What mischief and corruption comes with rotating your crops, settling down and buying a home, giving to the March of Dimes, installing ramps for wheelchairs, putting away for retirement, insulating your home or any of dozens of worthwhile causes that tax code incentivizes people to act on?
No, the decision was very clear that it could not be justified as regulation of interstate commerce, and that the commerce clause couldn't be used to justify punishing people for NOT doing something (even if not doing something had an effect on commerce in some way). It was 100 percent justified by the power to tax. In other words, in addition to taxing you for doing something, the government can tax you for NOT doing something.
How is the tax penalty in Obamacare any different from favorable tax treatments for certian investments or unearned income that have long been an integral part of the tax code? It's not. Congress has a long history of using the tax code to encourage "beneficial" behaviors. In this case the Obamcare tax is intended to encourage people to be responsible for their healthcare.
If you can barely make ends meet, you will likely receive medical care without having to pay any premiums at all. If you're unemployed, no problem. This law is to encourage people who can afford to pay for premiums to do so or else they'll lose out on the tax incentive. Changing jobs is not affected as you might imagine. There is no reason for a person to turn down a job offer because of the heath care law. Even if you foolishly quit a job before landing another one, you're in the clear. You are only required to pay premiums if you're receiving a pay check. So where's the beef?
Is it a tax or a credit? Starting in 2014, individuals and families can take a new premium tax credit to help them afford health insurance coverage purchased through an Affordable Insurance Exchange. Exchanges will operate in every state and the District of Columbia. The premium tax credit is refundable so taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability can still benefit. The credit also can be paid in advance to a taxpayer’s insurance company to help cover the cost of premiums. On May 18, 2012, the IRS issued final regulations which provide guidance for individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through Exchanges and claim the premium tax credit, and for Exchanges that make qualified health plans available to individuals and employers. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=220809,00.html
The beef is that this is seen as a win for a Democrat. Simple as that. There's nothing but craven partisanism at work here.
Moments of Confusion Moments of Confusion For a brief moment this morning, according to Chuck Todd and others at NBC News, President Obama believed he had lost. He stood in front of a television, with a split screen of four different channels, when banners flashed on two cable networks showing that the law’s central tenet -- the mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance -- had been struck down, according to White House aides who briefed reporters today. For about 40 seconds, the president believed that his landmark, legacy-defining legislative accomplishment, had been gutted. That was until White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler came into the room and gave the president two thumbs up -- the law had actually been upheld. She quickly explained to a confused president what had happened. Mr. Obama was not alone. NBC's Frank Thorp reports on Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), whose joyful screeching as she misunderstood the Supreme Court's decision on health care reform was captured on an iPhone camera: A source passed to NBC News some video, taken by iPhone, of Schmidt standing outside the court as news of the ruling was apparently being passed to her via cell phone. "Yes! Yes!!! And what else?!" Schmidt says into her cell phone, under the belief that the Supreme Court had struck down the law. The video (available at the link above) is striking. Rep. Schmidt was ecstatic in the moment that she believed the individual mandate had been overturned. Early critics suggest cruelty, that one should be so pleased that thirty-million Americans might be kicked off insurance rolls, but that relies more on the political narrative than anything else. What we have not yet seen is whether there is footage of what came next, when the Ohio Republican eventually learned her celebration was mistaken and premature. Still, as Republicans have not offered much of an alternative to Obamacare, which started out as a conservative notion pushed by the Heritage Foundation, one can legitimately wonder if Schmidt realized she was cheering rescission, exclusion of pre-existing conditions, insurance companies reneging on their own policy contracts, and the host of other problems that raised demand for healthcare reform to the fore. It is easy enough to imagine Schmidt's ecstatic caterwauling as a mistaken celebration of the Congressional Republican first priority, which is to sacrifice all else in the nation in order to break President Obama. And, as such, it is easy enough to want to see more footage, to experience the schadenfreude of a crestfallen Rep. Schmidt, and perhaps that video will yet emerge. For the moment, there is no real moral to the story. But it is also undeniable that there is something unsettling, at the very least, about such boundless joy in consideration of the stakes. Conservatives who sympathize with the Ohio Republican might certainly feel for the embarrassment that comes with being caught in such a moment, but for liberals and anyone else who puts the reality of human lives ahead of the Republican first priority, it is a stomach-turning display of horrendous malice. That is, if this wasn't the conservative plan at stake, or if Republicans had offered something better than empowering insurance companies to do even more harm in pursuit of greed, it might be possible for health reform supporters to feel badly for Rep. Schmidt, as most people have experienced moments of heartfelt joy only to be crushed by the reality of misunderstanding only seconds later. But in the context of this whole health care debate, Rep. Schmidt's shrieking, nearly weeping joy at the prospect of preventing millions of Americans from obtaining health insurance stands as an icon to the Republican Party's mission. ____________________ Notes: Todd, Chuck, Shawna Thomas, and Domenico Montanaro. "Obama initially thought mandate had been struck down". First Read. June 28, 2012. FirstRead.MSNBC.MSN.com. June 28, 2012. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...nitially-thought-mandate-had-been-struck-down Thorp, Frank. "Video: Ohio Republican reacts to incorrect report of court ruling". First Read. June 28, 2012. FirstRead.MSNBC.MSN.com. June 28, 2012. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...an-reacts-to-incorrect-report-of-court-ruling
Yippie, now all you have to do is pay the penalty ... errr "tax" of $2000 and not buy insurance and then when you are really sick you can rought the system by buying insurance after the fact. You can't be denied for a pre-exiting condition. Yup, just great.
A fine/"extra tax" is you can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it, or a credit to help you afford health insurance if you can't afford it because you are poor (based on income).
I believe there is still some short period before any newly-purchased insurance kicks in, so it wouldn't be a good idea to wait until you need urgent, expensive treatment to buy insurance. If you have no insurance and suddenly need $200k worth of open heart surgery, you could still be screwed.
Because Rand Paul Says So Because Rand Paul Says So Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says, "Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional." (qtd. in Wong) Yes, really. But, you know, that's how it goes. You know. Screw the Supreme Court; the ACA is still unconstitutional, because Rand Paul says so. Or, as Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) put it: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And that's a pretty civilized way of putting it. ____________________ Notes: Wong, Scott. "Rand Paul: 'Obamacare' is still unconstitutional". Politico. June 28, 2012. Politico.com. June 28, 2012. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-co...amacare-is-still-unconstitutional-127574.html
Actually, the Legislative branch checks against the Judicial branch: Senate confirms or rejects Supreme Court justices and federal judges Impeachment power (House) Trial of impeachments (Senate) Initiate constitutional amendments Create courts inferior to the Supreme Court Able to set and change the jurisdiction of courts (including the Supreme Court, within limits) Change the size of the Supreme Court *GASP* Someone needs to take as Civics agauins as it's the JOB of the Senate to check the Supreme Court. Not that it will. Obamacare is wonderful, we go broke all that much quicker. I'm waiting for a turkey in every pot and free movies, internet, iPhones, etc... ALL we have to do is club the productive class over the head and take it. Bye Bye middle class.
Aren't these the same people that sit around their tables and whine endlessly whenever Democrats decide that the federal government needs to get involved in anything? It's right up there with this one: Source I'm fairly sure that if Democrats declared they were going to get a court decision overturned come hell or high water, we'd have to listen to Republicans whining ad-nauseum about socialist totalitarian states. What's it supposed to be? "Let the courts decide what's best for the country except when it's uncomfortable for Republicans"?
The premium tax credit is generally available to individuals and families with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level ($22,350 – $89,400 for a family of four in 2011), providing a crucial safety net for the middle class. http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/Documents/36BFactSheet.PDF
That works for the smarter folks who know what time it is as far as what the law actually provides. They're just left with their manhood-envy or whatever a shrink would call it. But the remaining numbskulls seem to really get hot under the collar about their rights being invaded. They have heard over and over again (if they ever listened) that you're OK if you're poor or middle class. And they can look it up. As for the wealthier folks, they normally carry health insurance anyway, pay their taxes, and aren't hurting. In a word, it looks to be hammered out such that there's no harm as far as the tax implications. Which is where I'm stuck wondering why folks posting here are sweating this issue. I mean, if you're an Obama-hater, there's other ways to chime in on that. Here you're attacking a program that the folks that voted him in have been looking forward to. Stuff that you have a couple of years more to get used to. Not you literally, o'course. Just sayin'. The whiners are so pathetic compared to the legitimate gripes Democrats have had against their dirty dog slash moronic policies and obstruction. That's all. This is just a big nothingburger. Hence: where's the beef. But yeah, if they're smart enough to understand the actual provisions, you're right, this is all Obama-hating masquerading as umbrage. What a crock.
I am fairly sure you are correct, that has been Republican Party history for two decades now enabled by Republican media (i.e. Fox News, Clear Channel Communications, et al).
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is a big embarrassment for the Republican/Tea Party. They have been claiming the law to be unconstitutional since it was signed into law three years ago. Republican/Tea Party lies have been exposed by a Republican Supreme Court justice. And when the law is fully implemented in about a year and a half, Republican/Tea Party lies will be a matter of American history to be read and studied by future generations of Americans. Hopefully we learn something in the process. With this ruling by the Supreme Court, the Republican/Tea Party have suffered an enormous loss of credibility. They over played their hand. I think that is one of the major reasons party leaders are so concerned about this ruling. If you listen to Romney, he claims he wants to repeal this law and replace it with another law that does the same thing but with no funding. I wonder how that works.