Legal, but right?

Only in this American Republic can you argue something both ways and "earn" a favorable outcome.

Early on before the Supreme Court, President Obama’s team argued that his Affordable Care Act (or whatever name/acronym you prefer) wasn’t a tax. The mandate to buy health insurance applied to "most" Americans carried a fee, fine or penalty for non-compliance — not a "tax" per se. That’s how the Obama Administration moved it through Congress and won approval.

Of course, if the ACA mandate penalty had been "officially" classified as a tax, the Supreme Court wisely would not have heard the case because it would have encroached on Congressional authority to tax the people, a violation of the separation of powers, as well as overstepped an individual state’s authority to penalize its citizens financially for not buying something — like car insurance.

But politics infected a government branch trying to stay clear of politics. Lawyers for the Obama Administration cracked open the door to offer some wiggle room for legal interpretation, indicating that the penalty for not buying health insurance could be considered a tax.

Who knew that the Clintonian legal maneuver of "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" would serve the current president. To quote comedian Yakov Smirnov, "I love this country! It’s so fun here!"

In his curiously worded legal opinion Chief Justice John Roberts theorized that this mandate wasn’t a requirement to buy something but rather a fiscal consequence if you didn’t.

The law "makes going without [health] insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income." So it’s a tax, but not that kind of tax; it’s more a penalty that can be a tax.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board chastised what it called "The Roberts Rules," writing that "the Chief Justice had to rewrite the statute Congress passed in order to salvage it." Journal editors further remarked in print that Roberts calling the individual mandate a tax sets a "grim" precedent, "an infinitely elastic and dangerous interpretation of the taxing power…Washington has unlimited power to impose new purchase mandates and the courts will find them constitutional if Congress calls them taxes or even if it calls them something else and judges call them taxes."

This led commentators, critics and aspiring satirists to wax poetically ridiculous. Now Congress could issue all sorts of purchase orders, including buying veggies to lose weight (a k a the preventive care clause of healthcare reform), buying electric cars to improve the environment, etc.

Syndicated columnist Michael Gerson wrote that Roberts merely interpreted the statute as "a constitutional tax rather than an unconstitutional mandate," plucking this gem from Roberts’ ruling: "The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one."

Roberts’ detractors and opponents quickly hailed him as a wise man who chose not to politicize the Court and the process. These same people probably believe "reality" TV shows accurately depict, well, reality. Within the 24-hour news cycle many people shifted their attention to more pressing matters like Katie Holmes filing for divorce from wacky couch-jumping Scientologist and cinematic action hero Tom Cruise.

White House spokesman Jay Carney contended that because this law only affects 1 percent of the population (those who don’t have or refuse health insurance) it is not a "broad-based tax" but a penalty "because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" So it’s still a tax, then?

To further convolute and politicize matters, the White House said this whole thing was modeled on Mitt Romney’s program when he was governor of Massachusetts that "penalized" citizens for not purchasing health insurance. Naturally, Romney disagrees because his was a penalty unlike Obama’s tax.

Got that? Whew. This is why most people hate — and most comedians love — lawyers.

So what can supply chain managers learn from this?

The next time the CFO calls you on the carpet because you failed to reduce costs/expenses by 20 percent throw reason out the window. Those costs actually represent "investments" in hospital operations so the hospital must increase revenue by 20 percent for maximum ROI.

Just make sure you have your health insurance paid up lest the government "penalize" or "tax" you after you receive your pink slip because it really doesn’t work both ways. Of course that depends on how you define "doesn’t."