dex
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,105
Well, since dex isn't charging, I'll follow up with him
That's how I understood it also. I'll agree with Martha (if this is indeed what she means) that it's a rather odd distinction between saying someone must buy a product (which might be considered unconstitutional), and taxing someone and then buying that product for them. But it seems to me that much of law is about these fine and sometimes odd distinctions.
I've heard that one work-around would be to go ahead and collect it as a tax. Which would be interesting as Obama chided George Stephanopoulos for calling the mandated insurance premium a 'tax' and said George was stretching to use Webster as a reference for the definition of the word 'tax'.
Google "youtube Stephanopoulos Obama tax webster" to find the interview if you wish.
-ERD50
I think that is the crux of the matter - does the government have the power to say a citizen must buy something.
Now, if you think that the mandate is a ultimately a tax because you buy or pay the IRS a penalty then it is just a penalty/tax.
I do think that the way the bill is written will be upheld in the courts. I do not like the idea that the gov't can tell me to buy something and if I don't I will have to pay a penalty.
I am a liberal in my thinking of the relationship between the government and the individual. The rights of the individual's right should be paramount. A powerful government and taxing authority is saying you must do this. If you do not you must pay the government money.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Will this be the next mandate?
Gun Ownership Mandatory in Kennesaw, Georgia
Gun Ownership Mandatory in Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets
What other mandates will be coming?
No one is talking about a slippery slope. Why? Because they support the bill and the tax/penalty. They think it is reasonable. And justification can be found in the law. What they are not thinking about is the slippery slope and how, in the future, some mandate may be enacted that they do not support.
In some ways, it reminds me of the discussion about 'torture' after 9/11. Those in favor of the Bush position used their interpretation of the law and definitions to support their position. Why did they want it? Because they thought the torture and info provided served the greater good. We knew in our harts it was wrong no matter what the lawyers said.