Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The ACA is NOT a tax. The ACA mandate is NOT a tax.

Posted 2 years ago on June 30, 2012, 8:15 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

So says Chief Justice Roberts – but what does he know?

“Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes…. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax. It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a penalty, not a tax.”

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.

“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
“Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes…. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.”

Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”


127 Comments

127 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I have to agree with Justice Clarence Thomas who wrote the dissenting opinion:

“What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power, upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States.”

“To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”

“The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.”

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”

[-] 3 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

strange days indeed most pocular mama when I start agreeing with thomas.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

“To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it. "

if congress had called it tax in the first place, the descent losses pith

income tax already funds the government already

are taxes really so unpopular?

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Yes, that is the whole point.

The president and the congress insisted it was not a tax and that it was based on regulating interstate commerce. They based the mandate on the fact that they were regulating interstate commerce. They were very careful to clearly make that the basis. The reason the POTUS and his team based it on regulating commerce and wrote it the bill that way, is because Obama made the same promise George H.W. Bush made, went back on, and in turn lost his second term election because of - "Read my lips, no new taxes"

Quote: "I can make this firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000/year will see any form of tax increase, not any of your taxes... period" -- Barack H Obama

He repeated this pledge on the campaign trail over, and over, and over. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U

Therefore, for the SCOTUS "to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it."

There is something more important in Justice Thomas' dissension than the fact that they rewrote the meaning and intent of the mandate. The most important passage to me showed his understand of the federal government's role in regard to regulating private conduct:

"there are structural limits upon federal power, upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States.” -- Clarence Thomas

Here is one you can quote me on:

"There is a continuum between freedom and liberty at one end to oppression and tyranny at the other. The more we let the government tell us what we can an cannot do, must or must not buy, can or cannot say, and when and where we can speak or protest, the more we move form liberty and freedom towards tyranny and oppression." -- JoeTheFarmer

The sad part is that the mandate will hurt those just above the poverty line more than anyone because these ore the folks that will not qualify for medicaid and will not afford to purchase insurance. They will pay the tax instead since it is cheaper.

[-] -1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

if that is true.... why does he not stand against the usurpation of the Common Law legal system... which occured in 1938???????????????? eh.... he is full of shit... because if he cared about freedom... he would not stand by and say nothing about the entire statute court system as it was created in 1938 under emergency war powers... HE SAYS NOTHING. HE IS FULL OF SHIT.... he does not care... and is just being a republican. lame... is what I say? why???? because i know the truth. We all lost freedom in 1933.... see --- http://mosheh.org/Freedom-and-THE-LAW.html

the supreme court was castrated in 1938... by FDR... and they robbed us all of freedom.... forced us all into Civil liberty federal citizen status... and he if he will not stand against that.. THEN HE IS FULL OF SHIT. THEY ALL ARE... FULL OF SHIT....

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

This is one time I do agree with the Justice. He is in fact penning the dissenting opinion of the four Justices that opposed the mandate. To me the most important line in his statement is this:

"there are structural limits upon federal power, upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States.”

Whether the man is full of shit or not, that IS the basis of our constitution.

"There is a continuum between freedom and liberty at one end to oppression and tyranny at the other. The more we let the government tell us what we can an cannot do, must or must not buy, can or cannot say, and when and where we can speak or protest, the more we move form liberty and freedom towards tyranny and oppression." -- JoeTheFarmer

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Quite true. Good laws protect, while too many good laws make a prison.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

ok... but do you not see... that if he makes a point about this, but will do nothing about the true fundamental causes of it all... as done in 1933.. as done with the change of the legal system in 1938... that.. it makes his claim of loving limits.. of wanting limits ... a lie.. and untrue... for if it was... he would take a stand for restoring freedom... of making all the forced contracts of commerce imposed on the people since 1933... null and void... and would voice that openly... but no...

instead... he focuses like a laser here.. on this one issue... which sounds nice... sure... but makes it clear he is full of shit... otherwise he would say more... a lot more.. since he knows so many are reading it. he does not... he keeps his mouth shut.

Read -- http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SenateReport93-549.htm

They know... they all know... our nation gave up constitutional law a long time ago... and they.. as the Supreme court are partly to blame.. and thus.. full of shit.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You are deflecting from this issue at hand which is the mandate.

The mandate is unconstitutional and does nothing to help and rather punishes many in the lower middle class.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

I am sorry Joe... but since 1933/1938... the government has been able to impose any law it sees fit for anything... today.. they can everything... like that you wear enough clothes.. that you do not beat your own child... that you cannot do drugs... that you must vaccinate your child.. that you must pay income taxes... that you must pay social security taxes.. that you must obey 66 million statute laws and counting.... oh yes

you lost freedom a long time ago... this did not just happen.

fact is... our nation.. in 1933... gave up the amendment process to grant powers... and the supreme court accepted the commerce clause and the existance of commercial contracts.. namely.. the birth certificate... as the means to control the people by statute.. which they could not do before that time... when people were free.. and were not Federal citizens... Federal citizenship... was forced.. mandated.. by law.. in 1933.. and it put all the people into ex-slave status.. that is the problem. The supreme court knows all of this... They say nothing. They... they.. made it happen. This new mandate... is nothing new.. and is not the loss of freedom, because you all lost freedom a long time ago. I ran for President in 2012... to solve the problem... I will run again.

-Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion http://mosheh.org/Home.html 1-818-397-1352 campaign@mosheh.org

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Common Law legal system...

define

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

put simply... since the dawn of this nation.. WE HAD THE COMMON LAW... which is an agreement between free people... to do no harm... to let other do as they please... and it was not possible for the government to write laws to control the people under the common law... THAT WAS FREEDOM. AND.. basically... in 1938... FDR... took away freedom... and replaced it with Civil Liberties... with the idea.. that government could be trusted. ha.... We know better... don't we????? oh yes we do....

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

common law is the people concent to live under common rules

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

No.. not exactly.. the Common law was this...

FREEDOM VERSES CIVIL LIBERTIES

Freedom vs Civil Liberties : In 1933, they literally took away constitutional freedom and rights and protections, and gave the people something else, called Civil Liberties, which is granted at the pleasure of the Federal Government, and slowly over the past 80 years, they have created more and more RULE based laws, 'statute laws' which the people are forced to obey, 66 million laws and counting, ALL OF WHICH IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, when applied to actual people.

THEY took away the protection of the common law legal system, as provided for in the Constitution, and forced all the people into 14th amendment Federal citizenship, and Social Security corporate status, without our clearly informed understanding, so that they may enforce endless laws on us, most especially taxation, under penalty of prison, which is something they simply could not easily do in a constitutional common law court. (So, those who favor taxes, found ways to change the system and rob the people.) We got ripped off. The problem here, typically is that the average American does NOT realize what the Common Law is... or was. So, let me explain, as simply as I can.

Under the Common Law AS IT WAS BEFORE 1933, it was difficult if not impossible to force the masses of people TO PAY TAXES, and the Federal government was completely unable to write laws applicable to the Free People, and so, in order to enforce an income TAX on the people, they had to get around the Constitution and the Common Law legal system it provides, which prevented the Federal government from being able to FORCE TAXATION, by law, as by the point of a gun and prison... I.e... Under Common Law freedom, any failure to pay income taxes, was not a jailable offence, since under the Common Law, no damage or harm had been done, and the only way to legally allow for enforcing income taxes under the Common Law, would be by constitutional amendment, stating clearly the powers of enforcement... An amendment which would be difficult if not impossible to pass, even today. THEY FOUND A WAY around the Common Law legal system..... by changing the legal system... which is something the Federal government HAS NEVER BEEN EMPOWERED TO DO.

Civil liberties, were established in 1933, as part of the NEW DEAL OF 1933. Prohibition, being a perfect example of the difference between constitutional freedom and government imposed Civil Liberties.... such that before 1933, they had to have a constitutional amendment to prevent our free people (you and me) from having the god given right to consume Alcohol or anything else for that matter, because under the constitutional legal system, being the Common law... people are free to do what they wish, posess what they wish, in all ways, always, as long as they do no harm and do not infringe on the rights and freedom of any other people, or damage any property. THAT WAS REAL FREEDOM... PROVIDED BY THE COMMON LAW!!! BUT in 1933, THEY TOOK AWAY freedom, and they gave us Civil liberties, by forcing us all into 14th amendment Federal citizenship. That is key, because this form of citizenship was not required before 1933, until when FDR used emergency war powers to force it upon the people. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! That is key... because in the 14th amendment, it states, we are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. (as the United States).

It says, United States, which legally, means, the Federal Government, to distinguish it from state governments. And it says clearly, it... provides privileges and immunities, which free people as state citizens did not need, do not presently need, and would not want, if they are subject to the common law, as free people.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. (at end of civil war!) 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This was a protection given to ex-slaves, who at the time had no protections under the Common law, and so this 14th amendment was written to protect them. As 14th amendment citizens, the Federal government gained the power to write and impose statutes to define the actual effective limits of their Rights, and by law could protect them, by demanding that all state courts prosecute them, only in accordance with Federal statute laws. (Which was not required for prosecuting any free people, who were state citizens who were as such only prosecutable in a constitutional Common Law court.)

In other words... it was at the time, that there were two kinds of citizens.

    1) Free people....   as Constitutional state citizens, with Common Law Protection.
    2) Ex-slaves (Freed people)...   with NEW Federal citizenship, to protect them from abuse.

The NEW DEAL of 1933 '''made us all''' into Ex-slaves, with no Common Law protections.

Is that right????????? HELL NO!!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

oh, this is about forced taxation

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

That.. is why they did it... to ensure payment to the new creditors.. but it also allowed them to start the drug war... and oppress the people as they are doing today... that is how they did it.... the why... has to do with money and taxes. It was hard to force taxation... since under the Common Law.. the people had not do any harm.... So.. to force us to pay... they had to take away freedom.... freedom... meant.. freedom from the government. We lost freedom.. but we can get it back.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we all pay rent or loan interest

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

Under the Common Law... failure to pay income taxes... was difficult to enforce... because no harm has been done.. as statute laws are not applicable in a Common Law court... statute laws like having to pay taxes... or statutes saying drugs are illegal.....

get it??? FDR.. worked for bankers... to rob us of freedom, so they can force taxation with a gun and prison.. and start a drug war.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Paying taxes is one way in which otherwise well-meaning people collaborate in injustice. People who proclaim that the war in Mexico is wrong and that it is wrong to enforce slavery contradict themselves if they fund both things by paying taxes. Thoreau points out that the same people who applaud soldiers for refusing to fight an unjust war are not themselves willing to refuse to fund the government that started the war.

Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

True... And while we need people to pay taxes... the way they forced us to do so... was wrong.. wrong... wrong... is... wrong...
This loss of freedom.... fundamentally as the Common Law.. is what I encourage you to start screaming about ... as it is the stem of the problem.. That is how they robbed us all...
I scream about it... everyday... everyone should... as it is only when we all are screaming about wanting freedom restored that it can happen. eh???

[-] -1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

As discussed here.... http://mosheh.org/Freedom-and-THE-LAW.html

Freedom vs Civil Liberties : In 1933, they literally took away constitutional freedom and rights and protections, and gave the people something else, called Civil Liberties, which is granted at the pleasure of the Federal Government, and slowly over the past 80 years, they have created more and more RULE based laws, 'statute laws' which the people are forced to obey, 66 million laws and counting, ALL OF WHICH IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, when applied to actual people.

THEY took away the protection of the common law legal system, as provided for in the Constitution, and forced all the people into 14th amendment Federal citizenship, and Social Security corporate status, without our clearly informed understanding, so that they may enforce endless laws on us, most especially taxation, under penalty of prison, which is something they simply could not easily do in a constitutional common law court. (So, those who favor taxes, found ways to change the system and rob the people.) We got ripped off. The problem here, typically is that the average American does NOT realize what the Common Law is... or was.


Bascially... under the Common Law... the government has no power to write laws over the people... no power to control us... why??? Because we are free... free of government control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They took away freedom... in 1938.... that.. is historical fact.

They gave us.. Civil liberties... under which... they can write any law they like.

That... is the core problem... We lost freedom a long time ago.

I say... we can get it back.

[-] 4 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the republican are great at making us believe we won a victory

for the insurance care bill

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

lying should not be protected under the first amendment

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

It was recently. A man lied about being a former marine and winning the medal of honor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/justices-say-lying-about-military-honors-is-protected.html

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I don't understand how lying should be protected under the first amendment

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If it wasn't, all of Congress would be in jail.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people lie on resumes

go competition !

raw raw raw

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I think we should have a tax for every broadcaster or politician who does not tell the truth

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I can already see the lobby regime lining up....

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the two parties need this fight

to get attention

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

away from occupy?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yea at least from my perspective

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Tricks often rely on manipulating people's expectations, misdirecting their attention and subtly influencing decision-making.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

ya I got sold down the road by my own party in student politics

they had me back a irreverent measure to be defeated

so the "real" legislation could scuttle by

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

hindsight is 20/20

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Sex.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

At least the left wing is expanding my awareness :-)

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a selectively imposed tax based on inaction

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

never heard of it

only the Insure Insurers Act

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The ACA is not a tax? But if you don't comply with it, you pay a tax. What is the difference? By 2016 the tax will be $595 or more. By 2020 that tax will likely be as great as complying with the "individual mandate". When the penalty becomes as large as the requirement it attempts to enforce, there is no difference between a tax and and a mandate.

When a small group steers government, unguided by it's people, Democracy does not exist! And when their power extends so far that they now steer the people, we have become their servants instead of their masters!

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

"The ACA is not a tax? But if you don't comply with it, you pay a tax. What is the difference?" If you don't understand, read the entire decision by Roberts.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

According to Roberts, there is no difference between a penalty and a tax. Quoted from the Supreme Court decision:

Roberts: "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax."

Roberts: "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional. The federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."

We are taxed on our activities, what we consume, what we own, and what we earn. Now we can be taxed on what we do not possess or in activities we do not engage in. Everything is now able to be made taxable.

The potential for abuse is now laid open. The Government now has the unlimited constitutional power to regulate every aspect of ones life by imposing a tax, which in reality is a financial penalty. A penalty is punishment, it is not a tax.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If you read Roberts decision you would know that he says it is a tax.

I have to agree with Justice Clarence Thomas who wrote the dissenting opinion:

“What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power, upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States.”

“To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute, but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”

“The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.”

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I don't understand - I quote Roberts who does NOT say the the mandate or the ACA is a tax, and you say he says it is, and you prove your point by quoting Thomas - who disagrees with Roberts! If you want to prove Roberts said ACA is a tax or the mandate is a tax-
site Riberts. If you can!

[-] 6 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Roberts: "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax."

Roberts: "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional. The federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a selective tax based on inaction

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

It was by the people's vote that we should control Congress, now it is by Congress's vote that they should control us.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I just wish this wasn't

the insure insurers act

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Exactly. It will insure that more money is fed to the medical care beast. And then it will grow larger as well as it's appetite. Just like the plant in the movie "The Little Shop of Horrors".

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

mostly private insurance company

if the money went to medicare, the system would be more efficient

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Some people think that it is the overwhelming amount of money available in the healthcare system that drives up it's costs, both public and private monies.

The rate of growth in any system is constrained by the quantity of money fed into that system. If we want lower health care costs, the quantity of money supplied must be reduced.

We are doing the opposite. Health care costs will continue to rise at the same rate our contributions to it rise.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

price will be whatever the market will bare

and the dying spend everything

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Very true. Health care has us at disadvantage that no other product or service can match. There is no limit to our demand for health and life, and the dollars we are willing to pay to obtain them.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Its open season on Americans by the corps right now.

Its not going to stop ever, until it collapses.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I assumed you read it since you told someone else to!

The fact that is is a tax is the whole premise of his argument that it is acceptable.

Quote: "The Act provides that this "penalty" will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual's taxes, and "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties."

Quote: "The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to regulate Commerce."

Quote: "The individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance."

Quote: "The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes."

Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause.

When the president and the congress passed the legislation they insisted it was not a tax or tax penalty. This is where Justice Thomas' dissension is relevant and why I posted it.

[-] 4 points by flip (6877) 2 years ago

tax or not a tax seems silly when there are much bigger problems facing the country - aca or no the health care system is broken, the president can send men to war or kill citizens without oversight to say nothing of the economic meltdown were are in the middle of.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The Supreme Court ruled that it is OK to force a person to purchase a product (the mandate) because the penalty for not making the purchase is a tax and the congress has the power to tax in order to raise revenue.

The real tragedy is that the mandate will hurt those just above the poverty line more than anyone. These are the folks that are not poor enough to qualify for medicaid and not wealthy enough to afford to purchase insurance. These are the folks that do not work full time for an employer that pays their benefits. These are the folks that will pay the tax and gamble on the health instead since the tax is cheaper than the cost of insurance.

It IS a tax on the lower and lower middle class. It does nothing to help them take care of their health issues.

[-] 4 points by flip (6877) 2 years ago

you are up early - we agree - i have two friends who are 50 plus and work 60 to 70 hours - they cannot afford insurance and will be forced to pay. my point is that whether or not it is a tax is not important - fixing the system is. and justice thomas?????

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I know, I usually disagree with him. I was furious over his flag burning stance years ago. I believe he penned the dissent for the four opposing Justices.

The most important line for me is:

"There are structural limits upon federal power, upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States.”

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

And EXACTLY how much is the penalty for a family making $30,000 a year who does not buy insurance? And what is the penalty if they don't pay the tax?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The mandate is a tax on the lower class and lower middle class. That is plain and simple.

The amounts are really irrelevant however a person will be fined $750, or 2% of your income for not having health insurance, whichever is greater. That is a lot of money for a family who is just getting by day to day.

The penalties for not paying taxes are extremely outrageous. There are penalties starting at $250 with interest every day you do not pay.

[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

Do you know what the penalty is for NOT paying the tax? NOTHING

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The IRS will subtract the tax from your refund. The only way to avoid the tax is to have a balance due. Pay the income tax portion, but withhold the health insurance portion.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

As I said it is a tax on those living above the poverty level. Families making $30,000 to $60,000 will be the bulk of the people paying the fine.

The new insurance mandate assesses an excise tax $750 of up to $2,085 per family in 2016 (smaller penalties in 2014 and 2015) for those who do not have “minimum essential” health insurance coverage.

[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

the question - what is the penalty for NOT paying the fine? the answer - NOTHING look it up!

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If you do not pay your taxes and penalties in full, the government has the right to recoup its money as it sees fit.

It can: 1. Place a levy on your bank account 2. Place a lien on your home 3. Seize your car, boat, or any other personal or real property of value

Simply put, failure to file, failure to pay and tax evasion can result in any number of civil and even criminal punishments, including imprisonment.

[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

If you read the ACA law - it specifically forbids a penalty for not paying this.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

So you think that when a struggling person does not buy insurance and receives a penalty they are going to not pay it because they read the 2049 page ACA law to find this section that says they do not have to pay the penalty that they are issued for not buying health insurance even though it says you have to pay a penalty for not buying health insurance on a different page?

It is a tax on the poor.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

And your alternative - no fine for the poor - that CAN pass thru the congress is ?

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

My alternative?

Not having a mandate would be my alternative.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah. I agree the republican (heritage foundation) mandate idea is not workable. Even though the tax is only 25 cents a day and only effects less than one percent of the population we should protest against the mandate. Even though there is no punishment if you do not pay this "tax" I say we should all protest against this ridiculous republican idea.!

Then we can implement the right solution! (like Vt and Montana) single payer/public option!. And put those criminal 1% insurance corps out of business.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I really do not care who came up with the idea however it is worth mentioning that the Democrats held 70% of the seats in the House, a majority in the Senate and Obama (a Democrat) was the president.

Four of the five Justices that allowed the mandate to stand were appointed by Democrat presidents.

The mandate goes against the spirit of our constitution and is a tax on the lower class and lower middle class. That is plain and simple.

A $750/yr penalty for not buying something is a lot for a family that is just getting by check to check.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm with you.

Lets protest against this republican mandate and implement the dem/progressive plan of single payer/public option!

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Again you call it a republican mandate when the democrats passed it. That is just partisan talk and not central the the issue at hand. If you said let's protest against this mandate I would be with you.

It is apparent that you have an agenda that is secondary to the cause.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

My agenda is the passage of the single payer/public option plan!!!

Is that a republican plan?

Is it a democratic plan?

I won't pretend for you. Support OWS! Vote out anti public option politicians.!

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

If that is true, and you are really non partisan, than consider this:

Because of Mitt Romney, Massachusetts currently offers the only near-universal health care program in the United States.

The Massachusetts also includes a law to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition, an automatic enrollment requirement, and insurance companies are no longer allowed to cap coverage or drop people when they get sick because they forgot to include a sprained ankle back in 1989 on their application.

Another major innovation was the creation of a new regulated marketplace, called a “connector,” where individuals could purchase private health insurance. Low- and moderate-income people who earned too much for Medicaid and did not get health coverage at work received income-based subsidies to pay for the coverage.

I believe Romney putting in a mandate was wrong but it appears he got everything you want into the program.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So you list all the good things in the Republican Romney plan. You haven't listed all those same good things the the Dem plan! Why not? Hmmm! Interesting.

In any event I like all good progressive policies that help the 99%. In regards to Romneys Ma. plan as well as the fed ACA I support repealing the mandate and implementing a public option.

I don't think I've hidden that. I suppose you disagree. Ok thats allowed.

Support OWS! Vote out anti public option politicians!

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Sure are some good things in the health care act but there is a lot of bad.

The problem is they allowed the hospitals, insurance companies, testing labs, and drug companies to litter the act with crony capitalism at the expense of the tax payer.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Obamacare was based on Romneycare, dufus...

Please ReTweet:

Both Ds & Rs lie for corporate masters: #Obamacare not about #Healthcare OR #Taxes but legalizing #IndividualMandate: http://bit.ly/LXrpe8

https://twitter.com/WatchFrogsBoil/status/219453111675269121

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

"Lets protest against this republican mandate"? You openly call Democrat Obama's signature piece of legislation "republican"? I rest my case...

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

Here is the TRUTH about Obamacare:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/

[-] 0 points by ericweiss (575) 2 years ago

But if we don't have medical insurance companies, who will make my medical decisions?

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You and your dr.!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It is starting to look like the repeal and replace, which looked like a really challenging intellectual exercise. As it turns out, all you have to change is the name plate, to, read, "O'Romney Care" or O'Boehner Care, or O'McConnell or something like that without a Dem. name associated with it? They and their constituents like everything that isn't called ACA.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

They like anything not proposed by a Kenyan

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Over time the truth has a way of coming out. Obigotry is what it is and pretty soon you can recognize it in many guises. Romney said it was irresponsible and unfair for people who could afford insurance to refuse to buy it and saddle others with the cost of their healthcare. So I agree with him 6 years ago, and 4 years ago and last year and two months ago. Of course I disagree with him 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago and last month.

I think ther were a few other times I disagreed with him, but I forgot to mark them on the calendar. I might vote for him in year 2 and year 3 but not 1 and 4. But then I could change my mind, That would be OK wouldn't it?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

In 2008 Obama would have opposed the mandate

"If an individual mandate is a solution then let's solve homelessness by mandating everyone to buy a house." - Obama said sarcastically to Hilary Clinton in the 2008 debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpIM0vFbFck&feature=player_embedded#!

We should be subsidizing HEALTHCARE not insurance companies. Expand on medicare as well as giving hospitals options for tax write-offs for helping those in certain income brackets. And don't sign for the Bush tax cuts again.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

YES -
I agree -
medicare for all
screw the insurance companies


simple
and
impossible
as long as the crapitalist Rs can protect their employers


PLEASE
remember - we do not elect a king - we elect a president
Obama promised to close Gitmo -
and signed an executive order to do so
but the Rs in congress would not fund it


the Rs will do everything they can to block any ACA funding
WE MUST VOTE THE CRAPITALISTS OUT

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

John Roberts is more concerned about the integrity of the Supreme Court and his self-importance than the integrity of our Constitution. The ObamaCare bill is dishonest and so is Roberts. It is amazing how much damage one unelected individual can wreck on our liberty just because he can. Roberts lied his way onto the Court by swearing he would not legislate from the bench. He thinks he is clever twisting our Constitution into a pretzel for some crass political purpose. Instead, he proved that he a coward and complete idiot. The integrity of the Supreme Court has been irrevocably undermined by Roberts bonehead decision. The other four judges who voted along with Roberts are clearly party hacks not worth a warm bucket of piss.

Listen to Peter Schiff rip him a new one with his clear-eyed analysis of the Roberts decision:

http://www.europac.net/media/video_blog/supreme_court_wrong_obamacare_unconstitutional

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The SCOTUS integrity died with bush v Gore when they
trampled the right wing god "states rights" and pushed their decision -
not to be a precedent .


And was buried by the citizens united decision

[-] 2 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

I think it's time to define what a tax is, according to roberts this is a tax however it defies any precedent on taxing, all other taxes are either income based or sales based or even just asset based. this is the first ever tax (that I know of) for not buying something. if you will a non-sales tax.

that's about as liberal interpretation of tax code as I've ever heard from a conservative judge.

I know I'm going to get slapped for this Idea but I'm going to say it anyway. I know republicans hate this law so I would like to propose we give this idea to them. which is to pass a law defining what a tax is and is not. thereby they can effectively shut this mandate down.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

FYI- the only thing congress can do to o verrule the supreme court is to pass a constitutional amendment

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27789) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 2 years ago

The federal government has the power to tax individuals on their income. Other then that they can not tax an individual unless it's a "capitation tax".

So, with regard to Obamacare, the Supreme Court only ruled on the issue of the governments right to tax. It did not rule on the issue of weather the money or fine imposed is a tax. That issue will be taken up in court at a later date you can be sure of that.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

What I wrote above is what
ROBERTS WROTE IN HIS DECISION
you are free to disagree with it
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

[-] 2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 2 years ago

I am not disagreeing with what you wrote - what I stated was that Roberts decision was that the goverment has the power to tax and as such can impose a tax.

However what remains to be seen is how this tax will be applied - will it be an "income tax" or will it be a "capitation or direct tax". Those are the only two types of taxes the government can impose directly on an individual.

Now, if a person makes no income no income tax can be imposed on an individual, but an individual doesn't have to make income to have a "capitation or direct tax" imposed on them.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

specifically- if you do NOT buy insurance, your income tax bill will be increased by the amount of the "penalty" thus Roberts calls it a "tax".
IMHO - an irrelavant issue
What is relavant, I learned from Lawrence O'Donnell -
The ACA specifies that the legal and financial penalty for not paying the "penalty" or the "tax" - is nothing

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 2 years ago

I concur - I believe it is written in the text of Obamacare that even though there will be a penalty (as Obama calls it) it will not be collected.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 2 years ago

It's a penalty disguised as a tax.

Like breaking up Occupy encampments to stop dissent is being disguised as caring for public health.

That's how the law in so-called republics works.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

at least the supreme court can still say "tax"

congress seems to have a shock collar blocking that

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

semantics.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

you can call it semantics or a pickle,
BUT
this is the LAW as confirmed by the supreme court

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

And the scotus LAW confirmed corporations are people, my friend. still word games & still more power to the corporations.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I dispise what this court, as my site will attest
corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
BUT
the ACA is not a tax
regardless of who likes what

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

What does ben think about it?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Ben attax the court when he thinks it is wrong

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Attax? was that an unintended freudian slip. LOL.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Roberts: "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax."

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Your grammar school sentence diagramming lessons will explain this:

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax."


"tax" refers to the requrement,


For example: "Your disease's symptoms have disappeared"
does not mean your disease has disappeared.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The ACA is like a car. The wheels, which are a component of the car, are the taxes. Wherever there is a car, there are wheels. You can say a car is not a wheel, but a car will always have wheels. The two are never separate. The taxes are a component of the ACA. Wherever the ACA exists, there are always taxes.

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Please ReTweet:

Both Ds & Rs lie for corporate masters: #Obamacare not about #Healthcare OR #Taxes but legalizing #IndividualMandate: http://bit.ly/LXrpe8

https://twitter.com/WatchFrogsBoil/status/219453111675269121

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Obviously, I was not clear
Yes Ds & Rs both have brains and breathe
what I am asking about is DIFFERENCES
or d o you think the Ds will vote for the ryan budget?

[-] -2 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 2 years ago

Where are you getting your information from? Fox news?

Blah haha haha ha haha ha!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

here mostly and searches

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

And the sheeple are THRILLED to get a few crumbs while the entire pie continues to be stomped on...,.,

How pathetic.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27789) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And there you are again - putting down - not building up.

You are a waste of space same as your shill friends.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Well if you think that everyone is giving 110%, then you have no clue what 110% would look like.

It sure as hell wouldnt look like this. You keep coddling the team, telling em they are doing a great job.

Im going to keep demanding more.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27789) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You must be in your element when at a funeral - the death of the party so to speak.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Would you like me to speak at yours :)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27789) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No - But I think Jim Jones would have loved you. Drink your kool-aid.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No, Im not a big fan of Jim Jones, obviously.

I will drink my kool aid, and you go back to taking a nap.

One of us wants more, the other thinks things are on the right path. i have a feeling you have felt this way for around 40 years,off and on, depending on whether the president is a D or R.

How's that working out for you?

We need totally new systems, and will not get it until the people awake from their deep slumber.

Sitting on their bedside rubbing their head and wispering sweet nothings into their ears is not going to accomplish that. But if that is your niche, then more power to you.

Anything is better than nothing, just remember that we need around 50% of the population to wake up, and we are probably at around 5% right now.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27789) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And your words of encouragement (?) - depression (!) - will do what (?) to get people involved (?) - NOTHING - more likely you will have people asking you to aid in their suicide if they listen to you long enough.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You're right. I should coddle them more. Our country keeps going further into the shitter, and the people refuse to wake up.

But we just be happy some are willing to post on the internet.

Come on man, really? Until the people in this country decide that they are willing to wake up, and start governing themselves, then everything we talk about, all the solutions, are meaningless.

You cannot get anything without numbers. And until people are forced to look in the mirror, you will not have numbers, because they are under the assumptoin that they are not part of the problem.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27789) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So your corpoRAT supporting intention is to drive people away from supporting the movements against global corporate crime abuse pollution corruption by pretending to be a supporter of the people? Listening to you cry in your beer will drive em away in droves.

Fucking - shill.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You have no idea what you are talking about. People are tired of everyone falling into the D vs R nonsense, and not participating in anything else besides trolling to the polls once every four years...at least OWS is.

But then again, you dont really know because you dont go. Im not hating on you for that, I just wish you would shut the fuck up about stuff you dont know about.

You say the typical shit (on the internet, no less) I say the shit they NEED to hear. You tell me which one gets more attention and respect. Ive seen it. You havent. You lose. Now go back to doing what you do, which is nothing radical.

[+] -4 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

YOU are the partisan clown, bensdad. Obamacare and NFIB v Sebelius were not victories for the Democrats OR the Republicans, but for the corporations that control them both:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (27789) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks for bumping BD's post.

You are all-right - for being a sellout of humanity to corpoRATs and all RustyButt.