Neither side of this debate seems to have put it together that the SCOTUS called the ACA a tax. They did which is why the SCOTUS deemed it was legal. But when did taxpayers ever have to pay a tax to a corporation and not to the government?
There is a disconnect in all this. Under the ACA BUYING insurance from a private non government CORPORATION = TAX.
Someone, PLEASE get it. PLEASE!
Dear Sunshine:
A. the tax issue that is controversial is that the bill was set up as a public health act reform, not as a tax. had it been set up as a tax bill concerning "revenue" it goes through a different constitutional process, which WAS NOT done in this case. So it is conflicting.
After the SC approved this as a tax, then lawsuits came up arguing it is unconstitutional because it did not follow the procedure as a normal tax/revenue bill. That's the legalistic argument for saying it was "fraudulent" to pass it through Congress claiming it was "not a tax" so that it would pass; then the same team arguing before SC that "it is a tax" so they can pass it there. This part of your argument is recognized; but it is being argued down and not being taken seriously.
B. As for the tax part, that is the part of the bill that citizens will have the FINE/PENALTY taken out of their tax return and kept by the federal govt "if they are not excused by this because they have proof of buying private insurance". So the money for buying private insurance would be going to the private company; while the $95-1% "tax" penalty would go to the federal govt with the income tax process.
If I had a legal team and infinite legal resources, I would argue that the rules for "exemption" are discriminatory and regulate on the basis of religion or political favor.
So either make it voluntary for ALL people, or make it mandatory to cover all people. The problem is with covering some and excluding others, mandating some or exempting others.
Again, these arguments are not taken seriously so nobody bothers trying them.
They purposely played with the gray area of the law to push this through.
The only way I could see winning this ideological war is either
A. add better options to the programs that all groups and all people would be covered in ways they agree with, so nobody complains and everyone pursues their way of funding it
VOLUNTARILY where there are no contested mandates but voluntary participation
B. add equally unconstitutional requirements on the mandates so that the flaws are exposed, then people would have to split off and form and fund their own cooperatives,
once it is clear that people cannot be forced to fund policies they religiously disagree with
