Health care ruling is confusing, but just

Is the penalty prescribed by the health care law a tax or not? According to the Supreme Court, it depends on the purpose served by designating it one or the other.

The first issue addressed by the court was the legitimacy of this suit brought by miffed “independent businessmen.” Were the penalty a tax, the suit would have been precluded under the Anti-Injunction Act. Chief Justice Roberts decided it was not a tax and the suit could go forward.

But, when it came to determining the constitutionality of the law, the chief justice did an about face and declared the penalty a tax. He reasoned it does not matter whether the fine is called a penalty or a marshmallow. If it functions within the context of the law as a tax, it is a tax. As such it is within Congress's power to regulate. Hence, Obama's law passes constitutional muster.

So, it is a tax and it isn't a tax. An affront to logic? Yes. But, the life of the law is not logic and this 5-to-4 decision was a just one.

Besides, I am one of the millions of Americans still dazed and confused over the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bush v. Gore (the decision that saddled us with George W. Bush for eight years). I also remember Justice Scalia telling us disgruntled Democrats to “just get over it.” Let's hope he can take his own advice

Ann Treanor

Cedar Rapids