Defending the Health Insurance "mandate": wrong clause!

[johnaries]

The Feds keep trying to defend the Health Care Insurance "mandate' (although it's not technically a mandate) in the Affordable Care Act by using the Commerce Clause. But let's take a look at the so-called mandate.

Although it does require all citizen's participation, it specifically excludes all forms of punishment except for an additional tax on those who do not participate. Therefore it is not a "mandate", it is simply a tax on those who do not voluntarily enroll in some form of either private or public health care insurance program.

Let me repeat that - it is NOT a mandate, it is a tax.

Therefore, the Commerce Clause does not apply. They should be defending it as a tax. And the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to levy taxes in which is ALSO in Article I, section 8:

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

THIS is the defence the Feds should be using!

[RoyGBiv]

Many leftward critics of the ACA have for a long time said the worst part of the way this administration has handled it is the messaging.

This is a clear case of bad messaging.

Democrats are so unnecessarily afraid of using even the word "tax" in the context of something that goes up that they missed an opportunity with this. Just as a rough starting point, they could have presented this as some kind of health care tax ... but wait, there's more ... you don't have to pay the tax under these conditions, those conditions having the benefit of providing you with health care coverage from which you can't be dropped. Etc.

[johnaries]

(04-30-2011 01:49 PM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Many leftward critics of the ACA have for a long time said the worst part of the way this administration has handled it is the messaging.

This is a clear case of bad messaging.

Democrats are so unnecessarily afraid of using even the word "tax" in the context of something that goes up that they missed an opportunity with this. Just as a rough starting point, they could have presented this as some kind of health care tax ... but wait, there's more ... you don't have to pay the tax under these conditions, those conditions having the benefit of providing you with health care coverage from which you can't be dropped. Etc.

Excellent point. And in this case the result of their poor messaging maybe a ruling against the law - which, granted, is imperfect but is arguably the most major piece of Progressive legislation since FDR.

[PollyS]

I've always seen it as a tax for health insurance. The way they should have worded it and explained it is that if you have health insurance, you would get a tax credit on your tax returns that would offset the tax we all would pay.

[Brew]

That is exactly where the Dems lost it..........Obama fenced himself in................and they cant call it a tax....because he claimed it for months that Obamacare is not tax....that is how they pushed it down our throats.therefore it is a mandate which of course is against the constitution of the US......this is clear and the Supreme court will have to settle this matter........but sadly it will take a few yrs before it reaches their court. At that point Obama willn't be Pres.

As you can tell I am not an Obama supported...........I believe he is a socialist....anti American. That is my opinion....and no one can agrue with my opinion....either they agree or disagere.......everyone in America has a right to their opinion.

What is yours?

[RoyGBiv]

(05-08-2011 06:59 PM)Brew Wrote:  That is my opinion....and no one can agrue with my opinion....either they agree or disagere.......

Uh ... yeahokay.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

One can argue against an opinion just as certainly as one can argue in favor of it. How that argument is constructed determines whether an opinion is valid. Those incapable of defending their opinions are more correctly described as holding prejudices.

You are entitled to your prejudices, but you are not entitled to spreading them here.

[There Is No Spoon]

(05-08-2011 06:59 PM)Brew Wrote:  That is exactly where the Dems lost it..........Obama fenced himself in................and they cant call it a tax....because he claimed it for months that Obamacare is not tax....that is how they pushed it down our throats.therefore it is a mandate which of course is against the constitution of the US......this is clear and the Supreme court will have to settle this matter........but sadly it will take a few yrs before it reaches their court. At that point Obama willn't be Pres.

As you can tell I am not an Obama supported...........I believe he is a socialist....anti American. That is my opinion....and no one can agrue with my opinion....either they agree or disagere.......everyone in America has a right to their opinion.

What is yours?

Spewing neanderthal Republican talking points using typical mispellings won't make you many any friends here.