• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Administration now defends individual mandate AS A TAX

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,964
Reaction score
34,490
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hahahaha, oooeee, i remember how much effort was expended swearing up and down and getting so angry and disappointed with those Obamacare opponents who would stoop so low as to misrepresent something as a tax when gosh it was just a fee...... :D


Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations....

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”...

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax...




well gee willickers. if they lied about it being a tax, and they lied about it not funding Abortion, then i wonder what else they lied about? :roll:


you supporters out there getting whiplash yet? or are you still in a cocoon of cognitive dissonance where you are willing to reject your own earlier arguments in order to defend the new?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
First, where I'm coming from. I would describe myself as a Conservative. I didn't vote for Obama - voted against him and didn't particularly like my choice. Not only didn't I vote for him, I don't like him. He's been painted a Messiah, and he's simply another guy who said what he had to say to get elected. Having said that, I support UHC.

Now, why do you say Obama lied? Because he was wrong in characterizing it as a penalty? His legal eagles were incorrect as decided by the courts. Happens all the time. Hardly the same thing.

Don't we have more important fish to fry than NIGYYSOB?
 
Last edited:

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
4,188
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I posted the following in another thread covering this same issue:

If the claim is true by Republicans that most of the "uninsured" are illegals and H.R. 3590 makes it clear that no illegals will be authorized to participate in any State's HIE, it stands to reason that most Americans will receive their health insurance either through their employer, their State's HIE if they offer one, Medicaid or Medicare or on their own if they can afford to do so. If this is true, I'm curious how many American citizens would face paying a penalty for not having insurance since the States will offer high-risk pools until they can established thier HIEs or Community Health Insurance options within their respective HIE's? Seems to me the People will be afforded several opportunities to gain health insurance including the States being allowed to form intra-state HIEs even if individuals can't afford to do so on their own but using government subsidies until 2015, 1-year after the Exchanges are authorized to form. This is why I continue to argue the importance of the People educating themselves where health care reform is concerned. Alot of what's being stated by Republicans just isn't true, i.e., the penalty on individuals. Per Part II, Section 1311(d)(4)(H):

subject to section 1411, grant a certification attesting that, for purposes of the individual responsibility penalty under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, an individual is exempt from the individual requirement or from the penalty imposed by such section because—

(i) there is no affordable qualified health plan available through the Exchange, or the individual’s employer, covering the individual; or
(ii) the individual meets the requirements for any other such exemption from the individual responsibility requirement or penalty;

H.R. 3590 provides several opportunities for individuals to obtain exemptions due to their inability to afford health insurance. As such, if citizens follow the rules and qualify for an exemption, there really shouldn't be a problem with this mandate.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom