So, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that ObamaCare is constitutional because it is a tax. That settles it, right?
Not so fast.
Carney went on to say Friday that the “penalty” will affect only about 1 percent of Americans, those who refuse to get health insurance. He said the penalty was modeled after the one put in place in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
“It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” Carney said.
Carney was initially reluctant to assign a label to the fine when pressed repeatedly by reporters Friday. “Call it what you want,” he said.
and more:
“You can call it what you want,” he said. “If you read the opinion, it is not a broad-based tax. It affects one percent, by CBO estimates, of the population. It is not something that you assess like an income tax.”
It was unclear which Congressional Budget Office estimate Carney was referring to. Despite being pressed on the issue, though, the spokesman would not relent.
It didn’t even take 24 hours for the games and backtracking by the White House to begin. Don’t forget, they insisted to the American people — in order to get the bill passed — that it was not a tax. Clearly, they are worried about the tax narrative shaping the rest of the election season rhetoric.
So do I have a choice to not pay the penalty? Of course not. That’s what makes it a tax. That man is an idiot.
You do havea choice idiot. you either get health care… or not and if not you get PENALIZED…….but u will also have no coverage…is this so hard to understand? it is simple english
So instead of being free to not have insurance (choice in a capitalist society) you are free to choose between a tax or insurance (socialism).
while arguing for obamacare, obama’s lawyer said it was a tax
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
The federal income tax isn’t a tax because it only penalizes those who voluntarily choose to earn above $12,000. In other news, 0bama explains spending for tax cuts.
I don’t know who you are but you are brilliant. You should be on a news show so more people will hear that statement.
Now if only some media person had the gumption to confront the ‘it’s not a tax’ people with the ‘then it’s unconstitutional’ response!
Neil Munro where are you?
The cigarette tax isn’t a tax because I don’t HAVE to buy cigarettes. It’s just a penalty I pay if I choose to buy cigarettes.
Cigarette taxes are not a penalty any more than this healthcare tax is a penalty. The Court majority opinion made that clear when they differentiated a tax from a penalty… the latter being a “punishment” for doing an unlawful act.
Buying cigarettes is not unlawful for adults, ergo a tax. The PPACA did not make the choice to not buy health insurance an unlawful act, and this is a tax on the choice not to purchase health insurance (not health insurance itself) – ergo not a penalty, but a tax.
Rather embarrassing to watch supposed Constitutional lawyers (masquerading as a POTUS), their lackeys and elected members of Congress push back on the SCOTUS with yet more lies about penalties and “not a tax”. The opinion exposed their opening Section 1501 of the law as pure lies, as well as their lies perpetrated on the public that “this isn’t a tax”… when that’s the only way it could pass Constitutional muster.
Only silver lining? Roberts and the Court Opinion (save Ginsberg) called them on the carpet for overreach of the Commerce Clause. Furthermore Roberts make quite a statement on their own deplorable knowledge of our founding document when he had to rescue their sorry butts from poorly constructed legislation by going back 180 years for the “two interpretations, one being unconstitutional” precedent.
But it appears that embarrassment and SCOTUS hand slapping, alone, isn’t sating their desire to publicly parade themselves as blatant ignorant fools.
Carney has a difficult job, but we expect him to lie in the face of questions he cannot answer. On the other hand, if Obama ever takes questions again, I want to see what he says to the “tax or penalty” question. That will be fun to watch. Either he will lie about the Supreme Court ruling or he will lie about his campaign promise. Such a choice for the inveterate liar.
He lied what else new
So if it isn’t a tax, is the Administration admitting it is unconstitutional?
“You lie!” – Joe Wilson, Sept. 9, 2009
This is the most corrupt, lying Administration I have seen in my life, and I first voted in the 1968 election.
Hell, I started voting in 1950. You’re still right!
you must have been in a coma the 8 years under Bush
There is that magic 1% number again. They seem to be in love with that number these days. Trying to link the two in peoples minds perhaps?
1% … I had the same thought. But the 1% the OWS crowd bemoans probably has health insurance and wouldn’t be subject to the “penalty” of the individual mandate.
No, Carney is describing the lazy OWSers as the 1%. The shaggy haired hipsters demonstrating against capitalism are those that don’t have health insurance (at least those over 26 years old). Now we just need to get those losers to file income taxes so that they pay their “penalty”.
Who knew the 1% was actually the OWS crowd?
1% of the population comes to a little over 3-million people – a good deal fewer than the 40-million to 50-million that they kept screaming about as ‘at risk’ and who desperately need ObamaCare. Turns out to be a lot less than even a tenth of their fear-mongering screech.
Buncha liars.
So, according to Carney, we can call it what we want? Then I call it a tax.
” A word means exactly what I want it to mean no more and no less. ”
H Dumpty
” The individual mandate is not a tax. ”
J Carney
” Curiouser and curiouser ”
Alice
” OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! ”
The Red Queen
….uuuu..’o^o’..nn!n….algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum
Only 1% of Americans will pay the tax? What happened to the claim that 30 million Americans, almost 10%, did not have health insurance? Suddenly it’s down to 1% of American’s don’t have health insurance? Why the hell did Congress vote to hand a sixth of our economy and all our health care to bureaucrats if only 1% of American’s didn’t bother to get health insurance.
I understand Republicans lack analytical skills but that 1 percent is an estimate on the people that will not have HI as a choice.
For the 99% of people who buy insurance or who get it through the tax cuts that are in this Act, they’re not going to be affected. You keep your insurance, you don’t pay any kind of penalty. (this includes that other 9% that now will have Health Insurance thanks to ACA)
“almost 10%, did not have health insurance” (almost 10% will have now thanks to ACA, that leaves the roughly 1% of freeloaders)..
“For the very few people who decide to be free riders and not have insurance, but still have their costs go into the system so the rest of us pay it, there’s a penalty. It is not a burden on the middle class.”
And you know what? This sort of dissembling mush will actually work with people who for whom government/universal health care is a holy grail ‘because-all-other-civilized-nations-have-it-blah-blah-blah-so-don’t-bother-me-with-the-details-or-facts-about-how-we-got-it-or-whether-it-actually-works’.
I told anyone that wold listen that Jay’s head would explode over this and now it has happened. How else to explain his inability to understand that the SC called it a tax and he Just.Can’t.Understand.
Between the Supreme Court, the President and the Democrats in Congress we have a toxic brew of liars, grifters and idiots.
The court tells us its a tax but doesn’t tell us what kind of a tax it is. And a trange tax at that since if there is perfect compliance, the government raises no revenue. We are told that the insurance premium is the tax which means that if paid not only does the government not raise any revenue it also means that United Health or Aetna (to name a few companies) have now been made into quasi governments since they now are allowed to collect and retain tax payments. Since its now a tax (the insurance premium) is it a deduction on ones income tax if paid by the individual policy holder? Is it a gift taxable item if the premium paid by an exmployer if the premium paid is above the limit allowed by the income tax code?
If it isn’t an income tax how is anyone excluded?
The Supreme Court has declared that congress can levy a tax on any thing it has no authority to regulate or compel. We are now in a fascist state.
So now the court comedian Carney tells us never mind the court called the democrats liars since it is a tax Carney insults us by still telling us its not a tax.
So can Obama explain to us when the IRS uses the power it has to collect the penalty for not paying the tax (how can the government be allowed to collect a penalty for non payment of a tax without collecting the tax as well) that by paying the premium we have satisfied our tax requirement by paying taxes to a corporation for its own revenues? The three groups of con men have now eviscerated the constitution to the point that we are no longer a free people because this won’t end here. This is no longer an issue of paying for health care, its now an issue of whether or not whatever freedoms we have individually are solely at the whim of the party of grifters and its henchmen in the court.
It is not a tax, it is an indulgance; the sinner is forgiven for not buying insurance by this payment. And, of course, the rational thing to do will be to pay the tax which will be much cheaper than buying insurance after your employer drops your coverage.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: The amount I pay for NOT having health insurance is a tax. Eventually (2016?), this tax is calculated as a percentage of my AGI (1.5%). The government requires that I have health insurance or pay the tax. But really isn’t my choice which entity I will pay my tax to – the government to support health care or the insurance company as an agent of the government. So aren’t my health insurance premiums a tax?
Call it a tax, a penalty, who cares?
I think the most disturbing thing here is that the gov’t thinks ONLY 1% of people will choose to pay the “tax/penalty” rather than buy health insurance. The “tax/penalty”, especially initially is way less than the current cost of insurance, let alone what it will be in 2014 when pre-existing conditions and unlimited caps are priced in.
For a vast majority of people, they’d be idiots to buy health insurance and not pay the “tax/penalty”. They’ll rationally pay the “tax/penalty” and if they do get sick, because of the ban against pre-existing conditions, only then will they buy insurance.
If these are the kinds of economic assumptions upon which Obamacare is built, this is going to be a much larger fiscal disasater than anyone currently realizes.
I have a question that I haven’t seen anyone discuss yet:
Under the Obamacare statute, will insurance companies have the right to sell us non-compliant health insurance policies? You know, the kind that won’t cover all those Left-wing fetishes like free abortion, free contraception, zero deductibles, treating 26-year-old adults like 5-year-olds, etc.
Does anyone know the answer to this?
Reason I ask is that the Supreme Court just ruled that an individual’s failure to buy government-approved health care insurance is not “unlawful.” In other words, we all have the right to buy non-compliant health care insurance, as long as we pay the Obama Tax (a/k/a the Obama “Don’t-Call-It-A” Tax). And since the Obama “Don’t-Call-It-A” Tax is miniscule compared to the annual cost of government-approved health insurance, many of us will prefer to buy non-compliant health care insurance and pay the Obamatax, since it will still be cheaper than paying the premiums for government-approved hyper-insurance. Moreover, if a substantial percentage of American families and individuals elect this option and pay the tax, then it will be obvious to all that Obamacare is in fact the Largest Tax Increase in Human History, because lots of insured, responsible, middle-class people will be paying it — i.e., not just the “irresponsible” “freeloading” “uninsured” “1-percenters,” as claimed by the dissemblers of the Obama administration. And if it were made clear right now to American voters that this is how Obamacare will work in practice, it will be political poison to Obama’s reelection.
As a practical matter, though, the only way we’ll be able to buy such non-compliant insurance is if it’s legal for the insurance companies to sell it.
Which brings me back to the question: Does anyone know if, under Obamacare, it will be lawful for insurance companies to sell us non-government-approved health insurance? Thanks in advance.
I have news for ya, it’s gonna be a lot more than 1%.
The moment this is implemented, I am dropping my health insurance and will pay the tax instead. My policy, like most people who buy it on their own, is mostly catastrophic coverage. I have to pay for the first $5000 worth of services every year out of my pocket.
And since insurance companies can’t deny me coverage, if I get sick, I’ll sign up for “insurance”.
I’m not going to be the last moron not taking advantage of the welfare state. I’m done being the sucker paying everyone else’s bills.
Since the Obama Administration is now admitting that their taxation argument was a fraud committed upon the court, there needs to be a motion for rehearing filed under SCOTUS Rule 44. All that it would take would be for Roberts to join the four dissenters for the current decision to be set aside and, ultimately, Roberts to join with Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito to overturn ObamaCare on the grounds that it violates the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, and Taxation Clause. http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/330601.php
Like so many times in the past, here’s what this is all gonna come down to:
(Obama lies.)
(Obama gets caught and exposed for the lie.)
(Obama tries a number of “explanations” for the lie. None do any good.)
(Everyone knows Obama lied, and everyone knows that Obama lies as easy as most of us breathe.)
Obama to People: “Yeah, I lied. So effin’ what? What are you pussies gonna do about it? Obamacare was upheld. I got my huge health nationalization program just like I wanted, and it’s never gonna go away. We’ve already hired tens of thousands of people to staff the new boards, commissions, panels, processing centers, enrollment centers, compliance verification groups . . . Yeah, I lied to your face. Go ahead. Do something about it. Anything. . . . . Yeah, just like I thought. You got nothing.”
Republican Senators and Congressites: “Yay, we win! He lied! Now, we’re gonna repeal this little part of O-care over here that makes insurance pay for partial-birth abortions, hold a press conference to congratulate ourselves, and then go back to the office and work on some of these new pharmaceutical companies for campaign donations. We obviously can’t repeal the entire ACA – we’d have to fire tens of thousands of people, and some of them are in MY STATE! Where we need JOBS!”
That’s about the way I figure the GOP (Gutless Old Pu***es) will react. What we have in today’s American political system is the equivalent of professional wrestling. Two parties that are good friends pretending to be in opposition with one another for the sole purpose of deceiving the public and taking their money.
These people belong to the same good old boy’s clubs and elite organizations. They are in bed together. That’s why you’re not going to see Boehner push for results on Fast and Furious. Can’t jeopardize those golf games with the president now can we,John?
And who believes that once this debacle is roaring down the tracks in 2014 and beyond that the “non-tax” won’t be raised as necessary to fund the beast and modify the behavior of the non-participants? I think it’s the same people who don’t believe that the government will start rationing what it does and for who in order to try and make ends meet.
What a tremendously foolish and evil thing this is. And we won’t truly realize it as a whole until it is far, far too late.
next up – 2+2=5
If bad conduct is not punished, it will continue. That is what made the roberts decision so boneheaded. If the court hates having to decide on poorly written vague laws, that say 2 different things, and have the gov lawyers arguing 2 mutually contradictory things before them at the same time (as was done, the gov lawyer 1st said it was a legal mandate, but then also said if the court would not buy that, they could call it a legal tax) the only way they will change that is to punish the people creating the vagueness. He should have struck down the law as an illegal mandate, and in reply to the gov argument that it was now a tax should have said “congress is a fault here for not making themsleves clear. If they wanted this bill to be interpreted as a tax, they should have written it as a tax and said in debate it was a tax. In fact they wrote the bill as a mandate, and stated in debate it was a mandate, and we must hold them to their own words. It is not the role of this court to rewite legislation after the fact to make a law constitutional that was not constitutional as congress wrote it”.