Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's the dilly-o.
You can disagree with that contention, but your words really don't trump the words of the President himself in calling for the passage of the ACA and the mandate as a crucial part of it.
how is the mandate different from having to contribute to social security?
Social Security may be viewed as insurance. Alternatively it may be viewed as a form of savings. Either way, it is a tax and it is acknowledged AS such.
The "analogy" to mandatory insurance as a pre-requisite to owning a vehicle and obtaining a registration from the state or as a pre-requisite to having a driver's license has ALWAYS been a false analogy. Driving is a privilege, as you know. It is not a "right." The States HAVE a right to condition the granting of that privilege upon certain conditions.
The ACA's individual "mandate" is allegedly NOT a "tax." It can't be a tax, in fact, for a variety of legal reasons. President Obama himself has insisted that it isn't a "tax."* And it also isn't conditioning some privilege on certain requirements. It is a compelled duty imposed on all citizens (actually all people in the USA) premised upon some fanciful notion of the Commerce Clause.
It transforms the entire notion of a limited government of enumerated powers on the BASIS of the commerce clause (together with the necessary and proper clause) into an unlimited government with no bounds upon its powers.
_________________
* Here is an excerpt of one article explaining pretty concisely why it cannot legally BE a "tax."
-- Why ObamaCare Mandate Penalty Cant Be a Tax*|*Independence Institute* * * *
The 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived. The Supreme Court has defined derived income to mean undeniable accessions to wealth. Here, the mere refusal to purchase a product is not any kind of income or accession of wealth.
Likewise, the penalty cannot be an excise tax. An excise tax is imposed on an event or item, such as the acquisition of a machine gun. Again, there is no event to be taxed, and never in American history has a federal excise tax been imposed on an Americans inactivity.
Thus, the tax is constitutionally a direct tax similar to a head tax, or a tax on real estate. The Constitution requires that such taxes be imposed in Proportion to the Census. The mandate penalty is not so apportioned.
Congress does have nearly limitless authority to create income tax deductions and could have created one for the cost of buying approved insurance. Courts, however, will not be ruling on the constitutional bill that Congress might have enacted but, rather, on the unconstitutional one that Congress did enact.
Don't need health insurance? Unless you are exceedingly wealthy it is something that any responsible person should have. If you're going to drive an auto, you should be required to carry auto insurance. If your going to live in this country, you should be required to carry health insurance. Others should not have to pay because of your lack of responsibility.And where does Government come off to foce people to buy something they don't want or necessarily need?First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail. The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income. So for a $100K income the fine is $1K. Any insurance you buy is going to cost considerably more. However, over a period of time the fine increases to $695 or 2.5% of income. The fine does not provide enough of a penalty to force anyone to buy insurance if they really don't want it. However, with or without the fine, there will be very few people who can afford insurance that will not purchase it. Low income earners will be exempted. In fact very low income earners will be covered under Medicaid. The real issue is can the government force you to take responsibility for your healthcare needs by buying insurance.Compelling question...isn't it?
The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...
Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.
Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare
Interesting read when you have the time.
Will fine be enough to make people buy health insurance
Under what auspices?
Don't need health insurance? Unless you are exceedingly wealthy it is something that any responsible person should have. If you're going to drive an auto, you should be required to carry auto insurance. If your going to live in this country, you should be required to carry health insurance. Others should not have to pay because of your lack of responsibility.And where does Government come off to foce people to buy something they don't want or necessarily need?First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail. The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income. So for a $100K income the fine is $1K. Any insurance you buy is going to cost considerably more. However, over a period of time the fine increases to $695 or 2.5% of income. The fine does not provide enough of a penalty to force anyone to buy insurance if they really don't want it. However, with or without the fine, there will be very few people who can afford insurance that will not purchase it. Low income earners will be exempted. In fact very low income earners will be covered under Medicaid. The real issue is can the government force you to take responsibility for your healthcare needs by buying insurance.
Will fine be enough to make people buy health insurance
Under what auspices?
Don't need health insurance? Unless you are exceedingly wealthy it is something that any responsible person should have. If you're going to drive an auto, you should be required to carry auto insurance. If your going to live in this country, you should be required to carry health insurance. Others should not have to pay because of your lack of responsibility.
That's not correct. Without Obamacare 12% of the population is already covered through Medicaid. Everyone with an income up to $66,000 does not get free insurance. Only those that buy insurance through the exchanges can apply for a tax credit. The exchanges are only available to small businesses and individuals who meet the income qualifications. Employees covered by group insurance not purchased through the exchanges will pay 100% of their premium as will individuals who don't purchase through the exchanges. I haven't calculated the percentage, but certainly a lot more 30% will be paying for Obamacare. You are also neglecting additional revenue raised through excise taxes and Medicare savings.Low income for purposes of this law is up to $62,000 per year for a family of 4. $66,000 is in the top 25% of all wage earners.
That means about 30% of the wage earners will be funding Obamacare.
The only reason insurance companies are in loop is they spend 150 million lobbying Congress to block the single payer system which would have provide much lower cost coverage.Don't need health insurance? Unless you are exceedingly wealthy it is something that any responsible person should have. If you're going to drive an auto, you should be required to carry auto insurance. If your going to live in this country, you should be required to carry health insurance. Others should not have to pay because of your lack of responsibility.
That's insane. Basically, you're saying that we should all be enslaved to health insurance corporations from cradle to grave. No thanks.
Poll: Majority Now Support The Individual Mandate
Eric Kleefeld-November 14, 2011
A new CNN poll on the issue of health care reform finds that support for the law’s central and most controversial element, the individual health insurance mandate, has climbed into majority territory.
The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.
no it isn't because it can't be paid for
The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.
First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail. The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income. So for a $100K income the fine is $1K. Any insurance you buy is going to cost considerably more. However, over a period of time the fine increases to $695 or 2.5% of income. The fine does not provide enough of a penalty to force anyone to buy insurance if they really don't want it. However, with or without the fine, there will be very few people who can afford insurance that will not purchase it. Low income earners will be exempted. In fact very low income earners will be covered under Medicaid. The real issue is can the government force you to take responsibility for your healthcare needs by buying insurance.Compelling question...isn't it?Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?
The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...
Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.
Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare
Interesting read when you have the time.
Will fine be enough to make people buy health insurance
First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail.
I'm looking forward to the poll of Supreme Court justices who recognize that this mess is unconstitutional.
no it isn't because it can't be paid for
The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.
The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.
that's kind of funny... because all the individual mandate does is require that people purchase insurance so as to spread risk and lower costs.
last i checked, that isn't a "tax" or a means of "raising revenue".
not that ultimately the court will do what it's supposed to given the ethically challenged thomas and scalia, but we can hope.
There is one significant hurdle here.
The Supreme Court must first rule whether or not the plaintiffs have standing to sue. Here's the problem no one has actually been forced to purchase insurance yet and no one has been fined for not purchasing insurance yet.
In other words no one's ox has as of yet been gored. So it very well could be ruled that this case has been brought too soon and the SC cannot rule on what might happen as it is prohibited from advisory rulings.
If it is decided that there is no standing then the case goes no further.
If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.
The US needs HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform.
Your point is precisely part of the plan. That is to destroy the private health insurance industry.
Since when should private health insurance be deemed 'unnecessary'?
If the federal government can pass laws which eliminate private health insurance effectively nationalizing the business, what then is to stop them from doing the same thing to other businesses or industries?
The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.
that's kind of funny... because all the individual mandate does is require that people purchase insurance so as to spread risk and lower costs.
last i checked, that isn't a "tax" or a means of "raising revenue".
not that ultimately the court will do what it's supposed to given the ethically challenged thomas and scalia, but we can hope.
But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participatingThe law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.
no it isn't because it can't be paid for
If the law is overturned which I doubt, the demand for healthcare reform will not go away. In fact, even if the law stands, the next administration will be proposing healthcare law changes, not repeal. Repeal would set the stage for a single payer system.
The US needs HEALTH INSURANCE reform, not health care reform.
Actually, what the US needs is no health insurance for basic medical care. What the US needs is a Universal Health Care system like all the countries we are competing with globally.
