Health care law trial begins today

[Skyth]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/court-...01332.html?l=1

I do think that the Supreme Court will punt the case saying that it's a tax and thus can't be contested until the tax is paid. The case is too politically charged to do anything else.

Now, I do believe that the individual mandate is constitutional. It is effectively giving someone a tax break for having health insurance. This is really the same as the child tax credit, where the government mandates that I pay a higher tax because I don't have any kids.

In a sense, there is already an individual mandate, as health insurance contributions through a paycheck are not taxed, businesses can count insurance expense for employees as an expense and not get taxed on that income, and you can count insurance premiums as an itemized deduction thus reducing your taxes. The individual mandate in the health care act just makes it more of a tax break all around to have insurance.

This is besides the fact that health insurance occurs across state lines making the commerce clause come into effect. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the commerce clause takes effect in cases similar to this.

[sailor]

I do think that the Supreme Court will punt the case saying that it's a tax and thus can't be contested until the tax is paid. The case is too politically charged to do anything else.

Now, I do believe that the individual mandate is constitutional. It is effectively giving someone a tax break for having health insurance. This is really the same as the child tax credit, where the government mandates that I pay a higher tax because I don't have any kids.

In a sense, there is already an individual mandate, as health insurance contributions through a paycheck are not taxed, businesses can count insurance expense for employees as an expense and not get taxed on that income, and you can count insurance premiums as an itemized deduction thus reducing your taxes. The individual mandate in the health care act just makes it more of a tax break all around to have insurance.

Other than the fact that the law specifically says it's a penalty for not having insurance rather than a tax?

That is an odd definition of mandate. If you get a tax break on something, it's a mandate to do that? So, it's a mandate, or could be a mandate, that every family buy a house?

[Skyth]

Other than the fact that the law specifically says it's a penalty for not having insurance rather than a tax?

That is an odd definition of mandate. If you get a tax break on something, it's a mandate to do that? So, it's a mandate, or could be a mandate, that every family buy a house?

Really, is there a difference other than semantics between a penalty for not doing something and a tax break for doing something?

Either way you pay the same amount of money to the government.

[mandrina]

Really, is there a difference other than semantics between a penalty for not doing something and a tax break for doing something?

Either way you pay the same amount of money to the government.

why yes there is.

Is there a difference between a reward for doing something and a punishment for not doing something?

Is there a difference between a carrot and a stick?

rewards rewards people who do something, but they don't have to do it. You get either action and reward, or nothing at all.

punishment punishes people for not doing something, so something happens in their cases, either the desired action or the punishment.

The only way it would come out to the same amount of money paid to the government is if you have both a tax break on the purchase and a penalty that is the same as the purchase minus the tax break, then the result to your budget would be the same.

this whole point has nothing to do with my opinions on the healthcare law, I'm just pointing out why I think that last comment about semantics is wrong.

[Skyth]

Is there a difference between a reward for doing something and a punishment for not doing something?

When the end result is the same, no.

Is there a difference between a carrot and a stick?

Yes. The severity of the punishment compared to the reward. There you are comparing physical abuse with giving someone something.

If the penalty for not having health insurance was jail time or something similar, then there might be a difference. However, in this case I don't see a difference between a monetary penalty or a tax except in semantics.

The only way it would come out to the same amount of money paid to the government is if you have both a tax break on the purchase and a penalty that is the same as the purchase minus the tax break, then the result to your budget would be the same.

Actually if the penalty is the same as the tax break, then you have the same effect. Of course, I am assuming a raise in taxes for everyone equal to the penalty amount that goes along with the tax break.

[sailor]

When the end result is the same, no.





Yes. The severity of the punishment compared to the reward. There you are comparing physical abuse with giving someone something.

So a fine / tax of $50 dollars a year if you don't buy a rifle would be OK?

[MadZealot]

Really, is there a difference other than semantics between a penalty for not doing something and a tax break for doing something?

Interesting use of some antics to smokescreen the facts, there.
Mandates are OK if they're covered up by 'tax breaks'.... maybe the citizen has a few (more of his own) dollars in his pocket at the end of the day, but at what cost? The cost is the 'mandate,' wherein we allow our elected, representative government to dictate to the people. From government by consent to government regardless of consent.

The argument around this legislation is SO much more than a tax break; the core of it is whether the government can force you or I, private citizens both, to purchase a commodity. To engage in business. Even if you cite the 'commerce' clause (which gives the federal govt an insane amount of power) all the govt can do is regulate commerce. It cannot compel or command it from the citizen.

[cigfran]

To engage in business. Even if you cite the 'commerce' clause (which gives the federal govt an insane amount of power) all the govt can do is regulate commerce. It cannot compel or command it from the citizen.

Sure it can. Got a driver's license? Then you also have auto insurance, by law.

[sailor]

Sure it can. Got a driver's license? Then you also have auto insurance, by law.

Show me where under Federal law I must buy auto insurance if I have a driver's license? Hell, show me under state law I must have auto insurance if I have a driver's license.

[Skyth]

Sure it can. Got a driver's license? Then you also have auto insurance, by law.

That is state issued so is a different issue.

The Federal government is within it's rights to raise taxes for everyone and give someone a tax break if they purchase a rifle. In my opinion, that is not something that it should do, but it is within its rights. This power could apply to any product (or action).

Now health care is differentiated from other products in that you are going to use it/benefit from it some time in your life. In this case, it is really close to mandatory schooling.

Now the best solution would be a single-payer system but that won't pass congress.