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, the author of five books and a nationally syndicated columnist. His twice-weekly United Feature Syndicate column appears in newspapers across the country, including The Washington Times. He received the Warren Brookes Award For Excellence In Journalism in 1995 and in that same year was the host and co-writer of ...

Latest Stories

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts