Reply With Quote
Didn't the Supreme Court say it was a tax?
This article, now appearing in Forbes, points out a very important distinction that must be made concerning the Supreme Court's decision:
Don't Buy The GOP Narrative That Obama-care Is A Tax On Middle Class-It's A Lie Designed To Mislead
<. . . >
In the opening paragraphs of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, he clarifies that the law specifically does not involve a tax. If it did, Roberts clarifies, the Court would have had no choice but to reject the case for lack of jurisdiction as a tax case cannot be brought until someone is actually forced to pay the tax. This is, as we know, not the case.
The fact that the Court found that the mandate was cons utional under the taxing authority granted Congress by the Cons ution is an entirely different matter. This finding does not reduce the individual mandate to the status of a tax—it merely says that as the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance will fall to the Internal Revenue Service for collection, it was something Congress could provide for under its Cons utional authority.
While I grant you that this gets a bit into the weeds, the effort that is being made by the GOP to use the Court’s basis for decision as a weapon fails on its face and is completely disingenuous. There is a difference between the levying of a tax and the Court finding Cons utional authority for Congress under the taxing authority. But then, anything that is more complicated than your basic “See Spot Run” first grade reading primer has always been fair game and fodder for the GOP message machine which would prefer to base their arguments on misstatements than educating and enlightening its base.
Full article at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ed-to-mislead/
I would add that this is much like penalties assessed on people who fail to timely file tax returns. Such penalties are not taxes, per se, but the authority to assess those penalties arises directly from Congress' authority to tax. The penalty is a tax only in-so-far that the IRS collects the fine...
Didn't the Supreme Court say it was a tax?
An international survey reveals that Canadians, compared to residents of other countries, are generally happy with our health care system.
The Deloitte survey, conducted in April and May of this year, queried 15,735 health care consumers in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, the UK, and the U.S. with regards to their at udes about their health-care systems.
When asked to grade the overall performance of their medical system, most Canadians, 50 per cent, gave a score of "A" (excellent) or "B" very good.
Systems in Luxembourg (69 per cent), Belgium (57 per cent), Switzerland (52 per cent), France (51 per cent), also earned an "A" or "B" score.
Conversely, 57 per cent of consumers in Brazil, 44 per cent in Mexico, 37 per cent in the U.S. and 33 per cent of consumers in Portugal give their health care system's performance a failing grade.
The study also charted the health care expenditures, as a percentage of GDP, of each of the 12 countries researched. Canadians, the report notes, spends 10.4 per cent of their GDP on health care compared to China at 4.7 per cent and the United States at 17.6 per cent.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canad...195734829.html
Less than a quarter (22%) of U.S. consumers, 18% of Portuguese,
15% of Mexican, and 8% of Brazilian consumers grade
their country’s health care systems as “A” or ”B.”
The law labels the assessment a “penalty” (see Section 5000A) and avoids using the term “tax.” But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the five justices in the majority, said the penalty can be considered a tax that is within the power of Congress to impose.
So will it cost the middle class more or less money?
if you don't purchase insurance you will pay the penalty/tax. So no one knows for sure..
That's a ty distinction.
Of course it will cost the middle class more money because taxes will HAVE to go up to pay for it and the middle class is where the money is.
Too nuanced of an distinction for the collective IQ of this nation.
Even though it isn't really a tax, I'm fine with it being called a tax. The arguing over what we call it is a good example of how petty and absurd the political debate has become.
The mandate is an effective solution to the problem of Negative Externalities. Conservatives, I have a legitimate question for you. Is your opposition to the Mandate because:
A) You have fundamental issue with the idea of this mandate
B) You don't have a problem with the mandate per se, but you have a problem with the rest of the ACA that goes along with the mandate
C) You're actually okay with the entire thing, but on the state level, not the Federal level
D) It was passed by Obama
I may have follow up questions.
It's gonna be pretty funny when all the college age libs in here graduate and realize they are immediately going to have to start paying 10% of their income for health care they don't use.
Oh yeah, and that doesn't include the 30% co-pay when you actually have to use it.
I don't think I'm a conservative, so I'll sidestep the questions.
This is purely semantics, but I think the tax/penalty dichotomy is a distinction without a difference. The function of the mandate is to tax a particular behavior. Whether that is characterized as a penalty vs. a tax, and what the difference between a tax and a penalty, seems minor if not wholly inconsequential.
What is hilarious is that there is the perception that this is "sticking it to" the insurance companies. They are gonna make out like bandits. It's sticking it to young healthy people that work.
Remember, that "penalty" will keep going up until it is = to the cost of buying insurance.
Agreed
Well, there are certainly some technical differences between a tax and a penalty, but I agree that the differences don't matter. And that they only matter to folks now is a tribute to the silliness of that particular debate.
Semantics is the currency that funds all political debate. Taxes are bad, this is a "tax"... mass hysteria.
E) I would have much preferred a true, single payer system.
I would have preferred that as well.
I am glad that Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and
I am glad that there is not a lifetime limit on coverage.
Due to issues within my own family, those are of critical importance to me.
The rest of the law has some genuinely idiotic provisions.
^^^^Given all the above, though, I am in favor of fixing this law more than I am in flavor of repealing it...mostly because the Republican alternative mostly seems to put the locus of power in their 'replacement discussions' to private industry, and my confidence in private industry these days is not exactly at an all time high.
Moreover, since there is zero mechanism for enforcing this 'tax' or 'penalty', I'm not sure I see too much to get upset about.
That's the main issue I have with the ACA. When you dictate non-exclusions, Insurance companies are no longer Insurance companies. They become Healthcare companies which is more or less where we have been forcing them to move for some time.
When allowed to function as they were designed, as tools to leverage risk across time, Insurance companies work well.
When you force them to become healthcare administrators, well, you get what we have now. A cluster .
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a non-starter with the GOP in Washington?
Apparently with the Democrats too.
I'm sure it is. You specified conservatives with the implied qualifier that the reader of the post was your population.
I qualified.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
