Politics
Pam Bondi: Obamacare Backers Disguised $4 Billion Tax
Around the State

Attorney General Pam Bondi talking to the press on July 28, 2012 | Courtesy: Dave Heller
But Florida officials who were at the heart of the challenge to the law wasted little time criticizing the court for upholding what they view as the White House's imposition on individual freedoms.
Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed the Obama administration for a lack of “political accountability” in disguising the mandates in the Affordable Care Act as not being a $4 billion tax.
And she added that voters can undo that hike -- upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday -- in November.
“The president and the supporters of the law were apparently not straight with the American people,” Bondi said from the steps of the Old Capitol following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to uphold the mandates in President Obama’s health care law.
In the 193-page ruling the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the mandates are a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax, in this case by “increasing taxes” on those who choose to go uninsured.
Expecting the ruling to be overturned, the state has rejected federal money tied with the Act. Now officials will have to decide if the state will continue to opt out of the Medicaid provisions in the law. The court did rule Florida can do so without being penalized with a lose of federal dollars.
Also, the state has been countering the federal requirements by working to set up a "marketplace" for people to search for health insurance and an on-line Medicaid eligibility program to help state agencies handle the expansion of Medicaid patients that will come with Obamacare.
Gov. Rick Scott said the state will need time to digest the ruling. But he also said the Democrats who claimed in 2010 when voting for the law that the mandates were not a tax, should now vote to repeal the law as it will become a burden for individuals and businesses.
“I think the right thing to do, because it is a tax, that everybody who said it wasn’t a tax they need to repeal it,” said Scott, who headed a group opposed to the Affordable Care Act prior to starting his run for governor in 2010.
“We’re making it so difficult, so difficult, for Americans to survive with all these taxes,” Scott added.
“If you look at every government program in the world, they overpromise, they run out of money, they underpay providers, and that rations care.”
The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration has estimated the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act could increase the state’s tab $1.1 billion in 2017.
The court decision was seen as an enormous victory for the White House heading into the presidential election, but Bondi said the campaign will give voters a chance to reject the law.
“The final judgment on the wisdom of this law rests with the American people,” Bondi said. “The American people have a say in November and I’m confident they will join with me to reject a law that is harmful to individual liberty, the economy and to the welfare of our people.”
Pointing out that the centerpiece of the law, the mandates, has become unpopular with Americans, and that some Democrats have criticized the White House for doing a bad job selling the law to the public, Republican leaders have said the decision will galvanize their forces much like the 2010 tea party movement.
Republicans in the U.S. House are expected to vote next month to overturn the 2010 law, but any effort to roll back the mandates is expected to face a massive hurdle without a supermajority in the Senate and GOP occupant in the White House.
Florida was at the front of the 26-state legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, arguing that the federal government has no right to mandate people to purchase health insurance.
The state did score a massive victory in that "seven justices agreed with our position that Congress could not force the states to make the unacceptable choice between losing all our Medicaid benefits or accepting a massive, unaffordable expansion of the Medicaid program,” Bondi noted.
Bondi said it will be up to the governor and Legislature to respond.
Scott, who has previously declared that the Act is not the law of the land, says he needs to read through the decision before making any decisions on how Florida should respond.
In November, Florida voters will get to actually vote on a state constitutional amendment that would prevent penalties for not purchasing health-care coverage in order to comply with federal health-care mandates.
Senate Democratic Leader Nan Rich, D-Weston, a 2014 gubernatorial candidate, called the ruling a “great victory not only for Floridians who already have private insurance, but for the almost 4 million Floridians who have none -- many because they never had it, or lost it when they lost their jobs."
She urged Scott, Bondi and the Republican leadership in the Legislature to respect the court ruling.
“The Affordable Health Care Act was never about denying liberty or choice. It is all about liberty and choice. It is all about improving the quality of every American’s life, every Floridian’s life, and to make those improvements affordable and within reach,” Rich stated in a release.
“Unfortunately, the conservative Republican leadership in Tallahassee and Washington has fought this reform every step of the way. Since he first took office, the governor has returned $4.5 million and refused to pursue more than $106 million in federal money to implement the health-care law. This isn’t his money to ignore or reject. This is Floridians’ money -- every dollar was sent to Washington by Florida’s taxpayers and should be returned for their health-care benefits.
“Whether the governor likes it or not, the Affordable Health Care Act is the law of the land, and he and the Republican legislative leadership are obliged to follow it.”
Reach Jim Turner at jturner@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 215-9889.

Comments (29)
I mean Pam Bondi's $4 billion is way behind Connie Mack who's already got his "Big Lie" spin-inflation up to this act costing $920 billion.
Do I hear $1000 gizillion? I mean once facts don't matter, the sky's the limit.
That's the new Republican way. Unlimited political financing, unlimited political lies, unlimited demonization of your opponent, and unlimited changing of positions (i.e. an etch-a-Sketch strategy).
Oh, a P.S. - Just watched Pam Bondi on FoxNews - I'll just be kind: she didn't do herself any favors, nor did FoxNews screaming that Justice Roberts is just playing politics with his decision. Geeshh! Pathetic.
Apparently you don't belong here, as you clearly don't believe in the Constitution and the powers that reside in the Supreme Court.
Please show me the specific reference in the law that forces you to directly pay for an abortion. Haven't read the bill? - thought not.
Once you fully read the bill, come back and we'll try to have an adult discussion.
Until then, put off your childish gibberish and abortion conspiracy theories.
My big fight over this Obama bill it supports Oxy Heroin, for Tax Dollars..this same dope in 2007 killed 27000 Americans.
Get over it, loser.
No cause and effect - false causality.
This can not stand.
The federal govt has arrogated unlimited power to itself. Have one child or pay a tax. Obey or be taxed. This is abject tyranny and a blatant violation of the Supreme Law of the Constitution.
Which part of Florida do you want for yourselves?
And that should be abrogated, not arrogated. Teabaggers should spend more time in school.
Which part of Florida do you want for yourselves?
And that should be abrogated, not arrogated. Teabaggers should spend more time in school.
Which part of Florida do you want for yourselves?
And that should be abrogated, not arrogated. Teabaggers should spend more time in school.
What don't you understand that when the Supreme Court rules a provision is constitutional, it's constitutional by definition?
What don't you understand about the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment.
Your side lost, get over it! Go get educated!
Hmmm . . . . sounds like loser's whining . . . . or she was just too dense to come up with this charge on her own.
An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.
SECTION 1. The legislature of the State of ____________ finds that:
1. The People of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more.
2. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.
3. The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the State of _____________ to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”
SECTION 2. NEW LAW
A new section of law to be codified in the [STATE] Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. The Legislature of the State of _______________ declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” within the limits of this State.
C. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both.
D. Any public officer or employee of the State of ____________ that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding two (2) years or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment.
E. Any aggrieved party shall also have a private action against any person violating the provisions of subsections (C) or (D).
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
A little behind the times, aren't we?
What don't you understand about when the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, it's constitutional by definition.
What don't you understand about the Constitution?
I know you've heard of Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution (known as the Supremacy Clause) which provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
See, that means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
You always seem to forget that one, along with the 14th amendment, don't you? And I realize you want to discount all subsequent Supreme Court findings about the Constitution since its adoption, but that's a NeverNeverLand position also, isn't it?
Good Luck with your legal delusions.
You're just trying again to refight ancient battles that the Supreme Court has thrown out. Southern states tried to use nullification during the 1950s to prevent integration. In Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected nullification, ruling that the states may not nullify federal law. This is just one of many similar court findings since the 1800's.
All inconvenient truths to you, I'm sure. You just need to grow up, put away childish notions and start living in the late 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.
Go ahead, put your money where your outdated legal arguments are, and sue the federal government (on anything) you can find standing for based on your nullification theories. You'll get nowhere.
What, don't have the convictions of your legal theories?
Or do you just recognize that you'll lose, and might even be found guilty of knowingly filing a frivolous lawsuit?
Yes, you're delusional in your stridency that nullification is a legitimate state right, until you can show me a modern Supreme Court case that finds otherwise.
Leave a Comment on This Story