Tag: individual mandate

Vermont’s $3,800 single person tax.

Hi!  Are you a single person who lives in Vermont?  If you are, the intersection of those two particular circles of the Venn Diagram of Life means that you probably voted for Obama; and I just wanted to let you know: you’re about to get hit by a kinetic strike from orbit.  See, Vermont has worked out how much you’re going to have to pay next year if you buy your health coverage on the state exchange:

The state released proposed rates Monday. Examples show that a family of four with an annual income of $32,000 would pay $45 a month out of pocket. A single person making $40,000 would pay $317 a month.

Continue reading Vermont’s $3,800 single person tax.

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 [can be constitutional without being] 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.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

[Since updated for clarity.]

Continue reading Repeat after me: THE OBAMACARE ‘MANDATE’ WAS ACTUALLY A TAX.

#rsrh The Health Tax, Reconciliation, and the Nightmare Scenario.

Well, that was exciting, no?

Short version, from what I can tell: the court decided that Obamacare’s individual mandate is not permitted under the Commerce Clause, but is permitted in terms of being a tax.  Which means three things:

  • The President is a poor Constitutional Scholar, given that he claimed that the health tax was permitted under the Commerce Clause;
  • The President is a liar, as he promised not to raise taxes on the middle class.
  • Vote Republican in November.  As a tax, we can get rid of this monstrosity with a simple majority vote in the Senate (HI, RECONCILIATION!).

That’s it.

#rsrh Wall Street: All or nothing on Obamacare?

I’ll take ‘Nothing,’ thanks.

That’s Ed Morrissey’s opinion, based on how health care stocks are going: and that sounds about right to me, too.  I’ll also note that if our self-appointed elites think that the populace was inflamed before, then they’re going to have the shock of their lives if the courts decide that it’s actually constitutional for the government to force me to engage in economic activity.  I don’t care what the pundits think: most of those folks also completely missed how ticked off people were going to get about Obamacare in the first place, so I’m not really ready to believe them now when they argue that the populace would tolerate the permanent imposition of the very, very, very unpopular individual mandate.

Note that all of this is ‘if,’ though.  I don’t guarantee that the whole mess will be tossed out, but I like our chances.  ‘Course, I also thought that Democrats in Congress wouldn’t really put their genitals in the sausage grinder and flip the on switch over Obamacare, so my judgement is probably suspect as well…

Moe Lane

Obama’s first lose-lose Obamacare-related argument today.

The first round of the US Supreme Court’s attempts to settle the problem that is Obamacare takes place today, and from the Obama administration’s purely partisan (and particularly puerile) perspective, there’s no winning scenario available.  Essentially, what’s happening today is the courts are hearing arguments about whether or not Obamacare’s individual mandate qualifies as a tax.  If it does qualify as a tax, then under the provisions of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (TAIA) the mandate cannot actually be challenged in courts until it’s actually been collected; more plainly, you can’t sue for relief from an onerous tax before they take it from you.

The merits of the case are one thing – the above link from Heritage goes into the whole issue, in some detail – but the partisan implications are another.  There’s no good result for the Obama administration: if the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate is not a tax then a large portion of the administration’s existing arguments goes away, thus increasing the likelihood of a humiliating disposal (at least in part) of the one thing that Obama has managed to do domestically in four years.  But if the mandate is a tax, then Obama gets to face a plethora of attack ads in the fall which will be (accurately) portraying him as a shameless serial liar who used the looming Obamacare legislation to sneak in a stealth tax on the American middle class. Continue reading Obama’s first lose-lose Obamacare-related argument today.

#rsrh Wanna see how to write an article on a constitutional challenge…

…to Obamacare’s individual mandate provision, without ever once explaining why there’s a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate?

Here you go. In the interests of educating the populace – even those poor unfortunates who are stuck getting their news from The New York Times. God help them – here’s the central argument: forcing individuals to engage in commercial activity is not a Constitutionally enumerated right of Congress.  Buying health insurance is a commercial activity.  Proponents argue that the Commerce Clause applies, but if it does then frankly the Tenth Amendment is meaningless.  The Ninth, for that matter.  This would, of course, shock the life out of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, given that these Amendments were explicitly ratified to reassure the latter that there would be clear limits to governmental power in the new Republic.

No, I am not going to explain any of those terms: if you have to ask what any of them mean, then you are not qualified for participation in this conversation.

Anyway, via RCP.

Moe Lane

PS: Almost forgot: yes, most locales require you to buy car insurance if you wish to operate a car.  Guess what?  There’s no federal mandate requiring citizens to own a car.  That means that car ownership is ultimately a choice – unlike, say, breathing. That means that the analogy is too tenuous to succeed.

#rsrh Looking over lexington_concord’s…

…quick analysis of the Virginia Obamacare court decision (short version: individual mandate unconstitutional, severable from the rest of Obamacare, no injunction on Obamacare as a whole until the Supreme Court takes a gander at the law), I really have only one thing to add: the severability issue was always going to be more of a political issue than it would be a legal one.  We were always going to have a big bite at that apple; Judge Hudson’s declining to address the point doesn’t really signify.

More judicial Obamacare salvoes this week.

There are two cases in Florida and Virginia expected to be decided this week over the constitutionality of Obamacare.  The underlying issue is whether the US Constitution gives Congress the right to force its citizens to engage in commerce (specifically, whether Congress can mandate individuals to buy health insurance).  Which, the last time I checked, it does not; and while I understand that Obamacare’s remaining defenders are obligated to argue otherwise, I am not particularly obligated to treat either them or their argument more seriously than is merited.  In this case, that means: not at all.

The real issue here is not whether the individual mandate is thrown out – even the administration is tacitly admitting that it may not survive scrutiny – but whether the individual mandate can be declared unconstitutional without immediately invalidating the rest of the legislation.  There is an issue called ‘severability‘ that is germane here: the short version is that if one portion of a piece of legislation is declared unconstitutional, then the entire law is supposed to be thrown out unless there’s specific language indicating otherwise.  Said language never made it into Obamacare, thanks to the stellar parliamentary skills of Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid.  It’s not a slam dunk – I’ve had actual attorneys tell me that the Supreme Court has shown a reluctance to be that hard-nosed about severability – but it’s something to keep an eye on.

The Virginia court decision is expected for tomorrow: the results should be interesting.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

WH: Individual mandate now a tax.

Democrats, administration apologists hardest hit.

(H/T: Hot Air Headlines) If you are surprised at this… [deep breath] well.  You should not be.

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

[snip]

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Continue reading WH: Individual mandate now a tax.