Obama: Health insurance mandate no tax increase

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don't would not amount to a backhanded tax increase.

"I absolutely reject that notion," the president said. Blanketing most of the Sunday TV news shows, Obama defended his proposed health care overhaul, including a key point of the various health care bills on Capitol Hill: mandating that people get health insurance to share the cost burden fairly among all. Those who failed to get coverage would face financial penalties.

Obama said other elements of the plan would make insurance affordable for people, from a new comparison-shopping "exchange" to tax credits.

Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, Obama told ABC's "This Week."

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1457113.html

[jefferson_dem]

1. Of course, a mandate is not a tax increase.

But it doesn't matter. Steph pushed this non-issue to AP and now it's a point of discussion.

[dflprincess]

39. Right, and the "health impact fee" Pawlenty got added to cigarettes

in Minnesota was not an increase in the state tobacco tax. That's how Timmy the Tool avoided breaking his "no new taxes" pledge.

[hansberrym]

47. If it is not a tax, then what is it? And what is the constitutional basis?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html

If not justified by the taxing power, as was SS, how does the President justify the government's actions?

[Jeep789]

2. Didn't he campaign against Mandatory Insurance?

I feel betrayed.

[laconicsax]

22. Yes.

[and-justice-for-all]

3. If they fucking fine me for something I ca not afford in the first place..

I AM GOING TO FUCKING EXPLODE!!

Give me a public option or single payer and I would not have to worry about being fined.

[stray cat]

4. How do you pay for health care now?

[and-justice-for-all]

5. At the moment I have a job...

which ends next month.

[Hansel]

46. Then your insurance would be government subsidized

[and-justice-for-all]

64. I do not want to be subsidized, I want Single Payer or Public Option..nt

[Trillo]

19. It's probably not strictly "a tax" if the expenditure goes to a private insurance company.

But if there's a mandate to purchase private insurance, and one can be fined for not purchasing it, the difference between a tax and a mandated purchase becomes blurred past the point of relevant distinction. Both are authoritarian ways of forcibly removing your money that you earned by your labor from your pocket. Oh, right, there will be a choice of XX number of health insurance "plans" you can choose from. See, you have plenty of choice.

But what about the choice of saying "No" to "profit"? Will a choice be offered under mandate that still will pay for healthcare and won't give one penny of "profit" to a middleperson?

The simplest way to deal with this issue is to expand medicare to all.

I view this latest statement from the president as an indication that there will be no public plan, because, if there were a robust one such as Medicare For All, supplied by the government (which is supposed to be all of us together), there'd be no "profit", just whatever expenses are involved in running the department, such as salaries (that would probably be related to Grade-Level such as the GS system).

No profit for mansions, No profit for private jets, No profit for $500 per plate dinners, etc.

[dkf]

20. Where will a fine go to I wonder?

If it goes to the Federal Government then isn't it a tax?

[Igel]

44. Yeah.

I've even seen a CBO estimate on the amount of additional revenue--in the billions of dollars--that would be collected by the non-tax. It's one of the numbers used to help reduce the addition to the deficit. But additional revenue from the population isn't a tax, nor is an unfunded mandate.

Lawyers. They parse words and split hairs in a way that's fine when you know that you're judged an adversary so language is being manipulated to manipulate you--i.e., the courtroom--but is usually judged deceitful when it violates the norms of normal, daily communication. Not a healthy sign.

It's the old deceiving-through-truth-telling technique. "Hey, Joe, you have a five I could borrow for lunch?" "No, Jim, I don't." Then, at lunch, Joe pulls a $10 bill and $10 in ones out of his wallet. But, sure enough, he didn't have a $5 bill so he wasn't lying.

So, no, it isn't a tax. It's a fine. It's a mandate. Moreover, it's a just mandate because it's the government telling you to spend your money on something that the government, in order to expand the range of choice you have, says it's unacceptable to not have.

[earth mom]

6. I wonder what cute little name they will give to this latest rip off of the American people?

[msongs]

8. the repubs already have a name for it.......though not accurate probably nt

[salguine]

29. I think it will probably be something like,

"The Great Beautiful Healthy Medicine Star Spangled Eagle Flag Health Act of 2009."

[Demeter]

33. I Think It's "Spread- Eagle"

rather like assuming the position.

[dkf]

7. Without a public option the President becomes a shill for the insurance industry.

Yikes.

[IndianaGreen]

+1 rec

that's exactly the issue, without a public option this is a bonanza to Big Insurer.

[The abyss]

28. Exactly!

And that is what this was about all along.

There never was any intent to provide a proper universal health care option to the American people. This was from the beginning a “sell”.

[Iowa]

13. Yep. This is sell-out number ____ (I've lost count).

[Mithreal]

9. If the President wants to mandate something

he should mandate all Congress be enrolled in the public option.

No public option in the bill, then no health care for Congress.

[PSPS]

10. That would just be a charade

Everyone in congress is a millionaire and could manage even with no insurance at all.

[Iowa]

16. It depends...

It depends on how many millions they have. Costs are so high that even your standard, run-of-the-mill millionaire with 1 to 2 million could be wiped out very easily without coverage.

[Mithreal]

21. Then it wouldn't hurt would it. The Republicans put forward

an amendment for just such a thing and Dems voted it down. Must be more than a charade, no?

[Thothmes]

58. The President does not have that authority.

[Mithreal]

59. Authority, no. Influence with the American people and their Reps, yes.

Disagree?

[Thothmes]

60. We will soon see how much influence the President

has over the people's representatives.

[Mithreal]

62. True. nt

[IndianaGreen]

11. Tell that to the people that have to choose between basic necessities and insurance premium

This will not sell in Peoria!

[Old Codger]

12. No different

A rose by any other name is till a rose.. same goes for a levee of any sort if it is not optional it is still a tax.. He can call anything he wants.. it is and always will be a type of tax..

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Forced payments to private industry is far worse than a tax

It is a shakedown. This is a kleptocracy.

[PSPS]

15. The "mandate" is understandable

The way pooled-risk works, which is how health insurance used to be designed, the more people who are in the pool, the lower the cost for everyone. So, of course, there must be a "mandate" that everyone be insured.

The problem here is that people are being compelled to "pick a private company" meaning that they will be compelled to contribute to the criminal enterprise that is the profit-making private health insurance industry.

The way more enlightened countries do it, people are "compelled" to enroll merely by being born and paying taxes because health care is paid for by the government from the same pool -- the entire population.

There isn't enough lipstick in the world to make this pig that's being promoted attractive.

[Bigmack]

17. When is somebody gonna...

have the balls to tell the American people about taxes.

Don't want to pay for fire protection? Fine, but your insurance rates will go up more than the fire protection tax.

If a health plan increases my taxes $3K a year, but reduces my medical expenses by $4K... it's a tax increase, alright, but it saves me money.

Where's the fucking outrage about paying the insurance mobsters more and more?

[christx30]

35. What happens

if you can't afford insurance, there is no public option, and you can't afford the fine? What happens if you just tell them to take their fine and shove it up their asses?
That's the position I will find myself in. I usually make about $34 more than my rent every month. Any new item on my monthly budget is going to kill my family. Wife and 2 kids. And I am either going to have to give up luxuries like electricity and store bought food, or I am going to have to tell them that if they want the fine, they are going to have to come take it from me.

[Bigmack]

38. I'm talking about paying for ...

the public option. Obama - and everyone else - is talking about making it "budget neutral".

Why?

[FBaggins]

43. When the President doesn't run screaming from labels.

The problem is that he's scared of the Mondale mistake.

"Reagan will raise your taxes, so will I. He won't tell you... I just did"

Rather than say "this will cost some people more money but it's worth it and I'll tell you why" he wants to stick to a seeming impossibility. It's too easy to sell the opposing position.

[twitomy]

18. Pretty lame defense in comparing it to auto insurance

Driving is a privilige that we can choose not to do, hence we dont need to buy auto insurance.

Sound like he was trying to explain what the definition of "is" is.

This mandate is worse than a tax...Its a tax collected buy govt and handed directly over to Big Insurance. Deplorable!

[theFrankFactor]

23. Barack Obama Jumped the Shark Starting With His Cabinet Picks - He's a Corporate Ass Kisser - Truth

[dreadnought54321]

24. economic fascism

this is unconstitutional. And I want everyone on here to read this who says costs are high because people dont pay their fair share. Why the fuck in Mass. where people are mandated to pay for for-profit insurance have costs gone UP? Bullshit lie. Costs are high because we have for-profit insurance and for-profit hospital systems. And now we are going to be forced to pay for someone's profit for a defective product. And supported by a so-called Democratic President. Unbelievable.

[Autumn]

25. Good rant

Welcome to DU.

[dreadnought54321]

26. thanks

Im just sick of more of the same. I would have expected these type of ideas from Republicans, not Democrats. It goes to show who really is in charge. This is like someone stomping on your foot and you say stop. Then the person stops and instead now punches you in the head. Some reform.

[Autumn]

27. Unfortunately a lot of our

so called "Democrats" are really republican light.

[theFrankFactor]

32. I agree. Welcome to the Fray!

[rayofreason]

37. Actually it is constitutional..

...but you make an excellent point about costs in Mass.

[Igel]

45. Ah, but there are two lines of reasoning on why

it's to be taken as constitutional.

The first? That this would be a tax imposed under Congress' plenary taxing authority.

Since Obama has said that's false--in other words, it's not constitutional under that approach, *or* the former constitutional law professor hasn't a clue what he's saying, *or* he knows he's saying something false in order for us to believe it's true--that leaves the second. Interstate commerce. (Now, since interstate insurance is prohibited, one wonders how you can regulate what exists when what can properly and most obviously be regulated is already banned?)

[rayofreason]

55. I said it was constitutional...

...not that Obama was not lying about it.

Regarding whether the SCOTUS would invalidate the purchase requirement as an overreach of the commerce clause, I think that the following argument laid out here

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_2...

is correct.

[christx30]

52. The government

does not have the right to force you to buy anything.
Plus there is the violation of everyone's right to privacy. How will they know who is complying and who is not unless they have detailed files on who has what policy. There are certain things that are none of their business knowing what health plan I have, let alone telling me that I have to have something at all. And what about people, like me, who are barely making it? I can't afford to purchase a health plan, let alone pay the fine for not doing it. What will happen to me? Jail? The government coming in and taking what little I do have?
How does that help anyone to have a lot more people in jail purely for being too broke to afford another huge item on their monthly budgets.
Sorry kids... looks like we're not going to able to afford food or electricity this month. Obama wants to help us. Whether we want him too or not.
I think my voting for him was a mistake. Shouldn't have bothered.

[rayofreason]

57. Actually, they do and will.

And the plan now is to have all this information filter through the IRS, which will be the enforcer.

What could go wrong? It is not like the IRS has ever been used for political purposes.......

And your personal and confidential records will be absolutely safe.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en...

[christx30]

67. So...

If I understand it... The insurance companies have detailed files on what medical treatments we have. they have to, otherwise, they couldn't do what they do. Right? I know when I had insurance, I got a list every year of all of the prescription drugs I took over the year.
So now all of that information will be given to the government, specifically, the IRS.
So every surgery you have... every drug you take. Your anti-retroviral drugs, ect. Your entire medical history will be on file at the IRS. Are tax auditors bound by HIPPA?
And people that are happy when the IRS goes after the rich people, it's your turn next. Enjoy your jail time.

[christx30]

42. Costs are also high

because of mandated coverages. I shouldn't have to pay for drug or alcohol rehabilitation in my coverage (I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs), or prenatal care (I'm male). But the state of Texas mandates it, so it's in there, and I have to pay for it.
If they let people pick and choose which coverages they want/need, it would be a lot cheaper for everyone.

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. Which specific provision of the Constitution is this in violation of?

[rhett o rick]

73. Not surprised that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution. Take a class. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

30. K&R

[angrychair]

31. I'm not a supporter of the Backus bill

But I think we need to give this thing time to work itself out. I think to scream "the sky is falling!" at this point may be to soon. As written and as currently interpreted, the bill is a nightmare scenario, of that there is no doubt. On the other hand, there is still a LONG road ahead of the Senate bill and things could be changed. There is no reason at this point NOT to take the president at his word that it is not his intent nor will it be the intent of any bill to make things harder for people. Logically speaking, this is supposed to help, not hurt, the whole situation. Has ANYONE heard a detailed explanation from Backus or anyone else on his bill? Does he explain how the finer points are really supposed to work? I think we should all start being a little less like reactionary freepers and act a little more like level-headed and thoughtful progressives.

[ConcernedCanuk]

34. Our taxes pay our health plan - it's a deduction on our paychecks.

.
.
.

Obama is off his nut saying make it "affordable".

What about people on welfare, or on no assistance at all?

In Canada, those making 100's of thousands a dollars a year are entitled to the same health-care as the unemployed, those on social assistance, and the homeless.

Why is the USA so resistant to adopting a similar system as Canada?

I know why . . .

BIG PHARMA - - -

Too many politicians getting big donations(illegal in Canada) from the Pharmaceutical Complex.

Same problem y'all got with your political warrior syndrome . .

Too many politicians getting their support from the Military Industrial Complex.

Can't bite the hand that feeds ya you know . . .

(sigh)

[dflprincess]

40. Not just pharma here but also the for profit health insurance companies

like United Health Group, Cigna, Aetna etc. who are also making large donations (with our premiums) to keep their gravy train going.

[ProudDad]

56. You're partly right

It's the corporations being considered de-facto persons...

That's the sick fiction that's fucked up this country and rendered its feeble attempts at democracy under an undemocratic structure moot...

This is a corporatocracy. Managed, bought, sold and run by the most evil influence ever devised by man to bring upon humans (and other large air-breathing mammals) their final destruction...

It's an industrial growth, capitalist system that cannot be sustainable on a finite Earth that's the basic evil...

Coupled with demented and self-serving pseudo-decisions in courts that "legally" endow corporations with "human rights"...

So, yeah, Big PhRMA is symptomatic of the dead end corporate capitalist fascist state that is the USAmerikan Empire...

To whit; we're screwed...

[rayofreason]

36. Many young people...

...go without insurance when they are starting to live independent lives. I really didn't think much about it until my late 20s.

This will hit young folks the hardest. I bet that many will say "It is cheaper to pay the fine than get insurance" and do just that.

[Romulox]

41. It's only "not a tax increase" because the money is being siphoned off to private interests...

Hardly an argument in favor...

[hansberrym]

48. If it is not a tax, then what is it? And what is the constitutional basis?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/supreme1.html

If not justified by the taxing power, as was SS, how does the President justify the government's actions?

[Uncle Joe]

53. It's a government endorsed shakedown, sort of like organized crime.

You will buy from this business; not because they have a good or best product but as a means for them to profit and recycle the money to the syndicate.

This all comes full circle, you pay premiums to for profit "health" insurance corporations, which feed the corporate media and the people's supposed representatives with precious health care dollars.

[rayofreason]

63. In other words...

...a tax.

[Uncle Joe]

69. No, it's worse than a tax, a tax works to support government services

which in turn work or should work on behalf of the nation/people. That would be straightforward and honest with no profit motive.

This fine works to support a corrupted, dysfunctional for profit industry; having nothing to do with health care, indeed an industry that by it's nature can only damage health care, leeching monies away while driving costs up in pursuit of profit. Furthermore, this same industry in turn funnels those precious health care dollars to needless ads and commercials supporting a compliant corporate media and legalized bribes or lobby money to "We the People's" government; influencing many of them to abandon representing the nation/peoples' best interests in favor of towing the corporate supremacist line.

Tax rates on the wealthiest Americans have dropped dramatically since the 60s, but they still act like they're getting taxed to death and the result is the lower/upper, middle and lower income class continually get screwed by the government in favor of a small percentage of oligarchs and carcinogenic industries.

Clearly the best, most logical and moral answer was Medicare for every American from the cradle to the grave this of course was never given serious consideration by the compromised political "leaders" and institutions, aka; corporate media. Short of that a strong public option; which if needed, a tax increase on the wealthiest to support it.

[humbled_opinion]

49. I am very Upset.

People forced to purchase insurance. What country is this? What Party is in charge? I cannot and will not support this in fact I will work hard to defeat it. What is Obama thinking? How hard can this possibly be you can't mandate insurance without having a single payer plan.

If you want to mandate something then you take a STAND once and for all and you force Everyone onto a single payer and then you use the Medicare tax that you already take out of our paychecks and your subsidize it with Mandatory Employer contirbutions and you cover everyone.

You also force doctors to take less pay and make all the other reforms necessary to bring the costs down.

But you cannot place this BURDEN on the backs of the people that elected you. It is unconstitutional to mandate that I have to participate in any form of insurance coverage so The Baucus bill is a FAILURE and you would be wise to stay far away from endorsing it.

ENOUGH !!

[fasttense]

50. Hell will freeze over before I pay a private insurance company

for NOT providing me health care. So, start taxing er.... fining me now. I am not now, and not ever going to pay a private insurance theft corporation for not providing health care services.

[ProudDad]

54. Health insurance IS NOT Health Care!!!

That's what's lost in this faux-argument.

Obama is very careful to not let this little cat out of the bag -- he ain't doin' SHIT about Universal Health Care...

Private insurance companies don't GIVE A SHIT about Health Care!!!

All we have to do is copy the model from France (my personal favorite), Italy, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Monaco, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Colombia, Sweden, Cyprus, Germany, Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, Israel, Morocco, Canada, Finland, Australia, Chile, Denmark, Dominica or
Costa Rica, CUT most everyone's health care expense and we'd get better results...

Nearly all of those have a few major things in common:

1) Universal Coverage for all persons
2) "Insurance companies" must be NON-PROFIT (if any are allowed in the system)
3) Tight Control over drug costs due to "single source" leverage
4) Tight Control over medical equipment costs
5) Recognition that Health Care is a human right...not a commodity.

[rmp yellow]

61. +1 nt

[and-justice-for-all]

65. I think there should be slight tax increase...

even though Obama says the money is there, in failing programs.

[goclark]

68. I agree, if a person makes say $50,000 a year

they should pay something for being able to have enough to take care of their family.

Even if it's $50 more a year, they should pay extra.

Those that make more should pay even more ~ I think that is the way to make it fair.

The way I look at it is , the lady that helps clean the house for those that can afford it needs to have Health Insurance.

If she is sick, or her children are sick, she can't get to work ~ maybe the greedy would understand it that way.

[dropkickpa]

66. But the "fines" for not purchasing are collected by the IRS

Tax increases that are incredibly burdensome for those he promised not to tax. This whole bill is a fucking stinker. Without the public option, and with these fines, it's a giant bowl of steaming shit being force fed us by the insurance industry and they and profiting hugely while everyone else will be bankrupted by it.

[Doctor_J]

70. So EVERYONE will have to give 20% of their HC dollars to CEO's bonuses?

the beginning of the end of

1. The Obama Presidency
2. The American Experiment

[ProudDad]

71. OK, folks, here's the math

There are already 2.6 Trillion dollars sloshing around in the USAmerican Sick Care system... That's 40 to 60 percent MORE money per capita than the civilized world spends on better health care.

60% of health care "costs" are paid by the Federal government...(That's Sixty Percent - MOST of it!)

40% mainly by employers and some by employees and self-insured persons (mostly the very well off to RICH)

There are NO cost controls in USAmerica (there ARE cost controls in the civilized world, that's why their health care is better and costs less)... The insurance corporations, drug companies, the greedy doctors (not all doctors, just the greedy), hospital corporations and medical equipment manufacturers set the costs based on their quarterly need for increased profit. (This means Wall St. (capitalism) forces the cost increases.)

----------------------------------------

In a correctly constituted Universal system of health care financing (like the civilized world already has);

1) No one who is unemployed or employed at less than a living wage would have to pay anything out of pocket for Health Care...

2) Almost no one who is currently insured and is making less than $100,000 a year would have to pay anything more than they already are. In fact, most would pay less...

3) People who DON'T have insurance will have to pony up a small percentage of their income in order to be completely covered...but MUCH less than they would now... (we're talking less than 4% - would you pay 4 cents on the dollar for peace of mind?)

No one would worry about being "taken care of" when they got sick...

No one would go bankrupt from medical expenses...

No one would be killed by insurance company bureaucrats...

The peace of mind of the average person would be improved...

USAmerica would join the civilized world (at least when if comes to health care - USAmerika would still be an evil bat-shit crazy world empire - that's another problem...)

In the civilized world NO PROFITS ARE ALLOWED in Health Care Financing. Everybody in, nobody out. The profit motive is outlawed...

[rhett o rick]

72. "Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Damn