Considering the Obama Administration and every supporter of his bill insisted, on record, for over a year that this was not a tax - are liberals upset with this blatant lie or do the ends justify the means regardless?
I plan on continuing to buy health insurance, so I don't quite see what tax you are talking about. Now for you freeloaders who don't want to pay for insurance and want those who do to subsidize you, well, tough fucking shit.
It was only upheld because the SCOTUS said the federal government does have the right to impose taxes after the Obama Administration testified before them as much. However, that was after almost two years of claiming their bill was NOT a tax (so they could get it approved through Congress). It's a pretty agregious lie - tell Congress it's not to push it through, tells SCOTUS it is to keep it from being ruled unconstitutional. The question becomes, which is it? Is the bill a tax or is it not a tax? And this is a poll to see if the liberals have a problem with the lie or if they feel the ends justifies the means.
People who can afford insurance yet still don't get it deserve a stupidity tax. We tax other forms of stupid, self-destructive, anti-social behavior such as drinking, gambling, and smoking, our conservative friends should be used to it.
I must sheepishly admit I feel really stupid right now. When I posted this, it seemed like such a straight forward, simple yes or no question. But everyone is just dancing around it. Then I realized, you can't have a simple conversation with a liberal. They contradict themselves, so you can't expect them not to get confused when someone else is talking.
It was never the Governments position that the provision was not a tax: The CJ didn't just pull 'tax' out of thin air.
You should feel stupid offering a crappy push poll like this and expecting anything else, besides, no one even mentioned this angle before today, new-found respect for Roberts just for coming up with it.
Do you have a link or any proof that the Obama administration "testified before them as much?" As far as I know the tax idea came strictly from Roberts. On the one hand, he said, the laws requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty could be justified under Congresss power to levy taxes. The four liberals agreed, though they would have preferred to sustain the law as a regulation of commerce. But the law could not be justified in that way, the chief justice went on, and here he was joined by the courts four more conservative members. Chief Justice Roberts suggested that even he did not find the tax argument especially plausible. But he quoted Justice Holmes to explain why it was good enough. As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, Justice Holmes wrote, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/politics/a-defining-move-for-chief-justice-roberts.html
