A Persistent ObamaCare Factoid

By Jon N. Hall
It used to be standard practice in journalism to corroborate. A responsible news outfit would get a second source (at the very least) to back up a story, and a good reporter would try to get it straight from the horse's mouth. This standard practice is slipping away in today's corrupt media environment. In contemporary journalism, if a factoid is being repeated by enough outlets, it's permissible to repeat an inaccuracy.

ObamaCare: The Most Recent in a Parade of Horribles

The Supreme Court's salvage operation on ObamaCare may have opened up a can of worms. At The Daily Paul, the issue of changing the penalty (for noncompliance with the individual mandate) into a tax (for not owning health insurance) was summed up like this:

According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase -- not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives.
Consequently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Law is unconstitutional on a different criteria than the ones considered by the Supreme Court in this latest landmark decision. By calling the individual mandate unconstitutional but allowing the law as a federal program to be funded by new taxes, Justice Roberts essentially nullified the law.
Cont. Reading