Comments about ‘The mandate is constitutional: In Plain English’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 28 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Onion Daze
Payson, UT

About half of the arm-chair experts on the Constitution of the United States are happy. The other half of the expert pool is not. It was a 5 to 4 folks. If only the issue was of the 9 to zero type. There is plenty of room for honest debate. Again, it is not a 9 to zero issue.

Tooele, UT

Re: "The Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may lead to Congress regulating more than just health care."

Yeah -- I'd say so. The brakes are now officially off.

At least Chief Justice Roberts forced the regime to be honest. Obama joined a long line of executive and legislative branch liberals that have stretched the Constitution's Commerce Clause beyond all recognition. Mr. Justice Roberts has now forced them into pushing their deranged, eurosocialist scams under the Taxing [and implied] Spending clause.

Since only Congress can lay and collect taxes, it'll be interesting to see how the regime justifies bypassing Congress to advance the liberal agenda during this lame duck period.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I called United Healthcare to ask what Hospital I needed to take my daughter to to get stiches.

The person I talked to was outside of Utah, and could've even been out of the U.S.

For that fact alone [and there are 1,000s more] -
It becomes Interstate Commerce.
So it's a Federal issue.
Making the ruling Constitutional.

In Plain English...

Brother Chuck Schroeder
A Tropical Paradise USA, FL

Fellow Utahns-
Today the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of President Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The American people know that this law violates our deepest constitutional principles of limited government, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling today. President Obama's $2.6 trillion health spending law is an unprecedented power grab by this White House that will increase health care costs, add to our skyrocketing national debt, and put Washington bureaucrats in between patients and their doctors.

This ruling doesn't change the fact that a majority of the people of Utah and across America want this law repealed. The American people will have the last word at the ballot box this November.

Let me be absolutely clear, I will continue the fight to repeal this assault on individual liberty and limited government.

Senator Orrin Hatch

If we were being invaded by extra-terrestrials Hatch could not do squat about it either.

It's all about a GOP deregulated loophole called Interstate Commerce.

Hatch could NOT figure this out in the US Senate for 36 years?.

Live with it, it's the law, enjoy being taxed to death more.


Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Contra Hatch, I predict ACA will lower health costs, reduce the debt, and get capricious insurance companies off my back.
I know as much about it as Hatch does.

Mcallen, TX

The working man will now pay more.

salt lake, UT


the regime? really I don't remember any forceful takeover. try rolling back the rhetoric a little, people may actually bother reading your post.

Murray, UT

The bulk of the Act still stands, but the two key financial pillars were found unconstitutional. The individual mandate as part of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses was found to be unconstitutional, as was the mandate that all 50 states must join in the new medicaid program or loose all medicaid funding.

These two pillars were the funding mechanism for the Act. The key funding mechanisms are gone, leaving the costs to the insurance companies ($450 Billion is the estimate) and to the taxpayers. It has been pointed out that if one state does not accept the new medicaid program, then the new program will not be financially feasible.

So the two key pillars have fallen. What you have left does not have adequate funding. Are you sure you really think this is a win?

Salt Lake City, UT

As a conservative lawmaker asked a conservative Supreme Court justice, "How could you rule that such a bad law was legal?" The justice replied, "How could you pass such a bad law?" John Roberts ruled that congress has the power to impose taxes, not that the law was reasonable. Conservatives asked for a strict constructionist and they have one. The liberal justices ruled on the politics of the bill, not on its legality.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

In plain English, John Roberts told Americans to get off their couches and do something. In plain English to told us that actions have consequences. In plain English, he told us that if we didn't like the ruling, then we need to throw the bums out.

In plain English, we were told that living in America is not a spectator sport where 535 members of Congress, 1 President and 9 members of the Court throw the ball around. In plain English, we were told to get out on the field and participate.

In plain English, John Roberts said, "follow me boys". He had the courage to call a tax a tax. He had the courage to give back to Obama everything that Obama has given us. He had the courage to take away from Obama any place to run, any place to hide and anyone to blame.

This day will go down in history as a red-letter day because ONE MAN had the courage to tell us to wake up and be real Americans and to tell Obama to pound sand.

Salt Lake City, UT

worf said "The working man will now pay more."
Good heavens. Another entitlement junkie. I suppose besides free health care via the emergency room (Reagan Care) you also expect the government to drill drill drill in the vain hope that you can buy gas at $2/gallon.

Eugene, OR

Mike, you're really stretching, you know that? The same people who will supposedly "get off their couches" to elect Romney wouldn't vote for Obama if he were to pull their children out of a burning building. What's really going to change there?

And weren't you all telling us earlier that the Supremes were certain to overturn it?

American Fork, UT

No one should be forced to buy insurance. Insurance shouldn't exist in the provision of health care. Instead, everyone should have access to, and pay for, health care. Care without the cost of profit, advertising, IT support, and a host of people working to deny you access to the system. Care, not insurance. This is a start, but no one should be forced to buy insurance. Because they should not need it.

Mcallen, TX

To prevent pollution, we should all be forced to buy a new car, or be fined (taxed).

Far East USA, SC

My My how the right forgets.

The ultra conservative Heritage Foundation was pushing the insurance mandate as a fix for healthcare back in the 90's. A bill was introduced and strongly supported by Orrin Hatch.

Romney is on record as recommending his Mass. plan on a national level (mandate with tax penalties and all)

Making it obvious that any GOP idea becomes unpalatable when championed by the other political side.

Why is it so difficult to see that the uninsured are using health care when needed and the bill is being paid by the taxpayers already.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

American Fork, UT
No one should be forced to buy insurance. Insurance shouldn't exist in the provision of health care. Instead, everyone should have access to, and pay for, health care. Care without the cost of profit, advertising, IT support, and a host of people working to deny you access to the system. Care, not insurance. This is a start, but no one should be forced to buy insurance. Because they should not need it.

10:24 p.m. June 28, 2012



As a FOR Profit corporation, Insurance Companies #1 priority is to their Stockholders.
Providing "Peace of mind" is a commodity they sell.

The actually $$$ to pay for your Healthcare is just an asset they'll do everything in their power to avoid paying.


@Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

In plain Englisn, I could've sworn you were the one saying the Supreme Court would strike this case down.
In plain English, I could've sworn you said the Supreme Court was just another activist group who could not interpret the Constitution written in plain English.

So, Which is it?

Your twisting, rationalizing, hypocrasy now lacks integrity.

salt lake city, utah

Procuradolfiscal..as ususal you are way off base. "Yeah -- I'd say so. The brakes are now officially off." Have you ever taken a tax deduction for your mortgage, for your kids? Then you've experienced the government using it's taxing power to encourage specific behaviors.

Actually, for once I agree with Mike Richards. If you disagree with this ruling and law then it's the Congress that can overtun it.

I also agree with Brother Schroder, that this law is unprecedented. Progress is always unprecedented, that's the point of progress..go where you've never been. Unprecedence is not a bad thing. Health care in America is broken. High skills, mixed outcomes, exorbetent costs, and uneven access is not a successful model. Something has to be done..somhow we need to do somehting we have never done before.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@LDS Liberal,

In Plain English, did I support the Supreme Court ruling or not? That is the only question that you have to ask.

In Plain English, I am one of the few conservatives who has whole heartedly supported John Roberts.

In Plain English, I am one of the few who said that John Roberts had the courage to rub Obama's nose in the mess that Obama is responsible for.

In Plain English, I applaud John Roberts for telling us citizens that we had better turn Obama out of office along with the others who voted for the Health Care Act.

J Thompson

It looks like some people are offended when their fellow citizens accept the Supreme Court ruling without bellyaching.

I've read posts by Mike Richards before the decision and after the decision. It appears that he, and many other conservatives, expected that the AFA would be overturned. It is also very clear from several of his posts yesterday, that he accepted the ruling without complaint.

Isn't that what an American is expected to do?

Isn't that what anyone who believes in the system would do?

Yet, some people are offended when they see real patriotism at work.

In Plain English, Mike Richards hit a home run.


John Roberts clearly told us that the AFA was a tax. It is the largest tax ever placed on Americans and MOST of that tax will hit those who are least able to pay it. That is what Obama and those in Congress who supported the AFA have done for America.

I'm sure that there will be a list circulating, before the day is out, listing the names of EVERY Senator and EVERY member of the House who voted for the AFA. They will be held accountable by the PEOPLE.

one old man
Ogden, UT

What too many people forget -- or choose to ignore -- is the fact that we have all been paying a hidden tax for years.

A tax imposed on the rest of us by those who do not have -- or can't afford -- health insurance.

The other tax we have been paying goes directly to health insurance companies. What is it? 30% of our premiums go for "administrative" costs? Why is it that "administration" of insurance companies is so costly while for Medicare it's something like 12%?

Profit is a dirty word for some people. Gouging is even dirtier. But isn't gouging what is actually happening?

All the ACA does is move the hidden tax from the shadows and take it into the sunlight. But some of our politicians are like vampires. They shun the light.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments