Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, EARN LESS MONEY

[thereisnospoon]

No, I am NOT making that up!

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.

Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.

Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.

You HAVE to read this entire thing. It's scary as hell what these bastards intend for us:

Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

In that one statement "earn less money" was revealed the true intent of Obamacare, WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.

Obama wants to make as many people as possible poor and dependent on government for their very survival.

We have GOT to get these people out of office before they make it impossible to live any other way than under their socialist agenda.

This has got to be put to a stop.

I await the usual paid liberal stooges, who are hear to do nothing else but disrupt real debate, tell me Kaytal didn't say what he said.

Once I came to know the stronger points of the Obamacare legislation.
Part of the mandate sets a maximum income level before individuals and families begin to pay for their health insurance. The number for a family of 4 is about $60k per year. Anything above that and Obamacare will demand 18% of gross household income. There is no employer paid or employer contributed health insurance coverage permitted under Obamacare. In fact the law states that 5 years after the date of signature by the President, privately purchased health insurance becomes illegal.
Now, let's say we have a two income family with one or two kids. One spouse earns $50 per year. The other spouse $25k per year. Child care runs about $10k per year..
So these people who now have employer contributed health insurance. The coverage costs $400 per month.....So we have a family who pays about $15k per year in health insurance premiums and health insurance premiums. Under Obamacare they lose their employer health insurance because they's rather pay the 8% fine and send the employees to the government exchange. Ok, that family will now pay 18% of their gross income ($13,500) per year for the "free" government insurance....
Seeing the futility of this, the family can actually save money by having the spouse with the lower income quit working. SO now the $55k salary is the sole income, the taxpayers now insure the entire family and of course the day car center loses $10k in revenue because the family no longer needs daycare. But wait. Now with 25% less income due to the new government mandates, the family now has far less disposable income and that forces them to cut back on everything. Now other people's jobs become jeopardized because of the down turn in business.
This could very well mean the loss of jobs putting even more people on the government dole.

Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare, insurance or helping anyone.
The goal of Obamacare is to create dependency on government...Period.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whatever.

All that matters is Congress was authorized by the Constitution to enact the legislation:

[T]he Court finds that Congress had
a rational basis for its conclusion that the aggregate of
individual decisions not to purchase health insurance substantially
affects the national health insurance market. Consequently,
Congress was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power
when it enacted § 1501 in order, as Chief Justice Marshall said,
“to prescribe the rule by which [interstate] commerce is to be
governed.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20110223healthMemoMead.pdf

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Not me. I think mandating car insurance is just as bad. Always have.

A person operates a motor vehicle on a public highway....That driver has an at fault crash where people not at fault are injured and require medical care. The non fault vehicle is destroyed causing the victim to lose their means of transportation to get to work....
Ok, so no one is required to buy auto insurance.....In your world, where does that leave the victims?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whatever.

All that matters is Congress was authorized by the Constitution to enact the legislation:

[T]he Court finds that Congress had
a rational basis for its conclusion that the aggregate of
individual decisions not to purchase health insurance substantially
affects the national health insurance market. Consequently,
Congress was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power
when it enacted § 1501 in order, as Chief Justice Marshall said,
“to prescribe the rule by which [interstate] commerce is to be
governed.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20110223healthMemoMead.pdf

Really? I can quote decisions that say it was unconstitutional. Are you capable of actually articulating an argument of your own or do you always resort to pointing and saying "SEE!" and thinking that proves something?

 

[chanel]

On Thursday, Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner publicized a whopper from Obama’s solicitor general Neal Katyal defending ObamaCare (and Mark Levin teed it up and whacked it to the fairway on the radio). But it was blacked out by all the networks – and all the major newspapers and wire services. Get a load of this: "President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money."

Read more: Entire Media Skips Team Obama's Neat Idea in Court: Avoid Individual Mandate by Going Poor | NewsBusters.org

And they claim Fox News is corrupt?

 

[The Rabbi]

So what is it a tax on?

You asked what it's "based on" and implied it was a fixed fee, just as you falsely implied people below the filing threshold pay it. It's based on income.

That wasn't what I asked.
I asked what is it a tax on?

Helloooo. What is it a tax on?

It isn't a tax on earnings. Because whether I earn $80k or $90k I pay the same amount.
It is not a tax at all but a penalty for failure to perform. And that is unconstitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Not me. I think mandating car insurance is just as bad. Always have.

A person operates a motor vehicle on a public highway....That driver has an at fault crash where people not at fault are injured and require medical care. The non fault vehicle is destroyed causing the victim to lose their means of transportation to get to work....
Ok, so no one is required to buy auto insurance.....In your world, where does that leave the victims?

Able to sue the malefactor.
Of course if the malefactor has no assets either then they're screwed as we've done away with debtor's prisons.
THis is a flaw in the libertarian argument (one of many of course).

Now, you can argue state mandated car insurance is bad policy. But that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Similarly if MA wants to mandate their citizens must buy health insurance I think it is bad policy. But they have the power to do so. Not so with the federal government.
Otherwise there is nothing the federal gov't cannot do. And that flies in the fact of the notion of limited gov't.

 

[Greenbeard]

Because whether I earn $80k or $90k I pay the same amount.

If you earn $80,000, you pay $2,000. If you earn $90,000, you pay $2,250.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because whether I earn $80k or $90k I pay the same amount.

If you earn $80,000, you pay $2,000. If you earn $90,000, you pay $2,250.

Fail.

 

[Greenbeard]

Because whether I earn $80k or $90k I pay the same amount.

If you earn $80,000, you pay $2,000. If you earn $90,000, you pay $2,250.

Fail.

Understand that I'm not arguing it is or isn't a tax. I'm just profoundly shocked (just kidding!) that you haven't taken 4 minutes to familiar yourself with what the law actually says about the individual mandate.

 

[dblack]

A person operates a motor vehicle on a public highway....That driver has an at fault crash where people not at fault are injured and require medical care. The non fault vehicle is destroyed causing the victim to lose their means of transportation to get to work....
Ok, so no one is required to buy auto insurance.....In your world, where does that leave the victims?

In the same place as any victim.

Mandatory insurance laws make the presumption that you will commit a crime, and demand that you pre-emptively submit to a state-prescribed, privatized, restitution plan (one that conveniently enriches the corporations who push for these laws). We could make the same argument (and in more and more situations, we are) about nearly any human activity. Nearly everything we do represents a potential risk to others.

But managing that risk is what government is all about. We assign that responsibility to government and it's the single biggest reason we pay taxes to keep it operational. That responsibility should not be privatized.

There's a trend lately to privatize more and more legitimate government responsibilities (while, ironically, the state is preoccupied with taking on more and more things it shouldn't be involved in). Managing disputes and resolving situations where people have, intentionally or otherwise, harmed others is the singled most important thing government should be doing. This is not something we want 'outsourced'.

 

[RDD_1210]

Because whether I earn $80k or $90k I pay the same amount.

If you earn $80,000, you pay $2,000. If you earn $90,000, you pay $2,250.

Fail.

LOL. That's it? You could have at least tried moving the goal posts again. You know it's bad when YOU can't even do that much. You shouldn't have even bothered replying.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you earn $80,000, you pay $2,000. If you earn $90,000, you pay $2,250.

Fail.

Understand that I'm not arguing it is or isn't a tax. I'm just profoundly shocked (just kidding!) that you haven't taken 4 minutes to familiar yourself with what the law actually says about the individual mandate.

You've been arguing it's a tax for 3 pages. Yet whenever I ask what is it a tax on, you refuse to answer or change the subject. Thus your responses are giant fails.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not me. I think mandating car insurance is just as bad. Always have.

A person operates a motor vehicle on a public highway....That driver has an at fault crash where people not at fault are injured and require medical care. The non fault vehicle is destroyed causing the victim to lose their means of transportation to get to work....
Ok, so no one is required to buy auto insurance.....In your world, where does that leave the victims?

Able to sue the malefactor.
Of course if the malefactor has no assets either then they're screwed as we've done away with debtor's prisons.
THis is a flaw in the libertarian argument (one of many of course).

Now, you can argue state mandated car insurance is bad policy. But that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Similarly if MA wants to mandate their citizens must buy health insurance I think it is bad policy. But they have the power to do so. Not so with the federal government.
Otherwise there is nothing the federal gov't cannot do. And that flies in the fact of the notion of limited gov't.

You should have stopped at "then either way we're screwed"....
Lawsuits.....there is far too much civil litigation already.
There are cases clogging dockets that do not rise to the level of frivolity yet, these cases are heard.
FYI, I oppose Obamacare not only because the federal government will require me to buy health insurance from THEM, I also believe Obamacare to be a precursor to single payer or socialized medicine.

 

[RDD_1210]

A person operates a motor vehicle on a public highway....That driver has an at fault crash where people not at fault are injured and require medical care. The non fault vehicle is destroyed causing the victim to lose their means of transportation to get to work....
Ok, so no one is required to buy auto insurance.....In your world, where does that leave the victims?

Able to sue the malefactor.
Of course if the malefactor has no assets either then they're screwed as we've done away with debtor's prisons.
THis is a flaw in the libertarian argument (one of many of course).

Now, you can argue state mandated car insurance is bad policy. But that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Similarly if MA wants to mandate their citizens must buy health insurance I think it is bad policy. But they have the power to do so. Not so with the federal government.
Otherwise there is nothing the federal gov't cannot do. And that flies in the fact of the notion of limited gov't.

You should have stopped at "then either way we're screwed"....
Lawsuits.....there is far too much civil litigation already.
There are cases clogging dockets that do not rise to the level of frivolity yet, these cases are heard.
FYI, I oppose Obamacare not only because the federal government will require me to buy health insurance from THEM, I also believe Obamacare to be a precursor to single payer or socialized medicine.

"Obamacare" requires you to purchase insurance from "them"? Define them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Able to sue the malefactor.
Of course if the malefactor has no assets either then they're screwed as we've done away with debtor's prisons.
THis is a flaw in the libertarian argument (one of many of course).

Now, you can argue state mandated car insurance is bad policy. But that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Similarly if MA wants to mandate their citizens must buy health insurance I think it is bad policy. But they have the power to do so. Not so with the federal government.
Otherwise there is nothing the federal gov't cannot do. And that flies in the fact of the notion of limited gov't.

You should have stopped at "then either way we're screwed"....
Lawsuits.....there is far too much civil litigation already.
There are cases clogging dockets that do not rise to the level of frivolity yet, these cases are heard.
FYI, I oppose Obamacare not only because the federal government will require me to buy health insurance from THEM, I also believe Obamacare to be a precursor to single payer or socialized medicine.

"Obamacare" requires you to purchase insurance from "them"? Define them.

The so-called government "insurance exchanges". Which is a euphemism for "Single payer"...

 

[RDD_1210]

You should have stopped at "then either way we're screwed"....
Lawsuits.....there is far too much civil litigation already.
There are cases clogging dockets that do not rise to the level of frivolity yet, these cases are heard.
FYI, I oppose Obamacare not only because the federal government will require me to buy health insurance from THEM, I also believe Obamacare to be a precursor to single payer or socialized medicine.

"Obamacare" requires you to purchase insurance from "them"? Define them.

The so-called government "insurance exchanges". Which is a euphemism for "Single payer"...

Couldn't be further from the truth, but feel free to believe what you want.

 

[The Rabbi]

A person operates a motor vehicle on a public highway....That driver has an at fault crash where people not at fault are injured and require medical care. The non fault vehicle is destroyed causing the victim to lose their means of transportation to get to work....
Ok, so no one is required to buy auto insurance.....In your world, where does that leave the victims?

Able to sue the malefactor.
Of course if the malefactor has no assets either then they're screwed as we've done away with debtor's prisons.
THis is a flaw in the libertarian argument (one of many of course).

Now, you can argue state mandated car insurance is bad policy. But that doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Similarly if MA wants to mandate their citizens must buy health insurance I think it is bad policy. But they have the power to do so. Not so with the federal government.
Otherwise there is nothing the federal gov't cannot do. And that flies in the fact of the notion of limited gov't.

You should have stopped at "then either way we're screwed"....
Lawsuits.....there is far too much civil litigation already.
There are cases clogging dockets that do not rise to the level of frivolity yet, these cases are heard.
FYI, I oppose Obamacare not only because the federal government will require me to buy health insurance from THEM, I also believe Obamacare to be a precursor to single payer or socialized medicine.

If I plow my car into your house and destroy valuable property, shouldn't I be on the hook to pay? If I claim that your house somehow was in the way of my car then we need to go to court to adjudicate the claims. That is a legitimate function of courts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Obamacare" requires you to purchase insurance from "them"? Define them.

The so-called government "insurance exchanges". Which is a euphemism for "Single payer"...

Couldn't be further from the truth, but feel free to believe what you want.

Really? What's your version? Are you implying there are no government insurance exchanges?
Are you also going to maintain that employers will not pay the government mandated 8% payroll tax in lieu of insuring their employees?
That Obamacare law is a 2500 pages of bureaucratic nightmare. Hell, there is a real estate transfer tax in there that will fund transfer payments to those who cannot afford the new "free" government health insurance.
What makes you think you should be able to walk into any doctors office or medical facility and receive on demand medical care without any out of pocket expense?
This ought to be good.

 

[Greenbeard]

You've been arguing it's a tax for 3 pages.

Er, no. I've merely been pointing out that when it comes to the individual mandate, as with all aspects of the ACA, you're completely clueless. When virtually everything you say about it is incorrect, it becomes clear rather quickly that you lack even a passing familiarity with it. Which makes reading your learned opinions on the matter that much more valuable for the rest of us. Kudos.

Are you also going to maintain that employers will not pay the government mandated 8% payroll tax in lieu of insuring their employees?

Hmm, you're on the wrong bill. H.R. 3200 died two years ago. Employer responsibility in the ACA is structured differently than it was in that proposal. Where are you getting your information?