Perhaps. Could you please summarize, to the best of your understanding, what the tax is and who pays it?
Probably, but Obama wasn’t doing anything. He didn’t introduce the bill and didn’t pass it.
I’m beginning to have the theory that the supreme court words those things expecting this to take place, the idea is to confuse everybody early, specially the 24 hours a day newscast groups, that way the ones that opposed this get a big high on the apparent decision and only later when the corrections come the result is ether more confusion or ways for the affected opponents to turn it into a “victory”.
Hard to do in this case, but on the SB1070 anti immigrant case this has already taken place, on the Radio and elsewhere people like Senator Kyl of Arizona claimed that his side won, never mind that virtually all parts were tossed out by the Supreme court and others early, and never mind that the only bit remaining came with many strings attached and it can be taken down in the future if the way the law is enforced shows to be like the opponents feared.
The effect is like putting sugar on the bitter medicine, specially when the ones taking it are on the right and a judge from the right is giving the medicine.
Well, it’s not a tax, as if it was, it would be subject to the law that prevents somebody from suing over the legality of a tax until the tax is actually paid. However, it is a tax, as if it was not, it would be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. In the words of Mayor Quimby, “It, uh, can be two things.”
Anyway, the “tax” (per year, but calculated monthly) for not having insurance is:
$95 per person in 2014;
$350 per person in 2015;
$750 per person in 2016 and later.
Note that no family (person/couple and dependent children) need pay more than 3x the amount (e.g. a couple with 2 or more children, none of whom are covered, pays only $285 in 2014 rather than $190 plus $95 per uncovered child).
Also note that the tax is paid when income taxes are paid, according to Sectoin 5000A(b)(2) of the act: “Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.”
Some guy on CNN (radio) was saying how the “Mandate” was not constitutional, but the tax was. It took a while to figure out what he meant, but basically it isn’t a mandate in the sense you can be jailed for not having insurance and that you can opt out. But then the Government, with its power to tax can then make you pay for the privilege.
By the way, I sure as hell hope they don’t now force broccoli on us.
Can I take a victory lap?
I’ve been saying this entire thread that the law was going to be upheld, even in the face of some legitimate concerns to the contrary. Like I said - and I think Roberts realized this - striking down the law would’ve been nothing more than a hugely partisan move that would’ve severely undermined the credibility of the Court.
Though granted, I wasn’t entirely on point. The Medicaid expansion being made optional MIGHT make the ACA implementation a little counterintuitive in the first few years after it has been fully rolled out. What do you guys think the practical effect of the now-optional Medicaid expansion will be in terms of the ACA’s success? FWIW, even though it’s now optional, I can’t imagine ANY state is going to turn it down (except for Mississippi or something); there’s too many upsides, really.
I actually think it is a problem for GOP Governors who are going to be pressured by their loony base to not accept the expansion, while at the same time it is actually one of the more popular parts of the bill.
No, unless there’s a concurring opinion that says, “I wanted to vote against, but that would be partisan.”
Be patient. He may be busy in other threads ensuring that the phrase “Obamacare Tax” [underscore sic] appears as many times as possible, so we’re all brainwashed.
:smack:
So, before the line was “wait until the SCOTUS rules,” and now it’s wait until after the election. Now, that’s a legitimate concern - the only thing, at this point, that can stop the ACA from moving forward is Romney taking the White House - but come on. Give me a fuckin’ break.
Man, I’d be fascinated to learn what the contingency plan was in the Obama camp in the event of an ACA-takedown or severe weakening. In many ways, IMO, the ACA SCOTUS win is the antithesis to the Dem loss in the Wisconsin recall election; there, as in this case, opponents of the issue pumped all of their efforts into eliminating a settled issue (Walker in Wisconsin against the ACA federally) only to have their actions rebuked by a resounding loss.
The GOP, though, has suffered a much more dire defeat. They’ve pursued an anti-health reform agenda relentlessly over the past few years - from their constant lies and obstructionism that killed the public option during the actual debate, to backpedaling on their OWN IDEA (the individual mandate) amidst an unrelenting insistence that it was unconstitutional, and finally to the SCOTUS - only to be proven wrong that, yes, this aspect of the ACA on which they’ve spent so much political captial demonizing is, in fact, constitutional.
I for one am flummoxed that they struck down the Medicaid expansion.
And I admit that Scalia is a :checks forum: obnoxious ends-justify-the-means partisan. Thanks so much Nino.
Okay, I’ll ask - without 60 Senators to override the Democrats’ filibuster, how can Romney stop ACA?
I suppose that President Romney could instruct the IRS to not enforce the penalty tax and undercut funding for the program.
/Yes, I understand that funding doesn’t work that way.
Who says the Progressive Democrats will still have enough Senators to call for a filibuster after the next election?
You mean, like, one?
With a Republican chairing the budget committee, it would be easy to give it only token funding, enough to comply with the law but not enough to actually work. There’s nothing to filibuster with that. Then, when the nearly-unfunded doesn’t work, loudly bleat on all their favorite news outlets that “Obamacare doesn’t work! See?”.
45k US citizens die each year due to lack of healthcare according to a Harvard 2003 study. Private insurance costs more ($7k per capita compared to second highest $5k per capita) for worse outcomes (US has higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy rates than other industrialised nations of over 100k citizens with public healthcare). Obesity and murder rates do not account for difference in infant mortality or life expectancy, respectively (when compared to the UK, at least and with napkin math).
I was at work when the verdict came out, but someone at work took a reaction [shot](Photo and Video Storage | Photobucket full of win/ChaosFluro24/Picard-FullofWin.jpg).
My favorite is from Yahoo News:
It’s better viewed as a tax that has a credit for those who have insurance.
Which is how they should have framed it in the law. But that would require using the term “tax” and that’s a bad word.