Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama uses the 'tax' word to describe mandate
politico ^ | 7/13/12 | REID J. EPSTEIN

Posted on 07/14/2012 8:51:52 AM PDT by ColdOne

RICHMOND, Va. – President Obama used the word “tax” to describe the health care mandate under his reforms, a departure from his prior etymological stance that it is a penalty.

“By the way, if you’ve got health insurance, you’re not getting hit by a tax,” the president said during his Friday rally in Roanoke, his third Virginia campaign event of the day. “The only thing that’s happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies can’t drop you when you get sick.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: mandate; obama; obamacare; taxes

1 posted on 07/14/2012 8:51:54 AM PDT by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

2 posted on 07/14/2012 8:56:30 AM PDT by tsowellfan (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

3 posted on 07/14/2012 9:06:43 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (Resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)...before there is no America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne


A (one of more than one) material defect in the opinion of the court (Roberts, opinion for the court) in the “Obamacare” Supreme court decision on Constitutionality, lies with his inconsistent reasoning that a) Congress lacks constitutional authority under the commerce clause to impose a requirement that citizens do something to engage in interstate commerce, notwithstanding Congress’s emphatic recitation of generalized future ‘effects on commerce’ arising from the citizens inactivity; BUT, however, according to Roberts (on behalf of the court) b) The applicable section of the law (mandate) may fairly be read as an exercise of valid Congressional authority under the Constitutional power of taxation.

Below are the essential portions of the applicable provision of the “Affordable Healthcare Act” which under Sec 1501 of the law, imposes the mandate and directs amendment of the Internal Revenue Code (Sec 5000A) to provide for the penalty provision for non-compliance with the mandate. The amended law provides that upon a failure of the taxpayer to comply with the unlawful mandate (summarized in 5000A(a)) then under 5000A(b) “Shared Responsiblity Payment” the non-complying citizen is made liable for the “penalty” to be administered and collected by the IRS.

That is, according to the Court, a nominal “penalty” (of up to 8% of tax payers income and estimated to be as much as $40B annually throughout the US), explicitly based upon a mandate which Roberts found Congress has no power to make (implicity he is saying they had to power to simply say all persons not having min req. coverage are free to do so, however, such persons are by act of Congress made liable for the following tax liability) may be Constitutionally imposed because of and under the authority of Congress’s enumerated power to lay and collect taxes.

But Congress could not have been more explicit about establishing the mandate under its REGULATORY powers nor about basing its PENALTY upon the condition of NON-COMPLIANCE with its unconstitutionaly established mandate to buy health insurance. It is in this context that Roberts may have been said to have re-written the law, rather than passed judgment upon it. In other words, even if one rationally believed exactly as Roberts did about the Constitution, would not the more approproiate action given the statutory language to have been to send the law back to Congress to let them decide if they wanted to revise the offending provisions to be explicity modified so as to comply with existing Congressional powers to authority a true tax, not based upon non-compliance with an unconstitutionaly imposed mandate. In effect Roberts gave deference to a Congress that had already been rejected by a majority of the American people (the 2008 Congress) and disdained the current Congress’s authority (as well as the people who elected them) by not allowing the current CONGRESS to solve the defect in the law, and by reserving to himself the authority to decide how to save a discredited act of a discredited Congress

Subtitle F.Shared Responsibility for Health Care
(a) FINDINGS..Congress makes the following findings:
(1) IN GENERAL..The individual responsibility requirement
provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as
the eerequirementff) is commercial and economic in nature, and
substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the
effects described in paragraph (2)....

5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the
individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.

(1) IN GENERAL..If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during
any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided
in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty
with respect to the individual in the amount determined under
subsection (c).
(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN..Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayerfs return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY..If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month.
ee(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of
another taxpayer for the other taxpayerfs taxable year
including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable
for such penalty,...

4 posted on 07/14/2012 10:21:15 AM PDT by Gail Wynand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Are there minimum standards and parameters of coverage that will qulaify so someone doesn’t pay a tax or do you just have to have something that says “This is a medical insurance policy.”

I’m assuming that the Fed act does set minimums so the individual citizen who tries to meet them will be paying a sizable insurance premium—in lieu of a tax—but nobody is talking about this premium.

5 posted on 07/14/2012 3:00:00 PM PDT by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

6 posted on 07/14/2012 3:03:03 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson