White House Admits Obamacare’s Individual Mandate is a Tax
![WaveCameCrashin](https://us.v-cdn.net/5021252/uploads/phpbb/n7a72581f0a7f13136a477b5084f7836f_39701.jpg)
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/20/mor ... -is-a-tax/
Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.
None of these taxes touches the lives of every American as closely as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. For the first time in American history, Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a product or face sanction from the Internal Revenue Service. This is clearly a tax, as pointed out by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during a September 20th interview with the President himself. In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos pressed President Obama to admit his individual mandate was a tax. But President Obama refused to acknowledge reality and denied it. Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But even then Obama refused to come clean: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Well nobody but President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.
The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”
The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made eminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.
But even if the Obama administration is now admitting the individual mandate is a tax, that still does not make the law constitutional. Rather than operating as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. Therefore the 16th Amendment’s grant of power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, but that requires the tax be assessed evenly based op population. That is not how the Obamacare mandate works. It exempts and carves out far too many exceptions to past muster as a capitation tax. The Obamacare mandate is still unprecedented and unconstitutional.
But perhaps more importantly, what does the episode say about the integrity of the White House? The President went on national television and insisted in unequivocal terms that his individual mandate was not a tax. Now his administration is saying the exact opposite. At what point do the American people lose all faith in this President’s word?
Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became President, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, promising the American people in his September 9th health care press conference: “The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” But Obamacare does contain tax hikes. Tons of them. From taxes on tanning beds to taxes on employment and investments, Obamacare is a certified job-killing machine.
None of these taxes touches the lives of every American as closely as the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. For the first time in American history, Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a product or face sanction from the Internal Revenue Service. This is clearly a tax, as pointed out by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos during a September 20th interview with the President himself. In an exchange that can only be described as “Clintonesque” Stephanopoulos pressed President Obama to admit his individual mandate was a tax. But President Obama refused to acknowledge reality and denied it. Stephanopoulos was forced to read the definition of “tax” straight from Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. But even then Obama refused to come clean: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. … Nobody considers that a tax increase.” Well nobody but President Barack Obama’s Justice Department.
The New York Times confirmed Friday that in preparation for defending constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate in court, an Obama Justice Department legal brief argues that the penalty used to enforce the mandate is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes. Mr. Obama’s own Justice Department further repudiates the President’s earlier statement by noting that the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, people must report it on their tax returns, and that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost Americans $4 billion a year. Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin told a meeting of progressive activists last month that President Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill. This bill is a tax.”
The fact that the Obama administration and their allies are now admitting the individual mandate is a tax betrays their very real fear that the Supreme Court could find Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. In the bill itself, Congress identified the Commerce Clause as the source of their authority to force all Americans to buy health insurance. But as our legal team has made eminently clear, the mandate does not purport to regulate or prohibit commerce of any kind. To the contrary, it purports to “regulate”—and penalize—inactivity. If the Supreme Court allows the Obamacare individual mandate to stand, then Congress could do anything it wanted. They could: require us to buy a new Chevy Impala each year to support the government-supported auto industry; require us to buy war bonds to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars; or force us to eat our vegetables.
But even if the Obama administration is now admitting the individual mandate is a tax, that still does not make the law constitutional. Rather than operating as a tax on income, the mandate is a tax on the person and is, therefore, a capitation tax. Therefore the 16th Amendment’s grant of power to Congress to assess an income tax does not apply. The Constitution does allow Congress to assess a capitation tax, but that requires the tax be assessed evenly based op population. That is not how the Obamacare mandate works. It exempts and carves out far too many exceptions to past muster as a capitation tax. The Obamacare mandate is still unprecedented and unconstitutional.
But perhaps more importantly, what does the episode say about the integrity of the White House? The President went on national television and insisted in unequivocal terms that his individual mandate was not a tax. Now his administration is saying the exact opposite. At what point do the American people lose all faith in this President’s word?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
heritage foundation
:roll:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So what it's a conservative website we all know that. Please by all means show us what's not true about the article.
Im not going to loose my faith but Im very dissapointed bcos even if the republicans do get back one or both houses they can do just as much damage as the current majority has.
so what.. BFD would you like it better if they called Gov run healthcare. I don't really care anyway you can choose not to believe it or not doesn't make a difference to me.
in my opinion, heritage foundation is the same thing as fox news, the water carriers for the GOP.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
jesus man you really need to to take your guard down. go to the web site , you can watch the interview with Obama and Stefanopolis. The heritage Foundation is not some fly by night website that just sprang up all of a sudden.
oh noes...we're done fer...
It's damn hot out today and I blame Obama...
the term "obamacare" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the conservative media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at the president so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by special interests and the corporations.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
BFD?? :? Big Fucking Deal?
If it actually were government run healthcare, then sure, call it that. Of course, it's not government run healthcare so that would be inaccurate. I just think all the little jabs and inaccuracies that are meant to encourage people to gloss over the actual substance of the issues is counter-productive.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Godfather.
why do you always question the source any time something comes up you disagree with, why don't you read it? Is old George S part of that conservative mouth piece for pressing Obama? The justice department, and now the entire administration is forced to call this what it is, a tax. So was he obama stretching the truth about what it was, or did he truly not consider this a tax increase. I would say probably the latter. But now that it is being challenged in court they are forced to define it as a tax so that it can be seen as constitutional.
whether you want obamacare or not is irrelevant. It is just another story that shows the hope and change that was promised has not come. there are the same old dirty politics as with anyone else. Sad really.
I don't care if the call it a tax or a mandate, it makes no difference to me, I still think that unless we are going to go to a single payer system like canada or the UK we shouldn't have done anything at all.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the gov can't even run the post office without going in the red.and look what they did to ss medicaid and medicare,and you want them to run our healthcare ??? :shock: :shock: No thanks...
:? Shouldn't we always question the sources of information? Isn't that part of critical thinking?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yeah, we prefer to deal with Medicaid in the clinics I work in too.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
If there is a complete summary of the new system, including how it effects certain pay ranges, families (basically a breakdown of what your employer gives you), someone PLEASE post it or PM me on it. (Note: If it requires a law degree to breakdown, please do not post it)
Yeah, I love Medicaid because we know what it will pay and can count on it to be paid. We don't have to go around arguing for prior auths or trying to figure out the proper paperwork. Medicaid is standardized and simplified. And when we've thought it should pay for something it doesn't, we've sometimes advocated for that and always (as far as I know) won. So then it's covered for ALL patients, not just the ones who fight their denials, and we don't have to go to battle for every single patient. With private insurance, they aren't really accountable to anyone but their stockholders, so we (the public or the medical community) aren't able to have any influence over their policies.
sure, it is always good to question the source, but not at the cost of actually reading the story. Does this coming out of the heritage foundation mean this is any less of s real story? No. I was speaking togimme directly as it seems as though if it comes from fox or any "right wing branch of the media" it is not a real story.
It is sad really, for all those who speak badly about fox as a right wing mouth piece cannot see that MSNBC, CNN and a host of others are just the left wing mouth pieces.
I like to gather facts in a sense of reading the actual article not for the conclusions that are made but for the facts they report. If it can be verified through other sources does that mean that the heritage foundation got it wrong? Is the heritage foundation reporting this make it less true that the administration is having to change the language so this bill stands up to legal challenge?
All too often on this board I see oh its just fox news, with the implication that nothing they say or report can possibly ever be true, which is ridiculous
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
which is exactly why changing healthcare the way they did does nothing. Medicaid is ok, it does pay us on time as well, however if you look at just about every state that is in the red right now, including the federal government, it is a big reason why there is a deficit. Guarantees far too much in payments, like paying for a god damn hoveround. It is way too easily defrauded. It is a good program for the patient, but terrible for the government as a whole. hopefully some day we can get something that works for everyone involved.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't know if these are what you're looking for and I haven't read all of them, but some of these sites might be useful:
http://www.healthcare.gov/
http://healthreform.kff.org/
http://www.healthreformgps.org/
http://www.familiesusa.org/health-reform-central/
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8060.cfm
Sure, biased sources can provide factual information. But it should still be suspect until proven factual by primary sources. I have also seen plenty of BS come from such sources, haven't you?
I think if we moved to a single-payer system it would work for everyone involved. The resources are just currently being diverted to the wallets of private insurance CEOs.