So, if I have you right, there’s no fixed principle making heath care fundamentally different, just a variety of factors to be weighed, and it’s possible that some other industry may, now or in the future, be deemed to require “regulation” that includes mandating that all citizens purchase their products. Yes?
I suspect that sooner or later the other industries will be making their cases …
I don’t see it out of step, really, so much as I see it as an extension that invites the question of where we stop.
Surprised by the politicians, no. A little disappointed by people supporting and defending political dishonesty, yes.
I think you are missing the point a little. The argument isn’t that we should make such government action Constitutional. The argument is, under Wickard, such federal action is already constitutional (provided it isn’t made unconstitutional under some other clause).
Now, since Wickard, how many times has the federal government compelled you to buy something? Can you honestly think of anything other than health care that they are likely to be able to convince even a small percentage of the population that it is both good that everyone should be forced to buy and that it is not already unconstitutional for them to do?
I can see how the government could get a lot of support for forcing every parent to buy a Bible. But that would fall foul of the 1st Amendment.
Otherwise, you are deliberately ignoring that the Government has had this power for years and years, and HAS NOT USED IT. Health care, apparently, is different. If you want me to take this argument of yours seriously, come up with a credible situation that you think likely to happen - what exactly are the Government waiting to force you to buy?
Consider the following famous scene from 5 easy pieces
If the government has the right to order a chicken sandwich it has the right to order toast, even though it chooses not to call toast “a chicken sandwich without mayo, lettuce, tomato, or chicken”.
Yes, that’s at least the impression I get from the caselaw.
When did you turn into such a Pollyanna? Every politician shades the truth. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I don’t have a problem with someone calling a penalty tax that is completely avoidable and won’t result in jailtime if unpaid a “tax” as it is used in everyday lingo. It’s politics. If that little thing disappoints you so much, you must have gone completely fucking ballistic when Bush told us Iraq was an urgent, dangerous, and grave threat enough to require a military invasion.
I’m perfectly aware of that. I’m asking what Wickard didn’t allow.
It took a bunch of smart, rich guys 200 years to figure out that they could use eminent domain as a way to get stuff they wanted; but now it’s accepted practice. If a private rich-kid school wants property in Harlem, they get it.
No, no industry is exactly like healthcare. But there are plenty of industries that are very widespread, that nearly everyone uses, and that, by some way or another, can be argued to impose costs on third-parties. Absent some clear, inviolate line as to why healthcare is different, I suspect that at some point in the future corporations are going to move mountains to argue that they are analogous to healthcare. Internet access would be my first guess.
He’s also, supposedly, a constitutional scholar. And when pressed on it by George Stephanopolous, he was quite clear that it was NOT a tax. This wasn’t just some politician using the term loosely in a stump speech, he was being grilled on it…grilled on the constitutionality of it. You are much, much too forgiving of Obama in this instance.
And had I said that, I’d feel bad that you’d be disappointed in me. Luckily, I explained to you how the word “tax” can be used to describe different things in different situations to different people. If you insist that the nuances of reality are too much and just call it a lie, why then I’ll have to live with your disappointment.
IIRC, the issue was whether it was a “tax increase”. Since it is completely avoidable, I don’t think it’s proper to call it a tax increase either. To me the whole “is it a tax” wordgame in the media to be simple political wankery. Which is no surprise at all.
Did you find that support I asked you for, for your assertion that: " And if you don’t pay the penalty, guess what, you could eventually be locked up." I’d hate to be misinformed on the issue.
As far as the support you asked for, I don’t have it. To be honest, I find it hard to believe that people can’t be locked up for not paying their taxes. Isn’t Wesley Snipes in, or about to be in, the clink right now? If you are right about that, can I just not pay taxes for ever?
As far as word games, no snark intended, butI feel they’re coming from you in this instance. For something to be a tax increase, it has to first be a tax, right? And the first question that GS asked Obama was about whether it was or was not a tax. Here it is:
(bolding mine)
Obama doesn’t directly answer the question, of course. and they refer to it as a tax increase (which it would be if it were a tax). But later on, we have this:
Seeing that, do you really stand by your position that Obama was not rejecting the idea that the mandate was NOT a tax?
As I understand it, Congress, when creating the penalty/tax/whatever floats your boat, specifically said that the IRS cannot use non-payment for it as the basis of criminal proceedings. Hence no getting “locked up”.
As I’ve said repeatedly, it makes no nevermind to me. It’s purely politics. Obama doesn’t want to call it a “tax” increase and Republicans want to say “He’s raising your taxes!” The actual truth (that the word “tax” means different things to different people in different situations, and the that the “tax” is completely avoidable, etc.) is what matters to me, not what games you want to play with the word.
I don’t get this. How can you pooh-pooh whether it’s a “tax” or not? The governement can raise revenues through taxes, duties and the like. But I am aware of no means by which it can do so by imposing a penalty on a citizen for not buying a product.
Which kind of “tax” do you mean? I’ve been pretty clear, I thought repeating that it means different things to different people at different times over and over and over in this thread made my point clear. Whether it is a “tax” under the Constitution’s grant of power to Congress to levy taxes? As I’ve said, yes, I think it is. Is it a “tax” for the purposes of screaming “Obama is raising your taxes!”, no, I don’t think so. Is it a “tax” for the purposes of IRS determinations? Yes, it is. Is it a “tax” that carries a possible jail sentence for not paying it? No, it’s not. Is it a “tax” with the purpose of increasing governmental revenue? No, it’s not. Is it an attempt to assure compliance with the legislation. Yes, it is. And on and on.
I’ve said all this before, I’m not sure I can make it any clearer so that you can understand it better.
The question is, is it a tax, for Constitutional purposes, or not? I agree with you, that if it were, that it would be allowable. But the President/constitutional lawyer arguing for the healthcare reform bill stated very clearly that the mandate was NOT a tax. Do you think he is unclear on what the word “tax” means in a constitutional sense?
Now, IF it is a tax, and allowable, it certainly is true that Obama would be raising taxes. It might even be a good idea. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that it is a tax (and therefore constitutional), yet if it goes into effect it won’t be raising people’s taxes.
I’ve been pretty clear that I have no interest in playing this game. You’ve reached your conclusions already on what Obama meant, and repeating myself about the word changing in context over and over and over hasn’t helped yet, so I can’t imagine that would change now.
All the insurance companies and big pharmie have paid mightily for this. They are getting their payback, but I hope it falls flat on their faces. They have screwed the people of this country long and hard enough and they didn’t even kiss us first.
Nope. What we’re talking about is not difficult or confusing or complicated. I’m acknowledging that the word can be used to mean different things at different times. I even agree with you that if it is a tax, in the constitutional sense, that it is allowable. But, using it in that exact same sense, if it is put into effect, it will raise taxes.
For some strange reason you insist in playing matador with the word “tax”. And for what? To avoid granting that imposing a new tax will result in the raising of taxes?!?!?!
It will “raise taxes” only on those who don’t comply with the mandate. It’s a penalty tax meant to stop non-compliance.
Feel free to now scream “AHA! IT RAISES TAXES!!” if it will make you feel better.
To avoid the misleading bullshit rhetoric that all but engulfs anything with the word “tax” anywhere, especially to the unthinking reactionary right wing. I understand bullshit rhetoric is vitally important to some people, but in this case, it interests me not in the least.
