Obamacare upheld. Stolen Valor struck down.

raimius said:
I'm surprised about the way they upheld it (as a tax). That, IMO, is actually more important, as it sets precedent. It seems like an odd way to go, as well, since that is not how the administration argued it (extension of the commerce clause).
While I am glad the commerce clause wasn't stretched any more than it already is (which is quite a lot), I wonder how construing a penalty for not doing business as a tax will turn out.

To make the absurd argument, as always seems to happen, can the government now tax people for not buying an American car every 3 years?
Click to expand...

Or keep increasing your home mortgage every 3 years (as you pay it off)....

Think about it this way. You don't have to carry a home mortgage (or even buy a home just like you technically don't have to buy health insurance). But if you want to pay less to the IRS, you buy the house, take out the mortgage, itemize the interest, property taxes, state income tax, etc. and your check to the IRS is smaller.

We've been doing this a lot longer that people realize...
 
hornetguy said:
I pointed to their link because the charts are easiest to read there.
Click to expand...

Just as some may question a source like American Spectator or Heritage or Fox News if they issued a statement about "something" being "too liberal" a conclusion from a left-wing source like MJ, about something being "conservative" should also be viewed with suspicion.
 
raimius said:
Upon initial reading, the Court's reasoning on upholding the mandate as a tax seems reasonable. That said, I am not a lawyer, nor do I fully understand the implications of the precedent.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes, the supreme court basically ruled that the administration's argument was NOT constitutional, (From a commerce perspective). But instead of defeating it on the arguments presented, the court actually GAVE the government a back door loop hole. That it WAS PERMISSIBLE as a tax. The court did the government's work for them.

That however presents some problems. One of Obama's biggest arguments when trying to sell the healthcare bill to congress and the American people, was that it WASN'T A TAX. And congress went so far to say that it "Wasn't" a tax, that when they wrote the bill/law, they made the penalties very low; as a "NOT TAX" there is little to no penalty if you don't pay it. They promoted it as a NON TAX. Yet, the supreme court says the only way that it IS CONSTITUTIONAL, is as a tax.

Let's assume that some how they can FORCE you to pay this tax/penalty if you don't obtain health insurance. On the high end for a family, it's roughly $2050 or 2.5% of income, whatever is higher. So, a family income of $100,000 would then be $2500. Does this mean if you pay the tax/penalty, that the "Government" then has to provide you with health insurance. If so; I know a LOT OF PEOPLE who would rather pay the penalty/tax and get their health insurance from the government. It's a lot cheaper than what they are paying currently. There's also a lot of employers who would do better paying the penalty than paying for health insurance for their employees.

Finally; because it is now deemed a TAX by the supreme court justices, it is going to be used politically and actually could hurt Obama's reelection chances. If the court found on the government's arguments that it was constitutional, that would have been a home run for Obama. But it wasn't constitutional based on their arguments. The court had to HAND Obama and the government the only argument that is constitutional. That it's a tax. Daddy Bush got nailed on the "Read my lips; no new taxes". This could seriously bite Obama in his a$$. Guess we'll see what happens.
 
I do agree that they did the admin's work for them. The "it's a tax" argument was the least pursued, from what I can tell. It failed in all of the lower courts too, which is odd...picking the previously rejected argument over the one courts had split over.

I've seen speculation that Roberts sided with upholding the mandate in order to reduce the controversy while not completely gutting the commerce clause. I'm not sure how accurate that might be. The ruling does seem to be a compromise that was not widely expected.

As for how this affects outside political concerns, we'll see. I don't think anyone really has a firm grasp on how this one will spin. The Dems get to say they passed the healthcare law. The Reps get to point out how it's a tax and it wasn't even constitutional in the way the President said (that probably won't get much traction with the average viewer though).
 
raimius said:
The Reps get to point out how it's a tax and it wasn't even constitutional in the way the President said (that probably won't get much traction with the average viewer though).
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Reinforcing it's a tax is the talking point that should get the most attention. Repeating that it's a tax on the middle class will bring that point home. Constantly airing the ABC interview from 2009 with Obama arguing that it wasn't a tax, but then having statements from his solicitor general, and then John Roberts justifying it as a tax.... that's going to stick with people.


Get rid of your non-taxed BAH, step outside of the military with it's very generous benefits, and you see 25-30% of your paycheck already going to federal taxes (and then likely some state taxes), the idea of a new tax is very very unappealing.
 
I rarely join in these discussions but I have a question.

If it's a tax, how are they going to collect it from tax exempt organizations? Some of the employers that have been most upset by the mandated benefits have been hospitals and religious organizations?
 
I agree with LITS, step outside of the military and the idea that you are going to be hit with another tax is very unappealing.

It may have been a win for Obamacare yesterday as far as battles go , but it also may have cost him the war.

I have several friends that own small businesses, friends that never were vocal regarding politics, yesterday they found their voices. One even donated to Romney because now the only way he feels as a business owner to protect himself is to have the law repealed.

This issue, along with the economy will be the platform for both parties come the fall.

I will argue against one point with LITS. The media, especially NBC, or George Stephanopolis, is not known to be Republican fans, and due to that reason, I highly doubt they will highlight the tax issue over the airwaves. I suspect they will ignore it, or at least throw softball questions to Obama and his campaign.

Plus, honestly the avg voter has a very short, short term memory.
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of GHWB 41, read my lips NO NEW TAXES. They read his lips, and Bill Clinton became President.

Look back at that time, housing was in a slump, military was being RIF'd, unemployment was at the same rate. Not much different than today!
 
There's more complication to this too. Obama specifically campaigned that Obamacare had PENALTIES; NOT TAXES. But as CJ Roberts decided, the only way Obamacare is constitutional, is if it's considered a tax. Here's an easy read of his decision.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjr...idual-mandate-in-obamacare-is-constitutional/

Now; the problem comes with collecting this TAX/Penalty. It was strictly written into the bill/law that it wasn't a tax, and therefore, failure to pay could not have IRS liens/levies or criminal charges used to compel the individual to pay the tax/penalty. In other words, the tax/penalty would almost be voluntary, because failure to pay it can't result in any negative actions to the individual.

However; we know that we can't trust the IRS and in many parts of the federal government. I.e. Many Americans receive income tax "Refunds". The IRS can simply deduct your obamacare tax/penalty for non-purchase of insurance from your tax refund. They could also find a way when auditing your income taxes, to take the Obamacare tax/penalty for non-purchase of healthcare "Off the Top" of your collected taxes, (Just like medicare/ssn is done) and therefor the money you would "OWE" would be considered owed tax on "INCOME". Thus; allowing the IRS to come after you with liens, levies, criminal charges, etc... Yes; there are plenty of ways for the government to screw you.

But that isn't my biggest concern. It is implied in Obamacare that if you don't somehow purchase healthcare either on your own or through your employers or other means such as medicare/caid, that you would owe this tax/penalty. For the family who makes $100,000 that tax/penalty would be $2,500. The implied use would be that you would fall under a government provided healthcare plan. Well "GUESS WHAT". $2,500 is a LOT LESS for healthcare insurance than many people pay currently. It's also a lot less than what many employers pay for their employees. It would make more financial sense for the self employed or those working for a small company, to NOT find healthcare insurance; pay the tax/penalty; and let the government provide healthcare. It would be cheaper for the employer to not provide healthcare insurance and pay the penalty for each employee.

Does no one see where this is going to go? This is a "Charlie-Foxtrot" in the makings. Unless the federal government can regulate the insurance rates, that family tax/penalty isn't going to cover crap. For an individual, it's only $695. Find me a civilian individual healthcare premium policy that cheap. The Obamacare fiasco is far from over. Either Obama gets voted out and this law is rescinded, OR, Obama is reelected and he has to get the congress to somehow change/amend/etc... the law to cover this financial concerns. If the majority of employees and employers said screw it; we'll pay the tax/penalty instead of getting healthcare; it's a lot cheaper. Then what's the government going to do? Are they going to get that individual healthcare for $695 or that family healthcare for $2500?
 
Christcorp said:
Then what's the government going to do? Are they going to get that individual healthcare for $695 or that family healthcare for $2500?
Click to expand...
I think they will then raise the tax. This has the potential to evolve into a single payer system in 10 years. I am sure it will be wonderful because they said it would be.
 
Oh yea; I really trust our federal government to manage a healthcare system or the funding of. Just like they've been taking care of medicaid, medicare, and social security.
 
Christcorp said:
Oh yea; I really trust our federal government to manage a healthcare system or the funding of. Just like they've been taking care of medicaid, medicare, and social security.
Click to expand...

One of my biggest concerns is not only the long-term impact on businesses but the precedent it sets for the government being able to tax any aspect of our society Without limit !
 
My problem was never with the issue of trying to overhaul our health care system, God knows it needs some work, it was more with the timing of when it was being done.

Our country was heading into the worst recession in modern history, the economy should have been the issue at the head of the table. Even President Clinton knew enough to let the health care issue be floated mainly as a project of his wife the First Lady, once it was seen as being something that would take the focus from the economy and would get strong resistance and involve a long drag out fight with Congress, the idea was tabled. The ecomomy took the front and center stage as it should have then.

This administration decided to make this the first fight and took 2 years to complete it. Those two years were lost in regard to working on the economy and jobs that just continued to get worse. It wasn't until 2 years into the new administration that jobs became a focus and serious talk about the economy began, too late in my opinion, the damage was just getting worse. The new health care was dubbed a boost for the economy, the problem was that any benefit would not be seen for years, these were years we didn't have to spare.

Our economy is not in much better shape today, sure the banks aren't failing as much but job growth is still down and things are moving slow in the small business sector. Now that the SC has upheld the health care plan and we are just a year from the start of most of the new programs, there will be another need to spend an enormous amount of time and energy working out the details. The biggest detail is what will happen when most people find that the fine is cheaper then the health care and the Gov. has all these people asking "What Now". All of this will be another distraction from what is the most important issue we have, the economy. I'm not sure how long us small business owners can last with more distractions.
 
What did the President fail to do about the economy that he should have or could have done?
 
Guys- much as I like a good argument when I am sitting on the Barstool at O'Connor's drinking a Guinness:wink:, this site tries to stay out of overtly political discussions. Please keep that in mind and proceed cautiously.
 
scoutpilot said:
What did the President fail to do about the economy that he should have or could have done?
Click to expand...
This doesn't exactly answer your question. I don't think the President should have done much of anything. What the President and Congress should not have don was create tremendous amount of uncertainty about what the government was going to do. Even if it isn't desireable, the known can be dealt with much easier than the unknown.
 
Packer said:
This doesn't exactly answer your question. I don't think the President should have done much of anything. What the President and Congress should not have don was create tremendous amount of uncertainty about what the government was going to do. Even if it isn't desireable, the known can be dealt with much easier than the unknown.
Click to expand...

My small business owner friends would agree with you there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top