Replies

They can always do something drastic, like.....I don't know....READ THE BILL.

From a Politico article, September 2009:

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.

But he could look it up — in the bill.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”

“The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”

@ Sec. 9001\4980I IRC (page 793)

TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions

SEC. 9001. EXCISE TAX ON HIGH COST EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 1513, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 4980I. EXCISE TAX ON HIGH COST EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE.

‘‘(a) IMPOSITION OF TAX.—If— ‘‘(1) an employee is covered under any applicable employer sponsored coverage of an employer at any time during a taxable period, and
‘‘(2) there is any excess benefit with respect to the coverage, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 40 percent of the excess benefit.

It's a tax and it was known all along that it was a tax.