US Politics: The Chief Executive's Immigration Smackdown

[The Mance]

This all seems like petty semantic quibbling over the wording of arguments made in the face of opposition by the representation of a constituency that would object with mouth foaming rage not to the specific policies of the bill, and not even necessarily to the fact that some amount of $ would need to be paid by some people for some reason, but whether that amount of money that would need to be paid by those certain people was called a tax or not. Like, literally, wording of the bill includes "tax" = fail. Not "tax" = pass.

Did Obama lie about the fact that there would be some sort of monetary imposition on certain people in certain financial circumstances to varying degrees? Did he try to obscure or deny the imposition or implementation of this tax/penalty or whatever it should be called? Does what it is called in any way affect who has to pay, or how much? Are we actually arguing about anything that would in any way change the substance of the bill that was passed?

[YoungGriff89]

Lev,

Yeah, we are. :)

Seli,

It was done deliberately. They chose to very carefully not call the penalties a "Tax" until after passage. That, in my opinion was dishonest because they knew they needed a tax to pass constitutional muster and choose, for political purposes to refuse to call the penalties a "tax" until after passage.

About the bottom line here, but ignorance of voters would have been a better way to communicate Gruber's point than stupidity. American voters are by and large super ignorant when it comes to their health care system and what needs to be done to fix it.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

TPTWP,

The ACLU is quite consistent and apolitical in its postions. Almost as though it really cares about the liberty protections in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Did you read the anti-Federalist stuff I linked up thread?

As for the Mandate I hate it with a holy passion (for the same reason I hate Wickard v. Filburn (don't get me started)) and it pisses me off that it was justified as Constitutional under the "Taxing Power" when Congress and the President did everything they could during the run up to the vote on the ACA to prevent the mandate penalties from being called "Taxes".

That said there is nothing we can use, other than the Court itself, to review its holdings. They held the mandate penalties are taxes. Taxes are within the power of Congress to create.

It will be interesting if a new President, less friendly to the ACA, uses the precident set by President Obama to direct the IRS away from enforcing the ACA mandate penalties.

Still reading it when I get the chance. Very interesting stuff. Thanks

[Commodore]

again, outcomes are what matter

to get the right legal outcome, it's a tax

to get the right political outcome, it's a penalty

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

YG89,

No argument. We need complete deregulation or, much more likely, single payer.

[Shryke]

Scot,

On the "Tax vs Fine" thing:

The way I look at it is that it's a confluence of normal speak, political speak and lawyer speak. All slamming in to one another and mixing up in a great big region called "The ridiculousness of the US constitution".

Is it a tax? That depends on what language you are speaking. Are you talking casually or are you talking legally or are you arguing in front of the SCOTUS? Cause language is very ambiguous so context matters ALOT.

And the truth is your constitution sucks and has had to be reinterpreted in a ridiculously contorted fashion to support the modern nation state the people want. And so when arguing in front of the SCOTUS, one argues based on that ridiculous interpretation, not based on what you or I would actually say.

So is it a tax? In "US Constitutional Interpretation Speak" I would say yes. In normal speak, I would say no.

[YoungGriff89]

Well if you look at overall results there's no question single payer is better than the health insurance scam system we currently have. Cheaper, better access, and better quality care by and large but the average voter is too caught up in strawman arguments about single payer countries where people wait for months for care (largely untrue). What's worse than a system where the doctors do everything they can and still can't succeed in helping you? A system where there is incentive to deny you care and insurers are encouraged to say no because it increases profits.

The ACA has succeeded largely in getting uninsured Americans insured (10 million where were previously uninsured) but it was kind of a bad goal to begin with since the insurance system in America is so bad. I mean look at that Canadian woman who's now facing bankruptcy due to a nearly million dollar medical bill. Why? She was in intensive care due to her child being born prematurely and the insurance companies are using a bladder infection to label her a high risk pregnancy therefore driving up cost of care. I mean a normal birth in the US runs a family $30,000.00 how much in Canada? The UK? $0.00.

I wish there was a study available that compared how much single payer costs each tax payer a month vs how much a quality US private insurance premium cost a buyer per month when you include co-pays and fees the plan still won't cover.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Lev,

Yeah, we are. :)

Seli,

It was done deliberately. They chose to very carefully not call the penalties a "Tax" until after passage. That, in my opinion was dishonest because they knew they needed a tax to pass constitutional muster and choose, for political purposes to refuse to call the penalties a "tax" until after passage.

Gruber says as much as in his quotes. He acknowledges that the bill would have been DOA if it was labeled a tax. The administration was aware of this as well. How some of these guys rationalize that deception is astounding. Not surprising, it's the same people who have no problem with the IRS targeting specific groups due to their political beliefs.

[TrackerNeil]

Did Obama lie about the fact that there would be some sort of monetary imposition on certain people in certain financial circumstances to varying degrees? Did he try to obscure or deny the imposition or implementation of this tax/penalty or whatever it should be called? Does what it is called in any way affect who has to pay, or how much? Are we actually arguing about anything that would in any way change the substance of the bill that was passed?

No, but then I find that most of those who are riled up about the penalty/tax distinction really aren't arguing about that distinction. They don't like the ACA and will use any excuse to criticize it. They don't care how it was passed, or what it reads, what it does, who likes it, etc. Even if they have never relied on it and have lost nothing to the law, they don't want it. These people can sometimes be spotted by the way they refer to the ACA as a "bill" and not a law enacted by Congress, signed by the President of the United States, and vetted by the Supreme Court. I don't know how else a bill is considered law; maybe the Seven themselves have to endorse it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

No, but then I find that most of those who are riled up about the penalty/tax distinction really aren't arguing about that distinction. They don't like the ACA and will use any excuse to criticize it. They don't care how it was passed, or what it reads, what it does, who likes it, etc. Even if they have never relied on it and have lost nothing to the law, they don't want it. These people can sometimes be spotted by the way they refer to the ACA as a "bill" and not a law enacted by Congress, signed by the President of the United States, and vetted by the Supreme Court. I don't know how else a bill is considered law; maybe the Seven themselves have to endorse it.

"May the Red God burn your Seven!!!"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

YG89,

but it was kind of a bad goal to begin with since the insurance system in America is so bad.

:dingdingdingdingdingdingdingding:

That's the absolute truth.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Gruber says as much as in his quotes. He acknowledges that the bill would have been DOA if it was labeled a tax. The administration was aware of this as well. How some of these guys rationalize that deception is astounding. Not surprising, it's the same people who have no problem with the IRS targeting specific groups due to their political beliefs.

Rationalize? Hmm. Do I want this bill to pass, or not? That's the rationale.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

YG89,

:dingdingdingdingdingdingdingding:

That's the absolute truth.

Still miles ahead of the system we had. Also an absolute truth.

[TrueMetis]

Who cares if it's a tax, or if it's a fine?

Because apparently just the word "tax" is bad. Paying a 5$ tax? That's evil. Paying a 5$ fine that alright. If the American's are okay with paying for a fine, but not alright with it when it's the same amount of money and called a tax than dude was right ya'll are fucking stupid. Anyone who was okay with it when it was a fine, but not when it's a tax shouldn't be listened to. Especially because a tax is a financial charge or levy, and a levy is a fine. So while a tax doesn't have to be a penalty, it can be. The extra taxes on a pack of cigarettes? That's a penalty for smoking.

[YoungGriff89]

Gruber says as much as in his quotes. He acknowledges that the bill would have been DOA if it was labeled a tax. The administration was aware of this as well. How some of these guys rationalize that deception is astounding. Not surprising, it's the same people who have no problem with the IRS targeting specific groups due to their political beliefs.

Are you referring to the conservative groups who in the end got the tax exemption status they didn't legally deserve?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Are you referring to the conservative groups who in the end got the tax exemption status they didn't legally deserve?

*Shakes tiny fists of outrage*

[YoungGriff89]

Gruber says as much as in his quotes. He acknowledges that the bill would have been DOA if it was labeled a tax. The administration was aware of this as well. How some of these guys rationalize that deception is astounding. Not surprising, it's the same people who have no problem with the IRS targeting specific groups due to their political beliefs.

But he also points out the bill would be unpopular if it was marketed as "Healthy people paying for the care of sick people." And I call the American voters ignorant because that's exactly what "insurance" is. Healthy people don't receive healthcare, that's because they're healthy. Paying for services as you use them completely defeats the purpose of insurance companies existing in the first place. He should have said the word ignorant instead of stupid.

[The Fallen]

Fallen,

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

From the article:

Doublespeak. His own Justice Department successfully argued that the Mandate was a Tax when they argued till they were blue in the face that it was not in the lead up to the vote.

That transcript was pretty funny. It comes down to semantics. Is car insurance a tax? Conservatives call actual taxes "wealth redistribution". It's a sad situation in this country when the word tax is considered a dirty word.

But to get back to the question, he's not denying that there's a price that will be borne.

[TrueMetis]

So if having to pay money for not buying insurance is a tax, is not having to pay money once you've bought insurance make it now a tax credit?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

tptwp,

The thing I find fascinating about the "Anti-federalist papers" are the accuracy of their predictions of how the new Federal Government under the Constitution would evolve.

And if you look at the "Anti-Federalists" they were the original "tea party".