Did Obama lie then or now? Or is there another explanation?

[Mr_Smashy]

@yorick73

@gonzomax

A mandate to but health insurance does not effect everybody. Most are covered, poorly, by work. Many have medicare. You would have to horribly slanted to think it is a tax, especially since if you can not afford it, you will get assistance. Here we go with the righties bloviating again.

Kind of like the federal income tax? Many who cannot afford it don’t pay it and actually receive assistance. Is it horribly slanted to call the income tax a tax?

Seems to me that if it’s not a tax then it’s a violation of the Commerce Clause (the power to regulate does not also include the power to force a purchase, even under the ridiculous stretching of that clause in recent years)

If it is a tax, then isn’t it unconstitutional because it doesn’t follow apportionment (a constitutional requirement that required the passing of the 16th amendment)?

as the WSJ put it

Some have argued that this is not a taking at all, but is in fact a tax on every American of $695 (the penalty) that can be avoided by purchasing insurance. Like getting a tax credit if you buy a home. That argument fails though because unlike the home incentive, which credits your Income Tax, the Health Care penalty would be a head tax — and that is considered a Direct Tax. Direct Taxes are special. Congress has the power to levy Direct Taxes under Article 1 of the Constitution, but only if the tax is apportioned among the states populations. If the tax were evenly applied and everyone paid $695, then it would be apportioned. But that is not the case as there are exceptions to the penalty. There is a religious exemption to opt out entirely. And there is a family maximum payment of $2095 regardless of the number of family members. That means states with bigger families or stronger religious convictions — like Utah and Ohio — will end up paying less tax per thousand citizens than other states. That is not apportioned and would invalidate the tax.

Since all direct taxes are supposed to be apportioned, including capitation taxes, and this kludged healthcare bill doesn’t (those darn enumerated powers…), seems pretty open and shut. If it’s a tax :rolleyes:

This law will be overturned.

[magellan01]

@Mr_Smashy

@yorick73

Kind of like the federal income tax? Many who cannot afford it don’t pay it and actually receive assistance. Is it horribly slanted to call the income tax a tax?

Seems to me that if it’s not a tax then it’s a violation of the Commerce Clause (the power to regulate does not also include the power to force a purchase, even under the ridiculous stretching of that clause in recent years)

If it is a tax, then isn’t it unconstitutional because it doesn’t follow apportionment (a constitutional requirement that required the passing of the 16th amendment)?

as the WSJ put it

Some have argued that this is not a taking at all, but is in fact a tax on every American of $695 (the penalty) that can be avoided by purchasing insurance. Like getting a tax credit if you buy a home. That argument fails though because unlike the home incentive, which credits your Income Tax, the Health Care penalty would be a head tax — and that is considered a Direct Tax. Direct Taxes are special. Congress has the power to levy Direct Taxes under Article 1 of the Constitution, but only if the tax is apportioned among the states populations. If the tax were evenly applied and everyone paid $695, then it would be apportioned. But that is not the case as there are exceptions to the penalty. There is a religious exemption to opt out entirely. And there is a family maximum payment of $2095 regardless of the number of family members. That means states with bigger families or stronger religious convictions — like Utah and Ohio — will end up paying less tax per thousand citizens than other states. That is not apportioned and would invalidate the tax.

Since all direct taxes are supposed to be apportioned, including capitation taxes, and this kludged healthcare bill doesn’t (those darn enumerated powers…), seems pretty open and shut. If it’s a tax :rolleyes:

This law will be overturned.

Excellent post. Let’s hope you’re right.

[Mr_Smashy]

@magellan01

Excellent post. Let’s hope you’re right.

Thanks.

For the record, I am against the law, but not for the reasons you probably think.

Our budget mess means we desperately need to trim spending, before the Chinese own us and our kids have to pay 75% marginal rates to get us out of hock. The best source of that is entitlement spending. Unfortunately, Obama just used most of what was there to fund his health care scheme.

The lesser minds on this board have called Obamacare paid for. But that’s shortsighted; as I’ve posted before, it’s like a family deeply in debt suddenly finds $5k in the driveway, and decides to take a vacation to Europe. We simply cannot afford it.

PS: How interesting would it be if the Democrats, after eschewing the transparency and cooperation they were supposedlyl committed to, ended up passing the bill as a pyrrhic victory - that is, they get absolutely trounced in the mid terms as payback (and having stirred up the hornet’s nest, while demoralizing their base due to the lack of a true universal coverage), then the Supremes invalidate the bill. Talk about hoisted on their own petard.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I suppose the answer depends on whether you think Congress’ power to levy taxes means Congress only has the power to Levy Taxes, or also to impose tax-like things.

[Drum_God]

@magellan01

@Damuri_Ajashi

I think they are probably lying now. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty.

But the tax charge was not aimed solely at the penalty. It went to the idea that people would have to spend money on healthcare. This mandate is the problem. The penalty just ensures that the people pay something. It’s primarily an outflow problem, not an intake one. Other than taxes there is no instance that an American MUST spend money on something simply for breathing. Obama’s defense along these lines citing car insurance is wanting, because if I want to avoid that expense, I can simply not own a car, like millions of Americans do. (Or is it "don’t do?)

My comment does not really pertain to the tax v. not a tax debate, but rather the above quote.

This chaps my ass. How is it that the party that seems to believe that everyone is responsible for their own has a problem with the idea that people should pay for their own healthcare? Sure, you can avoid car insurance by not owning a car. You don’t have to own a car. You do, however, have to live. So, don’t buy insurance. Fine. I will pick up the slack for your sorry ass. How is that right??? Or should I just leave you to die? Well, I have some moral issues with that, too. Just pisses me off no end. The current healthcare bill is far from perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. YOU should have to pay for YOUR healthcare. Why shouldn’t some authority come out and say so and make sure that you do?

Back to the tax vs. no tax argument. Personally, I don’t give a damn what we call it. It’s the right thing to do, so just suck it up and do it.

[Wesley_Clark]

Obama raised taxes on the lower income 95% of Americans within a few weeks of taking office when he signed SCHIP into law which was funded by higher cigarette taxes.

Not that I mind. When the smokers who are republican I know complain about the price, I tell them Obama said he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k. So the only logical answer is that they make 250k or more a year. Then I ask them for money. It always goes over well.

When the economy recovers and the risk of another recession is gone, we should be paying higher taxes, we are going too deep in debt.

[Shodan]

IOKIADDI.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Is that something about Attention Deficit Disorder?

[Revtim]

Well shit, the only reason I voted for Obama was because I thought he was the 1st politician that didn’t stretch definitions when it suited his agenda. And what a huge lie this is too, much worse than other politicians who stretch the truth about minor things like death panels or WMD evidence.

[VinylTurnip]

Hey, look on the bright side… the “troop draw-down” from Iraq is going according to schedule! To be replaced by shadowy “private contractors” answerable to no one.

We can have our truth in any color we like, as long as it’s brown.

[YogSothoth]

It works as a tax but it isn’t specifically a tax. Obama wins again!

Let’s be perfectly honest, righties just want to be able to call Obama a tax raiser or a liar, they don’t care which. This topic isn’t about Obama or taxes or health care, it’s about conservatives and their strategy. Obama was able to lower the cost of health care for millions of Americans and that’s all that matters. The fact that he did it on the backs of Republican protests and made them contradict their own stated preferences is even sweeter

[put_down_the_sabre]

Isn’t it ironic that a more radical healthcare reform (like single-payer in Canada, or even true socialised medicine like the UK) wouldn’t have tripped over the constitution, since they are funded by straightforward taxes, more or less?

As much as I support reforming the current stupid American system, I do think (not being anything like a lawyer, just my own on the face of it understanding of the texts) that the compulsion to buy insurance is unconstitutional. The feds have never really done anything like this before, have they? Even motor insurance regs are state-level.

pdts

[YogSothoth]

Insurance constitutes interstate commerce, so the Fed is well within their power to regulate and establish provisions for how it works.

[put_down_the_sabre]

@YogSosoth

Insurance constitutes interstate commerce,

Really? Necessarily? And isn’t insurance mostly sold and regulated within each state? by state boards?

so the Fed is well within their power to regulate and establish provisions for how it works.

but does that include demanding that everyone buy it?

If we follow this line, are there any restrictions whatever on what the federal government can do?

pdts