The Moment of Truth

[ERD50]

OK, now that we've decided that the penalize vs. tax and deduct protocols are essentially equivalent, would that be a reasonable argument:

Advocate: Your honors, if you would approve a tax and deduct protocol, and you agree that it is equivalent to a penalize protocol, shouldn't you approve it?

Justice: But it is worded as a penalty.

Advocate: But it's equivalent.

Justice: It's the principle of the thing.

I follow you, but we do have three branches of Gov't with separation of powers. Compare this to a typical Mega-Corp:

Say I submit a purchase req for Good Companies Model XYZZY Gimbal Wabilizer and get it approved and it goes to purchasing.

The sales guy calls me and says they just came out with a new model, that's better and is the same price. Great, but I can't just say 'ship it!'. I need to go back through the approval process, which means send the req back to me, cancel it and write a new one (or amend it, if allowed) and send it through the process for signatures again.

Inefficient and bureaucratic? Yes, but it also protects people from over-stepping their authority. You take the good with the bad.

Congress can pass an amendment if they want to change the terminology used in the Constitution. That is not easy, and it's not supposed to be.

-ERD50

 

[Gone4Good]

There is no precedent I'm aware of that allows the federal government to mandate, under threat of financial penalty, that people buy private products of any kind.

Fair enough, and I understand that completely. But that is why I rebranded the "penalty" as payment for a benefit. It's hard for me to believe that the government can't charge citizens if it is offering something of value. And the option to purchase health insurance at standard rates after you become sick is quite valuable.

 

[Gone4Good]

OK, now that we've decided that the penalize vs. tax and deduct protocols are essentially equivalent, would that be a reasonable argument:

I do think it is reasonable to expect our Judges to make their decisions based on the substance of the issues they're adjudicating. And I think it's reasonable to expect equivalent things to be given equivalent treatment under our laws.

 

[Brett_Cameron]

In fact, one part of the charge is paid by everyone with earned income regardless of wealth or level of income. The benefit is divided into parts, one of which is deemed earned if the tax was paid over a long enough period. Additional benefits are available, voluntary, with one price and a single subsidy. Very straightforward.

Medicare Part B premiums are tiered by income with those with higher income paying more for the same Part B. Benefits.

 

[harley]

I do think it is reasonable to expect our Judges to make their decisions based on the substance of the issues they're adjudicating. And I think it's reasonable to expect equivalent things to be given equivalent treatment under our laws.

Maybe, but it's also critical that they make their decisions based on the exact wording of the laws they are deciding constitutionality on. If they let anything slip through based on the substance of the particular issue, they open the door for future abuses of the wording based on the precedent. I know that is the overriding issue they are struggling with right now. Personally, I wouldn't mind a decent national health plan, but I'm not willing to throw out any semblance of limitation on the federal government in order to achieve it.

 

[MichaelB]

Charging a premium, or a tax, or a penalty, all may result in collecting the same amount of money but they are definitely not the same. It is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to make that distinction but is the role of Congress.

G4G makes a valid point, that changing the language just a bit could make a big difference. If so, the Supreme Court could send it back to Congress with that suggestion. But they should not and (my bet) will not make that change themselves.

 

[Texas Proud]

I don't know if I disagree because I'm not sure I understand what it is you find unconstitutional.

The way I'm thinking about it, the example I outlined fits perfectly with the Medicare precedent. With Medicare the government defines a benefit that everyone gets, and charges everyone it feels is wealthy enough to pay for that benefit. Nobody gets a choice about the benefit, or a choice about whether to pay for it. My example works the same exact way, only they can opt out of paying for the benefit by getting private insurance.

Medicare is an income tax system plus a premium system... If you do not work, you do not pay into the system by income tax.. if you never work and do not qualify, you never ever pay into the system...

If the current plan (call it Obamacare cause I do not know the name) was changed and a tax was charged to buy insurance, I do not think that it the same.... I do not know of any tax that is charged to someone without them doing SOMETHING... IOW, you make a salary, you pay income taxes.. you buy something and you can pay an excise tax.... you fly you pay some fees (taxes) for the airport and security... all are based on the individual choosing to do something... your fix is a fee to everybody without them doing anything... a big difference IMO...


However, I do agree that if the gvmt decided to increase income tax or some other tax that they can collect... and then spend it to provide medical coverage to people that would pass muster.... again, it is HOW the tax is collected that makes a big difference.... not what they call it...

I will have to do some research, but the collection of taxes is limited by the constitution and amendments...

 

[Texas Proud]

Charging a premium, or a tax, or a penalty, all may result in collecting the same amount of money but they are definitely not the same. It is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to make that distinction but is the role of Congress.

G4G makes a valid point, that changing the language just a bit could make a big difference. If so, the Supreme Court could send it back to Congress with that suggestion. But they should not and (my bet) will not make that change themselves.

And this is all speculation as there are only 9 people's opinion that really matter... and like here, on the TV there are many people on both sides that argue quite well.....

But I do not think that what G4G is the same... I think that there needs to be a lot of change on the income side to pass constitutionality... not a few word changes with basically the same mechanism.....

 

[Gone4Good]

Medicare is an income tax system plus a premium system... If you do not work, you do not pay into the system by income tax.. if you never work and do not qualify, you never ever pay into the system...

If the current plan (call it Obamacare cause I do not know the name) was changed and a tax was charged to buy insurance, I do not think that it the same.... I do not know of any tax that is charged to someone without them doing SOMETHING... IOW, you make a salary, you pay income taxes.. you buy something and you can pay an excise tax.... you fly you pay some fees (taxes) for the airport and security... all are based on the individual choosing to do something... your fix is a fee to everybody without them doing anything... a big difference IMO...

The penalty only applies to people who are required to file income taxes and is tied to the income they report (1-2.5% of AGI). If you don't work, or don't make enough, you don't pay. So by this measure, the penalty IS an income tax - just a contingent one (kind of like the extra income tax I pay because I haven't taken out a mortgage).

 

[easysurfer]

Eh...looking up at the calendar and June is already here. Of course that means closer to when SCOTUS hands down a ruling. Drumroll ...

No matter what, now since the nominees for both parties are determined, I hope health care (as it impacts so many people, FIRE or not) still remains an issue for debate by the candidates in the upcoming months and not glossed over by the candidates as covered in the last election.

 

[ERD50]

News about to roll out...

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

Descison just rolled out. Watching the coverage on the news right now.

 

[REWahoo]

CNN got it wrong initially, saying the individual mandate was struck down. Now the report is the law was upheld in its entirety.

 

[Backpacker]

ACA is uphelp - so i guess if Uncle is going to give me "free" health care why continue w*rking? Certainly is a game changer - even if a different congress tries to change I dont think we can go back once this takes effect.

 

[audreyh1]

CNN got it wrong initially, saying the individual mandate was struck down. Now the report is the law was upheld in its entirety.

Huh? How could CNN get it that wrong initially?

 

[pb4uski]

CNN got it wrong initially, saying the individual mandate was struck down. Now the report is the law was upheld in its entirety.

Not totally - the expansion of Medicaid was struck down

What is strange/inconsistent is that they found that it was legal for the Congress to require individuals to buy health insurance (but rationalized it as under Congress' taxing authority rather than the commerce clause) but that it was not legal for Congress to require states to expand Medicaid.

 

[Texas Proud]

ACA is uphelp - so i guess if Uncle is going to give me "free" health care why continue w*rking? Certainly is a game changer - even if a different congress tries to change I dont think we can go back once this takes effect.

Actually, Congress could strike it down..... but I think that is going to be impossible with needing 60 votes in the Senate...


I hope to read some on the decision later... but from the little I read, they seemed to say the mandate is a 'tax' and I had said that the gvmt did have the ability to tax us... seems they looked beyond the words and looked at the results....

 

[REWahoo]

Huh? How could CNN get it that wrong initially?

My take is they reacted to the initial comments of Justice Roberts regarding the rather than waiting for him to complete the reading of his ruling. Trying to be first and allowing accuracy to be a casualty.

 

[MichaelB]

Let's try to keep the discussion focused on what the law is and how it's implementation will affect us.

 

[MichaelB]

My take is they reacted to the initial comments of Justice Roberts regarding the rather than waiting for him to complete the reading of his ruling. Trying to be first and allowing accuracy to be a casualty.

+1

 

[Gone4Good]

Huh? How could CNN get it that wrong initially?

CNN is really that bad . . . probably pre-recorded analysis so they could be "first" and just pulled the wrong tape.

 

[MichaelB]

Thread closed

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube