Thanks DDay.

Thank God for the good judge in FLA. Anybody, anywhere, who can invalidate that damn mandate is a hero in my book. Sort of like Josef Stalin; he was a murderous sociopath, but against Hitler he was our murderous sociopath.

“Handpicked judge?”

“Genuine issues,” and material facts exists? Constitutional issues?

Does the government have a right to levy a tax on you, because you have a life?
Does the government have the right to compel you under fear of a punitive financial penalty, to enter into contract with “health insurance corporations,” because you exist, and government cannot control tax exempt or for profit, state based corporation,” aka, cost?

Does the government have the right to invade the “privacy” of “citizens,” because Congress cannot control the behavior of monopolized state based health insurance corporations?

Is the “Legitimate government interest,” argument a rouse which effectively undermines constitutional protection designed to protect individuals from government-corporation collusion, as applied to healthcare reform?

Due process protections and corporations win!

I suppose if you cannot own people as property, all you have to do is legislate them into servitude. Healthcare reform which perpetuates the employer based and monopolized state based health insurance corporate networks, is not good for the worker, consumer, patient or taxpayer. It is not healthcare reform! Yet we waste millions of dollars a day, inefficiencies as a society, and all we can do is further enslave a society?

Oil was up to $84.12 settled to $82.69. Getting us primed, to get pumped again!

We all knew the challenge to the mandate was coming, but I didn’t see the problem with the Medicaid expansion.

State participation in Medicaid is voluntary, although all states have participated since the 1980′s. If states were to pull out of Medicaid…

I don’t even want to think about it. It would be a disaster. But among other things it would make health reform almost impossible to administer.

So we shouldn’t pay any taxes at all?

Does the government have a right to levy a tax on you, because you have a life?

Yes its called income tax you live you must work.

Does the government have the right to compel you under fear of a punitive financial penalty, to enter into contract with “health insurance corporations,

Given the way insurance companies provide substandard care and that National Healthcare and drug price controls somethings other countries do and give their people better cheaper care well I’m not sure the government can say society has a compelling interest.
I think an argument could be made that this is corporate welfare but is this argument being made?
Motorcycle helmet laws are a compelling interest to society, seat belt laws are another.
But since there are alternatives that are better and cheaper forcing Americans to wear substandard helmets and seat belts that break would I’m sure not be legal.

Does the government have the right to invade the “privacy” of “citizens,” because Congress cannot control the behavior of monopolized state based health insurance corporations?

Health insurance companies already do this are you saying Corporations have more rights than the government?

“The Obama administration, aiming to encourage health insurance companies to offer child-only policies, said Wednesday that they could charge higher premiums for coverage of children with serious medical problems, if state law allowed it.

Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business, stopped issuing new child-only policies. They said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the new health care law would allow families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill and were headed to the hospital.

In September, the administration said that insurers could establish open-enrollment periods — for example, one month a year — during which they would accept all children.

Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many do”

Best of luck and godspeed Attorney General Bill McCollum!

Someone has undoubtedly done some sound work on the differences between mandates and taxes. At first blush, it occurs to me that mandates are a way of avoiding all the difficult questions that get asked when the issue is direct taxation, leaving the pols off the hook.

As is usual for me, I made a pest of myself in a D.C. economists meeting in the 90s. Guest at cocktail hour was Senator Deminici. I posited: one thing I’ve learned from these meeting is how large the role of mandates has become in USG policy. So my Q for you is: Have you ever advocated mandates in any legislation. He was furious with me and answered: I knew I should never have called on you. Turned out, I didn’t know he had a child with emotional disorders, so he got legislation passed that mandated that private medical insurance should cover such problems as well as physical ones. Nothing wrong with that equivalency, per se, but if medical expenses were paid for thru some sort of tax plan instead of being imposed on private system thru mandates, the process would have been clearer, and the debate more transparent, rather than being ‘imposed’ by USG on private corps.

If you are for National Healthcare and drug price controls fine. If you don’t want to be taxed to get second rate American healthcare and instead want what France, Canada, Japan get also fine nobody should settle for second best.
If you just hate any form of National Healthcare also fine Darwin laughs as immigrants without healthcare except for emergency rooms live longer than Whites many of whom have healthcare.

Thank God for the good judge in FLA. Anybody, anywhere, who can invalidate that damn mandate is a hero in my book.

If it was a individual mandate for the public option or single payer provided by our majority elected government I am all for it. We have a majority say every two years on how much I should pay and it will be enforced by my elected representative in the congress. If mandates go high we can request our representative to look into it every two years or vote in a representative who will fix it for the majority of us.

For a for-profit private corporation which enjoys anti-trust exemption, does not know how it comes up with premium numbers, whose only duty is to maximize shareholder profits I am totally against Individual Mandates. If things get out of control we can always vote in representatives who will fix it every two years.

If Pres. Jefferson was present today he would have been the first one to denounce it and fight for its removal. One just have to read Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights or Constitution to get gist of his views.

It will set a dangerous precedent for other private corporations to follow if unrepealed and it will ultimately destroy Americas competativeness and make our country unlivable with every major private corporation boards having hands in our pockets whether we can afford it or not. Judiciary repealing Individual Mandates is the best thing for Democrats since if Republicans do it they will remind Americans about it for a long time.

You misunderstand the question. The question was not “Can they tax me if I earn income?” It was, “Can they tax me because I live?”

Aside from all that, having a mandate with no public option is criminal.

So, more power to the judge to put it to sleep.

Nearly 4M people could pay without health coverage April 22, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 4 million Americans — the vast majority of them middle class — will have to pay a penalty if they don’t get insurance when President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law kicks in, according to congressional estimates released Thursday.

The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report.

Most of the people paying the fine will be middle class as Obama’s comprehensive law is phased in over the next few years. In his 2008 campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.

Republicans have criticized the requirement that Americans get coverage, even though the idea was originally proposed by the GOP in the 1990s and is part of the Massachusetts health care plan signed into law in 2006 by then Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican. Attorneys general in more than a dozen states are working to challenge it in federal court as unconstitutional.

“The individual mandate tax will fall hardest on Americans who can least afford to pay it, many of whom were promised subsidies by the Democrats and who the president has promised would not pay higher taxes,” said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said while Obama and congressional Democrats celebrate the benefits of the law, they have an obligation to acknowledge the flip side. “There’s a price for not participating, and people will pay it,” Grassley said.

Democrats argue that the requirement and the penalties are a necessary part of a massive overhaul designed to expand coverage to millions who now lack it. They point out that getting more Americans, especially young and healthy people, in the insurance pool will reduce costs for others and could lower premiums.

“The new law will make health insurance affordable for everyone and CBO’s analysis confirms that the vast majority of uninsured Americans will find health care affordable and choose to participate,” said White House spokesman Nick Papas.

Americans who don’t get qualified health insurance will be required to pay penalties starting in 2014, unless they are exempt because of low income, religious beliefs, or because they are members of American Indian tribes. The penalties will be fully phased in by 2016.

About 21 million nonelderly residents will be uninsured in 2016, according to projections by the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Most of those people will be exempt from the penalties.

Under the new law, the penalties will be phased in starting in 2014. By 2016, those who must get insurance but don’t will be fined $695 or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.

After 2016, the penalties will be increased by annual cost-of-living adjustments. People will not be required to get coverage if the cheapest plan available costs more than 8 percent of their income.
The penalties will be collected by the Internal Revenue Service through tax returns. However, the IRS will not have the authority to bring criminal charges or file liens against those who don’t pay.
About 3 million of those required to pay fines in 2016 will have incomes below $59,000 for individuals and $120,000 for families of four, according to the CBO projections. The other 900,000 people who must pay the fine will have higher incomes.

The government will collect about $4 billion a year in fines from 2017 through 2019, according to the report.

It’s funny, but once the mandate got into the courts, the administration started calling it a “tax.” As well they should, that’s the ONLY way it is possible to hold constitutional muster. IMO it still doesn’t, but others smarter than I say it does.

But by calling it a tax, they’ve admitted they broke one of their biggest campaign promises. Not to raise taxes on the middle class. This hits the middle class harder than anyone.

**HR 3590: Penalty–
(D) INDEXING OF AMOUNT- In the case of any calendar year beginning after 2016, the applicable dollar amount shall be equal to $750, increased by an amount equal to–
`(i) $750, multiplied by `(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2015′ for `calendar year 1992′ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

**The cost of an individual medical insurance policy in 2016 — $15,200

**I’m a thirty-something in 2016. What shall I do?
Pay $750+ penalty for not buying a policy I don’t need
or pay $15,200 for a policy I don’t need?
Duh.

“Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. questioned Joint Committee on Taxation chief of staff Thomas Barthold — the top professional staffer on the joint House-Senate panel that advises both chambers on tax legislation — about what penalties would be assessed. Barthold told him that they would be “penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” Ensign asked for “the maximum penalty” for a “willful” — that is, intentional — violation. Is it “possible that somebody could go to jail over this?” Ensign asked. Barthold answered, “Could be criminal, yes, if it were considered an attempt to defraud.”

“Sen. Ensign then received a handwritten note from Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it – Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.” — Politico, Sep 25, 2009

“If you ignore this mandate and don’t get health insurance, you’ll have to pay a tax penalty to the federal government, beginning in 2014. This fine starts fairly small, but by the time it is fully phased in, in 2016, it is substantial. An insurance-less person would have to pony up whichever is greater: $695 for each uninsured family member, up to a maximum of $2,085; or 2.5 percent of household income. There are exceptions. Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison.” –CS Monitor, Mar 19, 2010

Next year a monthly tithe to WalMart.

What makes the IM unconstitutional is the absence of the public option. What makes it really dangerous is the precedent, something no one seems to be talking about.

If it stands, this will be the most pernicious precedent since corporate personhood!

Not only does it turn corporate boards into taxing entities (without representation from the people), but it will never be limited to health care. If this kind of mandate is legal, it is legal. And there will be other justifications for such mandates in the future.

HR 3590
SUPREME COURT RULING- In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533 (1944)), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.

SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) IN GENERAL- The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the `requirement’) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).
(2) EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE- The effects described in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.

If it stands, this will be the most pernicious precedent since corporate personhood!

Exactly that is the troubling part.

If companies see this individual mandate is passed then they have no incentive to compete to get our business.

Only two things they will look into is how to get our congress to introduce or increase mandates citing this a precedent and how to increase effectiveness of the IRS to get dollars out of our pocket which we are saving to take care of personal responsibilities.

We as consumers in that situation have no recourse. It will be a disgusting scenario where the corporate boards will be requesting their CEOs to increase profits by lobbying congress and increasing effectiveness of the IRS. No wonder solid deep blue seat of Sen. Kennedy was lost because the residents already had a preview of what was in store when the public option was dropped and individual mandates was kept.

BTW President Thomas Jefferson would have never agreed to individual mandates of any sort for corporations. Listing two quotes verbatim applicable to this topic.

The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.

To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude

Republicans too had great Presidents thinking in the similar vein. Listing a quote from President Theodore Roosevelt verbatim.

To befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

Faster these individual mandates for private corporations are dropped better it will be for USA in my opinion.

I have been bringing up this issue – the precedent being established – in various leftist forums since the mandate became an issue; long before the HC corporate protection act was passed – because I am a leftist. To me, single payer is a centrist compromise; I favor a National Health system.

The most common reaction is … crickets.

At the Orange Satan, of course, any mention of unconstitutionality re this bill is the mark of a wingnut troll. Mostly, though, such comments are simply ignored.

I want to congratulate you, sir or madam, for providing the first real response I have ever gotten; I had almost given up hope. Not only that, it is an excellent response. You obviously “get it”. I only wish more people did.

I only wish more people did.

More people get it than we know. So far I have not met anybody who likes these mandates for private corporations. BTW Ground reality is a party which swept to power on huge popular support just two years back is now trying to salvage a respectable showing just for minority position to other party which created the huge mess last decade shows how deeply unpopular these individual mandates are. This is the situation even when the mandates have not yet become active.

Even prominent bloggers here at FDL conceded the HCR bill has become an albatross around the Democratic necks.

Sometimes I have a hard time believing these mandates came from a party who founder was Pres. Thomas Jefferson who said quoting verbatim

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

If you ignore this mandate and don’t get health insurance, you’ll have to pay a tax penalty to the federal government, beginning in 2014… Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison.” –CS Monitor, Mar 19, 2010.

Exempting illegal immigrants from the mandate and the tax penalty, that’s kind of an insane thing for a politician to vote for.

Exempting illegal immigrants from the mandate and the tax penalty, that’s kind of an insane thing for a politician to vote for.

Yes, except that all politicians are sociopaths, and therefore suffering under a form of insanity.