Ga. governor to name special AG for health lawsuit

[hazlnut]

Ga. governor to name special AG for health lawsuit

Speaking at a news conference Thursday, the Republican governor said he plans to assemble a team of pro bono lawyers to file the suit after Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat, declined Perdue's request to sue.

"I think in this economy, in this America that we all grew up in and love, forcing people to purchase things they don't want to purchase, I think, violates a constitutional right that they have," Perdue said.

Why, you ask? Why hire a "Special AG" when you already got a perfectly good one?

Well, when the elected AG tells you:

Baker wrote in a letter to the governor Wednesday that the state doesn't have "a viable legal claim" and that he didn't want to waste state resources in a time of budget crisis.

The State does not have a viable legal claim.

So, when you don't get the answer you want, hire someone to give you that answer... With Tax-payer dollars.

Nice.:roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Of course they don't have a viable legal claim. The federal government will enforce the health insurance mandate with the federal income tax code. You certainly cannot constitutionally challenge the federal governments ability to create penalties, credits, or deductions in the federal income tax code, thus the states have no case and its all a political stunt.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Of course they don't have a viable legal claim. The federal government will enforce the health insurance mandate with the federal income tax code. You certainly cannot constitutionally challenge the federal governments ability to create penalties, credits, or deductions in the federal income tax code, thus the states have no case and its all a political stunt.

Maybe they should start challenging that, it's wrong to subvert the legal process with taxation.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Maybe they should start challenging that, it's wrong to subvert the legal process with taxation.

Tough luck with that one though. The bulk of the federal tax code consists of various behavioral inducements and penalties.

 

[Taylor]

"I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Of course they don't have a viable legal claim. The federal government will enforce the health insurance mandate with the federal income tax code. You certainly cannot constitutionally challenge the federal governments ability to create penalties, credits, or deductions in the federal income tax code, thus the states have no case and its all a political stunt.

Obama (the constitutional law professor) disagrees...

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase....

Obama: Requiring health insurance is not a tax increase - CNN.com

CNSNews.com - Obama Says Health Insurance Mandate Is Not A Tax Increase

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Tough luck with that one though. The bulk of the federal tax code consists of various behavioral inducements and penalties.

I understand but they can't keep doing the same crap over and over again, states are supposed to have a level of sovereignty.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Obama (the constitutional law professor) disagrees...

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase....

Obama: Requiring health insurance is not a tax increase - CNN.com

CNSNews.com - Obama Says Health Insurance Mandate Is Not A Tax Increase

It is not really a tax increase. It is a new tax penalty that applies to those that do not have insurance. Of course if you can't afford health insurance, there will be subsidies to help you purchase it.

From a legal perspective its a penalty added to the tax code and that is, right or wrong, perfectly constitutional.

 

[Taylor]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

From a legal perspective its a penalty added to the tax code and that is, right or wrong, perfectly constitutional.

Congress' taxation power is "perfectly constitutional" - this is a penalty for not complying with a mandate. Where in the Constitution is congress granted the power to mandate that one person must buy a service from another person?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Congress' taxation power is "perfectly constitutional" - this is a penalty for not complying with a mandate. Where in the Constitution is congress granted the power to mandate that one person must buy a service from another person?

You can face tax penalties and get tax incentives for a variety of reasons. For example, if you have kids, you get a tax deduction for them and a child tax credit. That is one way of putting it. The other way of putting it is that the government has a mandate for you to have kids, and if you don't have kids, there are potential tax penalties that can amount to several thousand dollars. Thus, as you can see the government mandates that you procreate.

How is that different than a tax penalty for not having health insurance? The fact is, from a legal perspective it isn't.

Another example of this are the tax credits for energy efficiency improvements on your home. Basically, the government is mandating that you purchase items like energy efficient windows, storm doors, and more insulation for your home, otherwise your taxes are higher than they otherwise would be.

 

[The Mark]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Congress' taxation power is "perfectly constitutional" - this is a penalty for not complying with a mandate. Where in the Constitution is congress granted the power to mandate that one person must buy a service from another person?

From reading this thread, it appears that it is unconstitutional (according to some interpretations) to force someone to purchase something, but constitutional (according to some interpretations) to fine/tax them if they don't?


If that makes any sense at all...

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't know who is going to win this one but to me it just does not seem right in this country to force someone to buy something that they don't want and if they don't to fine them.......

 

[F107HyperSabr]

Of course they don't have a viable legal claim. The federal government will enforce the health insurance mandate with the federal income tax code. You certainly cannot constitutionally challenge the federal governments ability to create penalties, credits, or deductions in the federal income tax code, thus the states have no case and its all a political stunt.

Yes you are a gentleman, scholar and a genius !! The staes have challenged the Feds since the mid 1900's and lost mANT TIMES SINCE - tOUCH dOWN FEDS, game over !!!

 

[F107HyperSabr]

Maybe they should start challenging that, it's wrong to subvert the legal process with taxation.

something may or may not be wrong but that does not make it illegal. Remember it was once legal to hold slaves and even kill them sinc e you owned them ?? It was wrong, right!!! You know it, ya betcha !!!!

 

[Taylor]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

From reading this thread, it appears that it is unconstitutional (according to some interpretations) to force someone to purchase something, but constitutional (according to some interpretations) to fine/tax them if they don't?


If that makes any sense at all...

Does that make sense to you? Why would it be illegal for congress to make you buy IBM stock, but perfectly legal for them to say "buy IBM stock or I'll make you pay me a $1000 bucks."

In other words... illegal to make you buy but legal to compel you. :no:

 

[Taylor]

something may or may not be wrong but that does not make it illegal. Remember it was once legal to hold slaves and even kill them sinc e you owned them ?? It was wrong, right!!! You know it, ya betcha !!!!

but to rememeber the last federal legality with slaves in the other time. Where if you owned and the slaves with the mandated actions by the government was not only wrong but cautions against why the federals rule!

tOUCH dOWN!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Does that make sense to you? Why would it be illegal for congress to make you buy IBM stock, but perfectly legal for them to say "buy IBM stock or I'll make you pay me a $1000 bucks."

In other words... illegal to make you buy but legal to compel you. :no:

If the government gave you a deduction for purchasing stock, then for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to purchase stock.

The government had a credit for buying a home, thus for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to purchase a home.

The government had a credit for purchasing a hybrid car, thus for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to buy a hybrid car.

Do you see how this works? Do you see how futile it will be to challenge a health insurance mandate that is enforced in the federal income tax code?

 

[F107HyperSabr]

but to rememeber the last federal legality with slaves in the other time. Where if you owned and the slaves with the mandated actions by the government was not only wrong but cautions against why the federals rule!

tOUCH dOWN!

what ????? I am going back to Cornell vs Kentucky - makes more sense !! sorry I really do not see what yoou are talking about !!

 

[The Mark]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

If the government gave you a deduction for purchasing stock, then for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to purchase stock.

The government had a credit for buying a home, thus for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to purchase a home.

The government had a credit for purchasing a hybrid car, thus for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to buy a hybrid car.

Do you see how this works? Do you see how futile it will be to challenge a health insurance mandate that is enforced in the federal income tax code?

A better question, I would think, is should it be futile?

Should the government have the power to "mandate" something by negative or positive incentives?

 

[Taylor]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

If the government gave you a deduction for purchasing stock, then for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to purchase stock.

What???

That's an incentive -- not a mandate. The governement isn't penalizing my decision to not buy stock.

The government had a credit for buying a home, thus for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to purchase a home.

The government had a credit for purchasing a hybrid car, thus for all intents and purposes, that is a federal mandate to buy a hybrid car.

Do you see how this works? Do you see how futile it will be to challenge a health insurance mandate that is enforced in the federal income tax code?

All incentives. The government does not force us to buy homes or hybrids.

Nobody would be angry if the government were giving us a credit for buying insurance. That was the centerpiece of McCain's healthcare plan for pete's sake!

 

[Taylor]

what ?????

Haha - sorry that's how I felt after reading your posts, so I replied with a bunch of gobbledy-gook. My humor doesn't always make sense, but it was all in jest!

(go Kentucky, btw!)

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

What???

All incentives. The government does not force us to buy homes or hybrids.

Nobody would be angry if the government were giving us a credit for buying insurance. That was the centerpiece of McCain's healthcare plan for pete's sake!

You are arguing semantics. You have an incentive to purchase health insurance if you don't already have it. The incentive is that starting in 2016, your income taxes will be lower if you have health insurance than they would be if you don't have insurance. There will be no fines, no jail time, the government can't even put a lien on you for not paying that tax penalty. For all intents and purposes, its just another incentive in the tax code. Now, you might think that is pretty crappy, but the question of the thread is whether or not it is constitutional, and the fact is it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to enforce it through the income tax code.

Sorry, but thats just how the world works.

By the way, the federal government will subsidize your insurance if you don't have it and your household earn's less than 66k a year. They will also provide 500 billion in tax credits to small businesses to help them provide their employees insurance.

 

[Taylor]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

You are arguing semantics.

I'm a bit stunned you don't see the distinction.

Let me put it this way. If it's "semantics" do you think it perfectly fair for the government to say, "for every year you don't buy a hybrid car, you owe us $1000"

Under Bush's tax law, there was a tax incentive that allowed you to write off the entire purchase of a Hummer. Would it have been the same thing for him to have said... buy a Hummer this year, or you owe us $50,000.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

I'm a bit stunned you don't see the distinction.

Let me put it this way. If it's "semantics" do you think it perfectly fair for the government to say, "for every year you don't buy a hybrid car, you owe us $1000"

Under Bush's tax law, there was a tax incentive that allowed you to write off the entire purchase of a Hummer. Would it have been the same thing for him to have said... buy a Hummer this year, or you owe us $50,000.

If the tax incentive to purchase a Hummer was worth 50k, then for all intents and purposes not buying a Hummer would result in your paying the federal government 50k more that year in taxes than you otherwise would have.

Is it fair? Well that is certainly arguable. Is it just? That is arguable as well. Is it constitutional? Yes it is.

If the government would have imposed a fine for not purchasing health insurance, then that would probably be constitutionally challenged. Since the government is enforcing the mandate through the tax code, it is constitutional.

 

[Taylor]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

If the tax incentive to purchase a Hummer was worth 50k, then for all intents and purposes not buying a Hummer would result in your paying the federal government 50k more that year in taxes than you otherwise would have.

Is it fair? Well that is certainly arguable. Is it just? That is arguable as well. Is it constitutional? Yes it is.

What????? You're of the mind that it's consititutional for the government to charge citizens $50k a year for not buying a Hummer??

Holy jeebees - no wonder crappy legislation like this gets passed.

Question:
When you get your Sunday paper, do you view the coupon section as a series of product purchase mandates that are costing you money if you don't use them? :3oops:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

What????? You're of the mind that it's consititutional for the government to charge citizens $50k a year for not buying a Hummer??

Holy jeebees - no wonder crappy legislation like this gets passed.

If you owed 60k in federal income taxes, and you bought a hummer, and that hummer resulted in a 50k tax incentive, then your taxes would then be 10k.

If you chose not to buy a hummer, then your taxes would be 60k. Thus not buying a hummer cost you 50k.

Now, whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant. The question is whether it is constitutional or not.

Question:
When you get your Sunday paper, do you view the coupon section as a series of product purchase mandates that are costing you money if you don't use them? :3oops:

Apples and oranges. The grocery store does not automatically take a portion of my income. If it did, and those coupons resulted in a reduction in what they took from me, then for all intents and purposes, there would be a mandate that I purchase the products those coupons were for, and a financial penalty if I chose not to.

Now we can go round and round with you coming up with more scenarios, but it doesn't change anything. Once again, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to provide virtually any incentive / penalty it chooses to through the federal income tax code. Those that wrote the healthcare bill are not stupid, they are lawyers, they knew that it was perfectly legal to enforce a mandate through the tax code and that is why they are enforcing it with the tax code.