How to resolve the debate over the constitutionality of ACA/ Obamacare

[Sundial]

Everyone agrees taxes are constitutional, but Republicans say the ACA is unconstitutional. So why not substitute the mandate with a tax? Say, like the one that pays for Medicare?

 

[The Rabbi]

Everyone agrees taxes are constitutional, but Republicans say the ACA is unconstitutional. So why not substitute the mandate with a tax? Say, like the one that pays for Medicare?

Because instituting an enormous tax increase on the middle class is a great way to lose elections. Seriously.

 

[freedombecki]

Everyone agrees taxes are constitutional, but Republicans say the ACA is unconstitutional. So why not substitute the mandate with a tax? Say, like the one that pays for Medicare?

The trouble with managing people's health security through a government is that eventually a Congresscritter will see a way to plow through "all that money,just sitting there waiting to be used" for pet rock projects, and not the person who put the money aside through a mandatory removal of 7.5% of his paycheck for the duration for the future. Only trouble is, once Congress helps itself to "all that money" and puts road repairs on the fast track, the original cause becomes jeopardized.

It's crime against the people when that happens, and it happens oftener than not.

Keep trying, Sundial. There has to be a solution that will work.

 

[Sundial]

Everyone agrees taxes are constitutional, but Republicans say the ACA is unconstitutional. So why not substitute the mandate with a tax? Say, like the one that pays for Medicare?

Because instituting an enormous tax increase on the middle class is a great way to lose elections. Seriously.

Not if you understand that a single-payer system would save ordinary people money, since they wouldnt have to pay health insurance premiums.

 

[Sundial]

Everyone agrees taxes are constitutional, but Republicans say the ACA is unconstitutional. So why not substitute the mandate with a tax? Say, like the one that pays for Medicare?

The trouble with managing people's health security through a government is that eventually a Congresscritter will see a way to plow through "all that money,just sitting there waiting to be used" for pet rock projects, and not the person who put the money aside through a mandatory removal of 7.5% of his paycheck for the duration for the future. Only trouble is, once Congress helps itself to "all that money" and puts road repairs on the fast track, the original cause becomes jeopardized.

It's crime against the people when that happens, and it happens oftener than not.

Keep trying, Sundial. There has to be a solution that will work.

But you do agree that calling it a tax rather than a mandate makes it constitutional...?

 

[Zander]

How about the government stays out of my personal business? I'll take freedom. Thanks anyway....

 

[The Rabbi]

Everyone agrees taxes are constitutional, but Republicans say the ACA is unconstitutional. So why not substitute the mandate with a tax? Say, like the one that pays for Medicare?

Because instituting an enormous tax increase on the middle class is a great way to lose elections. Seriously.

Not if you understand that a single-payer system would save ordinary people money, since they wouldnt have to pay health insurance premiums.

A single payer system has never saved anyone one dime.
This is something the Dums forgot along the way. About 93% of people are quite happy with their health insurance. They are unhappy when told they can no longer choose which doctor to see or what plan they can have.