Constitutional issue: fines for not purchasing insurance?

Supposn

Gold Member
Jul 26, 2009
2,633
316
130
I assumed that the U.S. Congress would find constitutional justification for mandating the purchase of health insurance. Now I read and hear they justify penalizing individuals, (as opposed to enterprises that fail to subsidize their employees insurance), as federal regulation of interstate commerce. That shouldn’t fly.

[I digress to mention that all taxes on employers are in effect a sales tax for imbedded labor expenses passed on to customers and (unlike a sales tax) it also inhibits job creation and hiring, thus affecting the median wage].

It could have been drafted and justified not as a penalty but as a tax credit only granted to those purchasing qualified medical insurance.
My preference would be a federal subsidy of insurers for their per capita qualified primary medical insurance policies.

I would have of course preferred that government’s net medical insurance expenses could have been partially funded by eliminating some of our tax inequities and enacting a federal sales tax. We all favor elimination of unnecessary government spending but we all have differing opinions as to what is and what is not necessary.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I assumed that the U.S. Congress would find constitutional justification for mandating the purchase of health insurance. Now I read and hear they justify penalizing individuals, (as opposed to enterprises that fail to subsidize their employees insurance), as federal regulation of interstate commerce. That shouldn’t fly.

[I digress to mention that all taxes on employers are in effect a sales tax for imbedded labor expenses passed on to customers and (unlike a sales tax) it also inhibits job creation and hiring, thus affecting the median wage].

It could have been drafted and justified not as a penalty but as a tax credit only granted to those purchasing qualified medical insurance.
My preference would be a federal subsidy of insurers for their per capita qualified primary medical insurance policies.

I would have of course preferred that government’s net medical insurance expenses could have been partially funded by eliminating some of our tax inequities and enacting a federal sales tax. We all favor elimination of unnecessary government spending but we all have differing opinions as to what is and what is not necessary.

Respectfully, Supposn

They are using the 16th amendment as an excuse. Its a stretch though.
 
I think there is a fair chance SCOTUS shoots down the mandate.

I would say that it is a Constitutional certainty.

Depends. I think the 4 conservatives will vote against it but that leaves one more needed to over turn it. I doubt the Liberals give a rats shit about the un constitutional nature of the bill. I KNOW our border Liberals do not care.
 
I assumed that the U.S. Congress would find constitutional justification for mandating the purchase of health insurance. Now I read and hear they justify penalizing individuals, (as opposed to enterprises that fail to subsidize their employees insurance), as federal regulation of interstate commerce. That shouldn’t fly.

[I digress to mention that all taxes on employers are in effect a sales tax for imbedded labor expenses passed on to customers and (unlike a sales tax) it also inhibits job creation and hiring, thus affecting the median wage].

It could have been drafted and justified not as a penalty but as a tax credit only granted to those purchasing qualified medical insurance.
My preference would be a federal subsidy of insurers for their per capita qualified primary medical insurance policies.

I would have of course preferred that government’s net medical insurance expenses could have been partially funded by eliminating some of our tax inequities and enacting a federal sales tax. We all favor elimination of unnecessary government spending but we all have differing opinions as to what is and what is not necessary.

Respectfully, Supposn

I think since they gave this to the IRS it is considered a tax. in which it would not be considered a fine, which is why i think this administration is so confident that this is constitutional. It was smart to set it up this way, that way it is not considered a penalty and which they may backdoor it through a technicality. slippery this administration is.
 
Congress has imposed a tax on everyone without heatlh insurance.

Congress has a clear and unambiguous power of taxation.

Case closed.
 
Congress has imposed a tax on everyone without heatlh insurance.

Congress has a clear and unambiguous power of taxation.

Case closed.


Workaround:

Everyone gets taxed. The state then buys/provides the insurance for you. You might or might not get to choose your company.

The above is ultimately no different than any other instance of taxation- the money is taken and the State decides what to spend it on.


Now, once the above is established, you are given a tax refund for your medical care purchase. Ultimately, the State's still providing the money to buy insurance- funds obtained through taxation. The end result is the same, save that you're left with greater liberty, as you can choose what company gets the contract (try choosing what planes the Air Force gets).

Convoluted, yes. But ultimately all the same thing.
 
And trying to compare health insurance to car insurance is absurd, to put it nicely and kindly.

I'd be unkind, but not today.
 
I think since they gave this to the IRS it is considered a tax. in which it would not be considered a fine, which is why i think this administration is so confident that this is constitutional. It was smart to set it up this way, that way it is not considered a penalty and which they may backdoor it through a technicality. slippery this administration is.



There is another perspective on this. The fact that they have given enforcement responsibility to the IRS changes the nature of the IRS from a tax collector to a social engineering enforcer. What happens when those who tax also get to see one's health records? Do they have an incentive to have care withhold once the "patient" is no longer a tax generator for the government?

Also, just because a government has been able to successfully abuse power in the past doesn't make the current efforts to do so justifiable.
 
Listen to this remarkable exchange. EVERYBODY from the President to his spokespersons to Congress asked the kinds of questions O'Reilly is asking are dodging the question, diverting, obfusicating, and otherwise not answering the question. And it will come down to whether any citizen can be forced by the government to buy something they do not want.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O6Jk7icfMw&feature=youtube_gdata]YouTube - O'Reilly and Cong Weiner play who's on first with health care.mov[/ame]
 
By the time the Supreme Court rules, provided they decide to hear the case, the government will be well into the implementation of the new law, insurance companies will have adapted, drug companies will have increased their revenue projections, and public support will be well above the current fifty percent. If the court does rule in favor of the plaintiffs, then the public option will be back on the table.
 
Please explain. Wouldn't the tax penalty for not carrying health insurance be the same through out the country?
 
Congress has imposed a tax on everyone without heatlh insurance.
Congress has a clear and unambiguous power of taxation.
Case closed.

Joe Steel, preferential consideration for income earned by capital gains presumes that income is more economically worthy (than other incomes). I’m among those contending that the income derived from lump sum sales are not economically more (or less) beneficial than the nurturing of an enterprise for steady and hopefully increasing profits.

Income is income.

Tax preference for capital gain is government’s attempt to counteract normal open market behavior. The U.S. Congress has determined that Adam Smith’s “great invisible hand” is shaky and inferior to the opinion of campaign contributors.

Supporters of the capital gains tax discount generally believe in a USA market driven economy but they’re not fanatical believers.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Congress has imposed a tax on everyone without heatlh insurance.

Congress has a clear and unambiguous power of taxation.

Case closed.

Wrong, taxes must be uniform through out the US. This is not a fair nor uniform tax.

No they don't. There are all sorts of deductions and credits for federal income tax that some people can get and others can't.
 
Congress has imposed a tax on everyone without heatlh insurance.
Congress has a clear and unambiguous power of taxation.
Case closed.

Joe Steel, The tax policy of special strokes for special folks has precedent within USA tax regulations.

Government favors earners of long term capital gains incomes and denies favors of similar value to earners of other income sources. Why then should government be prohibited from penalizing those who choose not to purchase medical insurance?

Preferential consideration for income earned by capital gains presumes that income is more economically worthy (than other incomes). I’m among those contending that the income derived from lump sum sales are not economically more (or less) beneficial than the nurturing of an enterprise for steady and hopefully increasing profits.

Income is income.

Tax preference for capital gain is government’s attempt to counteract normal open market behavior. The U.S. Congress has determined that Adam Smith’s “great invisible hand” is shaky and inferior to the opinion of campaign contributors.

Supporters of the capital gains tax discount generally believe in a USA market driven economy but they’re not fanatical believers.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
[I think since they gave this to the IRS it is considered a tax. in which it would not be considered a fine, which is why i think this administration is so confident that this is constitutional. It was smart to set it up this way, that way it is not considered a penalty and which they may backdoor it through a technicality. slippery this administration is.

Woosdjack, I'm more comfortable with using carrats rather than a stick.

Now we have a law that would penalize any person who is deemed to be able to afford but fails to acquire medical insurance. It’s been suggested that the law may be constitutionally justified as federal regulation of interstate commerce. If it’s not supported by a more superior argument, I believe the fining of individuals for failure to obtain medical insurance applicable to themselves will not be sustained by the courts.

It would certainly be constitutional to modify our regulations to deny the per capita tax reductions to those that did not comply with the medical insurance requirement.

I would also advocate that the per capita deduction of taxable income be changed to an amount of tax credit and that amount should be annually COLA’d, (i.e. cost of living adjusted).

Respectfully, Supposn
 

Forum List

Back
Top