Obamacare easily survives supreme court

[zimmy]

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

"Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them? "

You are missing (or dodging) the point.

49% of those who file pay zero federal income tax. I'm not concerned about the married couple making $18,000 a year,,,because there aren't many of those. I'm concerned about everyone in the top third of those who pay no taxes.

Zimmy, HLF of those who worek pay zero income tax. I couldn't find out what the income threshold is to pay no tax. But if 49% pay no tax, that means that someone making just below the average income, pay no taxes.

That is insane. I have no problem with the poorest of the poor paying no federal income tag. I have huge issues with 49% not paying federal incoime tax. That is not fair.

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy, you also dodged another question...you asked why conservatives lie and call the penalty a tax? I asked you if Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are lying conservatives, since they are also calling it a tax?

Your response? Hmmm?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, you also dodged another question...you asked why conservatives lie and call the penalty a tax? I asked you if Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are lying conservatives, since they are also calling it a tax?

Your response? Hmmm?

Did they?
I thought they decided it was OK as it was under Commerce Clause?
Roberts used the Tax angle to come to his assertion.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Did they?
I thought they decided it was OK as it was under Commerce Clause?
Roberts used the Tax angle to come to his assertion.

Jim, I don't see your posts except when quoted, so don't expect a response. Rockhound is right, Sotomayor and Ginsberg were going to pass it based on commerce law.The majority opinion written by Roberts said THE MANDATE can be upheld as a tax. I was specifically referring to the cons calling the entire bill a tax. The other 4 conservative judges said it isn't a tax, by the way. I really don't care either way. It is semantics. If a person who chooses not to have insurance pays penalty or a bit more in taxes to cover the cost we get stuck with when they go to the ER for a cold, so be it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If a person who chooses not to have insurance pays penalty or a bit more in taxes to cover the cost we get stuck with when they go to the ER for a cold, so be it.

How about, instead of rewriting the Constitution by, via Robert's decision, giving the fedgov an unspecified general power to tax that didn't previously exist in the Constitution, thus giving the government unlimited power of taxation--how about, instead, the person without insurance just PAYS THE BILL.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

Where the hell are they driving on a married couple income of 18K ??

Walmart?

Question?? If they are using their EBT card to purchase stuff, who's paying the sales tax now??

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You want the feds to take more money from them?
l

No, I just want them to become aware and take an interest in who the big spending
politicians are, either party, and how spending affects them personally.

I would say very few pople, whatever their income, rich or poor, know how much they are paying in taxes outside their Fed and State income taxes.

Like I say, nothing gets a persons attention better then having a horse in
the hunt.

Back to the thread like Detbuch just said.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No, I just want them to become aware and take an interest in who the big spending
politicians are, either party, and how spending affects them personally.

.

I agree. That is why I find "Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $81.7 billion from 1995-2011" or the $10-50 billion annual fossil fuel subsidies to be pretty ridiculous. The mandate is estimated come in at about $2 to 3 billion per year and only applies to people who go uninsured. The cons typically love those big business subsidies. They also proposed those health mandates. But now that it was passed under Obama it is the end of the world. Horse hockey.

[scottw]

Showing results for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stuart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989
Search instead for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stewart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989


No results containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or ... - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

•Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
•Try different keywords.
•Try more general keywords.
•Try fewer keywords.

No results found for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stuart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989.


Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate ? USATODAY.com


And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I agree. That is why I find "Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $81.7 billion from 1995-2011" or the $10-50 billion annual fossil fuel subsidies to be pretty ridiculous. The mandate is estimated come in at about $2 to 3 billion per year and only applies to people who go uninsured. The cons typically love those big business subsidies. They also proposed those health mandates. But now that it was passed under Obama it is the end of the world. Horse hockey.

you can thank FDR for providing Congress with the power to do these "ridiculous" things

Things came to a head in the New Deal, when Congress imposed a tax on food and fiber processors and used those tax dollars to provide benefits to farmers. Though in U.S. v. Butler (1936) the court adopted a more expansive view of the taxing power—allowing Congress to tax and spend for the "general welfare" beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution—it still held the ends had to be "general" and not transfer payments from one group to another. After President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937, it accepted such transfer payments in Mulford v. Smith (1939), so long as the taxes were paid into the general treasury and not earmarked for farmers.

Paul Moreno: A Short History of Congress's Power to Tax - WSJ.com

In United States v. Butler (1936), the Supreme Court invalidated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Justice Owen Roberts, writing for himself and five other justices, held that the AAA "invade[d] the reserved rights of the states" by endeavoring "to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government." Specifically, the Court held that the AAA violated the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Assuming that Congress could not directly compel farmers to reduce acreage or cull livestock, the Court held that Congress "may not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance."
.................................................. .......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...-presidential/

In November 1936 voters gave Roosevelt a second overwhelming mandate at the polls. His New Deal policies, constitutional or not, had put millions of Americans back to work and given people hope. Now, mandate in hand, FDR would move to challenge the Supreme Court threat to the New Deal.

On February 5, 1937, with little or no warning, FDR announced what would become known as his "court packing" plan. Citing the inability of the federal courts to deal with an overwhelming caseload, he proposed judicial reforms, including the addition of one justice to the Supreme Court for every one who did not retire by age 70-1/2, with a maximum five justices added.

It was an uncharacteristic political mistake for the usually astute Roosevelt. His plan to influence the Court provoked outrage nationwide. Many perceived it as an attempt to rig the American judiciary system and give the executive branch almost dictatorial power. In a public speech in March, Roosevelt managed to turn American opinion his way, but when the Supreme Court reported that it had no problem keeping up with its caseload, support for his plan declined.

As Roosevelt worked on behalf of his "court-packing" plan, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor several times, further weakening the President's arguments for court reform. On March 29, the Court upheld a Washington State minimum wage law. In May, the Court upheld the Social Security Act. When Joseph Robinson, Roosevelt's last significant ally in the court-packing scheme died in July, the plan died too.

The attempt to influence the Supreme Court was one of the worst episodes of Roosevelt's presidential career

.................................................. ....

Emboldened by the apparent change in the Supreme Court's attitude toward the constitutionality of the New Deal, Congress passed a second Agricultural Adjustment Act, designated as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Rather than using the proceeds from taxes on processors to motivate farmers to lower production in exchange for benefit payments, the 1938 act applied marketing quotas and overproduction penalties directly.

In Mulford v. Smith (1939), the Supreme Court upheld the 1938 act with little fanfare. Even though the marketing quotas imposed by the 1938 act intruded far more aggressively into the agricultural economy than the processing taxes at issue in the 1933 act, Mulford found no fault in the 1938 act. Just three years earlier the 1933 act had been condemned as an unconstitutional stratagem by the federal government to interfere in agricultural markets. Yet the ruling in Mulford blessed the 1938 act as a program "intended to foster, protect and conserve [interstate] commerce."