Of course, this is at some level how insurance works also (and SS is actually structured as an insurance benefit, isn’t it?).
You aren’t guaranteed a payout, but the theory is if you need the product, you get your money (and probably some of the pooled resources also) back.
Joe
You know better. Nobody pays “no net tax”. Lots of people pay no net income tax.
BTW, several judges have ruled it Constitional, so there we can argue about it here, not even judges and legal scholars agree. We just have to wait for the Supreme Court.
So what federal tax does an unemployed housewife pay? What about someone who is retired, not eligible for Social Security, but living as a dependent in a family member’s home? I don’t live in the U.S., so maybe there’s a tax I don’t know about.
Well if they drive they pay federal gas tax, for starters. They pay state sales tax on items they purchase, and in some states food. If they have any vices there’s usually a sin tax of some sort.
Last I checked none of those had a “housewife” exemption. You can avoid the gas tax on kerosene if you lie and say it’s for a lamp, heater, or something I guess. However I think they might do something to it to make it unsuitable for that. It’s colored different, but that might just for identification reasons. But anyway short of fraud an tax evasion…
Although if you pay the cigarette tax on beer, the IRS gives you an incorrect sintax error. (say it out loud if you need to)
And if you don’t want to buy health insurance under Gingrichcare, it’s simple: Don’t buy insurance. The law isn’t mandating anything.
As for “the government can’t force people to buy anything”, don’t conservatives want to force people to buy stocks with their Social Security money?
AFAIK, all the SS-privitization plans floated have been optional.
I know that you know better than this. Both statements are complete BS.
Let’s start with this: why do you think people are referring to it as a mandate?
The latest ruling erred in saying the individual mandate is not severable, and if SCOTUS upholds their ruling, the mandate will almost certainly be severed, and the rest of the law will remain in force. Which is a bit of a problem for insurance companies and Republicans, because without the mandate, the requirements such as the ban on pre-existing conditions with bankrupt the insurance companies when people decide not to get insurance until they get sick.
Republicans still can’t repeal the rest of the law, because they do not control the Senate or the White House, so if the Democrats wanted to play hardball, they could refuse to repeal and force all the insurance companies out of the market. Finally, we would get the single payer universal health care the rest of the civilized world has, or have no health insurance at all.
It all depends on who blinks first. The system is broken, and we might as well drive the bus completely off the cliff, because it is only hanging on by one wheel as it is.
Commerce Clause or taxing power, presumably.
I agree. It was stupid of him to try to call it a fine instead of a tax but he has bought into the notion that taxes are bad and so he will lose the one thing he sacrificed his presidency for, the one thing he divided his focus on the economy for. Because he was too much of a pussy to risk riling up the Republicans (like they could have gotten any more riled up).
Yeah, that doesn’t matter. Its either a tax or it isn’t. Iwhat the President called it on TV is not dispositive.
I think they’re also missing an Article 8 general welfare argument.
I agree, a single payer system is preferable to the mandate.
But its closer. You can’t use the “states are different” argument anymore. You have to fall back on, well it doesn’t affect everyone, you can avoid the requirement by avoiding some activity.
Thankfully, we have at least one house of Congress that will not sign on to a new tax, or even the extensive increase to existing taxes this plan would require - at least for the next two years
Yeah, but the House of Representatives controls spending bills. 
Gangster Octopus, I’m surprised at your confidence at the Supreme Court’s take on this, since I believe Justice Kennedy’s vote will be the swing vote and I don’t know what, in his prior decisions, makes you so positive he’ll overturn this decision.
He concurred in Lopez, striking down the federal government’s ability to criminalize possessing a firearm in a school zone. This was somewhat similar to the issue under discussion today: how much power and reach does the Commerce Clause have? He also concurred in Morrison, which struck down the federal government’s power to create a federal cause of action against a gender-based violent offender.
Or is it not your thinking that he’d be the swing vote?
I see Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts lining up on the side of limited federal powers, upholding the opinion under discussion, and Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg lining on on a more expansive, flexible view of federal power and thus in favor of overturning the opinion under discussion. Do you disagree with any of those?
I wouldn’t be so sure of Roberts either. He’s much more of a pragmatist than the other three. That said, I don’t see Roberts as the fifth vote to uphold the mandate. If Kennedy votes with ‘the liberals’ then I can see Roberts doing it to, bringing it to 6-3. If Kennedy votes with the conservatives, then I think Roberts will too, making 5-4 for unconstitutional.