It's Not an Easy Breezy Covergirl Kind of Day Thing

Dear America,

I was channel surfing Saturday morning just to have some noise in the background as I cleaned when I heard this:  "wealth comes from freedom, not force."

Amen, Jonathan Hoenig.  He is the Managing Member of private investment partnership, and runs CAPITALISTPIG ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, easily found @capitalistpig.com.

The thing is, on this happy Monday morning --  this notion of freedom vs. force, is at the bottom of the Affordable Care Act slop.  And it is slop.

Nobody disagrees with the early signs of benefits from the Affordable Care Act -- you know, things like keeping kids on your plan until they reach the age of 26, outlawing the issue of pre-existing conditions, just to name a couple of our favorites.

And yet, NONE of these things (and a whole bevy of others) required our Congress to pass a 3,000 page behemoth health care law, enacting the greatest tax increase in twenty years, paving the way to another massive government controlled entitlement only accomplished through the turbulent waves of pure, full force.

None.  These things -- the very things we like -- are regulatory changes and do not require a new entitlement.

Now, the issues that necessitated a congressional leg up can be found beyond the boundaries of this unconscionable law -- things like, allowing the individual to purchase health insurance across state lines, opening up real health insurance competition; allowing the individual to keep their insurance when leaving a company, and enacting real TORT reform throughout the industry.

These things are the real pre-existing conditions that have yet to see the light of day with a resolution.

As we have learned over the last few days, Chief Justice John Roberts turned to the P.P. principle to back his answer.  Politics and Perception.   Two things that surely don't belong within the realm of the Supreme Court and suffice it to say, set in motion a lifting of the leg on the American people.  [oh g, do you have to be so crass?   um, yeah, I do]

Here's some backup for you.  From CBS of all places....read this.

Roberts' opinion was swayed by the left wing by a soft, unyielding force.  Roberts was less committed to protecting the people's freedom and more committed to crafting a decision protecting the perceptions of the high court.   Now talk about  unconstitutional.  He took an oath for pete's sake.

Now just before the weekend I heard something simply astounding.  Now, I don't always listen to this guy, but when I do, I am never disappointed -- it's all about the rush we get, the tingle up our leg:  Rush Limbaugh outlined just how unlawful this decision by the Supreme Court really is...beginning with the idea, they never should have heard the case in the first place!

I will go as quickly through as I can -- first, upon opening day of the oral arguments, the court asked the government 'is this a tax?'; they said no.  The court appointed their own attorney to investigate further, to prove if whether or not it is in fact a tax, and they said 'no.'  we are free to proceed....

So why all the fuss?

Because of something called the anti-injunction act -- the court cannot take up the argument until AFTER such time the tax has been implemented [in this case, not until AFTER 2014].  The SCOTUS should have stopped right there if in fact we were all discussing "a tax." 

So fast forward through the proverbial supreme court pipeline -- and now we actually get a decision solely based upon it being a tax?  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Now, not only that -- but apparently, you can't have a penalty (now morphed into a tax) be higher than the actual cost of doing something (purchasing the health insurance).

According to the Affordable Care Act, which is now the law, the 'mandate = penalty = tax' INCREASES over time, nudging people -- forcing people -- to acquire health insurance through a tax punishment.

From the National Review, a rose-colored breakdown of the decision by the Attorney General of Virginia, Kenneth Cuccinelli included this:

"Another thing to note is that Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion on the taxing power is limited. He noted that it could not be considered punitive because the amount citizens are required to pay for not having insurance is far less than they would have to pay to obtain insurance. He strongly suggests that, if Congress were to require citizens to pay an amount greater than the costs of insurance, that would constitute a penalty, and thus would be unconstitutional. "

Please read more, go here.

well well, Mr. Cuccinelli, lookie here...the grounds -- which are not of sand -- for your next lawsuit with the Supreme Court.  I would get right on that...the punitive damages against the American people are set in motion.

I found a decent rough sketch of some of the new taxation, go here.

A highlight:    "In 2014, the penalty will be no more than $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. In 2015, the cap rises to $975 or 2% of income. And by 2016, the penalty would be up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater."  (you will be happy to note, it rises with inflation thereafter).  And it's not just about the individual, or the family -- the states have their own set of mandates -- and just where does that money come from?  yes.  back to you and me.

For another take, go to The Daily Ticker here.

News Break: The waves of freedom are currently sloppy and choppy.

Freedom is not free in any way, shape or form -- and on a day like this, nor is it easy breezy cover girl.

But HISTORY proves that FORCE is way less fun and far more costly.  way.
whoa dude.
cowabunga to me.

Make it a Good Day, G