Can conservatives explain to me why the individual mandate is unconstitutional but...

[CADsortaGUY]

so why are the progressives so worried about this anyway as they all want a true single payer system anyway, whether the SCOTUS bombs this for them or SCOTUS upholds, this isn't what anybody wants anyway

because they just want a "gotcha" to whine about non-"progressives". Unfortunately for them they(like the OP) haven't a clue about the reality of the situation.

 

[Phokus]

public= gov't private= not gov't company. Sorry for you confusion.

Private accounts = Private.

Sorry for your confusion.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Private accounts = Private.

Sorry for your confusion.

that is equal to paying another party how? (yes, I changed to using "party" because you don't seem to understand the differences as noted earlier)

 

[bfdd]

CAD, I see what you're saying except their still basically the same thing. You still have to pay taxes for something you may not wish to have done a certain way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

CAD, I see what you're saying except their still basically the same thing. You still have to pay taxes for something you may not wish to have done a certain way.

except one is to another party, so it's not the same. The "tax" angle the left is trying to spin it as just doesn't fly. The mandate is not a "tax" - never was a "tax".

BTW, I think SS should be dismantled - but it's amusing to see leftists trying to equate BHOcare with SS so I'm playing.

 

[Double Trouble]

LOL, Just THINK about that for a minute, if 'taxation' is the only difference, Obama could just use that as a loophole: Obama could just tax everyone, put that money in some sort of account that could ONLY be used to buy insurance. There's hardly any difference at all.

Actually, that's probably correct, and it would likely have held up to constitutional review as well. There is no doubt the government can impose taxes, and if they then use that tax money to fund a health care account, I don't see how that would be unconstitutional. The reason the democrats opted not to go that way is that it would go counter to the "we won't raise your taxes" pledge.

 

[Phokus]

that is equal to paying another party how? (yes, I changed to using "party" because you don't seem to understand the differences as noted earlier)

They're technically not the same thing in that under Obamacare, you technically aren't 'forced' into buying insurance, whereas you are forced into not being able to touch your money in a mandatory private savings account.

 

[SilthDraeth]

... mandatory private savings accounts (in order to replace social security) that conservatives champion are somehow constitutionally kosher?

Well, I think social security and income tax are unconstitutional, and a mandated private savings would be as well.

I think you are playing into the fallacy that conservatives = GOP.

And or that GOP represents us that are more Constitutionalists; whether conservative or libertarian, or liberal.

 

[Phokus]

CAD, I see what you're saying except their still basically the same thing. You still have to pay taxes for something you may not wish to have done a certain way.

Seems like CAD just wants to nitpick so he can whine about democrats. Of course, if the democrats ever get to passing a mandatory savings account law, he'll do a 180 on that too and say the end of america is near.

Actually, that's probably correct, and it would likely have held up to constitutional review as well. There is no doubt the government can impose taxes, and if they then use that tax money to fund a health care account, I don't see how that would be unconstitutional. The reason the democrats opted not to go that way is that it would go counter to the "we won't raise your taxes" pledge.

Right, seems the only distinction is the government is sort of "laundering" the money under a forced savings account via a 'tax'.

I don't think the government would even technically touch the money, it would just go directly into a savings account.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

They're technically not the same thing in that under Obamacare, you technically aren't 'forced' into buying insurance, whereas you are forced into not being able to touch your money in a mandatory private savings account.

Except it isn't mandatory - it was offered as an option for people wanting to have some stake in their SS dollars.

And yes you are forced to, under penalty of law to comply with BHOcare.

 

[Phokus]

Except it isn't mandatory - it was offered as an option for people wanting to have some stake in their SS dollars.

And yes you are forced to, under penalty of law to comply with BHOcare.

I remember when Bush campaigned during his first term that it was a mandatory program. He might have changed it later to be 'optional' in order to compromise.

And no, you aren't forced to buy insurance, you just get a tax penalty if you don't.

 

[Double Trouble]

Right, seems the only distinction is the government is sort of "laundering" the money under a forced savings account via a 'tax'.

I don't think the government would even technically touch the money, it would just go directly into a savings account.

It might seem like a fairly insignificant distinction, but from a technical legal perspective, it might be the difference between being found constitutional or not.

The government can tax us, and then do with that tax money as it sees fit. I don't see a constitutional challenge to that. The mechanism they went with (I suspect because they didn't want the GOP blaring "those ebil democrats raised your taxes!" all day long) instead was to mandate the purchase of a product from a private third party. That seems dubious to me, but we'll see what the court thinks of that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I remember when Bush campaigned during his first term that it was a mandatory program. He might have changed it later to be 'optional' in order to compromise.

And no, you aren't forced to buy insurance, you just get a tax penalty if you don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...tes#George_W._Bush.27s_privatization_proposal

By force of law you are mandated to do so. The penalty mechanism is through the IRS or some nonsense.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What if I don't like what our military is doing and I no longer want to pay for it? Doesn't the government effectively force me to purchase a military by requiring me to pay taxes?

 

[Double Trouble]

What if I don't like what our military is doing and I no longer want to pay for it? Doesn't the government effectively force me to purchase a military by requiring me to pay taxes?

There is a difference between the government taking tax money and spending it, versus the government mandating that you purchase something from a third party. The end result is pretty much the same (your money gets taken either way), but the mechanism is different, and the SCOTUS will have to decide if that difference is enough to rule Obamacare to be unconstitutional.

 

[cybrsage]

... mandatory private savings accounts (in order to replace social security) that conservatives champion are somehow constitutionally kosher?

It is easy, one is a law and one is not. Bills cannot be unconstitutional - they have no force behind them. Laws, however can be unconstitutional.

If the government gave you the option to opt out of the current SS system and into a private one, paying the same amount of money, then it would be ok. However, forcing you to put money into the stock market (for example) would not be constitutional.

 

[Phokus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...tes#George_W._Bush.27s_privatization_proposal

By force of law you are mandated to do so. The penalty mechanism is through the IRS or some nonsense.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/More_George_W__Bush_Social_Security.htm

Tax-funded private IRA’s under federal guidelines

“I like the idea of individual retirement accounts, in essence private accounts.” Bush said he would fund those accounts with a portion of the payroll tax paid by all workers, which would be invested under government-drafted guidelines. “You can’t put it in one oil well,” he said. Bush added, however, that he has not decided how much of the tax to divert to these mandatory accounts. “Therein lies the rub,” he said.

 

[cybrsage]

I remember when Bush campaigned during his first term that it was a mandatory program. He might have changed it later to be 'optional' in order to compromise.

And no, you aren't forced to buy insurance, you just get a tax penalty if you don't.

You keep saying this as if it is true. It is NOT a tax, it is a fine. There is a HUGE constitutional difference.

Just because you wish they made it a tax, does not magically make it a tax.

 

[Phokus]

You keep saying this as if it is true. It is NOT a tax, it is a fine. There is a HUGE constitutional difference.

Just because you wish they made it a tax, does not magically make it a tax.

Seems like if they put it in the tax code, then it's a tax.

 

[cybrsage]

Seems like if they put it in the tax code, then it's a tax.

Nope, the tax code includes fines as well. It also includes interest rates, etc. There is a LOT more in the tax code other than taxes.

 

[Phokus]

Nope, the tax code includes fines as well. It also includes interest rates, etc. There is a LOT more in the tax code other than taxes.

Then we get to loopholes again, what if they just levied additional tax and gave credits to people who bought health insurance? Seems like just silly distinctions that don't have much meaning. The net effect would be about the same.

 

[cybrsage]

Then we get to loopholes again, what if they just levied additional tax and gave credits to people who bought health insurance? Seems like just silly distinctions that don't have much meaning. The net effect would be about the same.

The devil is in the details. It is the same reason why someone who is caught red handed committing a crime still gets a trial - even though they are obviously guilty.

The Constitution says so.

 

[TheBlackRabbit]

Can we please stop pretending the SCOTUS is anything more than another legislative branch of government that arbitrarily either "approves" of laws or "disapproves" based primarily on political ideology?

How many laws could we name that should have been struck down immediately but weren't and vice versa? Maybe at one point in time it was a court, but not anytime since any of us have been alive.

If the SCOTUS functioned as a court that actually considered constitutionality 100% of the time, then fine, but it picks and chooses.

Mandate, tax, who cares? Is it reasonable? YES.

Start striking down 100's of unconstitutional laws, SCOTUS, then get back to me. Maybe then you'll have earned some kind of equity to justify striking down a law that took 60 senate votes and a year of debate.

ONE JUSTICE should not have that much power.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

There is a difference between the government taking tax money and spending it, versus the government mandating that you purchase something from a third party. The end result is pretty much the same (your money gets taken either way), but the mechanism is different, and the SCOTUS will have to decide if that difference is enough to rule Obamacare to be unconstitutional.

And therein lies the solution to the problem. Use the tax code to fund health care.

 

[Joseph F]

There's a big difference between the government mandating you to spend your money, and mandating you to put it away.