People Really are Buying the GOP Narrative that Obamacare is a "Tax"?!

[Fergasun]

I understand the Supreme Court held that Obamacare was a Constitutional use of the "taxing and spending" power of Congress; but I think it doesn't quite seem fair to characterize the penalty for not having health insurance as a "tax" or "tax increase", as the GOP narrative has advanced in recent days.

When I earn money, I have to pay an "income tax".

When I earn money, I have to pay a "social security tax".

When I purchase items, I have to pay a "sales tax" (in most states); and maybe in some cases I'll have a cigarette tax.

But, violating the terms of the health insurance "mandate" (which is not really a "mandate" if you technically call it a "tax") is more akin to breaking the law. It would be like me calling a speeding ticket or parking ticket a "tax".

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that people are complaining about a "tax increase". Nobody characterized it as such during the past 2 years; but now because it falls under Congress' taxing and spending power we're all supposed to pretend it's a "tax" instead of just a penalty for failing to follow the health care "mandate" that isn't?

Don't know what's wrong with calling it a "penalty for not following the mandate" still; that seems the most natural/logical and most fair way to characterize it... even if there isn't really a "mandate".

[greenspandan]

it doesn't really matter. it's a semantic distinction that people are not really going to care about as soon as they realize it doesn't apply to them. unless i'm mistaken, it only applies to people who both a) don't have health insurance and can legitimately afford it. if you can't afford it, you're exempt, and if you have health insurance, you're exempt. plus it's capped to never be more expensive than health care itself, and there are about a million other exemptions. BFD.

[Kilmer17]

I dont think there is more than 1 percent of people who are swayed about this issue based on the sematics.

The GOP is going to pound the word TAX because it makes good ads.

I dont think we'll see the needle move at all on the opinion of Obamacare.

[Bang]

They'll say anything except "ok, you win. The people voted you in to do this, we tried to destroy it, it passed, and now it's been deemed constitutional. Majority rules"

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

They'll say anything except "ok, you win. The people voted you in to do this, we tried to destroy it, it passed, and now it's been deemed constitutional. Majority rules"

~Bang

And if the people vote this fall for people to repeal it, will that be okay too?

[drtdrums]

I understand the Supreme Court held that Obamacare was a Constitutional use of the "taxing and spending" power of Congress; but I think it doesn't quite seem fair to characterize the penalty for not having health insurance as a "tax" or "tax increase", as the GOP narrative has advanced in recent days.

When I earn money, I have to pay an "income tax".

When I earn money, I have to pay a "social security tax".

When I purchase items, I have to pay a "sales tax" (in most states); and maybe in some cases I'll have a cigarette tax.

But, violating the terms of the health insurance "mandate" (which is not really a "mandate" if you technically call it a "tax") is more akin to breaking the law. It would be like me calling a speeding ticket or parking ticket a "tax".

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that people are complaining about a "tax increase". Nobody characterized it as such during the past 2 years; but now because it falls under Congress' taxing and spending power we're all supposed to pretend it's a "tax" instead of just a penalty for failing to follow the health care "mandate" that isn't?

Don't know what's wrong with calling it a "penalty for not following the mandate" still; that seems the most natural/logical and most fair way to characterize it... even if there isn't really a "mandate".

To be fair, most of the conservatives I've heard weigh in don't actually believe it's a tax -- they're just flabbergasted that, somehow, a law written with no intent of using the government's ability to tax was construed to fall under that power. Everyone knows the Commerce Clause was the constitutional justification held up by Senate Dems before that was ripped away. Roberts wanted to find a way to not strike down congressional law, and he did -- it's hardly insanity to perceive his decision as intellectual gymnastics, however.

If the federal government's power to tax is used as the sole justification for the penalty, then the penalty must be called a tax. That it is significantly different than any other "tax" on the books is not lost on anyone -- in fact, most are making that point without slowing down to take a breath.

In short, this conservative does not view the "penalty" as a "tax" in the traditional sense, but who am I to argue with Chief Justice Roberts?

[twa]

It goes beyond the mandate,and it encompasses many separate taxes added.

But I look forward to the wailing from the younger Obama supporters when they realize the ins premiums are a tax w/benefits

[Teller]

I wish the majority of the population that opposes Obamacare DID rule, quite honestly.

[scruffylookin]

Crybabies gonna cry.

That simple.

[greenspandan]

To be fair, most of the conservatives I've heard weigh in don't actually believe it's a tax -- they're just flabbergasted that, somehow, a law written with no intent of using the government's ability to tax was construed to fall under that power. Everyone knows the Commerce Clause was the constitutional justification held up by Senate Dems before that was ripped away. Roberts wanted to find a way to not strike down congressional law, and he did -- it's hardly insanity to perceive his decision as intellectual gymnastics, however.

no, this is factually inaccurate. the federal government argued that it had three justifications for the mandate:

1. the commerce clause,

2. the "necessary and proper" clause, and

3. congress' ability to tax.

Roberts rejected the first two, and accepted the third -- he did not pull #3 out of his bum or rewrite anything, contrary to conservative talking points.

in all honesty, it's absurd that #1 wasn't seen as a slam dunk, given precendent and logic, but hey this is the supreme court -- it's always a crapshoot. #2 was the shakiest. #3 was also an easy call, though, and Roberts was principled enough to not let his personal feelings about the policy taint his interpretation of its constitutionality.

[Koolblue13]

How is this not a tax?

[@DCGoldPants]

You have Romney's guy out there saying its not a tax and the GOP saying it is. If the Dems were smart (they aren't), they'd keep their mouths shut and just let those other two debate it.

Romney camp sides with Obama that health insurance mandate is not tax

and they are kind of admitting defeat anyways

Mitch McConnell: Odds Are Against Health Care Law Repeal

[twa]

the govt argued it was a tax once they saw they were losing,Obama still denies it is....typical politician

[greenspandan]

call it a tax or don't. the only people who are going to care about the distinction are people who are actively trying to move the needle to the right anyway.

[twa]

call it a tax or don't. the only people who are going to care about the distinction are people who are actively trying to move the needle to the right anyway.

and Obama and co.obviously

the distinction will be important if it is repealed thru reconciliation

[greenspandan]

keep dreamin

[Heisenberg]

I wish the majority of the population that opposes Obamacare DID rule, quite honestly.

You keep saying this as if that "majority" all agree on the same thing.

On one side you have those that don't want any kind of insurance mandate and on the other you have the group that doesn't feel "Obamacare" goes far enough with it's coverage - these people all get lumped together into the group that "opposes" the bill.

The truth is the majority supports health care reform.

[greenspandan]

You keep saying this as if that "majority" all agree on the same thing.

On one side you have those that don't want any kind of insurance mandate and on the other you have the group that doesn't feel "Obamacare" goes far enough with it's coverage - these people all get lumped together into the group that "opposes" the bill.

The truth is the majority supports health care reform.

i'd like to think that's true. but i think it's also true that the GOP has been far more successful than the Democrats at branding the bill.

Another round of debate (now with the SCOTUS essentially on Obama's side) could help its popularity. There are a bunch of good provisions in the bill (pre-existing conditions, parents have the option to keep their kids on their plan longer if they wish, some coverage gaps closed, etc) and i believe that given enough information, all but the most ardent ideologues can see why the most controversial component (the mandate) is a) not a big deal and a step in the right direction anyway.

[Fergasun]

I listen to conservative radio all the time; and it just seemed to me over the past couple days the GOP talking point is that upholding Obamacare is a "tax increase on the middle class". Now maybe the argument is more nuanced than I understand it, it was never explained what the "tax" was so I assumed they were talking about the penalty/fee for not having insurance.

Either way, tons of people are upset over this and the Supreme Court decision went opposite to what they expected as well, so it looks like it will energize the GOP base in a similar way to 2010.

[drtdrums]

1. the commerce clause,

2. the "necessary and proper" clause, and

3. congress' ability to tax.

Perhaps you could link me to either 2 or 3 being used as a justification of the law by the Senate Dems? I only recall 1 being the justification -- there was a mention, in passing (by Pelosi, I believe), of "necessary and proper" if needed, but #3 was never mentioned until grabbed frantically in the Any-Stick-Will-Do defense.

Roberts bought it. Whether it was his applying "principle" or spineless kowtowing depends on the lens.

[Baculus]

Even more so, the GOP's claim that the individual mandate is the "largest tax in history" is completely bogus. That of all ironies, that honor belongs to Ronald Reagan, their hero:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/the-individual-mandate-is-a-very-small-tax-chart.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Anti-health care reform opponents have repeatedly lied over and over again, which, to me, indicates a flawed and questionable philosophy if you have to continually use such dishonesty.

---------- Post added July-3rd-2012 at 03:56 PM ----------

I listen to conservative radio all the time; and it just seemed to me over the past couple days the GOP talking point is that upholding Obamacare is a "tax increase on the middle class". Now maybe the argument is more nuanced than I understand it, it was never explained what the "tax" was so I assumed they were talking about the penalty/fee for not having insurance.

Either way, tons of people are upset over this and the Supreme Court decision went opposite to what they expected as well, so it looks like it will energize the GOP base in a similar way to 2010.

Getting energized to defeat health care reform, one which will help millions of Americans, is a rather bizarre reason, IMO.

---------- Post added July-3rd-2012 at 03:58 PM ----------

I wish the majority of the population that opposes Obamacare DID rule, quite honestly.

Thee people who oppose ObamaCare have successfully defeated health care reform for decades, which is why we have the highest per-capita spending for a flawed system.

It looks like your got your wish. Three cheers for corporatism, right?

[Kilmer17]

Even more so, the GOP's claim that the individual mandate is the "largest tax in history" is completely bogus. That of all ironies, that honor belongs to Ronald Reagan, their hero:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/the-individual-mandate-is-a-very-small-tax-chart.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Anti-health care reform opponents have repeatedly lied over and over again, which, to me, indicates a flawed and questionable philosophy if you have to continually use such dishonesty.

---------- Post added July-3rd-2012 at 03:56 PM ----------

Getting energized to defeat health care reform, one which will help millions of Americans, is a rather bizarre reason, IMO.

Those energized believe it hurts, not helps.

[Wrong Direction]

Those energized believe it hurts, not helps.

Stop with messy details. If you don't support "health reform" that means you don't want people to have health care. No matter that I could propose a law requiring all Doctors to accept all patients tomorrow and call it "health reform." The details of the law don't matter at all. If you're against it, you want sick people to not get care. Heartless jerks, are we.

I do think conservatives are over the top in their opposition because I do see some good in this bill. However, I think it does a lot of what it accomplishes could have been done without both federal and state bureaucracies, who get their marching orders from heavily lobbied politicians, in charge.

And yes, it is a tax. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be constitutional and it wouldn't exist.

[Teller]

You keep saying this as if that "majority" all agree on the same thing.

On one side you have those that don't want any kind of insurance mandate and on the other you have the group that doesn't feel "Obamacare" goes far enough with it's coverage - these people all get lumped together into the group that "opposes" the bill.

The truth is the majority supports health care reform.

Some kind of reform. The majority opposes THIS reform. (Which is what I said.)

And I have no sympathy for those who complain about how this law is being "branded" by one party or the other. If the promise to show the debates and construction of the bill on C-SPAN would have been fulfilled, we could have seen for ourselves what it does or doesn't do. That's an Obama failure, plain and simple.

[Baculus]

Those energized believe it hurts, not helps.

Because they are relying upon the aforementioned anti-reform lies. But that isn't merely it, and it goes much deeper than that.

A lot of it has to do with defeating Obama, Democrats, liberals, and "communism." As I just posted on another thread, it is an ideologically, political battle, and their supposedly righteous side must achieve victory to preserve "American Exceptionalism."

They don't care if fellow Americans suffer under our current system. They only care about defeating the "Muslim Socialist America hater" and his supporters, and that's it. Screw everyone else.