Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Lawrence O'Donnell so aptly calls the Affordable Care Act the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Lawrence O'Donnell so aptly calls the Affordable Care Act the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act.

I searched "Lawrence O'Donnell Insurance industry Profit Protection Act" and found this video: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-...89648#47989648

[TracyCoxx]

I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...

Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts

It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ?penalty,? not a ?tax.? But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12?13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress?s taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress?s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress?s constitutional power to tax.
...
We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress?s power to tax.In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets?for which the licensee had to pay a fee?could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power.

Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts

the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.8 It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the ?prohibitory? financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37.

It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.

Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts

Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation?except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See ?5000A(g)(2).

Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.

Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts

While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. See Congressional Budget Office, supra, at 71. We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance."

Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?

And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I have some questions about Chief Justice Robert's ruling...

Ok, there is some precedent here. But it sure seems to be eroding the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

Seems like he could have just as easily said "It is up to Congress whether to call the penalty a tax, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the statute." It just seems so arbitrary.

It can't be more, but that's not saying it can't be equal to the price of insurance, which it eventually may rise to. Then people who wouldn't normally want to buy insurance would be paying for insurance. They would figure they might as well get the insurance since they're paying for it. In other words, as the penalty goes up, it will not be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.

Hmm... sounds like congress intended on calling it a tax then.

Ok, maybe I'm still missing something. Is there somewhere else where Roberts explains how Congress has the power to tax people for NOT doing something? An amendment had to be made just so congress could tax income. How is this power automatically granted to congress?

And what about Article I Section 7 of the Constitution:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The Senate did not just propose a healthcare bill, they passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on December 24th 2009. So it did originate in the Senate. The House then passed it on March 21, 2010. If it is a tax, it was enacted unconstitutionally. I don't see where Roberts explains why this is ok.

NOTE TO ALL: I have been accused by TracyCoxx, in another thread, of letting the post just above languish for two weeks without answering the questions. Putting aside that the questions were not directed to me, TracyCoxx makes this accusation regardless of whether there is any proof of intent on my part specifically so he can try to paint a picture of me as not knowing about something and thus, by refusing to address the post, attempting to hide my ignorance. This method of "discussion" is something we have come to expect from TracyCoxx.

The truth is that I simply missed the post. Otherwise, I would have written my answer, quite simply, as follows.

I don't like the Affordable Care Act. I think it's a miserable compromise and that it's shameful that we don't have single-payer, universal healthcare like other advanced economies.

I do not pretend to be a Constitutional scholar. TracyCoxx raises some legitimate points for discussion regarding how the Supreme Court made its decision and how one might interpret this or that aspect of law, tradition, documents, and so on. For me, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court is empowered to INTERPRET, and I accept this interpretation as legitimate according to the Constitutionally mandated powers given to the Court.

Were I like TracyCoxx, I would demand an apology for inferring that I deliberately avoided answering the post above. But as I have written elsewhere, an apology from someone who deliberately concocts such inferences would be meaningless.

[GRH]

The finalized bill that was passed in the Senate was actually a House resolution that was stripped of all its original language. The original House resolution was an unrelated bill dealing with VA benefits. The Senate stripped all the original language out of the House resolution, inserted the Affordable Care language, and passed a bill that first originated in the House. This is a tactic that is known as using a "shell bill." And it's completely Constitutional and has happened more frequently than many would care to admit.

[Enoch Root]

America's two tiered justice system:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ney-laundering

[Enoch Root]

Hundreds Die in Bangladesh Factory Collapse As Retailers Reject Better Safety Standards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP1cXvQKluA