Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 02:15 AM Mar 2012

Problem with the ACA: they called it a penalty, not a tax.

Interesting analysis from Major Garrett on hardball earlier. He said the house bill called the consequence of not having health insurance a tax but the Senate wanted to call it a penalty and the White House made a political decision to go with the Senate language. That is what made it fall afoul of the constitution. If they had called it a tax they should have been ok because congress has the authority to tax.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)
1. I can't believe how messed up this is.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 02:52 AM
Mar 2012

Back in the 1990s, it was moderate Republicans who thought it was a great idea to require everyone to buy health insurance while regulating insurance companies.

In 2006, Mitt Romney signed an insurance mandate in Massachusetts while regulating insurance companies.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards proposed a mandate with regulations, along with a public option. Barack Obama was for the same, but claimed that mandates were unnecessary, and analogous to requiring the homeless to buy houses.

In 2010, a Democratic Congress passed the original Republican plan from the 1990s, over overwhelming Republican opposition, after the White House cut a deal to ditch the public option.

Now, Obama, who was the only person in the entire cast of characters to oppose mandates, is strenuously arguing in favor of them. The Republicans, who proposed them in the first place, now want to scrap everything. It's basically an argument between the moderate Republicans from the 1990s and the conservative Republicans from the 1990s.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
5. As Garrett explained the Supreme Court could care less who supports it politically.
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 07:10 AM
Mar 2012

Doesn't matter if it originally came from the Heritage foundation, it needs to stand on its own.

kenny blankenship

(15,689 posts)
2. Verrilli was caught flat footed
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 03:10 AM
Mar 2012

trying to argue that the mandate wasn't a tax (in order to get the case heard before the law went into effect) but that the Govt had the power to levy the penalty under its broad taxation powers. DERP!

All along they've tried to be cute and have it both ways. It's a tax in special circumstances when they want to call it a tax, it's not a tax when they don't want it to be a tax. That can work to beat down critics on discussion boards, but it doesn't fly in a court.

As Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez said When you need to shoot, shoot - don't talk. Or as he might have said in such a case as this, When you need to tax, TAX. Don't try to bullshit around with word games.

rucky

(35,211 posts)
4. Was that before or after he put his head in the noose?
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 06:25 AM
Mar 2012

We know why they didn't call it a tax.

I think it can still be argued that it's essentially a tax, and the private nature of the business doesn't really matter. Our tax money goes to private industry by the billions now - with or without individual taxpayer consent.

TheKentuckian

(25,029 posts)
8. Your post tax money goes where you put it. Conflating your pocket with taxes paid makes no sense
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 08:37 AM
Mar 2012

"Essentially a tax" is bullshit too, what is the drive to redefine clear cut things?

A penalty is not a tax, taxes are not a punishment, and the House wrote it as a tax and the Senate willfully modified the language. It is crystal clear that the intent was to avoid it being a tax.
You don't get a "don't and pretend we did" when silly ass games backfire.

A tax is a tax. There is no "essentially" because it is something you really, really want.

Shrek

(3,981 posts)
11. During oral argument Justice Ginsberg said it's not a tax
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 08:58 AM
Mar 2012

Page 19 of the transcript:

The Tax Injunction Act does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law, rather than to raise revenue. And this is not a revenue-raising measure because, if it's successful, they -- nobody will pay the penalty, and there will be no revenue to raise.


 

chnoutte

(36 posts)
3. IMHO the problem is the mandate to buy a private product
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 05:55 AM
Mar 2012

IMHO the ACA should not have forced people to buy insurance or fine them, the law should have been changed to allow hospitals, doctors and medical facilities to RRFUSE service to anyone who does not have insurance or has the cash, no Credit Cards or checks accepted, for treatment. People will be able to freely choose to live or die.




TheKentuckian

(25,029 posts)
10. You ought to change your screen name to
Fri Mar 30, 2012, 08:47 AM
Mar 2012

DeathPanelforCartelProfits.

Or Iwantpoorfuckerstodietopropupapredatorycartel

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Problem with the ACA: th...