Tag Archives: John Roberts

Lucifercare fines charitable hospitals that treat poor people for free

If anyone is still so deluded as to think Obama actually cares about the poor, this should extinguish your delusion for good.

The (un)Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare and more truthfully should be called Lucifercare, will fine charitable hospitals that provide healthcare for poor people — for free.

The fines can be as high as $50,000.

After that, Lucifercare — via its minions in the IRS — will remove the nonprofit status from those hospitals. Currently, some 60% of U.S. hospitals are nonprofits.

Of those, a sizeable number are Catholic. 615 Catholic hospitals account for 12.5% of community hospitals in the United States, and over 15.5% of all U.S. hospital admissions.

Last year, it was Chief Justice John Roberts’ siding with the four liberals on the Supreme Court which led to the court’s narrow 5-4 ruling that Lucifercare is a tax and therefore is constitutional. Roberts is a Roman Catholic. I hope you’re happy with yourself, Roberts you POS.

Lucifercare’s fining and hounding-int0-extinction charitable hospitals should tell you, once and for all, that when Obama and all Democrats say they care about the poor, it’s all lip service, otherwise called *Lies*.

What they care about is *POWER*their power.

H/t FOTM’s pnordman and New American

~Eowyn

Fuhrer Obama by Bill DaviesImage by Bill Davies

Patrick Howley reports for The Daily Caller, Aug. 8, 2013:

Charitable hospitals that treat  uninsured Americans will be subjected to new levels of scrutiny of their nonprofit status and could face sizable new fines under Obamacare.

A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new  standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.

Charity for the uninsured is one of the factors that could discourage enrollment in Obamacare, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or else face new taxes themselves from the IRS.

“It requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file  additional paperwork with the IRS every three years. This is to prove that the  charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by Obamacare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats,” said John Kartch, spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform.

“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status. The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax — hence the positive revenue score” for  the federal government, Kartch said. “Obamacare advocates turned over every rock to find as much tax money as possible.”

Additionally, the rise in the number of insured Americans under Obamacare will make it more difficult for tax-exempt hospitals to continue meeting required thresholds for treating the uninsured, driving more hospitals into the for-profit category and yielding more taxable money for  the federal government.

“The requirements generally apply to any section 501(c)(3) organization that  operates at least one hospital facility,” according to a “Technical Explanation” report of new Obamacare provisions prepared by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) on March 21, 2010, the day Obamacare passed.

Obamacare’s new requirements could slam hospitals with massive $50,000 fines if they fail to meet bureaucrats’ standards.

“The hospital must disclose in its annual information report to the IRS  (i.e., Form 990 and related schedules) how it is addressing the needs identified  in the assessment and, if all identified needs are not addressed, the reasons  why (e.g., lack of financial or human resources). Each  hospital facility is required to make the assessment widely available. Failure to complete a community health needs assessment in any applicable three-year  period results in a penalty on the organization of up to $50,000,” according to  the JCT report.

The government is particularly interested in how and why hospitals will be  providing discounted or free care to poor patients, requiring each of them to  “adopt, implement, and widely publicize a written financial assistance policy”  and explain the methods they use to screen applicants for assistance and how  they calculate patients’ bills.

A delegate working under the Department of Health and Human Services must  review the innumerable reports charitable hospitals file every three years, along with copies of their audited financial statements.

After sifting through this massive amount of information, the delegate and HHS secretary must attempt to identify trends in the hospitals’ spending and send in a comprehensive report of their findings to Congress by 2015, according to the JCT report.

Healthcare experts warn that the Obamacare’s new requirements make it almost impossible for charitable hospitals to navigate treacherous new waters.

“Nonprofit hospitals should be advised that the new PPACA requirements will  play a significant role in how they operate and report, specifically when it comes to billing and collections for services provided to the uninsured. The new law leaves many gray areas and hospitals themselves will have to establish eligibility criteria for financial assistance. Following the new procedures as  best they can will ensure the best chance of maintaining their tax exempt status,” wrote D. Douglas Metcalf, partner at the law firm Lewis and Roca, in a 2013 op-ed entitled “Will nonprofit  hospitals disappear under Obamacare?”

The White House did not return a request for comment.

Are you game for another Caption Contest?

This is the 41st world-famous FOTM Caption Contest!

Here’s the pic:

2013 Inauguration

The above photo, by White House photog Lawrence Jackson, was taken on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2013, as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts administers the oath of office to the POS during the official swearing-in ceremony in the Blue Room of the White House.

You know the drill:

  • The winner of the Caption Contest will get a fancy Award Certificate and a year’s free subscription to FOTM! :D
  • FOTM writers will vote for the winner.
  • Any captions proffered by FOTM writers, no matter how brilliant (ha ha), will not be considered. :(

This contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Friday, March 8, 2013.

To get the contest going, here’s my caption:

“Ah, ain’t America great? Even an illegal immigrant can become President! – not once, but twice!”

For the winner of our last Caption Contest, click here!

~Eowyn

Does Congress have the power to tax, including Obamacare tax?

In the Supreme Court’s recent very split 5-4 ruling on Obamacare, it was Chief Justice John Roberts’ siding with the four liberals on the court which led to the “health care” law being deemed constitutional.

Roberts’ contention is that the individual mandate in Obamacare is not a matter about the Commerce Clause. Rather, the individual mandate — Obamacare’s demand that every American must acquire medical insurance or be penalized — is really a tax, which in turn makes it constitutional.

Roberts’ ruling is problematic for a number of reasons, one of which is the always controversial question of whether the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to tax in the first place. Below is an essay on just that by a professor of history at the conservative Hillsdale College.

~Eowyn

A Short History of Congress’s Power to Tax

By Paul MorenoWall St. Journal – July 6, 2012.

In 1935, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins was fretting about finding a constitutional basis for the Social Security Act. Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone advised her, “The taxing power, my dear, the taxing power. You can do anything under the taxing power.”

Last week, in his ObamaCare opinion, NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts gave Congress the same advice—just enact regulatory legislation and tack on a financial penalty, as in failure to comply with the individual insurance mandate. So how did the power to tax under the Constitution become unbounded?

The first enumerated power that the Constitution grants to Congress is the “power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” The text indicates that the taxing power is not plenary, but can be used only for defined ends and objects—since a comma, not a semicolon, separated the clauses on means (taxes) and ends (debts, defense, welfare).

[Note from Eowyn: The word "plenary" is derived from the Latin term, plenus ("full"). The legal definition of "plenary" refers to complete control in other circumstances, as in plenary authority over public funds, as opposed to limited authority over funds.]

This punctuation was no small matter. In 1798, Pennsylvania Rep. Albert Gallatin said that fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Gouverneur Morris, chairman of the Committee on Style at the Constitutional Convention, had smuggled in the semicolon in order to make Congress’s taxing power limitless, but that the alert Roger Sherman had the comma restored. The altered punctuation, Gallatin said, would have turned “words [that] had originally been inserted in the Constitution as a limitation to the power of levying taxes” into “a distinct power.” Thirty years later, Virginia Rep. Mark Alexander accused Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of doing the same thing after Congress instructed the administration to print copies of the Constitution.

The punctuation debate simply reinforced James Madison’s point in Federalist No. 41 that Congress could tax and spend only for those objects enumerated, primarily in Article I, Section 8.

Congress enacted very few taxes up to the end of the Civil War, and none that was a pretext for regulating things that the Constitution gave it no power to regulate. True, the purpose of tariffs was to protect domestic industry from foreign competition, not raise revenue. But the Constitution grants Congress a plenary power to regulate commerce with other nations.

Congress also enacted a tax to destroy state bank notes in 1866, but this could be seen as a “necessary and proper” means to stop the states from usurping Congress’s monetary or currency power. It was upheld in Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869).

The first unabashed use of the taxing power for regulatory purposes came when Congress enacted a tax on “oleomargarine” in 1886. Dairy farmers tried to drive this cheaper butter substitute from the market but could only get Congress to adopt a mild tax, based on the claim that margarine was often artificially colored and fraudulently sold as butter. President Grover Cleveland reluctantly signed the bill, saying that if he were convinced the revenue aspect was simply a pretext “to destroy . . . one industry of our people for the protection and benefit of another,” he would have vetoed it.

Congress imposed another tax on margarine in 1902, which the Supreme Court upheld (U.S. v. McCray, 1904). Three justices dissented, but without writing an opinion.

Then, in 1914, Congress imposed taxes on druggists’ sales of opiates as a way to regulate their use. Five years later, in U.S. v. Doremus , the Supreme Court upheld the levy under Congress’s express power to impose excise taxes.

Then, in 1922, the court rejected Congress’s attempt to prohibit child labor by imposing a tax on companies that employed children. An earlier attempt to accomplish this, by prohibiting the interstate shipment of goods made by child labor, was struck down as unconstitutional—since it was understood since the earliest days of the republic that Congress had the power to regulate commerce but not manufacturing. “A Court must be blind not to see that the so-called tax is imposed to stop the employment of children within the age limits prescribed,” Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. “Its prohibitory and regulatory effect and purpose are palpable.” Even liberal justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis concurred in Taft’s opinion.

Things came to a head in the New Deal, when Congress imposed a tax on food and fiber processors and used those tax dollars to provide benefits to farmers. Though in U.S. v. Butler (1936) the court adopted a more expansive view of the taxing power—allowing Congress to tax and spend for the “general welfare” beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution—it still held the ends had to be “general” and not transfer payments from one group to another. After President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to “pack” the Supreme Court in 1937, it accepted such transfer payments in Mulford v. Smith (1939), so long as the taxes were paid into the general treasury and not earmarked for farmers.

And now, in 2012, Justice Roberts has confirmed that there are no limits to regulatory taxation as long as the revenue is deposited in the U.S. Treasury.

Are there any other limits? Article I, Section 2 says that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states” according to population. This is repeated in Article I, Section 9, which says that “no capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid,” unless apportioned.

The Supreme Court struck down income taxes in 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.), on the ground that they were “direct” taxes but not apportioned by population. Apportioning an income tax would defeat the purpose of the relatively poorer Southern and Western states, who wanted the relatively richer states of the Northeast to pay the bulk of the tax. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to tax incomes without apportionment.

Other direct taxes should presumably have to be apportioned according to the Constitution. Justice Roberts quickly dismissed the notion that the individual mandate penalty-tax is not a direct tax “under this Court’s precedents.” To any sentient adult, it looks like a “capitation” or head tax, imposed upon individuals directly. Unfortunately, having plenty of other reasons to object to ObamaCare, the four dissenting justices in NFIB v. Sebelius did not explore this point.

Some conservatives have cheered that part of Justice Roberts’s decision that limits Congress’s Commerce Clause power. But an unlimited taxing power is equally dangerous to constitutional government.

Mr. Moreno is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and the author of “The American State from the Civil War to the New Deal,” forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.

Economist: Most of Obamacare costs will fall on the middle class

Forget about the $250,000 figure.

Obamacare is “a big punch in the stomach to middle class families.” That’s what the Wall Street Journal’s senior economics writer Stephen Moore told FOX and Friends this morning.

Nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of Americans who make less than $120,000 a year. 

After the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Obamacare is constitutional and that the controversial Individual Mandate is just a tax, Obama the POS gloated by twittering “Still a BFD.”

BFD is slang for “Big Fucking Deal.”

This is how low America has sunken: a President of the United States tweeted the F-word.

The POS is wrong. Obamacare is not a BFD.

Obamacare is a BFT (Big Fucking Tax).

H/t Jim Hoft of Human Events

The latest, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the Supreme Court’s deliberations, is that Chief Justice John Roberts initially had sided with the four conservative justices to strike down the heart of Obamacare, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law.

Thanks a lot, John Roberts. I hope you’ll have the insomnia that now plagues the 51% of Americans who still pay the federal income tax and will be bearing the brunt of “just a tax” Obamacare.

~Eowyn

Tyranny in the Guise of a Supreme Court Justice

Judicial Activist John Roberts

I do not have any legal experience, but I do know judicial activism (when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. “Judicial activism” is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of Congress, rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary. ) when I see it, and yesterday was the most blatant example of judicial activism we have probably seen.

By calling the individual mandate a tax instead of a penalty(which even Obama denied it was a tax), John Roberts ignored the Constitution and changed the wording of the law to suit his ruling instead of judging the law on its merits and constitutionality.

What John Roberts has done is open up a Pandora’s box of taxes that the democrats can exploit at will starting with the 21 NEW taxes  that Dr. Eowyn detailed  in an earlier post. So this opens up new territory for the tax happy liberals and new intrusions into our lives. I can see in the future that liberals could tax us if we decide not to drive an electric or hybrid vehicle, if we decide not to eat healthy we get taxed, if we decide not to use solar panels on our houses, we get taxed, and these are only scratching the surface. We are now on the fast track to complete government control over our lives.

I for one will not be a slave to government control, I will not allow a dictator to tell me what I can or cannot do, I will die fighting against it first, I don’t fear the fight and I don’t fear death, but I’ll be damned if I will submit to tyranny by a government that seeks to control every aspect of my life and a supreme court justice that spits on the Constitution.

JUSTICE ROBERTS, YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELL!

Tom in NC

We’re Hosed As A Country!

Supreme Court Dumps on the Majority of the United States!

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its decision on the controversial “individual mandate” embedded in President Obama’s landmark healthcare bill, ruling that it is constitutional.

The court’s ruling comes as a major defeat for those who have been fighting the healthcare overhaul well before President Obama signed it into law in 2010. The bill was not dismantled entirely and its expansion of Medicaid, although now limited, still stands. This means roughly 30 millions of uninsured low-income Americans are still eligible for coverage through the bill’s expansion of the state-run entitlement program.

“The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read,” SCOTUS Blog reports.

After hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the bill in March, the Supreme Court Justices focused on these four points:

  1. Whether the “individual” mandate is constitutional
  2. Whether SCOTUS has the authority to rule on a tax law even though it hasn’t come into effect
  3. If the individual mandate is overturned, will it be cut from the rest of the law as a separate entity or will other provisions fall with it?
  4. Whether the law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional

Of the four points discussed, the Supreme Court ruled that, as a tax, the individual mandate is constitutional.

Several analysts predicted that if the court ruled against the mandate, it would have negative long-term consequences on the president’s legacy and would weigh heavily on his reelection bid.

It doesn’t seem that way now.

Chief Justice Roberts, whose vote saved “Obamacare,” announced the court’s decision at 10:07 EST.

Obama’s economic collapse is now complete.

Tom in NC

Will Supreme Court Confront Obama?

Although this essay by Anthony Martin was published on July 9, 2010, I only just discovered it. Given that it’s now 3 months later and the Supreme Court has done nothing about Obama, I’m dubious about Martin’s prediction of an imminent, if at all, “smack down.” Still, we can pray, can’t we? LOL

H/t Glenn Neal, author of The Second American Revolution.

~Eowyn

Obama being sworn in, again, as POTUS by Chief Justice Roberts.

Sources say smackdown of Obama by Supreme Court may be inevitable

By Anthony G. Martin – Conservative Examiner – July 9, 2010

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.  Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. 

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’ when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.  

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government.  Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second,  sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.  The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.