Somehow I don't think that arguing the mandate is constitutional because its a tax increase

[dkf]

will work well for us.

Just sayin.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. And, since the Congress has the power to raise taxes...

it makes no sense as an argument.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[dkf]

2. Prosense argues it is constitutional because congress taxes you for not getting insurance

and they have the power to tax. I think you are arguing the same side he is.

I'm just thinking that they will force us to defend the constitutionality of the mandate by making us point out it is a tax and we can tax for any reason we want to.

Same old political chess game.

We will lose this one BTW.

[LiberalFighter]

3. If we have single payer the argument could had been greatly reduced.

Instead of everyone paying premiums directly to the insurance company for inflated insurance it would be a tax that was less than the cost of the premiums.

Anytime I could pay less for something even if meant that would now be a tax I would be 1000% behind it. It would mean more money in my pocket.

[coti]

7. Yes- AND the insurance "service" would not be a mandated purchase from a third, private party.

We'd also already have the perfect precedent set in place, as far as the law is concerned- Medicare.

Because that's all it would be- Medicare for everyone.

[coti]

5. Penalty taxes still have to conform to Fifth Amendment's implied

Equal Protection Clause. A very good argument could be made that this mandate violates a fundamental liberty interest, which would then subject the law to strict scrutiny.

[coti]

4. I don't think so either- politically or in the courts. A federal penalty tax still has to conform

to the equal protection clause read into the Fifth Amendment in Bolling v. Sharpe. In imposing a penalty tax, this law differentiates between individuals on the basis of whether they have exercised the quite arguable fundamental liberty interest of "freedom from contract" (an intuitively much stronger concept than the "freedom of contract" already recognized though largely overruled).

I can't recall the federal government having ever financially penalized its citizens for not contracting before- or, more accurately, for not contracting and being alive-, and although the bill's proponents are attempting to synthesize precedent in a piecemeal sort of way, I'm not sure they're going to find much support in the cases for what they're trying to do when it is accurately characterized. Likewise, however, since I'm not sure this has ever been attempted, there may not be much case law in opposition, either.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. They could argue it's not a penalty but rather an exemption

You get tax credits/tax exemptions for entering into certain contracts. Therefore it's a tax on everybody but you get exempt from it if you have insurance.

[coti]

10. Right, I saw that spin below but unless you raise everyone's taxes $750 plus whatever

before applying the "exemption" you're going to have a hard time arguing that in court. That's not what was done in this bill, either- heck, read ProSense's post. He says it himself- it's a penalty tax.

In any case, judges are allowed to recognize those types of legislative constructions for what they truly are and it wouldn't necessarily slide by unnoticed.

[dkf]

13. Very interesting info.

Obama is a constitutional prof. I wonder if this is why he campaigned against it. Maybe he does think it is unconstitutional and will be struck down but is willing to let it slide to get a bill passed. If this is ruled unconstitutional does just that part get struck down or is the entire bill in jeopardy?

[levander]

6. You get tax breaks for all kinds of crazy things...

Why can't you get a tax break because you own health insurance?

[Hippo_Tron]

9. That seems to me to be how it will be argued

Rather than being a "penalty" for not buying insurance, you get an exemption from the tax if you do buy insurance. The problem is that if they spin it like that then Obama will be accused of raising taxes on the middle class and quite frankly I'm surprised the Republicans aren't spinning it that way already.

[levander]

11. I think we can safely forget the promises Obama made now...

My favorite of his promises was how the deliberations over health care were going to be on C-SPAN... So, we could see which of the senators were shills for industrial interests... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:rofl: :loveya:

[highplainsdem]

12. K&R. And +1,000 for doing understatement so well.