Why the mandate was valid under taxing power

[dayman]

That not only strikes me as a foolish attempt at blurring a distinction, it also strikes me as an end-run around Article 1, Section 9. Can we argue now that a bill of attainder isn't a bill of attainder, because it's not punitive enough to be a penalty, hence it's a tax?

 

 

Interesting enough. What kind of hypothetical are we talking about? Obviously anything with a "criminal nature" to it wouldn't fly under the Roberts analysis. And regardless of the character of the "tax," if it were directed a single person (or a small group of people) that would be strong evidence it is in fact it is in fact a penalty, no?

Edited June 29, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

Interesting enough. What kind of hypothetical are we talking about? Obviously anything with a "criminal nature" to it wouldn't fly under the Roberts analysis. And regardless of the character of the "tax," if it were directed a single person (or a small group of people) that would be strong evidence it is in fact it is in fact a penalty, no?

 

I'm thinking specifically about the "windfall tax" people were clamoring for to "claw back Wall Street bonuses." The way it was couched at the time, it was considered by some a criminal matter (look at the idiots who still cry out "Fraud!"), was directed at a small group of people, and was punitive in nature...but at the same time, as discussed as a "tax" arguably fell within Congress' powers (while arguably not, under Article 1 Section 9).

 

"A tax is a tax that's not punitive enough to be a penalty" confuses it even more.

[dayman]

I'm thinking specifically about the "windfall tax" people were clamoring for to "claw back Wall Street bonuses." The way it was couched at the time, it was considered by some a criminal matter (look at the idiots who still cry out "Fraud!"), was directed at a small group of people, and was punitive in nature...but at the same time, as discussed as a "tax" arguably fell within Congress' powers (while arguably not, under Article 1 Section 9).

 

"A tax is a tax that's not punitive enough to be a penalty" confuses it even more.

 

 

...hmmm....I'm not sure it adds any confusion to the issue though...it seems if anything to summarize the existing confusion over that issue in one sentence?

[Adam]

Except that nowhere was it ever called a tax. And Barry vehemently denied it was a tax.

That is irrelevant. If he called it a space shuttle, then what would it be?

 

What if Sir Ironfist called it that?

[Doc]

That is irrelevant. If he called it a space shuttle, then what would it be?

 

What if Sir Ironfist called it that?

It's irrelevant if you got the verdict you wanted. Nowhere was talk of it being upheld as a "tax." But now, lo and behold, it IS one. Not to mention the absurdity of being taxed for not buying something.

[Adam]

It's irrelevant if you got the verdict you wanted. Nowhere was talk of it being upheld as a "tax." But now, lo and behold, it IS one. Not to mention the absurdity of being taxed for not buying something.

The only thing I find relevant is that my premiums haven't changed, my deductible hasn't changed, my co-pay hasn't changed and I am getting a raise.

[Rob's House]

The only thing I find relevant is that my premiums haven't changed, my deductible hasn't changed, my co-pay hasn't changed and I am getting a raise.

Let's revisit this list in 3 years

[Adam]

Let's revisit this list in 3 years

If we make it past December 21, I'd be happy to!

[dayman]

It's irrelevant if you got the verdict you wanted. Nowhere was talk of it being upheld as a "tax." But now, lo and behold, it IS one. Not to mention the absurdity of being taxed for not buying something.

 

 

Well that just isn't true. Maybe not in your circles...everyone knew it could be ruled on as a tax in legal circles. It was held a tax in lower courts long ago. Even here 3rdnlng and many others for instance, talked about the toothless nature of the mandate scathingly...basically making the argument unknowingly in previous healthcare threads. People can disagree but to say this is somehow unpredictable isn't true.

Edited June 30, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Well that just isn't true. Maybe not in your circles...everyone knew it could be ruled on as a tax in legal circles. It was held a tax in lower courts long ago. Even here 3rdnlng and many others for instance, talked about the toothless nature of the mandate scathingly...basically making the argument unknowingly in previous healthcare threads. People can disagree but to say this is somehow unpredictable isn't true.

 

Let there be no mistaking my position though. Yes, I said the mandate's penalties were weak and in my opinion made the bill not viable. In no way was it ever an opinion that favored the bill. In affect, the bill calls for robbing the poor and middle class until it can mess things up so badly that the only option will be single payer universal health insurance. I liken the individual mandate as being as weak as trying to rob someone with a BB gun. Once the victims take a good look at the nozzle and realize that they are not in danger they will refuse to hand over their wallet. All that will do is speed up the demise of private health insurance coverage and the socialists will get their way.

 

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/93446

 

 

 

"Obama has never made his ultimate goal a secret; it’s the same as Schakowsky’s and Hacker’s. The video shows him saying in October 2003, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program.” He adds, “We may not get there immediately,” noting the Democrats must “take back” the White House and both houses of Congress — a condition fulfilled last Jan. 20.

 

Campaigning for president in May 2007, he says, “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.” That seems to imply that his goal remains the same as it was in 2003. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process — I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out, where we’ve got a much more portable system.” Which of course government health insurance would be. You couldn’t get away from it. The president’s defenders depict this video and others like it as a patchwork of irrelevant and misleading statements. They also cite Obama’s oft-repeated pledges that any health care bill he would sign would let you keep the insurance you have. They don’t address the point, raised by Hacker, that you can’t keep it if your employer stops offering it."

[Doc]

Well that just isn't true. Maybe not in your circles...everyone knew it could be ruled on as a tax in legal circles. It was held a tax in lower courts long ago. Even here 3rdnlng and many others for instance, talked about the toothless nature of the mandate scathingly...basically making the argument unknowingly in previous healthcare threads. People can disagree but to say this is somehow unpredictable isn't true.

The administration barely called it a tax, and that was for a brief time after the question of constitutionality was raised. When the fact was brought up that nowhere in the 2,700 pages was it called a tax, they quickly shifted to the Commerce Clause.

[dayman]

The administration barely called it a tax, and that was for a brief time after the question of constitutionality was raised. When the fact was brought up that nowhere in the 2,700 pages was it called a tax, they quickly shifted to the Commerce Clause.

 

 

Take it up C.J. Roberts. It's a tax. And fyi it's 906 pages. I'm sure in the right font in could be 10,000 pages. So it could be 2700 pages if you wanted it make it. But it's 906 pages. Which is still a lot of pages.

[phypon]

If you don't have insurance here is what it will cost you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

[Rob's House]

Take it up C.J. Roberts. It's a tax. And fyi it's 906 pages. I'm sure in the right font in could be 10,000 pages. So it could be 2700 pages if you wanted it make it. But it's 906 pages. Which is still a lot of pages.

It's debatable whether it's a tax or not. It's a bit of a stretch to call a penalty a tax in the first place and it's also a stretch to say that even if it were a tax it would really be designed to pay the country's debts or to provide for defense or general welfare. There's a reason virtually no legal scholar foresaw this ruling: it's contrived and stretches the language, logic, & precedent.

 

We treat the court's ruling as binding law, so for all intensive purposes ; ) it's the law, but just b/c the court gave this ruling doesn't mean they got it right.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

It's debatable whether it's a tax or not. It's a bit of a stretch to call a penalty a tax in the first place and it's also a stretch to say that even if it were a tax it would really be designed to pay the country's debts or to provide for defense or general welfare. There's a reason virtually no legal scholar foresaw this ruling: it's contrived and stretches the language, logic, & precedent.

 

We treat the court's ruling as binding law, so for all intensive purposes ; ) it's the law, but just b/c the court gave this ruling doesn't mean they got it right.

 

Semantics but b/c the court gave it this ruling it is right (until it's reversed).

 

In any event the "general welfare" is ungodly broad in case law. Congress can spend for instance, "in the general welfare," to go break rocks on the moon if they want. "General welfare" is the "stretchiest" of phrases in Federal Conlaw. How do you make sure we don't spend on breaking moon rocks? You don't elect people who want to break moon rocks.

[Rob's House]

Semantics but b/c the court gave it this ruling it is right (until it's reversed).

No, until it's reversed it is binding law that we have to follow regardless of whether or not it is right.

 

In any event the "general welfare" is ungodly broad in case law. Congress can spend for instance, "in the general welfare," to go break rocks on the moon if they want. "General welfare" is the "stretchiest" of phrases in Federal Conlaw. How do you make sure we don't spend on breaking moon rocks? You don't elect people who want to break moon rocks.

"General Welfare" isn't nearly as stretchy as the court has interpreted it to be. And as far as moon rocks, regardless of how I feel about that, there is a discernible difference between spending on a project that purports to add value to society as a whole (science, prestige, whatever) & one that attempts to benefit a small segment at the expense of the society as a whole.

 

Also, the solution (vote for people who don't want to mine moon rocks) ignores the reality that when you vote you vote on a person to represent you on thousands of issues. You're not well represented on that level by the democratic system, which is partially why we need constitutional limitations on the scope of government that can't be easily voted away.

[CosmicBills]

It's irrelevant if you got the verdict you wanted. Nowhere was talk of it being upheld as a "tax." But now, lo and behold, it IS one. Not to mention the absurdity of being taxed for not buying something.

...Because no one without healthcare ever goes to a doctor.

[phypon]

...Because no one without healthcare ever goes to a doctor.

 

 

I don't have health insurance. Last year I spent less than $100 for seeing a doctor. I can't afford health insurance. You think I should pay hundreds to thousands in penalties because I can't afford a product? I've been lucky health wise. If I could afford insurance I would get it. I can't.

 

Does your current employment offer you an insurance plan? Do they offer you lower rates as an employee? Have you ever been in a situation where you can't afford insurance?

 

I'm not trying to pick an argument with you but your -rolleyes- gif insertion makes me wonder if you can truly relate to/grasp the implications of this bill and subsequent penalty/tax.

 

While the penalty (TAX) is low (at the start of its implementation) people will probably be better off only obtaining insurance when they are sick. It will be cheaper for them that way.

[CosmicBills]

I don't have health insurance. Last year I spent less than $100 for seeing a doctor. I can't afford health insurance. You think I should pay hundreds to thousands in penalties because I can't afford a product? I've been lucky health wise. If I could afford insurance I would get it. I can't.

 

Does your current employment offer you an insurance plan? Do they offer you lower rates as an employee? Have you ever been in a situation where you can't afford insurance?

 

I'm not trying to pick an argument with you but your -rolleyes- gif insertion makes me wonder if you can truly relate to/grasp the implications of this bill and subsequent penalty/tax.

 

While the penalty (TAX) is low (at the start of its implementation) people will probably be better off only obtaining insurance when they are sick. It will be cheaper for them that way.

This is wrong -- which was the point of the eye roll. The point of the penalty is to prevent this from occurring.

 

As for your other questions, I have more personal knowledge of the health insurance industry and it's insidious nature, than anyone my age ever should. Personally I believe this country needs to be on a single payer system -- and once people get over the rage of this law being upheld and take the time to actually understand how it will affect you as a customer, they'll want single payer too.

[DC Tom]

This is wrong -- which was the point of the eye roll. The point of the penalty is to prevent this from occurring.

 

And the problem with the penalty (or is it "tax" now?) is that it's cheaper than insurance. Which kind-of defeats the purpose.