It's a nuanced difference, but it is one that troubles me. I'd be much more comfortable with a simple tax to raise funds to fund the healthcare system (whatever that would be.) That sort of tax I would not dispute. This sort of tax troubles me. I'm trying to think of a way to more clearly state the difference I see. So income tax...it's a tax levied on income, varying based on the amount you make. Your liability can be reduced by certain actions you take that Congress decided can offset some of your income. It is still a tax on your income however. So a person who purchases a home may be able to reduce his tax liability because he is paying a mortgage and that reduces his taxable income. But, a person who does NOT buy a home does pay MORE in taxes than he should because his failure to purchase a home INCREASES his taxable income. Under this tax, the government could say that if you don't buy a home we will add to your tax burden (above your fair income tax rate) or if you don't buy a hybrid, or whatever. It seems kosher because you think of it in terms only of healthcare. But what about all the other industries? If you don't buy any gasoline during the year you get taxed at the end of it to help subsidize the oil industry.
Do you understand mandatory? He's covered. Whether or not he pays for it is not relevant to the post you quoted.
from twitter: The Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply because the individual mandate isn't a tax. But Obama is upheld because the mandate is a tax.
Apologies, sincerely, as I am not connecting the dots very well. My point is that pooping and drinking water are about as fundamentally predictable as needing healthcare, as a human being. All of us but a select few pay for pooping, and for drinking publicly provided water, whether through taxes, rent checks to a landlord (who then pays the fees), and so on. It's possible to be homeless and not pay into that system and let others pay for providing you some drinking water and collecting your dung. That's true. There is no mandatory payment that, since you exist, and since existence means you consume/create waste, the gubmint will collect from you. But if providing water was as expensive as healthcare, then those getting water for free and straining the system would have come up aeons ago. My bottom line, I suppose, is that there is a libertarian fantasy of how one can live on this planet as the early humans did... but we're on our way to 10 billion people, about twice as many as the earth can reasonably hold... and our collective action and collective will aren't optional. We may suck at it and fail as a species, but to pretend people can really be off the grid much longer and completely independent seems really silly to me, just on a pragmatic level.
Your point is moot because the ruling didn't uphold the law because of the everyone is part of the system argument. It upheld the law because it was a tax and the majority needed nothing further to uphold its constitutionality.
Absolutely agree. It's ridiculous we instead got this half-assed solution. But...that's just american weirdness/stupidity/whatever. I'm still not seeing the difference (maybe I'm only looking at this mathematically). Whether the tax is levied before (as in your rate) or after (as in an additional penalty) is essentially meaningless. The bill is raising everyone's taxes, but you can get out of it by buying insurance. They're just not saying it that way, probably because it sounds bad.
I for one totally see your point, in terms of precedent, and I wish they had used the commerce clause. I share your worries (if not your exact examples! )
"The lower courts ruled with us..." "Well, the Supreme Court---it's kinda supreme no? It's in the name." "...well, yes."
Well the way you stated it is clearly the problem to me. A penalty for non-action. I need to read the majority opinion for more clarity, but my understanding is that the majority did not apply the commerce clause. In fact, there was a majority ruling that the commerce clause COULD NOT apply. Therefore, you can't do this under the idea that we all participate in healthcare whether we pay in or not. So this is simply a tax if you don't do what the government wants you to do. There would seem to me to be no limitation on that. There was none set forth today anyway.
The Federal government can now force you to get insurance whether you like it or not...if your healthy...nope who cares...you need insurance...If your a person that like goes to the doctor maybe like once in 5 years...nope...still have to contribute...what this is doing to affecting millions of hardworking americans... Let me give you a scenario...Subject A with no insurance and well at the poverty line comes to the hospital for a fractured leg...needs surgery or he will lose his leg...since he has no insurance...the feds willl force the man to buy insurance or choose to pay the penalty...Subject A...says heck no...im not paying anything...penalize me...i stilll wont pay ish...hospital picks up thhe bill...and tries collecting from the feds via Medicaid...which in turn collects from you and I...the working population of America... The issue is about money and where it is coming from...because of the actions of Subject A, the common man will have to likely increase his contribution to the government to cover this man's health...The problem literally worsens with the courts decision to uphold the mandate...and more common and hardworking americans will soon fall into the poverty line or below...the government will literally tax you to death...
Ah. I think I see now. And yeah...without the commerce clause as a rationale, this does seem...challenging to justify. Thanks.
So basically you'd rather pay for Subject A's emergency care under the current system (more expensive) than health insurance under the PPCA(less expensive) on the theory that something something feds taxes common man....
