Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

rberq wrote:

lsayre wrote:If Obamacare is a tax, is it a direct or an indirect tax? If it is direct, per the Constitution it must be properly apportioned between the States, and if it is indirect, it must be 100% uniform (also per the Constitution). If it is neither direct nor indirect, then it is a tax that is not even defined and delineated as a tax by the Constitution. And if undefined, how (and on what legal grounds) can the Supreme Court approve it as a tax?

Lots of questions, but really you are just engaging in a form of denial. If you have not read all the concurring and dissenting opinions, perhaps you should. Generally the justices go to great lengths to explain their reasoning.

Should we place our full trust in the written opinions of the current Supreme Court, or in the Constitution as written (or is it seriously time to consider something else, such as anarcho-capitalism)?

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

rberq wrote:It was upheld as a tax because that's the way the law is written -- not because there was some sort of trickery involved in arguing it that way before the court. Told you that many moons ago, but nobody listened ....

I'm not saying there is any trickery involved with their argument but why is it called a mandate in the law and more importantly if this is a tax why was it not advertised as tax while the Democrats were pushing it?

lsayre wrote:If Obamacare is a tax, is it a direct or an indirect tax? If it is direct, per the Constitution it must be properly apportioned between the States, and if it is indirect, it must be 100% uniform (also per the Constitution). If it is neither direct nor indirect, then it is a tax that is not even defined and delineated as a tax by the Constitution. And if undefined, how (and on what legal grounds) can the Supreme Court approve it as a tax?

If my understanding is correct it's not actually the mandate that is being considered a tax. You have an out to not have insurance by paying a tax (the fine) to do it.

President Obama explicitly stated to the American people that Obamacare was not a tax. Then his law team was instructed to present it before the Supreme Court as a tax. This in itself should tell us something about his character and honesty.

He also said that no family or individual making less than $250,000 annually would be additionally taxed, but more than 70% of the burden of Obamacare (now realized to be a tax) will fall upon families making less than $250,000 annually.

Richard S. wrote:

lsayre wrote:If Obamacare is a tax, is it a direct or an indirect tax? If it is direct, per the Constitution it must be properly apportioned between the States, and if it is indirect, it must be 100% uniform (also per the Constitution). If it is neither direct nor indirect, then it is a tax that is not even defined and delineated as a tax by the Constitution. And if undefined, how (and on what legal grounds) can the Supreme Court approve it as a tax?

If my understanding is correct it's not actually the mandate that is being considered a tax. You have an out to not have insurance by paying a tax (the fine) to do it.

The fine which increases every year you don't comply. The whole thing is to force young people who don't want or need health insurance to pay into it or face the penalty. The Government can now lay its hands on all of this money it couldn't rob before along with robbing the billions that the insurance companies have. Dictating to Doctors who they will and will not treat, dictating what procedures Doctors can and can not perform. The end result and it is the end goal of the people behind this bill to destroy private insurance companies and private medical practice. In England people are pulling their own teeth because they can't find or wait a year to see a Dentist. Mothers are giving birth in hallways and waiting rooms because there is no room for them. Patients are drinking water out of flower vases because of the negligent lack of care in Government Hospitals. When I lived in Chicago, I had to go to Cook County Hospital where I sat bleeding into a bucket for 6 hours. I had to come back for a doctor visit to remove the patch they put on me. I waited almost 14 hours. This is what you get with Government Medicine.

samhill wrote:PeaBurner, in what land of OZ was HC finally becoming affordable? Could be I was napping but I thought that was a main running point on both sides for a long time now.

Samhill, you are correct in the past-present time frame. That statement in my post contained an embedded link to a story about "lodge practice" as it referred to early 20th century health care 'coops'. Check it out - here it is again, it's an worth reading:

How Government Solved the Health Care Crisis

Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It

by Roderick T. Long

wsherrick wrote:
The fine which increases every year you don't comply.

Actually it's unenforceable and is going to lead to some major issues down the road.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/05/irs-c ... ax-refund/

Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt.

If you do not get a refund -or- you adjust your withholding so there is no refund... nothing to collect from. Matter of fact people that have insurance could just drop it. I forsee this being a huge problem down the road.

Richard S. wrote:

wsherrick wrote:
The fine which increases every year you don't comply.

Actually it's unenforceable and is going to lead to some major issues down the road.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/05/irs-c ... ax-refund/

Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt.

If you do not get a refund -or- you adjust your withholding so there is no refund... nothing to collect from. Matter of fact people that have insurance could just drop it. I forsee this being a huge problem down the road.

You are absolutely correct. Individuals and business will opt to drop their ever increasing insurance premiums for the much cheaper fine at first. What do you think the long term result of that action will be?

Wow - yeah this opens up a big can of worms. The private insurance industry was basically killed today, and the government given the green light to tax you whatever they feel you "need". Fined for not buying a Prius? Fined for not going to the gym? The door is now wide f'in open.

Am I pissed? You better believe it. But this is a good thing ... because MILLIONS of people are pissed, and this will not bode well for progressives in either party going forward, nor does it bode well for the annointed one's re-election.

I'm surprised the resident libs here haven't blamed Bush for this .... because for once, they'd be RIGHT! John Roberts was a Bush appointee, so this ACTUALLY IS Bush's fault!! I know how facts don't matter to libs, so it's no shock.

This guy knifed us in the back. We're now paying for past sins. Only thing we can do is dust ourselves off and CONTINUE THE FIGHT, stronger, and with more resolve than ever.

This ain't over by a long shot ....

There are lots of stories circulating as to why Roberts did this.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ition.html

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-wh ... obamacare/

I suppose more info will become known in the next few days.


http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/page/show_media/6

I figured the Obama administration threatened him, his career, and/or his family. They are Chicago politicians after all, and govern accordingly ....

wsherrick wrote: Individuals and business will opt to drop their ever increasing insurance premiums for the much cheaper fine at first. What do you think the long term result of that action will be?

As far a the individuals goes my point is if you have no refund there is nothing to collect the fine from. It's not going to take long for people to figure that out, they'll adjust their withholding, get fined and the government will never see a dime because they have no way to collect it. The individual can then get insurance whenever they need it because they can no longer be denied. Worse case scenario is lot of people do that, the premiums sky rocket and ultimately the insurance companies go out of business...... of course that may be the ultimate goal to begin with. How many Democrats that supported this law are going to be willing to put their support behind amending it to put some teeth into the fine.... I'll answer that. none.

rberq wrote:

cokehead wrote:... you are on the way to unmanageable debt, economic collapse, poverty, and social unrest ...

On the way??? The bus is pretty close to THERE already. Where you and I would disagree is, who drove the bus most of the way?

Who drove the bus?.....,I believe politicians from both parties sold out to the money powers and their ideology for generations. I used to see this as a Democrat/Republican issue. I don't anymore. I started seeing things differently after 9-11. The shift in my perception of the system accelerated after I went to a seminar given by the Leadership Institute and worked on a state legislature campaign. I went to many meetings and rallies. Even talked with an ex-Congressmen briefly. Was around when others where talking and stratigizing. It is about doing what it takes to get elected. I despise head games. It was eye opening. I'm not sure if I would waste my time doing it again.

Politics is just a distraction from the real issues. The propagandists use the Hegelian dialectic to steer public perception of reality. It isn't a fair fight in that people don't realize they are in a battle over perception. The perceptions are formed by almost every form of mass media. There is an illusion of multiple perspectives but is mostly deliberately crafted. What I am saying in this paragraph I did not personally experience beyond a discussion of the Overton Window. I'm not above being propagandized. I'm immersed in a sea of propaganda just like everyone else. You asked me who drove the bus. I can't name names because I don't know but I believe it is a system, an ideology driving the bus from a place in the shadows.

rberq wrote:

Richard S. wrote:Seems this was upheld because it's a "tax" as it was argued before them on that premise.

It was upheld as a tax because that's the way the law is written -- not because there was some sort of trickery involved in arguing it that way before the court. Told you that many moons ago, but nobody listened ....

Gosh, I'm worried about all the doom-saying. Before you guys all cut your throats tonight, and deprive the forum of your years of coal-burning knowledge, remember that many past SCOTUS decisions have likewise been condemned by the losing side, be it right or left or ACLU or commie or KKK, but have worked out OK in the long run. Considering all the other laws in this country that are accepted without argument, there was no logical way the court could decide other than as it did. The four usual suspects (including the old black guy) voted as they always do against anything the young black guy does. They should be wearing those white KKK sheets themselves, instead of their black robes, or they should run for office if they want to make laws. Personally I am relieved and encouraged that Chief Justice Roberts saved the reputation of the court.

Why are you turning this into some racist thing?