If the state was the one saying this, we wouldn’t be talking about it here.
Whether this covers future possible health care needs isn’t a question for the Supreme Court, is it?
In general, isn’t a fine what you pay for committing a crime? Are there any other circumstances under which folks pay a fine when they haven’t broken the law?
I guess there’s always the librarian telling you to return this book by next Friday or pay a fine.
The crime is not having insurance as mandated. Hence, you pay a fine for breaking the law.
You really can’t break a law that specifically allows you to pay the government instead of a health insurance company. If you refuse to pay the imposed tax, you’ll be breaking the law, but simply choosing to pay the tax instead of buying insurance isn’t breaking the law, it’s following it. This inflamed rhetoric isn’t really helping.
Hi me. Didn’t know I had 2 accounts on here.
+1
I looked into the history of the SCOTUS and was very disenheartened. They seem as politically motivated as anyone else and twist logic to fit their bias.
Sometimes, though, they hit it right. usually it is as the Frylock says.
The “tax” you refer to is not a tax. It’s a penalty. It would be helpful if you’d call things what the rest of the world calls them. Including SCOTUS.
That is not how the law is structured. If you pay the penalty instead of buying health insurance, you are in full compliance with the law. No crime has been committed.
sigh Does this kind of pedantics help you feel better about yourself? It’s a penalty tax. It’s a penalty and a tax. Or you can call it an excise tax. Or you can call it a “muffinhead” for all I care. These semantic games of yours are incredibly trying.
I call it:
- what it is
- what it is called in the legislation
- what even liberal Justice Breyer calls it:
Now, I understand that you’re desperate to not call it a penalty, the same way you are desperate to not have the mandate refer to health insurance, but as much as you want this to be the case, you have one teensy weeny problem: reality. Sheese.
Look, there’s plenty to debate with the mandate and the penalty and the law they are a part of, but at least call the things by their proper names. Your insistence on playing semantic games and using language counter to that used in the actual bill is the thing that is trying. Indeed.
Look, it’s probably not relevant whether the thing you pay for not obtaining coverage is a tax. I think it’s a tax, and that makes it okay, but SCOTUS will decide on the basis of Congress’ Commerce Clause power, not the Taxing & Spending power, because that’s how the issue is primarily being framed by the parties.
And you ignore what the Senate Bill calls it, what the government has argued that it is, and any arguments that disagree with you just gets dismissed.
The entire “tax” or “penalty” or “penalty tax” or “muffinhead” issue is a separate issue that has been, and will be considered, by the courts ruling on the health care law. My post that you quoted had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I was addressing.
If you wanted to open up the entire debate over whether the “mandate” is a proper use of the taxing power, have at it. Knock yourself out. But for the purposes of my post that you quoted, it doesn’t make one lick of difference what you call it, other than to feed your apparent need to play these pedantic games. I tire of it.
So, if you like, you can read my prior post as this: “You really can’t break a law that specifically allows you to pay the government instead of a health insurance company. If you refuse to pay the imposed muffinhead, you’ll be breaking the law, but simply choosing to pay the tax instead of buying insurance isn’t breaking the law, it’s following it. This inflamed rhetoric isn’t really helping.” I hope that makes you feel better.
No, it only means that the ones specified exist. The Ninth acknowledges that there can be others. The necessary-and-proper clause and the general-welfare clause also define powers, don’t you think?
That is logically fallacious. Not to mention oxymoronic - expression and implication are pretty much antonymous.
No, but that’s not all there is to it, is there? One implication of that list is that you are bound by “duty of care” to act responsibly in protecting property that has been entrusted to you. If, for instance, the list didn’t include your being allowed to call the fire department if it went up in smoke, would you consider yourself bound not to do so? Of course not.
Well, the clauses I listed above do provide such implicit authority (see, I know what the word means) to Us the People acting collectively, IOW the government, in acting on its duty of care.
Why? Are you under the illusion that they were supernaturally wise and benevolent, not people pretty much like us? That somehow the “big government is bad” faction, essentially the folks that didn’t want it to have both the inclination and the power to take away their slaves and now have moved on to other fears, didn’t need some harmless head-patting? Or that they still do?
Like I said, things are what they are. As far as what you wrote above, you are breaking the law when you don’t do what the government mandates. Which is why you are then assessed a penalty. Now just because you pay the penalty and avoid additional fines or penalties does not mean that you didn’t run afoul of the law to begin with.
here’s a simple analogy. I break the law by speeding. I get a ticket. I am then assessed a fine. If I pay it, I still have broken the law. If I don’t pay it, I broke the speeding laws and then will suffer additional penalties by not paying the fine or paying it late.
Oh, on another note. Thank you for your earlier apology. I truly appreciate it, as they are all too scarce around here.
And 4) what it had to be called in order to disarm the obstructionists who would otherwise be screaming about tax increases. Same reason they are happy to increase “fees” and other terms for money paid to the government. But it’s all money paid to the government.
I once knew a guy who claimed that every tax should be called an income tax, since it came out of his income. Couldn’t really argue that point.
I do, but the important thing is that is what the Constitution wishes.
I do not deny that the people have the power to create a national insurance system. That absolutely do. But that doesn’t mean that it can be done and funded willy-nilly. It has to comport with the Constitution. As I’ve said numerous times, if it were paid for by a tax—no mandate, no penalty, just a simple tax—it would be perfectly proper and Constitutional.
YEESH. As I pointed out to you already, and you seem to concede) the Ninth says that there are other powers retained by THE PEOPLE, not the federal government. Here is the Ninth, again:
Same thing. Is there any point in explaining to you, once again, that the government is a creation of the people, a mechanism by which the people act jointly? Not some malevolent, oppressive foreign power imposed upon us by, well, somebody else?
Or is your misunderstanding of the nature of representative democracy, and your responsibilities as a citizen of one, deeper even than that?
In other news for you:
“The Constitution” does not “wish” for anything. It’s a set of rules and principle which We the People wish to work so we can make our nation and society work.
You still can’t point out where this alleged limit on federal power can be found in the document.
And call it a fee or call it a tax or call it anything else,* there’s no fucking real difference*.
Sounds like you’re of the mind that Obama was trying to pull a fast one by increasing taxes, but hiding that fact from the people. Is that right?
It only fooled fools.