Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Carney: It's a penalty, not a tax
upi.com ^ | 6/30/12 | UPI

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; obamacare; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last
To: Meet the New Boss
But don’t feel bad, Congress didn’t understand the Act and they actually voted on it!
How can one understand what one hasn't even read?

Congress didn't "vote on it", per se. The Democrats had the votes to make passage foolproof and they (a political Party, not Congress) forced it through, plain and simple.

81 posted on 06/30/2012 1:36:48 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Carney, you are full of shit. If you don’t pay the “penalty”, you go to prison for five years. The crime. Tax evasion.


82 posted on 06/30/2012 1:36:48 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
The point is not the specific nature of the command ("you must obey the speed limit when you drive"; "you must purchase health insurance" or whatever).

The point is that IT IS A COMMAND.

Pick your own analogy.

There are thousands of laws where a government says "you must do x" and if you don't there is a penalty of a monetary fine or jail time.

ObamaCare says "you must do x":

"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."

...and then says if you don't, there is a penalty:

"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).

Roberts is wrong on this, and Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito were right.

83 posted on 06/30/2012 1:37:33 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

[... So if you don’t buy it, and you can afford it,
it is irresponsible to ask America’s taxpayers to
pay for your Emergency care...]

So if you CAN work, but choose NOT to work, it is
irresponsible to ask American taxpayers to support
your lazy arse.

There! Fixed it.


84 posted on 06/30/2012 1:39:36 PM PDT by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
If you don’t pay the “penalty”, you go to prison for five years. The crime. Tax evasion.
Oops! I'd say somebody is 'in a sticky wicket' with that little factoid.
85 posted on 06/30/2012 1:42:10 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
isn't Carney actually disagreeing with the Court's decision instead of agreeing and supporting it?

Yes! You are absolutely right.

Carney and Obama are laughing their asses off at what a fool Roberts was.

Roberts thought he was going to win the "Strange New Respect Award" (awarded by The American Spectator for supposed conservatives who abandon conservative positions in order to bask in the approval of the MSM) but in reality they are just laughing at him.

Roberts should have taken the many statements by Obama and the Congressional leadership that it was NOT a tax as an admission or stipulation to that effect and then gone ahead and voted with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito.

86 posted on 06/30/2012 1:43:51 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
The highest law of the land says it’s a tax.

So does the bill itself when it references the Internal Revenue Code. The punishment for not paying the "penalty" is a tax evasion felony.

87 posted on 06/30/2012 1:53:21 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Yep, and the SCOTUS also ruled that the right to abortion on demand is in the US Constitution, when we all know it is clearly not.

The SCOTUS often pulls law out of their ass that has no foundation in the Constitution, and they did so here with Roberts’s idiotic blunder of biblical proportions.


88 posted on 06/30/2012 1:54:29 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Hey I just noticed that in sub-clause (e)(3) American Indians are exempt from the ObamaCare mandate.

I suggest we all contribute a couple of recipes to an Indian cookbook like Elizabeth Warren and then declare ourselves exempt from ObamaCare!


89 posted on 06/30/2012 2:06:26 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

We have a winner.


90 posted on 06/30/2012 2:07:15 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

They lie like they breath.


91 posted on 06/30/2012 2:08:44 PM PDT by Reagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
You are citing the wrong part of the Act.
BTW, the relevant part of "the Act" is
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
Public Law 111–148 111th Congress
An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Just "search" 1501 and you'll see that SEC. 1501(b) has this...

b) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE
‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.

So when you say I'm citing the wrong part of the Act you're correct. I was citing Title 26 (that's the Internal Revenue Code), just as you were.

You have to go back to Public Law 111–148 SEC. 1501(b), to see how, and why, SEC. 5000A came into existence.

Be sure to note this as well...

Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for Health Care
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. (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 ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).

The Court kind of blew that argument right out of the water, didn't they.

92 posted on 06/30/2012 2:18:20 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Do a little more reading. Like I said, just “search” 1501 and spend about ten minutes reading.


93 posted on 06/30/2012 2:20:18 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
There are thousands of laws where a government says "you must do x" and if you don't there is a penalty of a monetary fine or jail time.

State or Federal?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why are we talking about taxes or fines when Congress has no authority to mandate HeLLCare at all.
94 posted on 06/30/2012 2:20:44 PM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their Moonbats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Roberts should have taken the many statements by Obama and the (Democrat) Congressional leadership that it was NOT a tax as an admission or stipulation to that effect and then gone ahead and voted with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito.
But an individual mandate wasn't Constitutional unless it was a tax. Don't you get it?

The "meat" sandwich got turned into a "feces" sandwich and they're going to have to eat it!

95 posted on 06/30/2012 2:26:10 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

It’s notta tumah!


96 posted on 06/30/2012 2:35:33 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (Liberalism: Carrying adolescent values and behavior into adult life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Dear Mr Carney, You might want to check with the government lawyers who argued the case before the SCOTUS. They DID argue that it WAS A TAX! It was the opposition that argued otherwise.

Of course, if you continue to insist it's not a tax, maybe the pubies will create adverts stating, "The Obama regime told US, the American public, that Obamacare wasn't a tax (show carney and obama stating it's not a tax, while government lawyers argued before the SCOTUS that it WAS a tax. Does audio of the arguments exist? It would be great in an advertisement.!

Mark

97 posted on 06/30/2012 2:37:09 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

I am soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tired of this clintonian “it depends on what the meaning of is is” crap. Vote all the morons who support or supported any of nobama’s anti-Free-America schemes. All the bums and their idiot supporters should be on Devil’s Island.


98 posted on 06/30/2012 2:41:53 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

I am soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tired of this clintonian “it depends on what the meaning of is is” crap. Vote out all the morons who support or supported any of nobama’s anti-Free-America schemes. All the bums and their idiot supporters should be on Devil’s Island.


99 posted on 06/30/2012 2:42:07 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“But an individual mandate wasn’t Constitutional unless it was a tax. Don’t you get it?”

In my view, it is not constitutional EVEN AS A TAX.

See my analysis here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2901385/posts?page=28#28

Under the Constitution, Congress cannot impose a tax on people for just existing, unless it is census-apportioned.

Can Congress impose a tax on all people for just existing, with an exemption for people with red hair?

Can Congress impose a tax on all people for just existing, with an exemption for people who drive Dodge Vipers?

Can Congress impose a tax on all people for just existing, with an exemption for people who purchase a a certain insurance contract?

In my view it is not possible for Congress to take an unconstitutional direct tax and then somehow make it constitutional by simply tacking on a category of exemption.

If the direct tax is unconstitutional, they cannot make it constitutional just by adding a certain exemption to it.

The dissenters were correct in faulting Roberts in putting out this tax analysis without sufficient deliberation on how it should be analyzed under the Direct Tax clause of the Constitution.


100 posted on 06/30/2012 2:52:22 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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