HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » But the ACA ain't really ...

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:30 PM

But the ACA ain't really a tax, is it?

I mean, really? Really?

A tax is an amount of monies that a government entity collected from an individual or business by a government entity for the purpose of a government program.

But should I win the lottery tomorrow, and therefore be able to buy Blue Cross/Blue Shield, those monies go to Blue Cross or Blue Shield. I mean, that is how the company selling the product would want the check made out: Blue Cross or Blue Shield (Although perhaps one of these companies now goes by the name "Anthem," currently)

Should my premiums continue to be paid until that point in 2014 when the mandates become fully enforceable, will my personal check representing the these premium dollars of mine have to be made out "Payable to the US Treasury"?
[font color=blue]

Yes, on some level we all know that the monies we will be forced to use to purchase the mandated health care insurance are not really a tax, are they? A tax, by very definition, goes off to a government entity - not to a multi-billion dollar a year enterprise that denies the person purchasing the product the actual substance they are trying to get - that is health care.

[/font color=blue]

18 replies, 2871 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:32 PM

1. It's funny watching people around here resort to right-wing talking points to bash the ACA.

The stuff I see here from the perpetually anti-Obama crowd is basically the same, word for word, as what I see on Twitter from the one hard-core Ron Paul worshipper I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #1)


Response to TheWraith (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:37 PM

4. Actaully, stop and think about it for a second.

Most people oonsider the Supreme Court to be an entity controlled by a RW group of people. So if my talking point is anti-Supreme Court - how is that anti-Democratic base?

And the other thing is and maybe this should be highlighted

[h2][font color=blue]


TRUTH DOESN'T WEAR A POLITICAL DESIGNATION

[/h2]
[/font color=blue]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:50 PM

8. Either it's a tax or it's unconstitutional. Take your pick.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 04:25 PM

16. unless it is Constitutional under the Commerce Clause

 

the way 4 Justices think it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:26 PM

18. What's been done is done. Commerce clause isnt what it used to be.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:36 PM

3. I think you may be

confusing premiums paid when you have insurance vs mandate (tax) when you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunsetDreams (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:43 PM

6. But again, if it is a tax, even after the mandate date is enforceable,

Then the money should go to the government itself who would then open up for bidding the right of a company or companies to have those tax dollars, by low bids vs higher bids, and by promise of exemplary service.

Instead we now have a situation whereby the very companies that brought about the need for reform of the health care situation are now the companies that have the right to the tax dollars. Perhaps I am wrong, and someone can show me a precedent, but this has not yet happened in our country in such a transperent fashion.

I mean, if you lived in the SF Bay area, in the 1980's, you knew that the mafia was the number one contracting firm for road repair, (road repair that somehow managed to decay only a few short years later) so in a sense the gasoline money taxes are basically collected by the government for the sake of the mafia. But that certainly is not such an admirable situation that it should be duplicated by the SCOTUS on behalf of sick people everywhere in the nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:42 PM

5. The money you pay for Health Insurance

goes to a Health Insurance company

If you don't purchase health insurance, you pay the IRS (a government entity) which then goes into the general fund under the auspices of the US Treasury (another government entity)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:46 PM

7. For comparison: fuel taxes go to the government, which in turn pays out to private construction firm

 

Sure, there's also state agencies (CalTrans in California), but also Teichert and other contractors, and all the concrete and steel and asphalt corporations.

If the government is collecting a tax that eventually goes to cover others' costs and if some of those costs are private, well I don't see much difference.

What I LOVE about this plan is that it keeps the onus on the states to develop plans, which leads the way to states individually developing single payer programs, if they choose to, which is probably the more likely route to a nationwide universal health program.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #7)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 03:09 PM

11. However, consider the blowback that may occur:

It was only because Roberts, not Kennedy, but Roberts a true conservative, sided with the other four, that the "ACA is a tax" became decisive.

And how did Roberts arrive at this decision? He quotes the 1995 Lopez case.

Small refresher course:
What the Lopez decision did was to invalidate any law banning the possession of guns near schools. How was this done? By citing precedence that this law challenged gun possession and presumably gun use. This activity, of owning a gun or using a gun, near school property was deemed too far attenuated from the stream of commerce for Congress to regulate.

So of course, anyone who was a gun activist celebrated the decision as a triumph of the Second Amendment, But the ruling was deeply troubling for liberals. Why? Because social conservatives saw the beginning of a new Golden Age that would seriously crimp federal power and future legal avenues to challenge laws and policies they deeply opposed — like the Affordable Care Act.

So through the Supreme Court's stating that Congress does not have the ability to regulate the health insurance industry under the commerce clause, the Lopez conundrum surfaces. And perhaps "Lopez" will be used in the future to bite social progressives in the butt. These citations could well occur in the federal courts as well as in future Supreme Court rulings.

Does this mean that "Lopez" can be dragged out by conservatives to rule on further challenges to Medicaid, further challenges to Planned Parenthood, and the like? Time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 02:59 PM

9. It has been upheld as constitutional because it can be read to be a tax:

"The joint dissenters argue that we cannot uphold §5000A as a tax because Congress did not “frame” it assuch. Post, at 17. In effect, they contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels. An example may help illustrate why labels should not control here. Suppose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy efficient windows must pay $50 to the IRS. The amount due is adjusted based on factors such as taxable income and joint filing status, and is paid along with the taxpayer’s income tax return. Those whose income is below the filing thresholdneed not pay. The required payment is not called a “tax,”a “penalty,” or anything else. No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within Congress’s power to tax. That conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word “penalty” to describe the payment. Interpreting such a law to be a tax would hardly “impos[e] a tax through judicial legislation.” Post, at 25. Rather, it would give practical effect to the Legislature’s enactment.

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in §5000A under the taxing power, and that §5000A need not be read to do more thanimpose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it. The “question of the constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 03:40 PM

12. None of that addresses my discomfort over the

fact that we now have had the SCOTUS deliver up a precedent that any government entity can now decide to offer up favored constituents (i.e. Large Corporations) the ability to charge us for a non-working product OPENLY, and regardless of anything else, the monies will be made available to those non-working entities.

If you think the product, health care, exists in California, you need to come here and have a mastectomy. Or talk to many of the women who have had one. (In California, chances are good that you will have your breast lopped off, and while you are still groggy from the anesthesia, be put in a cab to go home and take care of the wound yourself. Despite the fact that you might have had your lymph nodes removed also - so good luck with manipulating your right hand and arm into positions necessary to do the wound care. To be fair, I admit the hospital does give you a rather nice brochure on wound care.) Or re-visit SICKO especially episodes 8 and 9.

Additionally, see my reply number eleven which brings in the entire "Lopez" scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 05:31 PM

17. The Court held no such thing

It held that it is a government tax and a constitutional one at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 03:05 PM

10. The penalty for not purchasing the insurance is the tax.

And that does go to the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 04:14 PM

13. It's a penalty under the tax code. No one will be taxed.

If you are under a certain income you will not pay the penalty but actually receive help getting health care with a tax break. It's associated with the tax code in that respect.

The Supreme Court could not use the Commerce Clause for justification but found it justified under the Tax Clause. Just because something is found legally justified under a legal clause doesn't mean it inherits the title of that clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lint Head (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 04:22 PM

14. In any event, check out

My reply number eleven, as to why the fact that Roberts based much of his decision on "Lopez" (circa 1995) is quite troubling.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 04:24 PM

15. it sounds like a fine to me

call it whatever, it is a fine for scofflaws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread