I’m going to crawl out of my skin and run skinless through the streets, screaming at the top of my lungs if the media doesn’t stop pushing the conservative narrative that President Obama and Democrats lied about the individual mandate not being a tax. Conservatives seem to think that even though the highest court in the land ruled the mandate constitutional under Congress’s taxing power, it doesn’t matter because nyah! nyah! — President Obama said it wasn’t a tax!
Just stop it. It doesn’t matter what President Obama called it and he was not “lying” when he said it was not a tax.
Actually, I’ll be fair. I don’t know if he was lying when he said it was not a tax. Maybe he thought it was a tax, but knew the word “tax” causes immediate brain meltdowns among the wingnut class. Or maybe he thought it was a penalty. Or maybe he understands the difference between a tax and a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. (I’m betting on the last option.)
(much more at ABLC)
PhoenixRising
As to your first sentence: I’ma be right back with the world’s largest tube of Neosporin. Cause you’re gonna need it. It’s inaccurate, irrelevant and makes no sense, so they have to repeat it until it’s true. Known fact.
gnomedad
I’m just an unprincipled liberal hypocrite, so I don’t think Obama should be boiled in oil if he sometimes spins something in order to sell it. Jeebus.
Pillsy
I think it’s most likely that he thought, like pretty much everybody else on the damn planet, that it was a perfectly Constitutional exercise of the commerce clause power. The idea that it’s dishonest for the President to have an interpretation of the law different from the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling… just makes my head hurt.
Sophia
I saw this argument pop up in real time response to the opinion being released and it was utterly bizarre to watch. I don’t know if an All Points Messaging Alert went out or if it was just a sleeper argument already planted in their minds. Basic concepts like “SCOTUS is not constrained by the arguments of parties when determining the constitutionality of a statute” were not getting through. Apparently I missed the slip opinion establishing collateral estoppel via teleprompter.
General Stuck
It’s wingnut Christmas and Santa brought them a block of coal. In the middle of summer.
Soonergrunt
I can’t remember where I saw the exact same argument today from a relatively well known legal reporter, who used Chief Justice Roberts’ own words in his opinion whereby the CJ actually said flat out “it doesn’t matter what one calls it. It’s not a tax. It is, however, a perfectly legal instrument of policy created under Congress’ power to tax.”
It was in the context of pointing out that the Kentucky Turtle doesn’t have a fucking clue what he’s talking about when he claims that they can undo it through reconciliation.
Cacti
Fuck it, call it a tax!
Tax, tax, tax, tax, tax.
Make Rmoney flop around like a fish, explaining why it wasn’t a tax in Massachusetts.
jrg
@General Stuck: Well, Algore is fat, so let’s burn that motherfucker in the yard, along with some tires.
WRT if this is a tax or not, I don’t give a shit what you call it. I’m insured, so I won’t have to pay it.
gnomedad
It’s a candy mind and a breath mint.
MikeJake
I swear, I really get the sense that the wingers believe that because the court didn’t uphold it under the Commerce Clause, that they were foreclosed against finding it constitutional under the taxing power. It was sold to the people as a mandate, therefore…it’s null and void, I guess? If it’s not that, then I don’t understand what the hell they’re going on and on about, I really don’t.
Craig
If Obama lied about the mandate being a tax, then of course every wingnut in the country lied about it being unconstitutional.
Also, the Constitution contains a right to privacy that includes the right to terminate a pregnancy, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar–since all it takes to be a liar, now, is to disagree with the Supreme Court.
Quaker in a Basement
You know, it probably would have been less complicated if the original ACA bill had been written so that everybody’s taxes went up by the amount of whatever the penalty is, and then everyone with health insurance got a tax credit.
But then, the wingnut song and dance would have been “The credit will disappear as soon as the bill passes!” There are absolutely zero objections to the bill that are based on policy. It’s politics all the way down.
gocart mozart
At least he didn’t call it a brocoli mandate! Scalia would have creamed his pants.
I heard that he was original going to call it a ham sandwich but he was afraid of offending all his muslim jihadi friends.
maya
You know who else said stuff wasn’t a tax? St.Reagan. It was all only a FEE. I’m old enough to vividly remember that.
Just Some Fuckhead
I think it doesn’t matter. President Obama didn’t write the health care law or decide its constitutionality. And its constitutionality could have just as easily been upheld under the commerce clause, as four justices were willing to do.
So it’s all an irrelevant bunch of hooey. I’m much more concerned about what Obama thinks about free trade agreements that suck. Here, he has control. He likes them. That sucks.
ETA: Sorry, should have mentioned this comment was for Mickey Kaus.
Steve in DC
@Craig:
Obama lied his ass off when he was running for office and has continued to do so, but all politicians do.
What matters is the law was legal. Leave the lies and semantics to the elected.
Karen in GA
@Pillsy: This is the argument I used — the Obama administration first argued the Commerce Clause, then a backup argument (I don’t recall the specifics of the backup), then the tax argument was their second backup, from what I understand, so it told me they didn’t have a whole lot of confidence that the tax argument would work — probably because they didn’t actually think it was a tax.
Am I a lawyer? No. Did I pull that argument out of my ass? Of course I did. But bear in mind that I was dealing with someone whose response to Obama’s high taxes and universal health care was to threaten to move to Ireland. All I had to do was throw in a couple of double-syllable words to make her shut up about the tax.
Of course, she pivoted immediately to some other bullshit wingnut zombie lie, but she shut up about the tax.
AA+ Bonds
The Republicans are going to whoop it up every time the word “health care” and “tax” are mentioned in the same sentence.
Just act like you don’t know or care what they are talking about. Change the subject. Full-length responses percolate their propaganda.
gocart mozart
O.K., let’s call it a tax, a floor wax and a dessert topping, m’kay happy now wingnuts? Of course not.
AA+ Bonds
@Quaker in a Basement:
Devil’s advocate: the opponents of the act would say that they challenged it in the courts because of the Constitution; that it is very much the point that their main objections are not policy arguments.
Keith
It wasn’t really the court ruling this; it was John Roberts who said it was constitutional for this reason; the other 4 votes said it was constitutional via the Commerce Clause.
rikyrah
tax
mandate
tax
mandate
guess what, bitches……
IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL!!!
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Baud
@rikyrah:
Exactly! I still do a little happy dance every time I hear the GOP complain about health care reform.
Southern Beale
Mitt Romney’s campaign fucks up a Venn Diagram. Hilarious.
Brachiator
It is not just conservatives and it is not just the media.
People understand a tax, or think they do. Taxing power is abstract. People pay taxes. People do not write legislation.
People also think that they will have to pay an additional tax because of healthcare reform, or that their health insurance will go up because of it. Some people think that they will have to pay an individual mandate on top of their health insurance.
I think there may be an official site, healthcare.gov that explains the plan. But since people are often too lazy to google, some of you are just going to have to bone up on the plan and explain it to friends and family between bites of hot dog and swigs of crappy beer.
I compared the individual mandate penalty to some people by comparing it to an early withdrawal penalty on on IRA, which is not a tax.
Also, I ask people if they want coverage despite Pre existing conditions, the ability to get insurance if they are laid off or don’t have a job, the ability to keep their kids on their insurance, etc. Then I tell them that the only way they can have these things without their costs rising through the roof is by expanding the number of people covered, especially younger, healthy people.
Doesn’t convince everybody, but it does shift things a bit from the GOP Game of Noes.
Tim O
I watched Idiocracy the other night. Just sayin.
Dee Loralei
I have a question, maybe one of the legal types can explain. I read somewhere that something over 50%+ of medical costs were attributed to the uninsured, maybe it was specifically for emergency visits. And the costs of everyone’s insurance and ER visits were higher to make up for those losses. Right? OK then the PPACA expanded medicare by a bunch to help cut down on the number of uninsured, and they required many businesses to provide health insurance also. Then the mandate was also put in to get the entire number of uninsured down to like 2%. Which is expected to lower everyone’s insurance costs and ER costs, right? Insurance CO’s also must explain to the Feds why they raise rates every year. So, in those states whose Governors refuse to booster the medicaid rolls, then their hospital ERs major costs are still going to be 50%+ uninsured people, right? So then the insurance COs in that state will have to keep raising insurance rates in the double digits each year, so then carrying insurance for employees is still gonna be too costly for many businesses. Or they’ll pay the rate increases and employees will not get raises or have higher deductibles,just as has been going on the last decade or so.
Do those businesses go to the Gov and say we’re going to move corporate HQ because it’ll be cheaper for us to insure our employees in Vermont or Mass, than here in Texas, or where ever? Or do the middle-class employees who keep getting stuck with no raises decide all of ObamaCare if an abject failure and blame the Dems? And not the bastard Republicans who deserve the blame?
I guess my question is, if states don’t expand Medicaid, then insurance companies still get to jack up rates in the state right? But they also can’t do recision and lifetime caps and stuff. So some insurance relief, but not nearly enough.
jl
@Brachiator:
Then it should be called a tax credit/penalty shouldn’t it?
Isn’t that how Robert’s characterized in oral arguments?
Also, in the context of GOP talking points, henceforth I will use ‘xat’ whenever they use the word ‘tax’.
The internet crossword dictionary says ‘xat’ means a totem. And if anyone ever made an (evil) totem out of taxes, it is the current GOP.
patrick II
Unless there was a secret tax provision written in invisible ink in the ACA bill, congressional republicans had access to the same information and language as the president. Those same republicans have been loudly proclaimng the tax a mandate up until now — so if it is a lie then they have been enthusiastic co-liars.
Steve in DC
@Dee Loralei:
Don’t count on corps moving to higher tax states just because they don’t have to pay for healthcare. It’s often cheaper to take the fines and not pay for care than pay for it. Also low tax = right to work.
There is also HQ vs remote offices and such. So you can pamper your execs in a nice area and do all your labor in other places. Even on the non profit/ngo side, we are moving everything out the country to pay locals in the area we work, reason cheaper! Also kills the travel bonuses for all the international development graduates, but who cares.
smedley
Let’s see: One Justice said it was a tax; Eight Justices said it was not a tax. Therefore, it is a tax?
Baud
@smedley:
The 4 libs agreed with Roberts that the mandate fell within the taxing power.
burnspbesq
Fuck.
If it’s in Title 26 and it raises money, it’s a tax. Even if it’s a “penalty,” it’s assessed and collected in the same way as a tax. It’s a testament to the power of Grover Fucking Norquist that we have to play these bullshit semantic games to get it through Congress.
@Brachiator:
Actually, that is a tax. What Code Section 72(t) says is that the rate of tax imposed on premature distributions is increased by 10 percent. And structurally, it’s in the part of the Code that defines gross income.
But it’s still a good analogy. It’s Congress influencing behavior through the Infernal Revenue Code, which it unquestionably has the power to do.
Baud
It has been the GOP position for a long time that every tax is a penalty. “Why are we punishing success?” Heard that one before?
hitchhiker
There is only one sensible response to this nonsense.
YOU LOST. GET OVER IT ALREADY. YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT. YOU FAILED TO STOP THE BILL FROM PASSING, YOU DIDN’T HAVE THE VOTES, AND YOU LOST.
AND THE SC JUST SAID IT’S PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.
THAT MEANS YOU LOST. JUST GET OVER IT. MOVE ON.
It’s a mistake to engage them with this tax or not a tax, lie or not a lie bs. They’re in pain because they lost, and we should be shoving their faces in it so that everybody can see what whiny little fools they really are.
They knew from the get-go that if Obama pulled this off, it would be another big Dem achievement, and their whole plan was to stop him. It was supposed to be his Waterloo, and instead they failed.
THEY LOST. IT’S OVER.
Just keep repeating that with as much scorn and emphasis as you can muster.
burnspbesq
@Karen in GA:
For individuals, Ireland is tax dystopia. The top rate of individual income tax, which kicks in at taxable income of EUR 32,801 for unmarried taxpayers, is 41 percent, and there’s a 21 percent VAT.
Yeah, your dumbfuck friend should absolutely move to Ireland.
Regnad Kcin
T’ain’t no sin…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nFQIdx7zCE
Omnes Omnibus
@hitchhiker: One of Wellington’s comments following Waterloo was: “It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.” It might have been Obama’s Waterloo, but he wasn’t playing Bonaparte.
Culture of Truth
@hitchhiker:
adding…
YOUR GUY SAID IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. JOHN FUCKING ROBERTS. YOUR GUY. GET. OVER IT.
burnspbesq
@Dee Loralei:
Insurance companies will always get theirs. The players who stand to get hosed are the hospitals. They still have to provide emergency care to the uninsured, but the overall pot of money gets smaller because Medicare reimbursement rates are supposed to go down. That’s why it’s likely that you will see the hospital sector out front leaning on Republican governors to take the Medicaid expansion deal.
Baud
@hitchhiker: @Culture of Truth:
Spot on. What it is, is health insurance for 30 million people.
Culture of Truth
Even the four dissenters agree this is within Congress’ power. The whole alleged disagreement is so stupid.
Calouste
@burnspbesq:
Ireland’s tax rates are maybe slightly higher than the European average, but not by much. But at least when Karen’s dumbfuck friend moves there, they’ll feel good in the knowledge that all their tax is used to have foreign companies in Ireland pay as little tax as possible.
jl
@Dee Loralei:
” I read somewhere that something over 50%+ of medical costs were attributed to the uninsured, maybe it was specifically for emergency visits. ”
Most estimates of the cost shift in insurance premiums from uninsured is about 10 percent of total premiums. And the uninsured make up about 15 percent of the population. So, you can’t get 50 percent of total medical expenditures in US due to uninsured from those numbers.
Some studies are misleading on ER because they use charges to estimated cost of uninsured care. But the charge is like a sticker price on a car, nobody pays it. Everyone who has any kind of insurance gets a discount off the charge. And charges for individual out of pocket care in ER from 2 to 10 times average reimbursement (Edit: of insured patients).
jl
@burnspbesq:
Are you talking about the ACA or Fuck?
magurakurin
@Steve in DC:
yeah what liar liar pants on fire Obama was. I was at a rally in Portland, and I heard Obama say, and “I’m going to legalize marijuana.” I’m pretty sure that’s what he said. Or it might have been “I’m going to draw down troops in Iraq and increase the presence in Afghanistan.” Hmmm, might have been that. I don’t know, I was pretty stoned at the time.
Thymezone
You are correct, ABL. The label that anyone attaches to the exaction provision in a bill …. fee, toll, penalty, tax, whatever … doesn’t matter. How do I know? Because the SC decision says so, explicitly. The people who write, advance and sign the bill are not required to describe the process by which it is to be deemed constitutional. If the exaction passes the tests of exaction under the power to tax, it is constitutional and nobody cares what you call it.
Again, not me saying this, the decision says it. “Tax” is just a label. “Penalty” is a label. The exaction stands because it is allowed under the power of taxation no matter what anyone calls it.
That’s a legal construct, right out of the decision itself. On the other hand, the GOP is made up of people who will lie about anything on any given day and not give a rat’s ass whether they get caught or not, since their base doesn’t care either. So there you are.
Valdivia
@Omnes Omnibus:
hats off sir. I had totally forgotten about the Waterloo thing.
/starts humming the Abba song
Brachiator
@burnspbesq:
I agree. I am typing on the fly in a coffee shop and oversimpified.
The IRS does not call it a tax on Form 5329 or in the instructions or publications, but Congress, as you note, clearly has the power to impose the penalty.
Baud
@efgoldman:
On the mobile version for this site, the banner ads are for Romney. LOL.
Omnes Omnibus
@Valdivia: You started off so well, and then you had to ruin it. FWIW, I visited the battlefield two summers ago. The Lion Mound is silly, but it does afford a good view.
Valdivia
@efgoldman:
yesterday after DougJ mentioned having his eye on someone at a party and a couple of people starting joking about it I got a bunch of dating ads. I was laughing a lot about that.
Valdivia
@efgoldman:
yesterday after DougJ mentioned having his eye on someone at a party and a couple of people starting joking about it I got a bunch of dating ads. I was laughing a lot about that.
jl
@efgoldman: I wasn’t going to mention it, but I checked out some more commenter links and got the criminal history check ads again. That is a true fact. But then maybe desperate people are on my mind and it some kind of confirmation bias.
Let’s see what we got now.
Some one thinks I would make a great LVN, bed sheets and some supermarket coupons.
Southern Beale
Actually read a really interesting thing from an insider on Obama and the marijuana thing.
He said the 2 important points that everyone overlooks is that one, GOP wasn’t approving Obama’s nominees even in year one, and he cut his losses by accepting Bush holdover Michele Leonhart as DEA Administrator — DEA needed to have an Administrator to function and he knew the nomination would get approved.
And two, when Holder announced the “hands off” policy on States’ medical cannabis, Leonhart went apeshit and said she didn’t care, the agency was going to keep doing what she had it doing under Bush. Insubordination that Obama didn’t confront because with all the birther, Muslim, socialist nonsense and healthcare reform battles, and everything getting blocked, it was a battle he didn’t think he could afford to take on. He’d lose and it would make his Administration look weak.
That’s what this guy said. I don’t know how much of it is true, but maybe there’s a way to get rid of Leonhart in an Obama term 2 when he’s got more leeway and doesn’t have to worry about re-election.
Weaselone
One has to assume that they didn’t bother to read even the summary of the majority decision in this case, let alone the nearly 200 pages that constitutes the decision and the dissents. That’s modern “journalism” for you. If they had, Roberts clarifies the issue fairly well. Congress did not consider this to be a tax, which is why the Anti-injunction Act did not apply and the court could review the mandate. At the same time, it was structured in such a manner that it fell within Congress’ Constitutional power to tax. Obama’s “not a tax” statement was accurate based on Congress’ own wording in the ACA law and the Supreme Courts interpretation of their intent.
magurakurin
@Culture of Truth:
this. best. reply. ever.
burnspbesq
@jl:
That was an exasperated “fuck” that we’re still having to have this conversation. Dear Republicans, it’s over, and your side lost. Deal.
Valdivia
@Omnes Omnibus:
hhis. Let me try again: I am in awe of your wonderful hoisting of the republicans in their rhetorical petard.
I love that kind of historical tour.
Omnes Omnibus
@magurakurin: Yeah, hard to argue that one. It isn’t even spiking the ball, it is pointing and then saying, “Scoreboard.”
magurakurin
@Southern Beale: interesting.
An Obama second term might really rock the house. In spite of the children in the Peanut Gallery…
burnspbesq
Mets Pheast on Phils. Happiness!
Southern Beale
Hey ABL, saw this over at DailyKos, I think you covered this a week ago:
Burglaries soar in Colorado Springs, which cut police rather than raise taxes
Southern Beale
@magurakurin:
An Obama second term with the House and Senate supermajority would be really awesome.
A girl can dream…
David Koch
Meh.
Voters don’t care about inside baseball.
Right now, voters are talking about the Tomkat divorce and the Lauren Hill court case.
http://webmedia.newseum.org/newseum-multimedia/dfp/jpg3/lg/NY_NYP.jpg
http://webmedia.newseum.org/newseum-multimedia/dfp/jpg3/lg/NY_DN.jpg
jl
@Weaselone: Not sure I understand what all you said, but sounds to like there is weird procedural Catch 22 in there.
Can some one go back and say it is tax, so the Anti-injunction act does apply and we can sort through the whole mess later, maybe when Roberts is too tired to write in all the sneaky legally extraneous opinionating for ulterior motives for future cases, oops, I mean, distinguished judicial obiter dicta on the Commerce Clause?
In the meantime Congress can do some Commerce Clausing.
Baud
@David Koch: @efgoldman:
There was that poll that said 40% of Americans didn’t even know about the Supreme Court’s decision. I expect a good many more are not paying attention to the tax/not-a-tax debate taking place on cable news the week of 4th of July.
Citizen_X
@hitchhiker: Abso-fucking-lutely. Do not engage your opponent on his terms. Probably best to reply by paraphrasing Aliens: MISTER, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU’VE BEEN KEEPING TRACK OF CURRENT EVENTS, BUT YOU JUST GOT YOUR ASS KICKED.
Southern Beale
@David Koch:
Went to the dentist today, wingnut dental hygienist was stalking to the receptionist about The Bachelor. Or maybe it was The Bachelorette. I don’t watch that crap, I don’t know which it is. But there it is…
Roger Moore
@Omnes Omnibus:
I like that one. Does that make Nancy Pelosi the Earl of Uxbridge and John Roberts von Blucher?
Southern Beale
@hitchhiker:
Eggg-zackly what I said today. Damn, every time liberals lose something big like, I dunno, a presidential election decided by SCOTUS it’s MOVE ON – YOU LOST – SHUT UP – NEXT TOPIC.
jl
@Southern Beale: Makes sense, they all have nice teeth on those shows, from the pics I see on the supermarket mag racks.
Omnes Omnibus
@Valdivia: Thank you. That one worked quite nicely.
@jl: Short and grossly simplified answer: No. The Anti-Injunction Act relies on Congress’ characterization of the the mandate when they passed it. The Tax-and-Spend Clause Constitutionality argument relies on the actual way the mandate functions. I think the Catch-22, to the extent that there is one, works in our favor.
Jennifer
What I said earlier at Sadly, No!:
What I love about the wingnut outrage, besides the delicious sweet tears, is the fact that Roberts’ findings are pretty unremarkable. Yes, Congress has broad powers of taxation. And a tax is a tax no matter what it’s called, and something that’s going to be collected by the IRS , which already collects taxes to fund other healthcare programs, is yes – a tax, regardless of the political expediency found to be desirable in calling it something else at the time it was passed. Roberts stayed true to his corporatist ideology by failing to uphold under the interstate commerce clause. If our media wasn’t chock-a-block with dumbasses, it would come as no surprise to anyone that in any question before the court, the standard is supposed to be “unconstitutional or not?” rather than a process in which the court searches for a particular constitutional provision that the law appears to contravene, were it not for another provision that makes clear the power falls within the scope allowed by the constitution, and then pretending that the provision that makes the law allowable doesn’t exist. It would be like saying that it’s unconstitional to arrest and jail someone because right there in the preamble it says we’re guaranteed the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
So while Roberts bends over backwards to avoid stepping on anything that might limit corporate power, his reasoning is otherwise pretty damn unremarkable. Yes, of course Congress has a right to levy taxes on any number of activities in which the federal government has an interest or a stake, and given that it was established almost 50 years ago that the government had an interest/stake in insuring medical care for the elderly and the poorest and has ever since been levying taxes to cover the costs, the radical decision would be to rule that in this case, which differs from Medicare/Medicaid only in the group of citizens it addresses, that suddenly Congress lacks the power to levy another tax to cover healthcare costs.
The real cause for shame and outrage here is the fact that there are 4 justices on the court so partisan in their ideology that they could rule otherwise. You certainly can’t blame Roberts for not wanting to be a blatantly radical hack and going along with the notion that somehow Congress loses its powers of taxation whenever a Democratic congress passes a bill and/or a black president signs it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Roger Moore: Nancy still has both of her legs, yes? Although, she lost the Speakership… Interesting.
catclub
@Pillsy: Except along with the time travel, Obama is clearly a mindreader who knew that one Justice would call it a tax in his ruling. So he lied when he said it was not a tax.
He is also barely able to read a teleprompter.
He also threatened to kill Chelsea Clinton if Hillary brought up the birf certificate in 2008.
He also bows to foreign leaders because he has no real American backbone.
Makes perfect sense to me.
catclub
@Jennifer: But both sides decided to ignore the tax aspect till the last minute. They knew about the Anti-Injunction Act.
Obama wanted it to come up quickly, and so did the GOP.
If either side – or someone at the appeals court level – had seriously brought up the tax aspect, then the Anti-Injunction Act means that no case comes until there is some real harm due to paying the tax. That is 2015 at the earliest.
So this means there was almost collusion by BOTH sides to ignore the tax aspect, although for different reasons.
smedley
@Baud
Not exactly. From SCOTUSblog: “Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) agreed with the Chief Justice’s bottom line – that the mandate is constitutional under Congress’s ability to tax – even while disagreeing with his Commerce Clause conclusion; those four Justices would have also held that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce to pass the mandate.”
jl
@Omnes Omnibus: thanks. But, damn! I thought I’d found a clever way to get a do over that would be even better.
And, I need to remember to add the snark tags.
ABL
@catclub: The Court gave deference to Congress’s expression of the shared responsibility payment as being “not a tax” for purposes of the AIA because Congress wrote and passed the AIA and the Court was willing to take Congress’s word for it. As to whether or not the shared responsibility payment falls within Congress’s taxing power is a constitutional question and solely in SCOTUS’s purview.
“The tax aspect” is too general a descriptor. It’s not a tax under the AIA, but within Congress’s taxing power.
ABL
@Keith:
That is absolutely incorrect. The Lib 4 said it is constitutional under the Commerce clause and also that it is constitutional as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
burnspbesq
@jl:
… and then have the IRS national office very quietly get the word out to the field not to deny any refund claims, so there is never a plaintiff with standing?
Ooh. A fiendish plot!
Just Some Fuckhead
@ABL:
This is absolutely incorrect also. Best I can do here is “the Lib 1”, depending on the issue and the day of the week or “the moderate 4”.
Weaselone
@jl: What Valdivia said. Robert’s position was basically that the mandate looked like a tax, smelled like a tax and acted like tax so it’s constitutionally covered by the power to tax regardless of whether Congress characterized it as a penalty, a fee, or a banana in the ACA.
Roberts stated that how the mandate was defined in the ACA did matter when determining whether laws passed by Congress applied. The Anti-Injunction Act only applies to items which Congress characterized as a tax in the legislation. The mandate is a banana, so the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply, although presumably it is subject to the occasional inspection by the Department of Agriculture.
ABL
@Just Some Fuckhead: That was just my shorthand that I used while trying to guess what happened.
http://angryblackladychronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ABLC-Obamacare-MindMap.jpg
Bruce S
Just because a levy falls under the taxing powers of Congress as a legal technicality doesn’t mean that in normal parlance it isn’t better understood as a noncompliance penalty rather than what we routinely think of as a tax. The notion, being peddled by the freaks on the professional Right, that this formulation in response to a question was some sort of Big Lie on Obama’s part originates in unfettered Obama-hate.
This is a non-tempest in a very crazy Tea Party. The faux-hysterics over Obama’s totally coherent and accurate locution in an interview is testimony to how nutty these freaks actually are.
And, of course, the Mittster backs up Obama’s formulation of how to best characterize this levy in context. Which is sort of weird, but I guess it’s welcome as some bizarre political miscalculation that’s driving his base even crazier.
Brachiator
@Omnes Omnibus:
Might one refer to the Republican leader of the House as Boehnerparte?
Just Some Fuckhead
@ABL: I use “non-activist judges” to describe the moderate four.
Omnes Omnibus
@Brachiator: Oh, dear. That is horrible, but I did laugh.
Caz
There are two things that matter:
(1) Obama was vehement that it wasn’t a tax, yet the Supreme Court said it was a tax. Many prominent liberals are still calling it a penalty instead of a tax. Basically, we can’t trust that any new tax will be so called, giving the citizens a heads up that new taxes are being levied against them. It matters that taxes will be imposed covertly, without anyone knowing they are actually taxes because politicians will call them anything but taxes.
(2) The ACA is about $650 billion in new taxes, so Obama should get credit for levying a ton of new taxes on the American people, from the lower class to the upper class. We don’t need more taxes on anyone right now, so the ACA’s myriad of new taxes is a horrendous legislative “achievement.”
It doesn’t matter relative to the Supreme Court’s ruling, but it matters in the grand scheme of things. Of course, you BJtards are on board with whatever the liberals do anyway, so tax or not, you’ll support whatever. It’s disappointing that you would choose politicians over the American people and the nation though, supporting such the largest tax increase ever on the American people.
hitchhiker
Repeating myself:
It’s simple. Forget all the wonderfully informed commentary. Just enjoy the too-rare chance to say
YOU LOST.
GET OVER IT ALREADY.
Save the analysis for bj, where it’s fully appreciated. All Dems need to say from here on out to the rest of the world is.
WE WON. OBAMA DID THE IMPOSSIBLE. JOHN ROBERTS AGREES. WE WON.
What’s going on with this stupid tax argument is them doing what they’ve been doing for the last 3+ years: trying to make it seem like Obama is not a legitimate prez. If we argue that point, they’re in charge of the conversation. Stop arguing and tell them to grow up. They lost. Big deal, they’ll get over it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Caz: There is really only one thing that matters about your comment: You have no idea what you are talking about.
gocart mozart
For the full butt hurt, go here:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/07/rrr.php
burnspbesq
@Caz:
“The ACA is about $650 billion in new taxes”
YOU’RE A LIAR.
The Joint Committee scored the whole legislation, including the revenue measures that had nothing to do with healthcare reform, at just under $440 billion over ten years.
Americans for Tax Reform said the combined revenue from the individual mandate and the employer mandate would be less than $65 billion over ten years.
The links are in a comment I posted last night.
Unless you’ve got higher-quality estimates than those (complete with enough detail about methodology so that we can evaluate them) that support your number, GTFO.
gwangung
@Caz: Dude, y’all lost. The Court said so.
End of story.
Omnes Omnibus
@gwangung: Shit, I forgot how good an answer that was.
Thymezone
@Caz:
Doug please, put some effort into this spooftroll. This is not your best work.
Soonergrunt
@Caz: There are really only three things that matter about your comment.
1. In his opinion describing how Congress’ power to tax makes the mandate constitutional, Chief Justice Roberts said explicitly that the mandate is not a tax.
2. Just because you’ve been given your talking points, you are not required under law to parrot them mindlessly, regardless of how soothing you find that. You can, in fact, judge the talking points yourself against the facts of the case and use your own brain.
3. That last part was bullshit. I don’t think for one minute you are capable of thinking on your own. You wouldn’t want to anyway, even if you could because it’s too emotionally stressful for you. That’s why you’re a conservative. Carry on.
Omnes Omnibus
@Thymezone: Weird and sadly, I think Caz might be real. It makes me weep for the future, but there it is.
Weaselone
@Caz:
1) Congress didn’t define it as a tax either. It’s characterized as a penalty in the bill and was characterized as a penalty by both Republicans and Democrats until is was upheld last week. And it’s cute that you’re pretending that nobody knew about the noncompliance fees, etc. just because they weren’t called a tax.
2) The figure I have seen from the CBO is $500 billion over 10 years. Of course, the Republican commentators always seem to leave out the part about the $808 billion dollars worth of tax credits that will go to lower and middle class tax payers over 11 years. Seems a little dishonest to leave those out of the discussion, does it not?
Omnes Omnibus
@Weaselone: Word to the wise, Caz really isn’t worth the effort of a serous reply. Caz is either a spoof troll or a seriously deluded real troll. in either case, rational arguments are a waste of time.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: Eliminating ennui is about all Caz is good for.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: If that.
Weaselone
@Omnes Omnibus: I find it important to expose trolls to sunlight, not for the sake of the trolls, but for the benefit of those who may stumble upon them unaware.
Omnes Omnibus
@Weaselone: Cool, I just didn’t want you to be trying to reason with Caz as though s/he had any pretensions toward good faith.
FlipYrWhig
I think that Republicans are trying to pull something else, actually, which is to get people thinking that the cost of the insurance they’re required to buy Is A Tax — rather than that the penalty for NOT buying it functions like one.
Triassic Sands
It seems like the Dems could have easily structured the penalty as a tax had they wanted to. All they had to do was levy a tax on everyone for healthcare and then give everyone who had qualifying insurance an exemption.
But the word tax is pure poison among the pinheads in Washington DC these days. Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, so he undoubtedly wanted to avoid calling the penalty a tax, so no one would accuse him of raising taxes on the middle class. Of course, he wouldn’t have been raising taxes on the middle class, he would only have been raising taxes on those individuals in the middle class who didn’t have employer-based insurance, a qualifying individual plan, or who qualified for a subsidy, but decided, in a pique of freedom loving — hmm, maybe that should be freedumb loving — rugged individualism that even though the responsible, intelligent, and rational thing to do is to have health insurance, it was more important to show that non-white, non-Christian, non-American just what he could do with health insurance. That wouldn’t be many people, so in my mind it wouldn’t have been raising taxes on THE middle class, even if they had called it a tax.
Politicians, even Obama, stretch the truth all the time. Some like Romney and Santorum just make it up as they go — fabricating huge swaths of history in an attempt to be something and someone they’re not. Obama has certainly stretched things on more that one occasion, but the refusal to call the penalty a tax was more about wanting to avoid the word tax, than it was about lying. Technically, I think it would be fair to accuse Obama of lying (with a very small “l”) about this, but I also think they really did structure the penalty as a penalty, rather than as a tax, so the whole issue seems like a fruitless exercise in semantics. If someone wants to consider it a tax, let them. If others want to call it a penalty — fine. Only the Republican politicians and the dumbest of their constituents think this is an issue worth caring about.
The real issue is why would anyone who can afford health insurance go without it? Sure, the odds are much lower when you’re young that you’ll need it, but they aren’t zero and every year lots of young people (numbers, not percentages) are grievously injured or get a life-threatening illness. When that happens, those young people need health insurance or they’re going to be a burden on someone else — either their families or taxpayers generally. That’s irresponsible, and since (almost) no one knows ahead of time who is going to be one of the unlucky ones, the smart thing to do is, yep, get insurance.
Taxes are the means by which we pay for a civilized society (among other things). Tax is not a dirty word; neither is it true that individuals can always spend their money more wisely and efficiently than society (aka the government). It’s time for Democrats to rejoin the vertebrates and start making the case for taxes.
Jay in Oregon
@Thymezone:
I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I bet you could explain it like this:
The individual mandate is a tax, just like carrying assault weapons to a rally is speech.
Caz
What exactly makes me a troll?? Is it the fact that I’m the only one with a different view on here that doesn’t fall into the mindless echo chamber of deluded liberal brainwashing? Or is it that you think I just stopped by to start arguments and then I’m gone? I don’t get this whole troll thing.
But really, it’s one thing to disagree and have a discussion of the issues. It’s another to just poke fun at and mock anyone who disagrees with you. The latter is more appropriate for grade school than it is for a purportedly intelligent current events blog.
It says a lot about you people that your response to someone with a different opinion is to insult, mock, and berate that someone, and not offer any substantive, intelligent comments.
I think basically you people don’t know how to intelligently discuss anything because what you’re used to is staying within your little group where everyone agrees on everything. You people are truly clueless as to how to discuss or argue anything, it’s quite pathetic and juvenile.
Are you all a bunch of teenagers who know it all and can’t learn anything? I used to respond to “idiot” adults like that when I was like 13. Time to grow up, people.
Is it really that satisfying to just mock and insult anyone with a different opinion? Don’t you think it would be more productive to actually delve into the substance of the issues rather than just copying what the liberal media tells you to think and then poking fun at any different opinions?
It’s quite an interesting social phenomenon going on here. It’s like anytime I post a comment on here, it causes ripples of distress in the echo chamber, which are met with animosity, arrogance, and name-calling. Are you all that scared to actually have to think about these issues you talk about all the time? Afraid your canned thoughts on these issues might not hold as much water as you’ve been told by your brainwashers?
I mean, you respond to my comments like you’re scared of something – it’s a response of uncertainty and fear.
I’ll continue to post here even if there aren’t any mature thinkers on here with which to discuss things. At least it helps me put my own opinions into organized form.
I’m still kinda curious what makes me a troll and what the hell a troll is. I’ve been posting on this blog since its inception and actually spent quite a bit of time discussing politics and current events in person at various venues with the vaunted Mr. Cole prior to this blog’s existence.
But whatever, if it works for you then I guess keep up the good work, retards.
Yutsano
@Caz: tl;dr.
Caz
And apparently there are different categories of trolls? I’m curious as to what a troll is, but especially curious about what a spoof troll is.
Weren’t you all acting so proud over the last few years that Obama hadn’t raised taxes and that raising taxes on anyone but the evil rich was a bad idea and that Obama would never do that? Now that his signature law turns out to be a collection of taxes against just about everyone, you’re all in favor of taxes?
The liberal media sure does do a good job of brainwashing the useful idiots, that’s for sure. You just plow ahead with whatever thoughts you’ve been told to have and to hell with any consistency, regard for the rule of law, or honesty.
I know it’s hard to think on your own, but you ought to try it sometime. It really lets you get a fairly good grip on reality and the facts, as opposed to getting your thoughts from Rachel Maddow and whatever politically expedient lies Obama is peddling on any given day.
I do like the whole troll routine and strings of insults I get on here – they are sometimes quite creative and funny. It would be nice to have an actual intellectual discussion sometime, but I’ll settle for the entertainment aspect of the blog instead since that’s all you useful idiots ever offer.
Keep up the good work! Troll out.
NR
@hitchhiker:
Yep. He forced everyone in America to give money to private corporations. Let’s celebrate! The CEO of Aetna’s going to get his third mansion because of us.
NR
@Caz:
Actually, taxes in the U.S. are at historic lows right now. But don’t let facts get in the way of your ideology.
NR
@Southern Beale:
Yeah, it would. There are tons more corporations out there that they could force us all to give money to. I can’t wait to see which ones they’ll pick!
Yutsano
@NR: Sore loser, you are. Or you willfully ignore how healthcare evolved everywhere else in the world. Protip: the NHS is not in the Magna Carta.
magurakurin
@Caz: um yeah, didn’t actually read that, but FUCK YOU.
does that help prove your “point.”
If not, try “eat shit and die.”
or “go pound sand teabagger scum”
or you could try “The PPACA is law, America, love it or leave it.”
burnspbesq
@Caz:
If you come in here and spew shit that is demonstrably a lie, that makes you a troll.
burnspbesq
@Caz:
You didn’t come in here with an opinion. You came in here with a lie. You should learn to know the difference.
Bruce S
@Caz:
This character watches too much FOX News – it’s the path to brain death. Reagan imposed a larger tax increase than the ACA, for what that’s worth…
http://titanicsailsatdawn.blogspot.com/2012/07/aca-tax-and-insanity-of-contemporary.html
Lurking Canadian
@Southern Beale: Don’t think of them as burglaries. Colorado Springs just privatized tax collection to incentivize free market innovations in wealth distribution.
Female on the Beach
Mitt Romney was for a penalty until it became a tax.
Honestly, at this point, I just feel like saying, we are sick of trying to reason with you people and I don’t want to hear anymore of your whining because WE WON! Suck it, bitches! Looong and hard.
THAT is the only language they understand.
Female on the Beach
Completely! I don’t think my previous comment went through but I believe the most appropriate response, at this stage of the game is, “Suck it bitches. Suck long and hard and LIKE it!”
That is the only language they understand.
different-church-lady
@MikeJake:
Don’t be so hard on yourself: they don’t understand what the hell they’re going on and on about either.
different-church-lady
@Caz: I do enjoy the way you never read the 100 comments that come before yours.
different-church-lady
@Caz:
Oh? Which one do you usually fall into?
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but there are these things called “blogs”, and you can have one of your own if you (a) so desire and (b) decide you’re not going to be a whiny, annoying lazy ass.