Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

[cawacko]

For those in the know on all issues health care related was Obama just wrong or mistaken here or was he purposefully trying to mislead or lie?


Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: July 16, 2010

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”


full article at

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=3&ref=politics

 

[Minister of Truth]

I absolutely accept that notion.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It's worse than a tax. It's textbook fascism. Just the notion that we have to buy a product from a private company by rule of law is unamerican.

 

[Good Luck]

They deny the tax aspect to the public while relying on the fact that only a low percentage of the public pays any attention to the content of legal arguments in court when their laws are challenged.

Little wonder they're seeking excuses to control the internet.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

wow, they might have actually screwed up their case here. by declaring it a tax based upon whether or not they purchase a product, they've made the penalty subject to fairness and broad application jurisprudence. I think this will make it easier for the courts to rule it unconstitutional.

 

[Damocles]

Wow, a form of taxation that went "one iota" higher for people who make less than 250,000...

I wonder if that'll be brought up during some campaign at some time...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The insurance mandate can obviously be viewed as a tax. If all we are going to do here is pass around labels, that's fine, and I don't care. If we are going to talk about what is best for society, that is different, and that is what conservative animals NEVER do. They are agents of suffering, seeking to kill and torture as many human beings as they can in their disgusting, disturbing lifetime.

They masturbate when single mothers are forced to choose between their childrens groceries and their heart medicine, and have a heart attack in the end. They come at the end of every death row prisoners life. They live in ecstasy at every third world child who dies of heavy metal poisoning mining the minerals that feed their overconsumptive lifestyle. Conservative are the garbage, the genetic refuge, of the human race.

 

[Timshel]

They are worried. The court cannot read this as a tax when it was written as a regulation of commerce. They have to go by what Congress wrote. They can't "fix it" for them and then approve it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704446704575206502199257916.html

 

[Minister of Truth]

The insurance mandate can obviously be viewed as a tax. If all we are going to do here is pass around labels, that's fine, and I don't care. I'm also gay.

All valid points.

 

[Damocles]

They are worried. The court cannot read this as a tax when it was written as a regulation of commerce. They have to go by what Congress wrote. They can't "fix it" for them and then approve it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704446704575206502199257916.html

It appears to be falling apart...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The insurance mandate can obviously be viewed as a tax. If all we are going to do here is pass around labels, that's fine, and I don't care. If we are going to talk about what is best for society, that is different, and that is what conservative animals NEVER do. They are agents of suffering, seeking to kill and torture as many human beings as they can in their disgusting, disturbing lifetime.

They masturbate when single mothers are forced to choose between their childrens groceries and their heart medicine, and have a heart attack in the end. They come at the end of every death row prisoners life. They live in ecstasy at every third world child who dies of heavy metal poisoning mining the minerals that feed their overconsumptive lifestyle. Conservative are the garbage, the genetic refuge, of the human race.

we are going to read about you in the papers someday...and you won't be famous, you will be infamous

 

[Bonestorm]

I think that the characterization that the administration in changing tunes is inaccurate. But, you can assess that on your own. Here are the relevant legal filings:

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flndce/3:2010cv00091/57507/56/1.pdf

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/3:2010cv00188/252045/22/

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/fe...virginia/vaedce/3:2010cv00188/252045/77/0.pdf


It seems to me that the primary argument is based on the Commerce Clause.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I think that the characterization that the administration in changing tunes is inaccurate. But, you can assess that on your own. Here are the relevant legal filings:

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flndce/3:2010cv00091/57507/56/1.pdf

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/3:2010cv00188/252045/22/

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/fe...virginia/vaedce/3:2010cv00188/252045/77/0.pdf


It seems to me that the primary argument is based on the Commerce Clause.

i'm not going to wade through all the bullshit...why don't you pick out exactly what you're referring to

 

[Bonestorm]

i'm not going to wade through all the bullshit...why don't you pick out exactly what you're referring to

Sure thing. Check out the first link. It's a 79 page brief of which the general welfare argument takes up three pages (48-51). Now, certainly the government is presenting the argument, but to suggest it is changing stances is inaccurate.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Sure thing. Check out the first link. It's a 79 page brief of which the general welfare argument takes up three pages (48-51). Now, certainly the government is presenting the argument, but to suggest it is changing stances is inaccurate.

did obama say it was or would not be a tax? and is obama now arguing it could or is a tax?

 

[Canceled1]

I think that the characterization that the administration in changing tunes is inaccurate. But, you can assess that on your own. Here are the relevant legal filings:

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flndce/3:2010cv00091/57507/56/1.pdf

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/3:2010cv00188/252045/22/

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/fe...virginia/vaedce/3:2010cv00188/252045/77/0.pdf


It seems to me that the primary argument is based on the Commerce Clause.

"in changing" what, Professor Dungheap?


Here let me help you out, k? http://www.yourdictionary.com/is

 

[Bonestorm]

did obama say it was or would not be a tax? and is obama now arguing it could or is a tax?

The argument is that it is an exercise of Congress power to provide for the general welfare.

 

[Canceled1]

The argument is that it is an exercise of Congress power to provide for the general welfare.

You're on a roll today Nigey. An exercise of Congress power? Is that like a new power drink, or do you need to take a nap or something?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The argument is that it is an exercise of Congress power to provide for the general welfare.

No, the argument is that Obama proclaimed quite emphatically that it was NOT a tax and now is changing tune and calling it a tax.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The argument is that it is an exercise of Congress power to provide for the general welfare.

lol....they are now arguing its a tax nigel