ABC Cheerfully Highlights How 'Statesman' John Roberts 'Saved' Obamacare
Good Morning America's Terry Moran on Friday highlighted how Chief Justice John Roberts "saved" Obamacare, featuring voices that lauded the "statesman" and only one clip of Mitt Romney condemning the ruling. In comparison, CBS showcased an interview with Republican Congressman Eric Cantor.
Instead of allowing much conservative opposition, Moran delicately spun, "Roberts's opinion reframed the law to make it constitutional...And that's how Roberts saved it." He included a clip of Dahlia Lithwick of the liberal Slate website. She hyped, "I think [Roberts] made everybody a little bit angry and made many people very happy and looked like a statesman."
Former Democratic operative turned GMA anchor George Stephanopoulos chose to focus on gossipy details of how the President found out about the decision: "And, Jake [Tapper], take us behind the scenes in the Oval Office yesterday The president came out of the office to watch the decision. For a few minutes there, he actually thought he lost."
In comparison, the hosts at CBS This Morning, in addition to interviewing Cantor, played a clip of Rush Limbaugh attacking: "What we now have is the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. Obama lied to us about that." Reporter Jan Crawford also included Sarah Palin insisting, "This is about a trillion dollars more tax put on the American people."
Crawford herself reminded, "When Congress was debating the law, Democrats and the President insisted it wasn't a tax increase."
Jake Tapper, on GMA, pointed this out to Stephanopoulos. But the show didn't feature any clips of the President, despite the fact that it was an ABC interview.
Over on Today, NBC also provided more balance, allowing clips of Romney, Republican John Boehner and a Texas Attorney General who opposed the law
A transcript of the June 29 Moran segment on GMA can be found below:
7:06
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Now to that history-making day at the Supreme Court. It gave the President a huge victory yesterday, a surprise ruling led by Chief Justice John Roberts that Obama's health care law is constitutional. The decision could define the legacy of both men and is one that will certainly effect all of us. ABC's Terry Moran covers it all for the Supreme Court. Good morning, Terry.
TERRY MORAN: Good morning, George. Well, today, this magnificent building belongs to the tourists. The justices have scattered for their summer plans. Chief Justice Roberts is at a resort in Pennsylvania. Some of the others heading overseas. But what they did yesterday, this historic opinion, as you said, the aftershocks from that have just begun. This morning, the entire country is still reckoning with the fallout from this moment. When the ruling came down, no one expected that it would be Chief Justice John Roberts who would cast the deciding vote and write the opinion upholding the President's health care law. Roberts' opinion reframed the law to make it constitutional, ruling that while Congress can't simply require Americans to purchase health insurance, it can tax Americans more if they don't purchase it. And that's what the law does. And that's how Roberts saved it, even while suggesting he didn't like it. "It's not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," he wrote.
DAHLIA LITHWICK (Slate) : I think he made everybody a little bit angry and made many people very happy. And looked like a statesman.
MORAN: President Obama declared victory.
BARACK OBAMA: Good afternoon.
MORAN: And took up the task of convincing skeptical Americans that his law will work for them.
OBAMA: Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn't do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.
MORAN: Mitt Romney came right back at him.
MITT ROMNEY: Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. Obama care was bad law yesterday. It's bad law today.
MORAN: So, what does it all mean? If the law's not repealed by Republicans, some of the big provisions go into effect beginning in 2014. Every American will be required to have health insurance or pay that tax. Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage because a person has a pre-existing condition. And there will be no annual limits on coverage.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It might be considered a
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:09pm.
It might be considered a compliment to call him a statesman vs. calling him a politician, but a judge isn't supposed to be a statesman either. Statesmen create or administer law, they don't rule on law already created.
Exactly
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:16pm.
Statesmen can also be diplomats.
But they are not judges.
Statesman? Temporarily
Submitted by minky on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:21pm.
All of this adulation for Roberts will disappear the first time he rules in a manner that doesn't please the left.
This is getting sooo
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:24pm.
This is getting sooo tiresome. The same libs wetting themselves in their sudden adulation of Roberts will be vilifying him as a Nazi and KKK member a month (if that long) from now.
So what happens now?
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:24pm.
Now Congress can impose a tax on the American people for not doing anything that it doesn't want them to not do.
If you don't have a college fund for your kids, pay a tax. If you don't own a hybrid or electric car, pay a tax, if you don;t have solar pannels on your roof, pay a tax... It is unlimited and completely constitutional according to 5 of the SCOTUS justices.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Yea although the ruling does
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:27pm.
Yea although the ruling does state very clearly that there's a difference with a tax penalty that's punitive enough to coerce you to do something and one that isn't. They said the former is Unconstitutional ; and that the mandate penalty in this case wasn't designed as coercive.
I still think it goes against the letter of the Constitution even that aside.
Crap
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:00pm.
While I am not disagreeing that the legal brief states that, the statement in and of itself is total crap. Who decides what is coercive? Is a $1,000 tax for not doing something coercive to me? To you? To the guy down the street? And what about the cumulative effect of all these "taxes" coming down the pike for not doing something? Which $10 "tax" sends the whole damn concept over the tipping point of becoming cumulatively coercive?
Speaking of the health care law directly, the "tax" that business pay for not providing their employees with a health plan that the almighty government deems acceptable sure as hell is coercive when deciding to hire that extra employee or not. But then again, the government can now impose a "tax" on businesses for not hiring people. I guess the unemployment problem will be solved.
This decision is so bad that people have no clue about how far reaching it will allow the government to become and how invasive our government now has the full legal authority to be. But just wait....we are all going to learn how badly John Roberts screwed over 200 years of work by our predecessors.
coercive 'tax'
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:45pm.
$5 to get an ID to vote is too coercive according to the Liberals
Coercive
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 3:31pm.
The "tax" is progressive - duh! it was written by Leftists. The tax will increase over time. Why does it do this? To coerce people to purchase insurance, preferably a "low cost" government exchange. The effect of the tax is coercion to purchase health care insurance and the cumulative effect desired is more people on government sponsored insurance plans. The ultimate desired result by the Left is to drive everyone to single party, government run, Socialist health care.
This isn't rocket science. It does, however, take a strong desire to willingly deny history, current facts and stated goals of the Left.
If all the Left wanted to do was insure the uninsured then they would not need the monstrous ObamaCare legislation which puts in place unelected committees, eventually untouchable by Congress in this decade, that will dictate to those already WITH insurance.
ObamaCare has a candy coating surrounding a shit nougat center.
If you need some relief from SCOTUS insanity
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:35pm.
Pop this link.
It might take a second to load....Simpson gifs of the reactions. The one about CNN had me ROTFL.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Wrong praise
Submitted by American Delight on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:45pm.
ABC, compared to Roberts, KENNEDY looks like a statesman for once--bucking the majority by signing on with the minority's dissent.
A Celebration....
Submitted by richflanj on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:57pm.
Just like the parties they threw in Germany in the 1930's.
Trojan Horse?
Submitted by 125 grain on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:00pm.
Is there any truth to the rumor that by Roberts redefining the mandate as a tax it will be easier for Congress to oveturn?
easier for Congress to oveturn?
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:16pm.
Yes but only by using the same methods used to get the bill passed in the first place.
While I appreciate everyone's optimism on this issue the only things that have really happened are the doubling of the power of the federal government, the reduction of power of the SCOTUS (their hands will be tied with this ruling on many, many issues) and the forcing of the Democrats to repackage ObamaCare.
For those who are arguing that European nations survived for decades with various forms of Universal Health Care are forgetting that when those programs were enacted the nation wasn't already on the hook for around 100 Trillion dollars. They also absolved themselves of a world military presence in hopes that the US would be there.
Actually
Submitted by texusmc on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:17pm.
By ruling it as a Tax, it can't be heard in the courts until it is COLLECTED , according to the Tax law (see link below). Also, if it is NOW a Tax, who is going to collect it? You pay your premiums to the Insurance Company not the Govt. But do you think you can claim that on your Return? I highly doubt it.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1371076?uid=3739920&uid=2129&uid=2...
collecting the tax
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:26pm.
Line 27 of the YATS ;) tax form has a spot for you to fill in your insurance policy number that must be matched to the federal file with your SSN. If you cannot provide an appropriate number then you must enter (amount of ever increasing fine here) and add/deduct this amount from the amount you owe/your return.
Shouldn't be a problem.
The real question is - Why is the fine for non-compliance smaller than the cost. Perhaps to tax the poor and middle class to pay into a political slush fund while the real healthcare environment just becomes regulated into extinction.
Ag
Submitted by texusmc on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:29pm.
but that is NOT letting you deduct it from you pay to reduce your Adjusted Gross Income. The PENALTY will come out of your return or over payment of taxes collected for FICA. what if you (like I do) have adjusted your pay to where you only get a small amount back and the Penalty is larger? then it will be treated like you owe your regular taxes. Therefore, interest and penalties will apply.
adjusted gross income
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:43pm.
Now that it is a tax they are going to have define what kind of tax and how it will be treated - taxes don't necessarily have to be pre-income tax especially when we are dealing with taxes related to purchase or fine/penalty.
That is correct
Submitted by texusmc on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 3:36pm.
but it goes back to the original point of you pay the Insurance Company, not the Gov't. So, the Insurance Company will have to send your portion of that tax to the Gov't. And I am sure they (Ins Co.) will get a nice write off for it.
This is going to be a major head ache for many people. If you are unemployed, then will they force you to get COBRA? That type of Ins is super expensive. Too many scenario's abound.
My understanding is that the
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 4:03pm.
My understanding is that the tax is collected by the IRS based on filed tax forms. The tax is not health insurance. It is, in effect, a penalty for not having insurance. If you don't want insurance then you pay the tax and the government allows you to not have insurance.
Private health care insurers have been managing Medicare for years. Our taxes are collected and then go to pay the private insurers managing health care for the government. This is how the Feds can claim their costs of administering health care are so low compared to private insurers. But, the Feds fail to mention they offload the bulk of administration to a third party, a private health care insurer.
Devious and, frankly, a government lie to the people. The government is less capable of cost containment compared to a private business if history be the judge.
Re: COBRA
Don't worry. there will be a "low" cost government exchange for those people to choose. COBRA is private health care. The exchange will be Government health care. The Left, if they haven't already devised this plan, will certainly effect one to capture more people for Government Health Care. Remember the goal is to rid the world of eevil private insurers for the loving tentacles of government.
It hurts me
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 4:32pm.
I see this scenario playing out across America -
I am a young single, healthy male who rarely gets sick and rarely goes to the doctor. My insurance premiums are (let's just say) $5,000 a year. My "tax" for not having insurance is $1,000. So I decide to pay the tax and save myself the $4,000 a year and pay for the occasional doctor's visit out of pocket. But oh no! I was just diagnosed with a a brain tumor and need and expensive surgery, lengthy hospital stay, and rehab.
Hello - Insurance company? I need health insurance. And you cannot deny me for my preexisting condition. So the insurance company covers his million dollar disease and collects minimal premiums to offset the cost. In fact, those who carry insurance will be predominantly sick people. This will dramatically raise the medical cost ratio of the insurance companies (ratio of insurance premiums collected relative to claim costs). The only options will be for the insurance companies to:
1. go out of business and drive the people to the government (who will have the same problem) and need to print money to cover the losses, or
2. private companies will need to dramatically increase insurance premiums for everyone to remain solvent.
This country is so screwed that I truly believe in my heart of hearts believe that there is no way back.
Jimbo
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 5:53pm.
Maybe you'll qualify as be one of the elite:
What you wrote is all part of the craft (read "crap") of the Left to corral citizens into Government-run Socialist health care. Honestly, this stuff is so apparent, so transparent, I am gobsmacked people don't understand it.
I think you would appreciate Blonde's Health Care Forums. One of them is still running in the Forum section.
Like Bru wrote - time to put on our war paint. The only way out may be voting in all the Republicans, hopefully all Conservatives, we can to give us Congress and the Oval Office. With the three branches of government in control by Constitutional-minded beings, ObamaCare can be terminated. In the mean time, the House can defund ObamaCare and Governor's can civilly disobey, like I've heard Jindal might. We're talking chaos and potential violence from the Left. It could get very ugly.
There could be one other way. Since Roberts determing the personal mandate is Constitutionally upheld as a "tax", then the issuemay return to SCOTUS in 2014 when people have paid the tax. The case cannot be heard until a tax has been paid - the Tax Anti-Injunction act - which is why SCOTUS asked Obama's Solicitor General on the first day if the case was about taxes. The SG said NO, it was not about taxes. BUT, the second day of arguments, the gub'mint brought in another attorney to argue the case WAS about taxes, or at least SCOTUS should use tax as a reason to uphold ObamCare.
Confused yet? Mind-blowing bullshiit. Obama threw mud against the wall and Roberts oinked. We all know the other piggies in the majority were going to uphold ObamaCare no matter what, despite the pitiful arguments by Obama's SG Donald Verrilli and any actual Constitutional issues.
The bottom line is ObamaCare may be challenged on grounds of an improper tax. How so? How does a penalty, clothed as a tax, fulfill the historal definition of a tax? Where is the transfer of value or money?
As Abraham Lincoln purportedly said, you can call a tail a leg but it still is a tail. There is NO value for the "tax". It is a penalty.
Stratman
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 6:13pm.
Great post. I agree and follow your points perfectly.
I suppose at some point the SCOTUS can rule on the idea of "When is a tax not a tax?" and address it that way. However it seems to me that yesterday's ruling is clear in the respect that there is no distinction between the traditional definition of a tax and what most would say is a penalty or fine resulting from inaction. Based on that presumption, can the SCOTUS contradict it's own ruling by retroactively agreeing their ruling released yesterday was incorrect in that it should not have been called a "tax" but instead a penalty? I'm not certain it can do that.
I'm more inclined to think that to undo the legal precedence set by this decision will require a constitutional amendment that states "the Federal Government may not tax or fine citizens resulting from inaction" or some similar language.
Short of one of those two outcomes, the Fed is now free to run roughshod over any citizen who dares to disagree with what they deem in our best interest.
No Benefit to the Insurance Companies
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 4:33pm.
The insurance companies are not going to get an ounce of benefit from this law. Quite the opposite. Part of the undercurrent of this entire initiative is to move people out of publicly held insurance companies and into the laps of the nanny state. The government isn't going to do a damn thing to slow that process by providing them tax breaks or any other assistance. In fact, most people dislike insurance companies so there will be little outcry as the government slowly turns the screws on them. Montana Blue Cross Blue Shield is already in discussions with their State Department of Insurance to withdraw from the market because it does not believe it can compete in the proposed exchange environment. It also has so few members that only a handful of people who decide to go uninsured until the day after they learn they have cancer (no pre-existing condition clause) will bankrupt them.
Can Of Worms Part 1
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 3:43pm.
What about people who don't file their taxes? There must be thousands of adults who do not file taxes claiming no income. I'm not talking about those on welfare, social security, disability, etc. Now they will need to file and the government will wonder how they pay their bills and eat. Remember that smart meter you had installed to lower your electricity bills. Well, gub'mint's going to eventually want to know how you can pay to use that much juice with no income. How is it you can pay for all those charges on your credit card. Check's written?
ObamaCare, via the IRS, already can examine and debit your bank account for purposes of charging the tax.
Strat
Submitted by Par for the Course on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 6:43pm.
Par
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 8:21pm.
Great info, Par. Thanks. I could have sworn you or someone else once posted data like this before. I'm glad to have it now saved in my bookmarks.
Your article may not be entirely accurate. Or mine may not be. Yesterday I composed the following but did not post. I made one EDIT today before posting now. It is still a bit raw but #4 + 5 deal with the discrepancy that may exist in your article.
The Washington Post came out with an interesting calculator to determine your tax burden under ObamaCare if you are required to pay the "tax". It may be doubly incorrect - it uses 100% of 2012 Federal Poverty Gudelines.
Because I know you enjoy this information, Par - What ObamaCare Means for Your Taxes.
I took a Nauzean
Submitted by StarAZ on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:04pm.
Luckily this antinausea pill is over the counter (they help, people) ...heaven knows if I could get it later if this mess plays out. On one of my freelance writing lists, they are exultant--we can buy insurance. Well, there were many state programs for people with pre-existings before and there are no controls on what this will cost--if it's so great, why did Obama's buds get exemptions? I would wait for the unintended consequences before I got too het up over this. There will be many! I saw a story on how this helps older people--it crushes older people! The lie-spew is in full operation.
~Half a teaspoon of baking soda in 8 oz. of water
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 3:48pm.
will quell ordinary nausea within ten minutes.
Bru~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:11pm.
Pass the baking soda.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
~Liberal-induced nausea
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:41pm.
Requires a purge at the ballot box, I'm afraid.
bru, Whats the tax on that?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:55pm.
Baking soda 1 ¢
Water .001 ¢
Tax 100,000,000,000%
Pay the tax first, get the soda in 2016, (maybe).
You Didn't Build That.
roberts set Obama up to fail
Submitted by I hate marxists on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:08pm.
Now that it's considered a tax. The next thing to do is to vote for Romney and boot out Obama
Like the average voter is
Submitted by Chris Norman on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 8:55pm.
Like the average voter is going to remember this and make the connection come November. This is a thin thread of hope to cling to. The fact is that the skids have been greased by SCOTUS and we are about get crushed by this monstrosity coming at us at 500 mph.
~November 2010 sound familiar?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:47pm.
ObamaCare passed 9 months before the election, and look what happened. We're just 4 months from the election this time around, so buck the hell up.
Hypocrisy exponentialized
Submitted by deadeyedan on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:10pm.
So where were the lamestreamers in all the cases that the court DID decide it was their business to meddle with the substance of the law rather than its procedure?
Now they're praising non-interventionist "anti-activism" at just the "right" moment; but it turns out procedure in this case was wrong because the Constitution only allows regulation of, not takeover of, commerce.
Calling it a tax is totally without merit or honesty yet no one on the left seems perturbed that Obummer kept insisting it was not a tax or that he had promised not to raise taxes.
LIBERALISM - government of the people by the theories and for the ideologists
They're Going To Be Surprised
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:18pm.
Just maybe, Justice Roberts 'saved' the Constitution. And by extension, the Republic.
How?, one might ask. He prohibited the expansion of the exc'use' of the Commerce Clause to compel the citizens of the US to engage in commerce they don't want to. Had he not done that, it would be 'Katie bar the door'. We'd all be driving Volts next year (by Executive fiat). Now all the Imperial President can do is ask Congress to tax us into driving a Volt.
Well, anyway, food for thought.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
HRT,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:30pm.
Actually, what he did is take away the Feds single barrel shot gun and give them a double barrel. He did nothing that further limited their use of the Commerce Clause but he expanded their power by allowing forced legislation via taxation on ideology.
Agree
Submitted by texusmc on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:41pm.
agree with your assessment.
The Long Run
Submitted by WhatTheHuh on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 3:29pm.
Typical liberal/media reaction: a majority of Americans are against this plan, yet we are being told how good it is for us that it passed; the implication being, "you're too stupid to know what's good for you." Let us see how giddy they are when Republicans run the table in November and this decision is cited as the reason.
Unmitigated gall~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 4:35pm.
Oh, man!!!! Check out how the O Administration is now trying to say it's NOT a tax. Sorry, Charlie (Carney) it was declared a TAX. Now live with it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-...
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Dumbass
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 4:42pm.
Ok dumbass! If it's not a tax, then it is in violation of the commerce clause and unconstitutional. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But then again, we the people are so dumb that we won't know the difference... isn't that what you are thinking? You Chicago political hack, holier than thou thug?
Try to understand GG*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 4:49pm.
It's a TAX if you have insurance coverage you already paying for. It's a PENALTY if you dont have insurance coverage because you cant afford it. Then the government will provide you with insurance and then the penalty becomes a TAX.
See the difference?/s
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 4:59pm.
Oh sure, it's all becoming so clear now...silly me.
[Ugh! I can't even stand to watch the news right now.]
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Cajun
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 5:57pm.
The "tax" does not confer insurance coverage. It is a penalty for which you get nothing in return. See my post above to Jimbo.
If you end up on Medicaid, then the penalty would be a tax in your scenario. ;-)
Caj~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 5:10pm.
Oh, hey, guess what? We happen to live in states that are sticking our fingers in our ears and singing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" regarding this law.
For what it's worth (what a mess this all is):
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/some-gop-led-states-plan-to-r...
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan