Brenda and I went to the grocery store this morning and got nabbed for a “man on the street” interview for one of the “journalists” from KCAU, Channel 9 News here in Sioux City. She wanted us to comment on the ObamaCare decision that had just been handed down by the Supreme Court.
We declined to comment since neither of us had yet heard what the decision was. So, using all her journalistic expertise, she explained it to us in the following manner:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision, but they changed one provision in the law. Instead of fining people who refuse to get insurance, the court said that anyone who didn’t get insurance would be bumped up one tax bracket and have to pay more taxes.
[You can’t invent stuff this good!!!]
In case you haven’t been following the news, or were unfortunate enough to get the story from KCAU, Channel 9 Eyewitness News and their goofy little news babe (this “journalist” deserves the nick name, after all!), let me clarify using the Chief Justice’s own words (which, amazingly, are quite a bit less vague than the above quoted grocery store journalist). According to Roberts, the law’s “requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance [that is, the ‘individual mandate’] may reasonably be characterized as a tax.” Thus it is legal, based on congress’s constitutional authority to impose taxes. (Source: Reuters)
Yeah, that’s pretty much the same thing as the Supreme Court moving me into another tax bracket.