Skip to comments.Carney: It's a penalty, not a tax
Posted on 06/30/2012 11:32:11 AM PDT by ColdOne
"It's a penalty because you have a choice," Carney said. "You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right? You have a choice to buy -- if you can afford health insurance.
So if you don't buy it, and you can afford it, it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America's taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room. So your choice is to purchase healthcare reform or a penalty will be administered."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
You’re not on the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled:
IT’S A F*ING TAX, YOU F*ING BOZO!!!!
So what about those (like Rush) who would CHOOSE to self-insure? That is to pay their bills as they are incurred. Tell me again why they need to be punished, Bozo????
The rest of the country does not pay for your visit to the emergency room if you can afford to pay. If you can afford to pay, you pay for your own emergency room visits.
There just ignoring the parts of the ruling they don’t like.
When are we just going to ignore them? Just ignore their laws! They ignore what they want to ignore, so should we.
There is no constitution. Let’s just start advocating for legislation that directly affects Joe-Six pack liberal. Make them buy a gun; fine them if they have an abortion; life in prison for weed possession. To hell with them!
The White House is correct: It’s a punishment for disobedience. Let that sink in for a moment.
The political problem for the White House is that as of last Thursday, the penalty is legally a tax.
The much bigger problem for Americans is that as of last Thursday, Congress can now punish them for disobedience for any act or even any failure to act, either by imposing a tax on doing whatever Congress does not want done, or by imposing a tax on not doing whatever Congress does want you to do.
To be more specific, the problems with the Roberts opinion are the following:
1) Congress didn’t think it was enacting either a tax OR a tax credit. They didn’t frame it or structure it that way. That’s why they didn’t ensure that the bill originated in the House, as the Constitution requires of any bill that raises revenue. That issue will almost certainly be litigated, now. No one bothered before, because no one thought it was a tax.
2) Had Congress intended to use a tax credit to achieve its ends, it would have had to provide a payment to everyone who both qualified for and claimed the credit. So it would have had to either increase taxes or reduce other spending in order to be revenue neutral, or borrow more money otherwise. All of those choices would have had political consequences that could well have prevented the bill from ever passing. And the “tax” is not a credit, not even per the Court. You can’t apply for it and get money back.
3) Per the Court, the penalty is an excise tax. The Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect duties, imposts and excises, with the only limitation being that all such must be uniform throughout the United States. The Supreme Court previously also imposed the limitation that the rate of the tax cannot be so high as to be clearly nothing but “punitive.” Note, however, that the Court won’t save you from taxes meant as punishment for disobedience, provided the rate isn’t “too high” (which isn’t defined.)
But an excise tax, by definition up until Thursday, is a tax on an event. Now it’s also a tax on an event that didn’t occur, thanks to Chief Justice Roberts. Semantically, that’s a fine imposed by the legislature directly on those who must pay it, without those who are required to pay it having first committed a crime defined by law as such, and then being convicted of that crime by a court, and then being sentenced by the court to paying some fine that the law allows.
There’s a term for laws that impose penalties that way, without due process of law, where the one to be punished can not defend himself in court, and can not argue that it’s Unconstitutional to punish him for the particular actions for which he is being civilly sued or criminally charged. Such laws are called bills of attainder.
Idiot! The hospital goes after >you< via a collection agency. They don’t send your bill to your neighbor. Where did this moron come from?
It is whatever they tell you it is, and there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it.
Can't have it both ways here, Jake.
It is a penalty! Of that there is no question. Then why did Roberts say it was a tax so he could pass on Obamacare? Simple! Because he wanted to shore up Obamacare and that lie was the only way he could justify it. Roberts is the biggest clown I have ever seen in my life.
From a Politico article, September 2009:
In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obamas marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is not true that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.
But he could look it up in the bill.
Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.
And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.
The highest law of the land says it’s a tax.
I’d like to meet Carney sometime and demonstrate the true meaning of “PENALTY”; Afterwards, he would be singing a different song - in a much higher octave!
Their whole flaw lies in the fact that they assume that if you are working and above the poverty-level, that you can afford their one-size-fits-all insurance! I work 2 jobs to pay a mortgage and put food on the table, and I do not qualify for a subsidy and I don’t have $550/month (the projected premium price) extra lying around to buy insurance. I will pay the tax-penalty instead and go without. I also would not buy their insurance on religious grounds, as Sibelius has mandated a $1 abortion surcharge on every monthly premium paid. So, I either sell my house or my soul. No thanks.
Come November we need to take this ruling, and stick it up Roberts’ backside, and send Carney up there after it.
Then why in the Sam H*ll did the Obama Administration send a second lawyer to the Supreme Court to argue it is a tax while the other one said no it is a Mandated penalty? Roberts concurred it IS a tax so he ruled it as such. Now the administration wants everyone to still think of it as a Mandate, because most people don't understand that, but THEY DO UNDERSTAND WHAT A TAX IS. If it is referred to as a tax more people will vote them out of office because they don't want to be taxed more.
Then there are 7 “penalties” hitting the middle class.
Can you say “read my lips” Obama?
QUACK, QUACK, it’s a duck
Nice try with that, Carney. Your boss passed the largest tax increase in history. The SC said so.
They are taking this position, still, because they know that if it is a tax, it will have to be re-authorized in the House - something that will not happen. If this isn’t enough for them, then consider that a now-tax bill ORIGINATED in the Senate where taxes are not supposed to orginate, and you have a conundrum for Obama....good!
We have 24 days to ask for a re-do of the decision. SC says Tax, Exec says penalty, go back and re-argue the case. Only problem is, if no one has paid the tax, no one has been harmed, yet, so we may not have standing.
Carney is right. It’s not written as a tax.
It says to Americans, your government hereby commands you to purchase insurance. The penalty for not abiding by this law is a monetary fine.
There are lots of laws written like this. Laws about obeying posted speed limits, for example.
Chief Justice Roberts was wrong. He should have joined the four conservative justices and struck down the law as beyond the power of the federal government to enact under the Commerce Clause.
When you need to slip the ObamaCare mandate by the voters it's a penalty.
When you need to Constitutionally justify it it's called a tax.
Dancing around reality, but any way you look at it the fix is in on this fraud.
I can agree with some of that, However, the most irresponsible thing is for the incompetent, corrupt, mismanaging SOBs of the federal government to take over the entire health system of the country which protects the most valuable thing anyone can possess.
If the federal government has control of our health, we become virtual slaves.
Oh, I like that. The DEMOCRATAX party. No longer democratic.
And “Bills of Attainder” are prohibited by the Constitution, right?
Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed”.
I’m pretty sure that if the SCOTUS had found CommieCare to be unconstitutional, the Obama regime and their commie ‘RATS would have just told the court to Fluke off. America was going to lose this battle no matter how the SCOTUS decided. JMO.
“it is an irresponsible thing to do to ask the rest of America’s taxpayers to pay for your care when you go to the emergency room.”
I agree with him just here. The costs of uninsured people going to the ER or elsewhere should NOT have been picked up by the taxpayer, unless the person expires with no estate.
Otherwise, they should be billed and all necessary collection efforts made, including liens and wage garnishment, until the bill is paid.
It is not fair for people to waive insurance and then ask me to pay their bills. If they want to take a risk, it should be THEIR risk, not mine.
They can utilize their assets, get help from family, seek help from charity, whatever.
Better be careful, Jay. The SCOTUS wrote it down in black and white.
If it is a penalty, its unconstitutional. If its a tax, it’s not.
You’re going to talk your Boss into a stroke.
The bill DID originate in the House.
Regardless of what one calls the individual mandate there are lots of other straightforward taxes (like the tax on medical devices) that are in the bill and it was treated as a revenue-raising bill in procedure at the time.
Shows what a fool Roberts is. He was too cunning by half.
These assholes are just incapable of sitting back and living with whatever is Constitutionally forced on them by another branch of government.
They have no respect for the law. No respect for the nation and no respect for its citizens.
Democrats are walking-upright pigs.
Maybe someone should impose a penalty on the carney.
Why is in Obamacars to hire 16000 new people at the IRS if nobody knew it was a tax.
It's enough to make ya blap in their grey poupon jar.
Now the government will take his money for those that don't provide for themselves.
He thinks Carney and Obama can go to hell.
By the same tortured reasoning in the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare one could easily deem a shovel to be a chair.
Too bad it's the wrong Carney. Art Carney would have been a smarter, more honest and wittier press secretary .
Ed Norton: "If manhole covers were pizzas, the sewers would be Paradise."
So whatever else it is, it’s the law now. So after the moaning in over maybe the GOP could provide legislation for Romney’s revisions and start moving the ball.
It is now official sanction and permissible to use the governments power to tax and government taxing agencies to harasses, coercive, punish and destroy a citizens for any reason they see fit
Consider the harassment of the Tea party groups by the IRS
Consider Obama's statement about coal power plans..We will not stop you from builder them...but we will tax you out of existence..
The left, when in power, uses the power to tax as a weapon
It is with some irony that the original American revolution was keyed by Parliament using taxes as a coercive force and punishment on the American colonies
Again I say a new Constitution Amendment is a must now.... stated that the power granted to tax may NOT BE USE AS A coercive force on the people
Actually, it was the law the minute Obomba signed it. It was simply not rescinded, though challenged, through the supreme kangaroo court as it certainly souldav been.
They are taking this position, still, because they know that if it is a tax, it will have to be re-authorized in the House - something that will not happen. If this isnt enough for them, then consider that a now-tax bill ORIGINATED in the Senate where taxes are not supposed to orginate, and you have a conundrum for Obama....good!I'm telling ya'... I'm starting to believe the "evil genius" talk about Roberts...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.