Thread: Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

A point that doesn't take the whole situation into consideration.

Sure it does because then the constitutionality of the law hinges not on the mandate but the punishment. since the court has already said that a tax credit is ok, then a fine, in the form of a tax increase is fine as well l.

Originally Posted by xpiher

Sure it does because then the constitutionality of the law hinges not on the mandate but the punishment. since the court has already said that a tax credit is ok, then a fine, in the form of a tax increase is fine as well l.

The mandate is precisely why the whole healthcare law went to SCOTUS. It wasn't the fine that brought it before SCOTUS. It was the mandate to buy from private companies that did that.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

The mandate is precisely why the whole healthcare law went to SCOTUS. It wasn't the fine that brought it before SCOTUS. It was the mandate to buy from private companies that did

You didn't get my point. My point was the court already said that a tax credit for buying insurance to try to get people to but insurance is constitutional. Afine for not buying insurance is the same thing if that's the only punishment

Originally Posted by Neal N. Bloeme

It's either invisible or they're hiding one from an alternative universe somewhere. I only know of one US Constitution.

Why would they hide it from an alternative Universe? Do the alternative Democrats want to take it from us?

Originally Posted by xpiher

You didn't get my point. My point was the court already said that a tax credit for buying insurance to try to get people to but insurance is constitutional. Afine for not buying insurance is the same thing if that's the only punishment

A fine is not the same as a credit.

A tax credit is giving some money back that they ordinarily wouldn't have gotten back to whoever has (in this case) health insurance. Basically they are getting taxed less for having health insurance. Which is perfectly acceptable because that does not harm the individual, it only harms the government.

A tax fine is taking money away because they don't have (in this case) health insurance. Which does harm the individual and not the governmnet.

And yes that was discussed in the arguments that were presented before SCOTUS. IIRC it is ok for the government to harm itself but it is not ok for the government to harm the individual.

Originally Posted by xpiher

You didn't get my point. My point was the court already said that a tax credit for buying insurance to try to get people to but insurance is constitutional. Afine for not buying insurance is the same thing if that's the only punishment

Not only is it not the same thing, it involves totally separate powers under the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

A fine is not the same as a credit.

A tax credit is giving some money back that they ordinarily wouldn't have gotten back to whoever has (in this case) health insurance. Basically they are getting taxed less for having health insurance. Which is perfectly acceptable because that does not harm the individual, it only harms the government.

A tax fine is taking money away because they don't have (in this case) health insurance. Which does harm the individual and not the governmnet.

And yes that was discussed in the arguments that were presented before SCOTUS. IIRC it is ok for the government to harm itself but it is not ok for the government to harm the individual.

there isn't any operative difference IMO, and the court could very well rule that its the same but only in regards to this case. Either way the court rules, it is likely this is how the eventual fix will be implemented.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Not only is it not the same thing, it involves totally separate powers under the Constitution.

it may be a different power, but the power to tax is the one being used by the gov in regards to the mandate.

I should note I don't support Congress-care. I supported a public option

Originally Posted by xpiher

there isn't any operative difference IMO, and the court could very well rule that its the same but only in regards to this case. Either way the court rules, it is likely this is how the eventual fix will be implemented.

There is a huge "operative" difference. One harms only the individual, the other harms only the government.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

There is a huge "operative" difference. One harms only the individual, the other harms only the government.

The point is the affect is the same. Get health insurance pay less in taxes.

this is when I say I disagree and leave the debate at that

Originally Posted by xpiher

it may be a different power, but the power to tax is the one being used by the gov in regards to the mandate.

'Fraid not. It's the commerce clause, baby.