Questions on ACA

[Zoom-boing]

The original bill repeatedly said that not complying with purchasing insurance would result in a penalty/fine and the justices corrected the lawyers when the lawyers would call that penalty/fine a tax. Roberts turned around and called the penalty/fine a tax in order to let ACA stand. Huh? It wasn't a tax until the SC decided it was a tax?

The SCOTUS merely refused to overturn a law which is constitutional under Congress's authority to tax. Whether or not Congress - or anyone for that matter - calls it a tax isn't really relevant.

O but it is.

 

[Jackson]

A few questions about ACA . . .

Who, exactly, gets taxed? I've read and heard that only those who have chosen not to purchase insurance will get taxed. I've read and heard that most everyone will be taxed. Or by 'get taxed' is that referring to the trillions of dollars in taxes that are attached to ACA?

Congress has the power to tax you . . . on your income, your bathing suit, your gasoline, etc. Yesterday's decision claims on one hand it reigns in government's over reach regarding the commerce clause in as far as government can not compel you to buy something. But on the other hand it gave government the power to tax you for not purchasing something. The government can tax you for not purchasing something . . . how isn't this related to commerce and how is taxing you for not purchasing something any different than fining you for not purchasing something? So . . . . what exactly changed? Can/does this give the government the power to tax you for not purchasing anything they deem as 'good for you' (maybe not now but someday soon and for the rest of your life)?

Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers? (I know, I know ... power grab).

The original bill repeatedly said that not complying with purchasing insurance would result in a penalty/fine and the justices corrected the lawyers when the lawyers would call that penalty/fine a tax. Roberts turned around and called the penalty/fine a tax in order to let ACA stand. Huh? It wasn't a tax until the SC decided it was a tax?

How is Obama going to spin the fact that he repeatedly said this was not a tax when in fact it was? When ACA originally passed I wondered 'how will they collect the fine'? It was always going to be via taxes, which is why they hired so many more IRS agents. Duh.

You made excellent points. I especially liked this:

Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers?

MY big beef with the ruling is that Roberts did not rule on the law as written. He ruled as the president's attorneys presented it in the court...as a tax.

Then the irony is that the president backs away from his own attorneys arguments and says it's not a tax. Wish we had the attorneys on tape.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The original bill repeatedly said that not complying with purchasing insurance would result in a penalty/fine and the justices corrected the lawyers when the lawyers would call that penalty/fine a tax. Roberts turned around and called the penalty/fine a tax in order to let ACA stand. Huh? It wasn't a tax until the SC decided it was a tax?

The SCOTUS merely refused to overturn a law which is constitutional under Congress's authority to tax. Whether or not Congress - or anyone for that matter - calls it a tax isn't really relevant.

O but it is.

Only relevant to morons.

 

[California Girl]

I've posted links to the Kaiser site several times. The latest thread is called Facts ... BDBoop also posted an excellent FAQ. Or you can Google it.

Theres a lot of misinformation and downright lies coming from the right. If you take the time to educate yourself, you'll learn that you really will benefit from the AHA.

It's more fun to wave torches and pitchforks though, doncha think?

Seriously, how many times do you need to get shafted by your elected officials before you stop accepting what they say and start holding them accountable?

It's actually so breathtakingly stupid to accept the official version of any bill but it appears that some people just enjoy being shafted - as long as those shafting you have the right letter after their name.

 

[Too Tall]

The Court addressed only the IM and whether or not it is Constitutional per the Commerce Clause or Congress’ taxing authority. The Court upheld the IM based on the latter.

True

Medicaid is a state program, funded with Federal tax dollars. And it was indeed expanded to cover those who can not afford insurance.

Partially correct. Medicaid is essentially an entitlement program where the costs are shared by the states and the federal government, and the local Medicaid programs are managed by the states.

Incorrect. From the outset the government argued the provision was a tax:

Wrong!

In a Virginia District Court decision in December 2010 where the judge presiding over the case found the individual mandate violated the Commerce Clause but stopped short of declaring that the entire measure was not enforceable.
In short, the Supreme Court will decide whether Congress exceeded its enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance. The lower court rulings determined that Congress violated the Commerce Clause by penalizing people for inactivity. That inactivity means not purchasing health insurance.

So far the government has not mentioned the work TAX.

During the March hearing in front of the Supreme Court, many Justices expressed doubts about Congress using their power to regulate interstate commerce to force Americans to purchase health coverage. Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the swing vote, seemed unconvinced about the government’s argument that the failure to obtain coverage would result in a penalty, not a tax.

Ggvernment lawyers then finally used the tax argument. After all, Obama clearly stated the the individual mandate was in no way, shape or form a TAX. Had he presented the tax argument to the Congress, even his majority Democrat Congress would NEVER have passed it.

 

[Too Tall]

The SCOTUS merely refused to overturn a law which is constitutional under Congress's authority to tax. Whether or not Congress - or anyone for that matter - calls it a tax isn't really relevant.

O but it is.

Only relevant to morons.

Only a moron would think that if the Democrats had even mentioned the word tax when passing this bill, it would never have been passed.

 

[Meister]

O but it is.

Only relevant to morons.

Only a moron would think that if the Democrats had even mentioned the word tax when passing this bill, it would never have been passed.

And that is where the rubber meets the road regarding this issue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A few questions about ACA . . .

Who, exactly, gets taxed? I've read and heard that only those who have chosen not to purchase insurance will get taxed. I've read and heard that most everyone will be taxed. Or by 'get taxed' is that referring to the trillions of dollars in taxes that are attached to ACA?

Congress has the power to tax you . . . on your income, your bathing suit, your gasoline, etc. Yesterday's decision claims on one hand it reigns in government's over reach regarding the commerce clause in as far as government can not compel you to buy something. But on the other hand it gave government the power to tax you for not purchasing something. The government can tax you for not purchasing something . . . how isn't this related to commerce and how is taxing you for not purchasing something any different than fining you for not purchasing something? So . . . . what exactly changed? Can/does this give the government the power to tax you for not purchasing anything they deem as 'good for you' (maybe not now but someday soon and for the rest of your life)?

Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers? (I know, I know ... power grab).

The original bill repeatedly said that not complying with purchasing insurance would result in a penalty/fine and the justices corrected the lawyers when the lawyers would call that penalty/fine a tax. Roberts turned around and called the penalty/fine a tax in order to let ACA stand. Huh? It wasn't a tax until the SC decided it was a tax?

How is Obama going to spin the fact that he repeatedly said this was not a tax when in fact it was? When ACA originally passed I wondered 'how will they collect the fine'? It was always going to be via taxes, which is why they hired so many more IRS agents. Duh.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

The Government posited two legal theories in arguments before the Court...
from the ruling:

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress's power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be held as a tax."

---

The Court wrote: "The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a 'tax' for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a 'penalty,' not a 'tax.' That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit."

pages 18 -19 of the pdf file (page 12 -13 of decision): Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat it as such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functions like a tax. It is true that Congress cannot change whether an exaction is a tax or a penalty for constitutional purposes simply by describing it as one or the other. Congress may not, for example, expand its power under the Taxing Clause, or escape the Double Jeopardy Clause's constraint on criminal sanctions, by labeling a severe financial punishment a 'tax.' [see Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.; Department of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch]

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act, however, are creatures of Congress's own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the best evidence of Congress's intent is the statutory text. We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act to statutorily described 'taxes' even where that label was inaccurate. See Bailey v. George, 259 U. S. 16 (1922) (Anti-Injunction act applies to 'Child Labor Tax' struck down as exceeding Congress's taxing power in Drexel Furniture).

Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction act. For example, 26 U. S. C. section 6671(a) provides that "any reference in this title to 'tax' imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by" subchapter 68B are thus treated as taxes under Title 26, shall also be 'deemed' to apply to the individual mandate.

Amicus attempts to show that Congress did render the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to the individual mandate, albeit by a more circuitous route. Section 5000A(g)(1) specifies that the penalty for not complying with the mandate "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68." Assessable penalties in subchapter 68B, in turn, "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes," section 6671(a). According to amicus, by directing that the penalty be "assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes," section 5000A(g)(1) made the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to this penalty.

The Government disagrees. It argues that section 5000A(g) is a directive only to the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same "methodology and procedures" to collect the penalty that he uses to collect taxes. Brief for United States 32-33 (quoting Seven-Sky, 661 F. 3d, at 11).

We think the Government has the better reading....