The Mandate Represents What’s Wrong With Democrats

Weekly Standard Blog ^ | Jun 27, 2012 | JAY COST

[sickoflibs]

RE :”That doesn't shock me. I had a similar but less cynical thought, maybe they'd want it upheld not cause they were “scared” but because they'd find it advantageous to still have the issue to run on in November”

Exactly, it's unpopular and Boehner promises to repeal it again and again each election (groundhog day) and never gets it repealed, so he is never held responsible for anything bad. And Dems get the blame for health care getting more expensive.

It's like Obama taxing the rich, he runs on it every election but always manages to be foiled by the other side so he can claim he actually never raised taxes, and yet he had a plan to fix the deficit, by raising taxes.

Have your cake and eat it too. This is called playing the base/suckers.

[DoughtyOne]

RE :”That's a reasonable response, but if you think about it, even here there is a vast difference with what is being planed with the individual mandate. Congress ruled that Medicare funding would be deducted from our paychecks on a regular basis. They did not mandate that we buy our own Medicare policies, then fine us through the I. R. S. if we didn't”

Alternatively if you don't ‘buy’ medicare coverage with those payroll taxes you go to jail.

You don't go out and buy Medicare with your payroll deductions.  If you pay in for enough time, you're covered at age 65.  The health provider submits your bill to the federal government, and it pays most of the bill.

Heck, remember the SS argument :”I paid in” ???

But if you dont buy health insurance and you still dont pay the ‘fine’ they dont do anything to you, nothing, and you can still get insurance later after you get sick.

If you don't have an active health care insurance policy on file, you'll be charged 2.5% of your salary even if you have no deduction.  If you don't pay that, the IRS will address it in the same manner it does today if you do not pay.  Do you really think you have a choice not to pay?

Check LOL

As for my prior comment, I think it would have been a reasoned come-back to compare the federal government determining you should buy a Chevy Volt, and then setting up a deduction to pay for it, with your Medicare deductions.  None the less, it would not be a punitive fine like the Obamacare mandate or else.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” But if you dont buy health insurance and you still dont pay the ‘fine’ they dont do anything to you, nothing, and you can still get insurance later after you get sick.”

Man, the 25 million illegals are gonna love this.

[Impy]

Exactly, it's unpopular and Boehner promises to repeal it again and again each election (groundhog day) and never gets it repealed, so he is never held responsible for anything bad. And Dems get the blame for health care getting more expensive.

I meant just for this election. I'll wait till it's actually possible to repeal it and they don't before I'll go THAT far in accusing them.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”If you don't have an active health care insurance policy on file, you'll be charged 2.5% of your salary even if you have no deduction. If you don't pay that, the IRS will address it in the same manner it does today if you do not pay. Do you really think you have a choice not to pay?”

This is the completely incorrect bases of your arguments. You are absolutely wrong on this. The law specifically forbids the IRS from taking any punitive action against you for not paying the ‘fine’. This was in the Senate version which made it into law. Republicans rarely talk about this aspect because it nukes the drama aspect of the argument.

The House version had real penalties for not paying the fines but that bill got thrown away.

Dont buy medicare with the payroll taxes and you go to jail.

[NFHale]

Here’s a though...Consider the possibility that yes, Roberts is VERY smart, and just attached Obama’s name and face to the largest, most intrusive TAX increase in US history, four months before an election, thereby giving the GOP a clear-cut campaign message to hammer home over and over.

Not to mention the fact that FuBO is all over the place before the ACA passed claiming it WASN’T a tax increase, nor was it a tax hike, nor was it intrusive, etc.

Just posing a thought here...for the record, my immediate reaction was words that are unprintable here and a healthy wrapping of duct tape around my head.

But upon some clear thinking...there could be something more to this. Roberts may just have shoved it up FuBO’s derriere ensuring a GOP win in November.

Don’t know. Trying to see something positive

[Impy]

Roberts is a very intelligent man. How could he, all of a sudden, be this stupid?

No idea but people are stupid animals who degrade themselves all the time. Hillary Clinton used to be a Goldwater girl. John Anderson, the Congressman from 1980 who ran to Carter's left started his House career as a staunch conservative. It's the simplest explanation, more believable to me than the CJ of the United States being coerced.

Or maybe we didn't know Johnny Boy as well as we thought. I remember several people saying he could have a moderate streak. One "scholar" I heard insisted he was sure Roberts would never vote to overturn Roe V. Wade.

[DoughtyOne]

Dont buy medicare with the payroll taxes and you go to jail.

These taxes are never in the possession of the individual again once they are withheld by their payroll department.

If the IRS cannot levy that fine, then it is good to know and I appreciate the mention. This may be a mute point, in that the vast majority of people who work, generally try to avoid having to come up with money at the end of the tax year.

That certainly leaves a lot of people who do not work at all, but then they may already be covered under Medicaid.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”” But if you dont buy health insurance and you still dont pay the ‘fine’ they dont do anything to you, nothing, and you can still get insurance later after you get sick.”
...
Man, the 25 million illegals are gonna love this.”

Correct.

I think Republicans got off on the mandate because it is so unpopular (as are taxes) and they thought it had the best shot at being overturned, so today court said they cant force you to do something but they can tax you for not doing it.

Given the focus of the mandate as the boogyman Republicans lost sight of the fact that it's the popular handout mandates that kill off the private insurance industry
, and the personal mandate is so weak it doesn't stop it.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Here’s a though...Consider the possibility that yes, Roberts is VERY smart, and just attached Obama’s name and face to the largest, most intrusive TAX increase in US history, four months before an election, thereby giving the GOP a clear-cut campaign message to hammer home over and over.”

The press won’t cover it. If they cover anything, they will make Obama a HERO for Obamacare. The only reason Americans know anything about Fast & Furious, is the internet. The press is CLOSED to anything negative about Obama. The MSM has become an enemy of the United States.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”If the IRS cannot levy that fine, then it is good to know and I appreciate the mention. This may be a mute point, in that the vast majority of people who work, generally try to avoid having to come up with money at the end of the tax year.”

I did the Obama-care pings and followed this bill ever step of the way. The Senate weakened the PERSONAL mandate so it is near useless. But that is not good either.

None of this redeems Obama-care from being a terrible destructive bill.

See #49

[DoughtyOne]

RE: But if you dont buy health insurance and you still dont pay the ‘fine’ they dont do anything to you, nothing, and you can still get insurance later after you get sick.

Man, the 25 million illegals are gonna love this.

Correct.

Shaking my head... I agree with the truth of this.

I think Republicans got off on the mandate because it is so unpopular (as are taxes) and they thought it had the best shot at being overturned, so today court said they cant force you to do something but they can tax you for not doing it.

I think it's fairly well known that I'm not a particularly strong advocate of GOPe thinking.  Here I am not critical of the Republicans challenging AHA based in part on the Constitutionality of the Health Care Mandate.  That was actually a policy decison that was born out by the SCOTUS ruling this morning.  As far as I am concerned, the Tax claim should have been laughed out of court on the face of it.  It was a ridiculous Hale Mary attempt.  That the court failed to see it that way, causes me to ponder the mental faculties of the court, not the idea I should rethink my own perception here.

Given the focus of the mandate as the boogyman Republicans lost sight of the fact that it's the popular handout mandates that kill off the private insurance industry, and the personal mandate is so weak it doesn't stop it.

It seems to me that a case could be made that the toothless mandate may have caused overall harm to the private insurance industry, since it was determined 100% participation would be the only way the private insurance industry could provide full coverage for everyone.

None the less, it seems to me that the mandates on small and larger business, did massive damage to the private insurance industry on it's own.  Across this nation, businesses are dropping their employee insurance coverage.  The business provision of insurance, facilitated a major portion of the private insurance business in the United States.  The AHA was designed to destroy the ability for business to continue providing insurance coverage.  The idea from the start was to get 100% of the populace off private insurance, and onto Obamacare.

That's what is taking place by design.

[NFHale]

“...The press won’t cover it....”

True.

But this site is covering it. So is Drudge. So is Newsmax, and Hotair, and Weasel Zippers, and Frontpage, and a slew of other sites all over the Internet and radio.

And you and I are covering it, and everybody we speak to, five, ten, fifteen, twenty folks who cover it with others. We’re legion, whether we see it or not.

This fight isn’t over, brother. One more battle in a longer war and the battle isn’t always to the strongest, nor the race to the swiftest.

Things happen for a reason; on the face of it, we got knocked down today; but that’s just TODAY. We’re down, not out.

F*** ‘em. Regroup.

[DoughtyOne]

None of this redeems Obama-care from being a terrible destructive bill.

I agree.

Also: Sorry I linked that post to 48 instead of 49. It was not and intentional misdirection.

[sickoflibs]

Here's a hypothetical I have used in the past.

Say Obama raised every-ones taxes by $800. But then he in the same bill it offered/passed a tax credit for those that have approved insurance, and that tax credit was the same $800, like the tax credit I got for insulation. So if you don't buy the proper insurance then you have to pay an additional $800 you didn't before the law, just like now except with real penalties. Constitutional? You see the problem?

This bill was designed to get employers to drop coverage and pay the small fine to kill off the employer insurance. The weak mandate was a side issue blown out of proportion.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” The AHA was designed to destroy the ability for business to continue providing insurance coverage. The idea from the start was to get 100% of the populace off private insurance, and onto Obamacare.

That’s what is taking place by design.”

Exactly.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Things happen for a reason; on the face of it, we got knocked down today; but that’s just TODAY. We’re down, not out.

F*** ‘em. Regroup.”

CW2

[AuH2ORepublican]

Blackmail, idiocy and going over to the Dark Side are not the only explanations for Roberts’s opinion. I think that Roberts didn't want to be seen as striking down major legislation capriciously, so he bent over backwards to look for a way—any way—to uphold it without betraying his principles, and he fooled himself into thinking that the penalty for not complying with the mandate was really a tax, and that the mandate was really an incentive. I think that Roberts believes that conservatives can criticize him for getting the case wrong on the facts (is it in fact a “tax”?), but not on the law (were it a tax, would Congress have such authority?), and he may be correct about that (I haven't been able to read all the dissents yet, so I'm withholding judgment for now). I think the opinion is a travesty, but it would have been much worse for us had SCOTUS ruled that the Commerce Clause authorized such a law (which would have violated Roberts’s principles so to rule), since it (i) basically would have granted Congress plenary powers and (ii) would make it almost impossible for Congress to repeal the mandate so long as the Democrats have 41 Senators. By ruling that the penalty is a tax, Congress can repeal it though the budget reconciliation process, which is not subject to a filibuster, and the rest of the provisions would then be repealed through normal legislation that the Democrats would not dare to filibuster so as not to condemn insurance companies to certain bankruptcy.

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]