Repeat after me: THE OBAMACARE ‘MANDATE’ WAS ACTUALLY A TAX. (http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2012/07/01/repeat-after-me-the-obamacare-mandate-was-actually-a-tax/)


And that affects profoundly the question of how to get rid of it. Mickey Kaus is correct, and Ryan Lizza & David Frum are wrong on this: the only reason that Obamacare was not cast down was because the US Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the so-called ‘individual mandate’ was constitutional if it was considered to be a tax. The US Supreme Court also decided, 5-4, that the so-called ‘individual mandate’ was not Constitutional if done under the Commerce Clause. So anyone who wants to argue that the Obamacare health tax is not actually a tax must also admit that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Supporters of Obamacare do not get to have it both ways. The Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare’s centerpiece is a half trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class. This is a thing that has happened. And it means, among other things, that the Democrats’ threat of a filibuster is an empty one when it comes to repealing it next January. We have a Senate majority, we can remove the health tax. Simple as that.

DO NOT LET THE OTHER SIDE GET AWAY WITH PRETENDING OTHERWISE. I understand fully why the Democrats don’t want to campaign on the position that their ‘signature’ accomplishment is a horrific, promise-breaking middle class tax hike; it’s only slightly better than campaigning on a promise to give kittens leprosy. But that’s the Democrats’ problem, not ours. All we have to do is figure out new ways to keep the gloating albatross around their collective neck until the election. And one way to do that is to never, ever, ever let any apologist for the Democrats and/or Barack Obama get away with pretending that Obamacare is unconstitutional unless it’s a tax. If they get upset about that… good. That means that what you’re doing is working.

Karma. It’s what’s for breakfast. :jet:

And here I thought that we elected some of these folks to work for us. Yes, I know the Supreme Court is Appointed, but they should still do the right thing for this country. More taxes along with socialized medicine isn't it.

well right now the GOP talking point is

'its a tax we only need 50 + 1 [the VP] to over tune Obamascare'

And here I thought that we elected some of these folks to work for us. Yes, I know the Supreme Court is Appointed, but they should still do the right thing for this country. More taxes along with socialized medicine isn't it.

Actually, I think we should thank CJ Roberts and the Supreme Court for stating that this is a tax, so that it can be repealed.

well right now the GOP talking point is

'its a tax we only need 50 + 1 [the VP] to over tune Obamascare'

AND a President who won't veto it.

well the other talking point is

Elect Mitt ..........

well right now the GOP talking point is

'its a tax we only need 50 + 1 [the VP] to over tune Obamascare'

Let's assume for the sake of argument that they could use the reconciliation process to get rid of the mandate penalty. That doesn't mean that they could overturn Obamacare. There's a whole lot more to the PPACA than the mandate. And just overturning the mandate without being able to overturn the related (and generally more popular) provisions (e.g. commuity rating, must issue) would have terrible results

I think it would be a huge political blunder and, at any rate, the possibility that it might would probably be enough to convince Republican leaders not to do it. It would allow the Democrats to get the benefit of having tried to do something to improve the health care situation without having to face much of the criticism (from non-partisans, that is) for the potential ineffectiveness those efforts might meet in the real world. Democrats could sit back and say - see what the Republicans did, this thing is a mess because they took out the mandate which everyone understands is vital to make the whole thing work; it would have worked as intended if they hadn't done that. And whether or not it would have worked well if allowed to be implemented as intended, it would indeed be a big (or bigger) cluster#### because the mandate, and only the mandate, was taken out. If the Republicans can't get rid of much of the rest of the legislation at the same time, they shouldn't get rid of the mandate - as much as I'd like to see the whole law go, and as much as I think the mandate itself is wrong in principle, I think that would be a mistake, politically and policy-wise.

Let me return to the question of whether the Republicans could repeal the penalty through the reconciliation process, that is to say with just a simple majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the White House. At the end of the day, it surely could if it really wanted to - each session of Congress (and each house there of) gets to make its own rules. Strictly speaking, a majority in the Senate could bypass the filibuster altogether and do whatever it wanted to do. That's been referred to as the nuclear option. But neither party wants to go there because they don't want to have to deal with the reprecussions in the future (e.g. there effectively being no checks on the other party's power if and when it regains a simple majority).

Could it just interpret the mandate penalty as something that it could get rid of without having to overcome a filibuster? Sure. The majority chooses the parlimentarian that interprets the rules (and, as I've already suggested, they could change the rules if they needed to). That's something they could have done whether or not the Supreme Court decision went the way it did (i.e. the majority held that it was a valid exercise of the taxing power). It was always a revenue raising provision (whether someone calls it a tax or a penalty) and as such could be argued to be fair game as part of a reconciliation process (i.e. set of proposed changes supposedly meant to bring revenues and spending in line with an existing budget resolution). It's all political: In this context it's about one party trying to figure out how far it can go - how much it can bend or change the rules - before the other party thinks that it's just gone too far, that it's gone 'nuclear', and decides there's nothing to lose in going nuclear itself.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that they could use the reconciliation process to get rid of the mandate penalty.

Wouldn't it be every bit as good an idea for one state to opt out and implement a sensible plan that works?

My concern about Obamacare is that once it is in place, like crabgrass or roaches, it's damned impossible to get rid of, short of killing everything.

Moreover, like the entitlement programs that preceded it, it will morph and become something else. Government programs are like that - they're supposed to be small and unobtrusive, but eventually they swallow the budget.

I've generally thought this was killing a fly with a grenade. We want to cover the uninsured and those unable to get insurance - well dammit, leave the rest of us alone, willya?

Let me return to the question of whether the Republicans could repeal the penalty through the reconciliation process, that is to say with just a simple majority in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the White House.

The irony of UNdoing it via reconciliation I admit is too delicious for words - turnabout is fair play. If it wasn't "cheating" to do it the first time, then it won't be the second time - although you can absolutely bet they will cry foul even though it is obvious to anyone paying any attention that the concept at least is totally fair.

If it wasn't "cheating" to do it the first time, then it won't be the second time - although you can absolutely bet they will cry foul even though it is obvious to anyone paying any attention that the concept at least is totally fair.





except this time it would be a bigger argument over the 'TAX'