Sahil Kapur is a congressional reporter for TPM. He previously covered politics and public policy for numerous publications including The Guardian and The Huffington Post.
Posted on 07/06/2012 5:22:25 AM PDT by xzins
Republicans are seizing on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold ‘Obamacare’ under Congress’s taxing power to accuse Democrats of raising taxes on the middle class. But they’re finding it difficult to square that with the fact that their presidential nominee enacted the same concept as governor of Massachusetts.
Although Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal ‘Obamacare’, his 2006 law includes the same core elements, including the mandate to purchase insurance or pay a fine. In 2009, Romney wrote in a USA Today op-ed that he used “tax penalties” to achieve the objective of broadening coverage.
On Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attacked President Obama for sneaking a tax increase past the American public.
“The Supreme Court has now declared it a tax. They have unearthed the massive deception that was practiced by the president and the Democrats, constantly denying that it was a tax,” McConnell said. “The chief justice has made it clear — it’s a tax.”
But the GOP leader dodged several questions on whether ‘Romneycare’ is also a tax increase.
“Well I think Governor Romney will have to speak for himself about what was done in Massachusetts,” McConnell said. “I can tell you that every single Democratic senator voted for this tax increase.”
On CBS’ Face The Nation, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also ducked questions about whether Romney has a credibility problem because of his mandate.
“This is an issue that was in Massachusetts — that’s one state,” he said. “That’s why we have 50 different states. They’re laboratories of democracy. Governor Romney understands that Obamacare will bankrupt our country and ruin the best health care delivery system in the world. … This is far more than any state has ever comprehended or tried to do.”
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the tax penalty will hit 4 million people in 2016, or just over 1 percent of the population.
White House chief of staff Jack Lew, also appearing on Fox News Sunday, repeatedly denied that the penalty for noncompliance with the individual mandate is a tax hike, even though it’s enforced via the tax code and was upheld on Congress’s taxing powers.
“It was set up and it was not called a tax,” he said. “But there are powers that Congress has and you can justify a law in multiple ways.” Obama’s top aide added that “When he was governor of Massachusetts, Governor Romney put a plan in place that has many of the features that the Affordable Care Act makes available on a national basis.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the mandate “a penalty on free-riders.”
“Mitt Romney is in a total pickle here. He prescribed this. This was his bill,” Schumer said on CBS’ Face The Nation. “Are [Republicans] going to say that Mitt Romney had the biggest tax increase in Massachusetts? Forget about it.”
Romney, for his part, responded to the Supreme Court ruling by saying, “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama.”
It was a State issue
Romney has “evolved”
He can easily make the case it is what MA wanted and it was. IN this case a large majority don’t want it and he has said he will get rid of it if elected.
Would anyone here have a problem if individual States at the behest of the voters passed health care reform?
One of the major points was this is about States rights and the Fed gov has no place in it to begin with.
Willard told Bill O’Reilly that RomneyCare is was working the way it should...
MASS taxpayers paid 50%, the Federal government paid 50%
Wait ...the federal government...taxes...
Oh noez thats US...the rest of the country...
WE ARE PAYING FOR ROMNEYCARE IN MASS
Take a look at the Romney plan and then tell me it’s the same,it’s not.
Good day
—OK, now why is Romney-care better than Obama-care? —
Because it only affects one state. People have options - they can move.
Seriously.
Sahil Kapur is a congressional reporter for TPM. He previously covered politics and public policy for numerous publications including The Guardian and The Huffington Post.
“No way I think it’s constitutional for a state to punitively tax me for something I’m NOT doing.”
Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to punitively tax you for something you ARE doing?
Oh no. You mean we sele,ted a nominee that supports soccialized medicine? Why on earth would we do that?
With Romneycare, it's a tax the people of Mass. imposed on themselves.
With Obamacare it's a tax Mass. wants to impose on everyone else.
The states have a right to do this if they want to, but it's their cost.
Those states do not have a right to force other states to help cover their cost.
That might fly if Romney could argue that Romney-care sucks (which it does) so it is good that it was limited to one state. But he can't argue that, nor has he tried. He has no choice now but to defend it or get creamed.
If he argues it sucks now that causes him problems too..
Romney is no limited federal power state guy. He has never argued that for any issue except this one he is trapped in so almost no one will follow his logic, if you can call it that. He has already been on record suggesting that the Federal government impose parts of Romney-care
He is in a trap of his own making.
Hey, you’re preaching to the choir here. I’m just trying to make lemonade out of the lemmon. I said, back before Cain dropped out, that the worst nominee would be Romney because Obamacare was obama’s Achilles heel and it is based on Romneycare, effectively making him the worst possible choice.
But, here we are. ;-)
Meanwhile, Romneycare is different from Obamacare in many ways, and one of the biggest ways it is different is that it affects only one state. This forces the state to take into account that people CAN flee the state if it is impacting them negatively. This keeps the state from going crazy with what they offer and tax.
At the federal level, there is no “competition from other states” and therefore there are no checks and balances, as the SCOTUS just proved.
All that being said, if I thought who wins in November really mattered all that much, I’d be really depressed.
When someting is true, all side will use it to their best advantage.
Except of course for idiots.
Idiots, in fact, are often too stupid to see things coming. And the biggest idiots lash out at people who try to plan counters for the obvious.
Reminds me of how prisons stopped giving prisoners fresh fruit because they were stowing it to put in plastic bags to ferment drinking alcohol Yuk! That lemonade is nasty.
Romney has to make a case himself and it cant be the argument you keep giving, that Romney-care is limited to MA so it is better than Obama-care. Newt could make that case, as could Perry or Bachmann, but it is not effective coming from Romney.
'Why is Romney-care bad for other states? Is is good for MA? Are you sorry you passed it? Why did you recommend it for the federal government if you think it is only better because it was limited one state? ' He cant answer these questions.
He is losing an unlosable election.
The dems are getting away with claiming that obamacare was 100% patterned after the bill Romney put in place in MA. To my understanding, only ONE aspect of it is the same - the mandate; the penalty. Did Romney also put into place all the taxes that are in obamacare?
Did he increase state payroll taxes?
Did he increase the state rate of tax on capital gains? Did he claim a % of profits on the sale of a home over a certain amount?
Did he increase the state tax rate for charitable hospitals?
Did he tax tanning salon patrons?
Did he require health insurance premiums provided by employers to be reported as earnings requiring an employee to pay taxes on the benefit?
Did he attach a tax to capital gains at a state rate?
That list is far from complete but it should be at least the starting point to dispel the “obamacare is the same as romneycare” argument...and congressional members and TV reporters should be shoving it back in liberal faces. I’m tired of what they are allowing them to get away with.
As in an earlier thread this morning where Valerie Jarrett was quoted as saying, “You’ve all heard the president say blah blah blah” - as tho’ the man has never and will never speak an untruth! Doesn’t anyone get it? They LIE!
Sorry for the rant but the days are becoming more and more difficult to get through with this baloney going on!
This.
And people ARE fleeing the Commonwealth, though if I had to venture a guess why, RomneyCare has little to do with it. The main reasons people are leaving the Commonwealth include: (1) high cost of living, (2) sketchy economic prospects, (3) high cost of doing business, (4) climate, (5) Massholes, (6 - 10) Massholes.
RomneyCare blows, and I'm no fan of the Mittster, even though I did vote for him for governor and for Senator. RomneyCare punches you in the gut when you switch jobs, and for whatever reason, find yourself having to purchase health care on the open market. For example, I left a job, and before I could get on my new job's health care plan, I had to wait out a certain period of time before I could qualify for open enrollment in my new company's plan. Until that time, I had to purchase my own policy on the open market . . . $1,500 clams for a family of four. In the old days, I could've rolled the dice, but under RomneyCare, I would get whacked on my taxes for not having coverage.
So basically, I had to fork over $3,000 to some insurance company for two months in exchange for exactly zero goods or services in return, since neither me nor my family needed health care services during this time. And that effing sucks: some insurance company made 100% profit on my back, all because of some goddamn law that forces me to buy health insurance or else pay a fine. And it's not like I'm going to be able to take advantage of that $3K expenditure some day, as that was insurance company X, and now my policy is with insurance company Y.
People don't realize that the first step towards "solving" this health care issue is decoupling health care service delivery from the insurance paradigm. Until we get that part straight, there will be no reform, ever.
I don’t think states have any more authority to penalize you for what you’re NOT doing than does the national government.
Call me crazy, but I think that’s massive, intrusive, abusive government. There’s nothing in our constitution that says states are allowed to abuse our basic rights.
The difference is, you don’t have to live in that state, you can move to a state that doesn’t force you to pay.
When the feds do it, there is nowhere to go.
That’s what excise taxes are, iirc, especially on such things as alcohol and tobacco, in which case their even referred to as “sin taxes”. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose excise taxes.
That’s what excise taxes are, iirc, especially on such things as alcohol and tobacco, in which case THEY’RE even referred to as “sin taxes”. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to impose excise taxes.
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.