• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner


The exact exchange went like this:

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”
Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”
The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

Obamacare, the crown jewel of liberal arrogance
 
Last edited:
It reminds me of a joke.

A guy is unexpectedly called in the office of his Boss, and the Boss asks him to take a seat. Joe looks a little nervous not knowing what this is all about... so the Boss starts quick and with a smile... Joe, you've been with us 2-years now and you've been an exceptional performer, a good team player, and a tremendous representative for the company and all we stand for. I'm going to give you a raise for it is well deserved. The boss looks at Joe who is looking at the floor wringing his hands. The Boss notices Joe isn't excited in the least. So after a few uncomfortable moments, the Boss asks... Joe... what's wrong? I thought you'd be very happy about the increase.

Joe looks at the floor, the walls anywhere except the eyes of his Boss and says... well Boss... you see... I get free health care, dental care for the family, my kids are on the free school lunch program, I qualify for almost free membership at the local gym... and with this raise I lose all that plus a few other perks. The boss looks at Joe, and says OK Joe... I won't give you the raise, but if your work begins to slip, you're going to get one!

.
 
Last edited:
Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money

Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income...
Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

-Brilliant- defense. So glad this guy is on The Obama's side.
 
And there are people that believe that Obama is actually going to get re-elected. :lamo
 
And there are people that believe that Obama is actually going to get re-elected. :lamo

As P.T. Barum said: No one ever went broke underestimating the American public.
 
He wasn't suggesting that people actually do this, only pointing out that the idea that there is "no choice" isn't accurate.

I would have just pointed out that if you don't want insurance you can just pay the $695.
 
He wasn't suggesting that people actually do this, only pointing out that the idea that there is "no choice" isn't accurate.
I see... so, if "any" choice is available, the argument of "no" choice cannot stand?
Consider this -very- carefully...
 
Obamacare, the crown jewel of liberal arrogance

You mean that individual mandate that was supported by arrogant liberals such as John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Alan Simpson, Dick Lugar, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, and Orrin Hatch? Right up until the exact moment a Democrat coopted their idea?

Nope, I'm sure it's a totally principled objection. :roll:
 
You mean that individual mandate that was supported by arrogant liberals such as John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Alan Simpson, Dick Lugar, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, and Orrin Hatch? Right up until the exact moment a Democrat coopted their idea?
Nope, I'm sure it's a totally principled objection. :roll:
Correct me if I am wrong -- but there's more to "Obamacare" than the individual mandate - right?
Isn't it then possible to sarcastically refer to "Obamacare" as "the crown jewel of liberal arrogance", while at the same time supporting the individual mandate?
 
Correct me if I am wrong -- but there's more to "Obamacare" than the individual mandate - right?
Isn't it then possible to sarcastically refer to "Obamacare" as "the crown jewel of liberal arrogance", while at the same time supporting the individual mandate?

Yes, it's possible. I've just never heard anyone actually do that. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to Republican criticisms of the Affordable Care Act if I thought for one second that they were sincere. But it's not the fact that they're criticizing it that I find so disgusting, it's the way in which they're doing so. If someone wants to argue that the government shouldn't cover everyone, fair enough. I disagree, but that's a legitimate argument for people to decide. But that's almost never the argument that is actually used. Instead, we hear about how the individual mandate is unconstitutional (often from politicians who supported an individual mandate themselves just a couple years ago). Or we hear about how horrible it is to cut Medicare spending (often from politicians who have dedicated their entire careers to dismantling Medicare). Or we hear about how cost control mechanisms are really "death panels" (often from politicians who supposedly want to control costs). It's THAT kind of **** that disgusts me.
 
Instead, we hear about how the individual mandate is unconstitutional (often from politicians who supported an individual mandate themselves just a couple years ago).
It is possible to support things you think - or even know - are unconstitutional. That you supported it at one time doesn't mean you are wrong when you describe it as unconstitutional.

That said, I don't really care who supported it in the past - the constitutional question is legitimate.
 
The top sixth circuit advocate in Cincinnati -a dem I know well-noted that the plaintiff-appellant did well (TMLC)

I heard the arguments. The ASG was good but Sutton asked some tough questions
 
He actually said the mandate is a penalty on making a living? Can I get that on a bumper sticker? Anybody in promotional printing, here?
 
You mean that individual mandate that was supported by arrogant liberals such as John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Alan Simpson, Dick Lugar, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, and Orrin Hatch? Right up until the exact moment a Democrat coopted their idea?

Nope, I'm sure it's a totally principled objection. :roll:

AWW look at you, tying to be witty.

I said OBAMACARE, as a whole, did I pull out anyone point of it try and make a point? Nope.

And for the record, anyone that supports the Government forcing free people to buy a good or service, is wrong. And arrogant.
 
As P.T. Barum said: No one ever went broke underestimating the American public.

So, as a Libbo, you think that Americans are really that stupid?
 
He wasn't suggesting that people actually do this, only pointing out that the idea that there is "no choice" isn't accurate.

I would have just pointed out that if you don't want insurance you can just pay the $695.

Yeah, the choices are: 1) pay up and 2) be too poor to pay up. :lamo

I hope to hell that Obama runs on that platform next year.
 
This is actually a point I'd really like to understand more, it sounds really intriguing. But why is it when something actually valid and worrisome comes along, something which could actually change people's minds, people use it NOT to do that, they use it instead to generalize and insult their opposition? Honestly I think no one here has any intention of convincing anyone else of anything, their whole goal is to feed their ego by insulting and mocking others.
 
John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Alan Simpson, Dick Lugar, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, and Orrin Hatch

they were clearly not speaking on behalf of the american people

Right up until the exact moment a Democrat coopted their idea

it wasn't coopted, it was CRAMMED

Nope, I'm sure it's a totally principled objection

obamacare is a pig

not a lotta principle when it comes to pigs
 
Back
Top Bottom