E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Three times on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the payment individuals must eventually make for failing to buy insurance under the health-care law is a penalty, not a tax.
"It's a penalty that comes under the tax code," Pelosi said, "for the 1%, perhaps, of the population who may decide that they're going to be free riders" by not buying insurance.
Moderator David Gregory persisted. "But it's a new tax. It is a new tax on the American people," he said.
"No, no, no, no," Pelosi responded. "It's not a tax. It's a penalty for free riders."
So what is the payment that virtually all citizens must make if they decline to obtain health insurance when that provision of the Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014?
In his Supreme Court opinion declaring the law constitutional under Congress's taxing authority, Chief Justice John Roberts called it a tax no fewer than 26 times. The health-care law itself repeatedly refers to the payment as a penalty, but Roberts said that didn't matter. The conclusion about what it is, he said, "should not change simply because Congress used the word 'penalty.'"
For him, the issue is how it actually works, not the label attached to it in the statute.
Penalties, Roberts said, work much differently from taxes. Quoting an earlier Supreme Court decision, he said a penalty "is an exaction imposed by statute for an unlawful act." But failing to buy health insurance is not unlawful, because a citizen has an alternative -- either buy insurance or pay a tax. The conclusion: It cannot be a penalty.
"Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS," Roberts wrote. "The shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance."
It is, he put it succinctly, “a tax on going without health insurance.”
Is all this semantics, or does it matter? It made all the difference to Chief Justice Roberts. His opinion makes it amply clear that if he thought it wasn't a tax, he would not have voted to find it constitutional. Under the law of the case, the Supreme Court declared that payment a tax, not a penalty.
Leave a Comment:
Its exactly the same Romney Mandate still in effect in Boston . Most people asked say they had no idea it even existed.. What people are talking about is .. Is the Super Pac money from the Vegas Mob and how much is from China ? What are they getting from Romney for their money ?
if you're not married, you pay higher taxes.
if you don't own a house, you pay higher taxes
if you don't have any children, you pay higher taxes
Where is the Republican outrage for these extra taxes?????
If you don't have health insurance (not talking about those who cannot have H.I. due to pre-existing conditions or life-time cap), and get sick, and stick the taxpayer with the bill because you were too cheap to get insurance "just in case" like most of us do, your rights are violated????
What about my rights as a taxpayer, and a health insurance policy holder? Why am I being penilized for being responsible???
Republicans = lying, cheating hypocrites who worship the dollar.
In Palm Springs Ca
yes. every year when I do my state taxes, I have to prove that I have at least a minimum-state-approved health insurance. I also have to provide membership numbers for everyone that I claim on taxes.
What difference does it make? The top 1% doesn't pay taxes anyhow. It's about time, even through Speaker Peolisi said it's not, for them to pay something to contrubiute towards the well-being of this country.
BTW: When is Mittens going to reveal his tax reports and murky investments i.e. his offshore finances.
For a great discussion on what the ACA has done and will do in the future please check out this blog from the Commonwealth Fund. The Commonwealth Fund has a lot of good information including a scorecard of where the US rates as compared to other industrialized nations in relation to health care outcomes (hint: we score way lower in outcomes, highest in cost--so much for "American Exceptionalism")!
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Blog/2012/Jun/SCOTUS/Nation-to-Move-Forward-on-Ensuring-Affordable-Access.aspx
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
tax is a penalty -
as John Marshall - the most famous chief justice 1803-35 - once said, the power to tax is the power to destroy.
But this small fine is just a token in this case of health insurance, to raise some money to cover the cost arising out of covering those uninsured getting care.
Beverly in Chicago
That is patently false. Don't show your bias and stupidity all the time.
Bev, Willard is only the PRESUMPTIVE nominee. We won't know officially until after the Republican convention at which time if he IS the party's coice then he will be required to divulge his finances. That should be a good week or two worth of campaign fodder for Democrats to go after. It is all timing, my dear, all timing.
The Obama Administration, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in Washington emphatically state, "This is not a tax." Well I think they should march straight over to the U.S. Supreme Court and tell Chief Justice John Roberts that it is not a tax and therefore, since their ruling is based on that premise, it cannot stand.
Beverly,
How does the 1% (supposedly) that aren't going to get health insurance in any way relates to the 1% (supposedly) that doesn't pay taxes? And what do you care about Romney's (again supposedly) off shore accounts? You wouldn't vote for him to begin with, so why do you care?
Beverly in Chicago,
Mark... The 45-50 of who you state pay no income taxes includes children and fixed income elderly. Yeah, good job on pointing that you would hold those who do not work because they can't and CHILDREN to be responsible for taxation... SMH, what an f'in dope. Also, the top 10% own about 80% of the countries wealth... so your point being?? Do you feel that they should pay little to no taxes because they hold that much wealthy (which can be recycled into the economy for programs to boost the economy? I know i know, i'm a socialist... SMH again)?
kingofkings77
retirees, high school and college studens, single mothers, disabled, unemployed and underemployed, etc.
But Mark and the Republicans want those people to start paying taxes while the top 1% gets another break.
JK1963
First not supposedly but for sure - proven with the 1 year of tax returns that Romney blessed us with.
Second, every dollar not in a US bank is a dollar that does not get loaned to small businesses, homeowners, car buyers, etc. Banks need money to lend money. When Williard decided to stash his millions in offshore accounts, he said F*ck U to the American people.
It is a Freeloader tax - or Freeloader penalty - call it what you want.
The intent is to penalize freeloaders who use taxpayer dollars to pay for emergency medical care for which eventualities they chose not to cover with health insurance. No need to worry if you are not a freeloader
BAM ... right out of the box, Beverly tells a lie in her second sentence !
Yes, Beverly, the 1% that you libbies rant about pay very high taxes.
What is funny here is the liberals are arguing that it's a penalty .... while before the SupremeCourt they argued it was a tax. Before that, Obama argued it was a penalty.
Hell, if Obama argued it was a penalty, nancy says it's a penalty and Romney thinks it's a penalty .... then it must indeed be a penalty ...... which would INVALIDATE the argument for passage by John Roberts !
Geez you Democrats FLIP-FLOP a lot !!!!!!!
What happens on the state level is different on the federal level where the supreme court rains supreme. If the court rules that the penalty is a tax then it is a tax. The President promised that the nation that he would not raise taxes on 90% of Americans in any way. The health care law is now clearly a violation of that Promise. To keep his promise the President must ask congress to repeal the health care law immediately. All hale the Chief!
[All hale the Chief!]
That'd be "hail"...as in "HAIL to the Chief"...
...the rest of your post is clearly wishful thinking due to ignorance of the facts.
kingofkings77,
What you're saying above is a distortion of the facts. I'd encourage people to look up the data for themselves.
I do not care what you call it. It's the law. We elect representatives to legislate taxes and spend them. It's over you cry babys. As we make the final shove down your already Koch bros stained throats, believe me, the pain will subside in a short period of time. lol Pure theatrics and unhonorable politics is the ONLY reason there has been controversy over ANY of this administrations agendas. This new GOP we are dealing with has got to go. Not a TRUE american bone in their collective bodies.
I could care less what you call it. Being a independent I always felt it was a tax. No matter how you slice it Obama lied about it from the start. He said it was not a tax yet they argued it was a tax when he wanted it to be and now he says it is a penalty because that is what he needs it to be. I voted Obama before but not this time. The lates ordeal with Eric Holder proves to me he cannot be trusted. I see the liberals media and people, that seem to want to turn their heads and don't care about the truth in the Holder case. No matter what side of the aisle you sit on I would think the truth would matter. What do those people teach their kids. Truth only matters when it helps them? Obama said he would be a uniter. Look at everything he does and you soon see he was anything but a uniter. He said he would cut the deficit by the end of his first term. He has added more to it than past presidents. He blames it all on Bush but at what point does he take responsibility for his own spending? Sometimes I do not see how he can be a president when he has spent twice the time fund raising and on vacations than any past president by far. I would warn the Republicans to that they need to straighten up their act. There have been many times they have acted in the name of politics also rather than doing what is right for our country. However my money this year is on Romney. I think he does have the experience we need to get jobs created. It really comes down to Obama being nothing more than a community activist with no real world experience in job creation. His lack of experience shows everyday. He has no clue how business works. For those of you talking about the one percent. How about the 50% that pay no federal taxes. Obama is selling a bill of goods he knows is hyperbull but he knows how to divide and conquer. Thats is one thing he is good at.
To Belfast Lad who wrote:
Not true! The penalty is not assessed to individuals at or below the poverty line. This is a way to force those who are self insured, i.e. those who use Health Savings Accounts or can afford to pay their own way, to participate in Obamacare or pay into the system even though they will not be using the system. Why is it that the Federal Government can self insure their fleet of cars, but the Affordable Care Act penalizes individuals who want to self insure their health care?
Isn't it about time to boot David Gregory and replace him with an unbiased reporter who is willing to ask tough questions and question the lies being spouted?
Amen Helen!
Old Gotcha Gregory should of been sent packing years ago!
The biased hack has ruined everything Tim Russert worked for to make MTP the "must see" political show on Sunday mornings!
NBC booted Ann Currey for no legitimate reason, yet, keeps this joke of a journalist around!
It makes me miss Tim Russert that much more.
Helen, NY
Isn't it about time to boot David Gregory and replace him with an unbiased reporter who is willing to ask tough questions and question the lies being spouted?
Helen, it's long overdue.
Should never have put him in there to begin with.
As I watched him working at trying to bully Nancy Pelosi this past MTP, I was shocked at his rude behavior. He showed his partisanship the more she corrected him as to the facts. Good job Nancy!
I doubt there is another Tim Russert waiting in the wings, he was so fair I never knew what side of the aisle he leaned towards.
I hope they give the same treatment to him they gave Ann Curry, where her boss, said after she left, she had a year to prove herself, how unprofessional......he's had longer than that and has done real damage to the MTP brand.
You people are hysterical. David Gregory? Chuck Todd? Both are in the tank for Obama!
Just because they have to call out Obama every once in a while on his numerous daily lies, you have to understand that they need to make an attempt to seem somewhat neutral.
We seem to forget that Romney Care was at the State level only. Obama care is for the entire Country. Can you imagine the Bureaucracy on this baby?
Rob - if healthcare is so bad, are you still in Mass, really still in Mass? If so, how is your healthcare? You do know it is the same as the ACA, right?
Gingerbread
I liked Ann Curry. Savannah Guthrie seems like another Republican-leaning mouthpiece, I hate to say it. I've been trying to give David Gregory advice for months. NBC never listens to me!
I don't need a left leaning journalist to read me the news. I just want a trustworthy, smart, and informative news reader. I miss Walter.
So this means Romney raised taxes as Gov of MA?
Rob - if healthcare is so bad, are you still in Mass, really still in Mass? If so, how is your healthcare? You do know it is the same as the ACA, right?
Healthcare in Massachusetts runs $3000 per person more than the national average. Emergency room visits are about the same 10 years later. One of the main arguments by proponents. While its true that 97% of the states people have health coverage, costs continue to skyrocket.
Romneycare is a mixed bag at best. But it's a 70 page law for ONE state not a 2,700 page law that is far more overreaching.
This law has not even taken full effect and yet it has single handly smothered any type of economic recovery.
[Nancy said we have to pass the bill before we know what's in the bill.]
Ok, now post Pelosi's ENTIRE quote, in context. Everyone had almost an entire YEAR to read the bill...the GOP simply chose not to. Any more excuses?
I thought so...
Knowledge is power, my friend...knowledge is power...
bulletstopper, I hear that statement a lot from conservatives. I think what she was saying is that we have to pass the bill before the general public will know what's in it. That makes perfect sense to me. It's just another one of those statements taken out of context that the right uses to beat the left with, hoping to gain political advantage with their base that seldom bothers to think things through to see if they make sense or not.
Heartlight3, The law has been passed over a year ago.... and still most of those who voted for it do not understand it. Then, there are those sneaky little taxes, many of which will hit the middle class, that no one wants to talk about. Someone said there were 18 taxes built into it.
But YOU have read the entire law haven't you Heartlight 3 and all the regulations being churned out thus far ??
Semantics and discussion points for the 24-hour news cycle.
In an election year, I guess yelling "taxes" helps someone - or more accurately dumbs down the electorate.
I suppose that communicating to the lowest common denominator is a valid approach but <sigh> once again, America has much more serious problems than whether the Healthcare mandata is a tax or a penalty.
When will we ever address some other issues?
I would think the democrats, especially the hard core left wingers, would be happy that it was changed from mandate to a tax. I mean after all it's always the left that keeps asking for more taxes and spending, now they have it.
The left keeps asking what's the difference between Romneycare in Mass. and Obamacare, the easy explanation is: In Mass. it's a mandate because the law says so, and Obamacare it's a TAX because the law now says it is. Romneycare was never challenged in the Courts, Obama's was changed by the SCOTUS.
sfcret - so why was it not challenged? Seems to me that if it was so awful for the rest of us to have it the good folks in Mass would have jumped the gun to the court system too. Since they did not, you should let mitt have his one and only accomplishment shine a little bit for him, can't really down one without downing the other.
Union Baby - I don't live in Mass. so I have no idea why it wasn't challenged. There is a big difference between a Federal program that effects all of the United States and a State program that only effects that one state.
Say, as long as you brought it up - would you please elaborate on the big difference?
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Well one big one is that if it really bothers me I can move to another state. Now I would have to move out of the country. Before you come back with some snide comment just know that I could GAS what you think.
Let me see if I understand this *cough* logic...
WillardCare got more people in MA insurance coverage which is the exact same thing ObamaCare proposes for the country...
And this is considered a BIG difference? lmao!
WOW!
That's amazing!
Ditto that darling!
Oh Dear!
Poor little Rebbie is so worked up she's talking to herself... lol
Now I would have to move out of the country
Like Romney did in the 60's to avoid the draft? What is it with Republicans and shirking their personal responsibility, either to serve during war time, or to make sure they can pay their medical bills?
Er, nope. If you listened to the Court half as diligently as you pretend to, you'd know that the Court specifically said it isn't a tax. Otherwise, it would have dismissed the lawsuit outright, as Courts do not rule on taxes that have not taken effect as yet. The only thing the Court said is it's within Congress' power to penalize people for not buying insurance, much like they have taxing power.
You should also know that court rulings set precedents, and if Obamacare is to be considered a tax, then for future purposes, Romneycare is a tax as well. So there you have a nice Catch-22 for you to try to work around.
sfcret-
The ACA law was not "challenged" in the Supreme Court. That is a fact.
Ask somebody who was paying attention and knows how the court works, how it landed there for their ruling.
Well okay then Gomer!
Since you refuse to answer we will chalk it up as your comment being full of @!$%# as usual!
[Now I would have to move out of the country.]
So, Reb...where are you going to move to...Canada?
The country with the socialized health care?
The country with universally recognized gay marriage?
The country thats 45% athiest?
The country where abortion has no time limit?
Yeah, good luck with that...I'm sure you'll fit right in.
Feisty the b!tch - I don't stay on the internet just to answer your stupid questions. I had to go out and take care of some business. As to your question "What is the big difference", since you have a small mind and can't seem to grasp reality, think about this: All States have their own Constitutions which pertain to their citizens. All States have the right to pass laws they want for their states without interference from the Federal Government. Some states have programs that other states don't that is what is known as "States Rights", I guess you missed that if and when you went to school.
Now for your snide remark about BS, if you would get your fat a$$ out of your mothers basement once in a while and do something besides play on the computer and listen to the BS from MSNBC, you wouldn't have to ask such a stupid question.
Sheila MD - The ACA was challenged by 26 States in Federal Court, which, after appeals, both sides agreed to go to the Supreme Court instead of playing it out in the Appeals Courts. All sides argued in front of the Supreme Court, so what part of challenged don't you understand, since the challenge includes all federal courts from District Court to Appeals Court and the Supreme Court. You sound as dumb as your friend Feisty.
Andres TM - You can spin it anyway you want, the Opinion from Chief Justice Roberts said it was a TAX, since it came under the IRS enforcement. If it had not been declared a tax it would have been over ruled as the opinion stated that Congress did not have the power under the Commerce Clause to require people to pay for the Mandate. Of course the left now don't want to claim it's a TAX, and I don't see why since all I have heard from you left wing idiots is we have to tax more, make more people pay taxes for more government programs.
The democrats won, they got most of the Health Care Law that they wanted. Why is there so much whining on the part of the left, especially from Obama's campaign and the Democratic leadership in Congress.
Now can someone on the left tell me who is going to pay for those people in the States that refuse to go along with adding those who qualify for Medicaid? As the Court said, the States do not have to buy into the insurance pools nor add these people to their Medicaid rolls.
Sorry Gomer - that is as far as I read!
I am however, impressed you little douche-bag spent all that time on your rebuttal!
Sure has to SUCK to be you, that I get under your thin skin so easily... lmfao@U Gomer!
Even better part is knowing fat white @!$%#s like you will be the minority in the next 30 years... suck on THAT supposed Sargent! :o)))
BITE ME little Goober! lol
Feisty - See you are the one that asks for the difference, so I assume you agree with me since you can't rebut what I posted. Further it is always your posts that start with the snide remarks, and for someone, like yourself that is on the internet all day everyday you must not have a job, your must not go out, and you really don't have a life. I really feel sorry for you and your wasted life. BTW, you don't get under my skin because you are really a sorry POS. Further learn how to spell when you post, It's SERGEANT not Sargent.
Feisty - No reply yet? I really feel sorry for you Feisty, anyone that spends as much time on First Read as you do must really have a sh!ty life, or no life at all. I believe you have very low self esteem and are living in a dream world since all you want to do is try and belittle others. You rarely post anything of value to the conversation and only want to make snide and derogatory remarks about other posters. You and some of your left leaning friends think that First Read is strictly a social site for your and their enjoyment and you seem to use it as a means of conversation among each other instead of its intent to discussion political views of the day.
Hope you will get out of the basement and off of the internet and enjoy the 4th of July.
Gee no reply from Feisty, so I guess everything you said is BS as usual. You sure like to give it but I see you can't take it. LOL
Make up your mind Gomer!
First your raving about me being here all the time & then you revert to whining when I'm not...
Not sure what kind of reply you were expecting after your repeated personal attacks but you will not be getting one from me...
I asked a simple question;
And this is how YOU chose to respond;
What a BIG
manbully you are... lolGo kick your dog or wife, they are much more submissive than I am!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Still nothing but BS. You never responded to the Sarge. If people would stop reading your posts after the first sentence my guess is we would all be better off.
Mickey, NY
Who said anything about Canada?
And finally to Amy B. Portland, ME
I am a Vietnam vet, I pay my bills and taxes, have health care insurance (which I pay for myself) and don't understand your stupid generalizations.
Gee, it looks like the Redhead got up early this holiday morning to post another one of her dumb remarks. Wonder if she ever figured out how to spell SERGEANT yet? Feisty, you should not be talking about someone being a bully, especially with the BS you post. LOL
Yet it was only last night you were pissing yourself because I didn't answer you according to your imaginary timeline... lol
Got NO legitimate rebuttal? Slap on your spelling police badge!
Tell me how it feels to be owned by me Gomer? lmao!
Now that I have made YOU my little bitch?
Poor old Gomer - go take your Aricept... you're slipping...
Could you contradict yourself more in a single comment? lmao!
You really... really are NOT very good at this! ;o)))
Better luck next time little buddy!
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
I believe you need to respond to the Sarge - His point:
All States have their own Constitutions which pertain to their citizens. All States have the right to pass laws they want for their states without interference from the Federal Government. Some states have programs that other states don't that is what is known as "States Rights".
Calling him names is not a response.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Sorry Gomer - that is as far as I read!
I am however, impressed you little douche-bag spent all that time on your rebuttal!
Sure has to SUCK to be you, that I get under your thin skin so easily... lmfao@U Gomer!
Even better part is knowing fat white @!$%#s like you will be the minority in the next 30 years... suck on THAT supposed Sargent! :o)))
BITE ME little Goober! lol
Wow, yes, Fiesty, you sure fit the description. I've seen your posts for a while now and I concur with the opinion.
Try taking off your rose colored liberal glasses and see how liberal policy merely makes things worse and worse by the attempts to 'fix' very bad prior liberal policies. People will take advantage of liberals forever. Liberals are the ultimate suckers in this society because they will always refuse to look at the fact that people will chose to take advantage of policy and get their 'free ride' every single time, rather than be responsible and work for their own well being.
Is it a penalty? Is it a tax? This is NOT a debate Democrats want to get into. Pelosi set the stage for the answer Democrats need to give: It's BOTH! It is a penalty tax on freeloaders. That's the soundbite. Don't try to explain it any more. And the difference between Dems and Repubs on the issue is that Repubs are okay with small businesses and the middle class having to pay more because of freeloaders.
How ignorant to say that the 1% does not pay taxes. Beverly, I think you meant they do not pay enough taxes with all the loopholes that are in the tax code.
Let's make it a flat tax for everyone (No Exceptions) and no Deductions. Can we all agree on that?
Absolutely not. A flat tax is regressive. We're a better people than that.
No, we can't.
Paying $10,000 out of a yearly income of $40,000 hurts one far more deeply than paying $10 million out of $40 million.
$10,000 can make a difference in the form of sending your kids to college or not, being able to drive to California in the summer, or simply paying for healthcare insurance.
Those $30 million is enough to live a lifestyle of excess and indulgence. You don't need the extra $10 million for that.
I don't have anything against wealth. I have a problem with the notion that a wealthy man can only spare as small a fraction of his money as a working-class man to give to his country.
"I don't have anything against wealth. I have a problem with the notion that a wealthy man can only spare as small a fraction of his money as a working-class man to give to his country."... one of the most best statements ever made...
then make it a consumption tax. you are only taxed on what you spend, not on what you earn.
Concerned - actually, you would be very suprised at how little if any taxes the 1% pay (my daughter prepares tax returns as a 2nd job every tax season - this is one issue she hates about it - the 1% always think they are "owed" tax breaks on everything, some even try to have a tax break on the foofoo dog). I really would not mind tax breaks for the 1% if they actually cared enough about the rest of us to use those big breaks to create jobs - that was what they were supposed to do but failed, therefore they are in the hot seat and more and more of us working/middle class folks have very little respect or concern for the 1%. Flat tax works for me, it may need to be a different tax on each income level with the hightest percentage at the top, no filing - ever, no returns - ever, no deductions - ever.
New rule -
Anyone who makes in excess of 300K/year should be forced to hire a chaffeur.
That's a good job that you don't need no stinkin degree for :)
Besides. Makes you look like a stud.
union -- our very own President Obama, a multimillionaire, took advantage of every tax loophole that was available to him if i recall correctly. legally he did nothing wrong but then to keep saying that he and other rich folks should pay more tax rang very hollow.
i absolutely agree on a flat tax. no deductions, no loopholes.
billybob... so a flat tax of 1%... how would that be good for the country in the need to intake a source of income to pay for debt owed. A flat tax is stupid... you should pay low taxes for low wages (so that you can have more disposable income to inject into the economy and invest in oneself)... and as your wages increase so do your taxes... IE a progressive tax rate. Making 10 million in one year and being taxed 50% (hypothetical) does what to the lifestyle of that person taking home 5 million?????
billybob - but he proposes that congress pass a law that says millionaires should pay at least 30% of their income in taxes. That doesn't sound like he is trying to weasel out of paying his share. I think it says something about a politician if they vote for tax increases that will affect their own taxes. Not too many Republicans in that category.
king -- not sure where you came up with 1% but I would suggest you need to make it bigger, say something around 22% and eliminate the tax code as it exist today.
heart -- the President has been saying for sometime now that he should pay more in tax. he had an opportunity to do so and failed. he followed the law but not his rhetoric.
Romney to travel to Israel!
Good, if we send him, can they keep him? Please?!?
From the article:
"Is all this semantics, or does it matter? It made all the difference to Chief Justice Roberts. His opinion makes it amply clear that if he thought it wasn't a tax, he would not have voted to find it constitutional. Under the law of the case, the Supreme Court declared that payment a tax, not a penalty."
It's a TAX period!!
This tax effects all of us... every da-n one of us...
Thanks for giving the middle class "the finger" Mr. President!!
Middle class people, who don't have health insurance, go without because they can't afford it. It's not that they want the thrill of risking running up medical bills. How is making insurance affordable for everyone, and helping businesses provide it to their employees, giving the middle class "the finger?"
Amy said,
"How is making insurance affordable for everyone"
If you believe Obamacare will make insurance affordable you are bat sh-t crazy!!
The CBO said the cost went from 900 billion to 1.76 trillion and it has not been fully implemented yet... and as with any government run program it will have cost overuns! Oh and who do you think pays for all the freebies? "THE MIDDLE CLASS" that's who, so bend over and grab your ankles because Obamacare is the biggest tax increase in history and everyone including bat sh-t crazy left wing nut jobs will feel it!!
You are truly delusional!!
amy -- maybe you missed the stories about the taxes in obamacare that will affect many people. i did not include the ones targeting only the rich. here is what business insider reports:
would you agree that the average middle class family will be impacted by some or all of these taxes?
There are other taxes too, billybob ! There is a Medicare tax on capital gains from stock transactions. You also have a potential tax on the gain from selling your personal residence.
Since the President promised the nation that he would not raise taxes in any way for 95% of Americans, he needs to ask congress to immediately repeal the law that violates his promise.
So are we going to nit pick the semantics of the Supreme Court decision to death or what? The fact is the AFFORDABLE health care act is Constitutional. PERIOD. If someone doesn't like the so called mandate, which by the way will affect very few people, only those who can afford but stubbornly refuse to get health insurance forcing others to pay if they get sick, the law is changeable like any other. Personally I would make that group sign a paper that says they don't have to pay a fine or tax or anything but that if they get sick they put up their home, cars and everything they own except the clothing they are wearing in order to pay for their medical bills. They could have wages garnished etc. Whatever needs to be done to collect and the IRS would be a good one as an entity already in the business of collecting revenue they know how and would thus save money in training and new offices, new bureaucracy etc.
More partisan bickering. Folks like Beverly and Fisty are too stupid to know when they're being duped. Oh well, as long as they get their gubmint check.
Why does it matter which it is, most won't need to pay it anyway. Unless you become a bum and live homeless on the streets immediately after you leave parents/guardian you will have some mandates and taxes through your life you have to pay. Which of those (property tax, gasoline tax, airline tax, auto insurance and license plates/registration, property insurance, etc.) could be more important than one that guarantees you and all Americans affordable health care? You can say all those other taxes/insurances/penalties could be avoided again if you are homeless begging all your life, but once you step into a normal working life you are paying all sorts of taxes, licenses, fees and required to have at least auto insurance. The only losers in this mandate/Act are the debt collection companies that won't be hounding patients that can't pay their bills, some collector/bankruptcy/ repo folks will have to find other jobs. That is something this country has not woke up to in general, we have way too big of debt collection company industries, our economy is getting to be a debt/borrowing and forecllosure/repossession system. Probably because the business leaders have moved the great real jobs of making consumer products to other countries for the cheap labor, etc.
this is a healthcare bill. that becomes a death tax. Do people really want the government and the rich to decide if you could live or not. I would like to have my freedom of choice.
Small inaccuracy in the article. While Chief Justice Roberts said it was a tax for the purposes of the Tax and Spend Clause, he also said that it was not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Tax Injunction Act.
Shadowpatch, it is currently the rich -- hospitals and insurance companies that deciide if you could live or not. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act does not change that reality.
true, but I would like it if i need to get a pacemaker for my family or myself. I still can. further down the road who knows. most likely not. we will become even less innovative then we are now. Jobs will decrease even in the health care system. Healthcare should be affordable, but without the penalties that we are bound to face. people come to America to use our hospitals and doctors to survive. Some of whom are from countries that have government health care.
Didn't America start because of a tax decision in Briton simular to this one?
I am sure that the President will explain all of this when he goes over the health care bill, "line by line", with my congressman on CSPAN. I want the President to explain how all of the promises that he made regarding the bill will be kept. I want to President to prove that the health care bill will not ad anything to our already huge deficit. In view of the Supreme Court's latest ruling, I want the President to explain how the health care bill will not add or raise taxes for 95% of Americans as he had promised. While he is at it I want the President to explain his magic trick, how the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars as he has promised the American people without conditions to include any action of congress. All hail the Chief!
"It's a penalty that comes under the tax code," Pelosi said, "for the 1%, perhaps, of the population who may decide that they're going to be free riders" by not buying insurance". Hmmmm. A penalty that comes under the tax code, and the government is adding 15,000 new IRS officials. But it's not a tax. Sure, sure. We believe you. We believe you.
Just another case of this administration's group think gone awry. Please, please, please let this be over in November. Our country cannot stand another four years of this. Enough is enough!!
The Republicans are so DUG IN WITH OVERTURNING THIS LAW, that they will DENY their own Mothers Health Care to make this a LOSER for President Obama and the People!!!.
Judge Roberts had better watch his back. These Republicans and their PUNDITS have gone off the Rails when the are asking for ARMED RESURRECTION against the Federal Government on this and ALL OF A SUDDEN the Supreme Court is no longer their SUBSIDIARY TO DO TOTALLY Republican/TEA BIDDING.
You have Govs. Jindal, Haley, Perry, and Scott, McDonald, Walker already threatening not to IMPLEMENT IT. HOW MUCH MORE BIGGER HACKS can these Governors BE TO Deny Health Care to the those who can least afford it AND GIVE BACK MONEY from the Federal Government to assist people in HAVING HEALTH CARE to LOOK MORE RIDICULOUS than they already do.
I want them to give up their CUSHY HEALTH CARE on the TaxPayers that they ENJOY FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES.”
If you have money you can afford healthcare.
There is no debate. The supreme court has ruled. It's a tax. The Government has taxing authority. They do not have the authority to penalize for not purchasing something. They can tax you for not purchasing something if the people allow them to do that. The elected officials that wrote a law allowing the Government to tax people for not purchasing something will be replaced at the November election and this stupid law will be repealed.
The people cannot allow elected officials to pass laws that allow the Government to tax the people for not purchasing a product. Any product. That would be far to much power for them to have. Health insurance today. Electric Cars tomorrow. The NY Times next week. Solydra Solar panels next month.
We need to stop it now.
The Night Watchman
Typical lawyers. Let's argue over the definitions of words while getting paid. EVERYBODY wants healthcare as long as someone else pays for it. Not that long ago NO ONE had insurance and rates AND costs were lower. Insurance guarantees have driven up the costs because insurance companies were willing to pay for it.
IF Insurance companies can make money in this country (tens of billions a year) then, the most logical solution is to NATIONALIZE ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES. That will eliminate the National Debt and provide cost efficient healthcare.