The Mandate After the Court [Roberts’s decision may end up killing Obamacare after all]

National Review ^ | 16 July 2012 | James C. Capretta & Yuval Levin

[SoFloFreeper]

Last month’s Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare left champions of that law breathing a sigh of relief, while its opponents — a majority of the public — were left frustrated. It seemed at first glance as though the chief justice’s tortured opinion had saved the individual mandate, and with it the broader statute. But Obamacare’s champions should take a closer look at what the Court left them with, because on their own terms, the law is now set to collapse.

[bossmechanic]

I’m only an engineer... not a fancy pants lawyer.
Having fully read your treatise, I’m not sure if you’ve engaged in the equivalent of a judicial conspiracy rant or properly and accurately explained the workings of a brilliant mind.
When Roberts’ ruling came out and the hysterical screaming began, I was thoughtfully pleased that we could not be mandated to do something. I also agreed that Congress has the power to tax and therefore the power to remove taxes. And I agreed that it was up to us, the American people, to drive our own taxation system via our constitutionally provided political system. So I haven’t gone apepoop about Roberts legislating from the bench cause it seemed to me he specifically avoided that accusation and put responsibility squarely where it belongs.

So (correct me if I’m wrong}, individuals are technically free to ignore the tax knowing that while the IRS can bluster and posture, it knows full well it would lose any case whereby individuals are generalized as presumed corporations for the purpose of collection of taxes above and beyond the specific case of income tax.

This strikes me as an Occam’s Razor situation whereby many courts would side with the IRS. So how likely is it that Roberts’ brilliant loophole will prove effective?
Your response is eagerly awaited.

[Bayard]

That is correct, the federal government does not collect property tax. Local governments such as cities and states however, cannot tax Church property. Income is also exempt, from collections and donations, ect. Payroll and taxable employee benefits are not exempt from taxation.

[dufekin]

Your argument, unfortunately, is flawed. The only enforcement part of Obama/Pelosicare declared a tax is the mandate on individuals. A separate mandate applies to employers, but the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of that mandate because the petitioners did not bring that argument to the Court.

Moreover, the government can tax the Catholic Church as much as it taxes any other entity. The Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) supersedes the First Amendment (freedom of religion), and in any case, this Administration considers religious liberty as a nullity. Only a special provision of the tax code grants the Church an exemption from income taxation, and the Church must comply with certain regulations to qualify. For example, the Church cannot maintain her tax exemption and support or oppose a political candidate or any other political issue; a special exception allows black Protestant churches to agitate for Democrats yet retain their exemption.

Catholic hospitals, however, do not qualify as churches under the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. They must comply with the legislation as ordinary businesses. If they object to the abortion mandate, then they must pay gargantuan fines. The Catholic Church, her institutions, and her faithful cannot provide abortifacients, contraception, sterilization, and abortion as these are intrinsically evil.

That leaves these groups several options. They can continue to operate without employing anyone; the requirement to provide these procedures applies only to employees. For a hospital, that’s impractical right now, although I suppose that a tremendous surge in vocations of medically qualified persons to religious orders may displace the current staff.

Alternatively, the hospitals may pay a special tax ($2,000 per employee) and simply not offer health insurance (for reasons unrelated to opposition to abortion, which carries a special punitive fine). The employees then each pay a tax of not less than $695/person (or $2085/family) and simply decline medical attention. That arrangement may prove economically viable, especially if other employers drop their coverage. Essentially, health insurance becomes too expensive, so the employer pays a tax, reduces wages to compensate for the tax, and have each employee pay a special tax from the wages. Technically, if the hospital employs fewer than 50 persons, or if no employee nor spouse nor dependent of any employee receives a subsidy on any exchange, then the hospital need not pay the $2,000/employee tax. In the case of hospitals, this arrangement may prove particularly enticing if the hospital then can offer or provide some limited form of healthcare to employees, their spouses, and their children; however, I’m not sure how legal that might be.

[Steelers6]

I agree. Trying to find excuses for Roberts is rediculous. He was worried about what the President, Dem Senators, and left wing would say about him. The right move was to throw this thing out and Obama would be spending his time trying to figure out what he could do thru executive orders to implement what he could. Now he has this hurdle cleared. The Republicans would be spending time writing another bill and this Bain Capital nonsense wouldn’t have nearly the attention it has garned.