White House claims ObamaCare fine a 'penalty,' despite court calling it a 'tax'

[EagleKeeper]

First it was a penalty. Then it was a tax. Now it's a penalty again.

The war of words over what to call the fine attached to the federal health care overhaul's most controversial provision continued Friday, as the White House took issue with the Supreme Court's argument -- even though that argument alone spared President Obama's law.

The five-justice majority argued that, while the fine imposed by the law for not buying health insurance would otherwise be unconstitutional, the fine is actually legal under Congress' authority to tax.

Ergo, the fine is officially a "tax" in the eyes of the court. The law stands.

But in a case of biting the hand that feeds, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday the fine is still just a "penalty."

Calling it a "tax" causes obvious political problems for the White House. Obama fought that label vigorously when selling the bill in 2009.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/#ixzz1zHwFcVDl

[Kyle Ricky]

Matt Lauer had Axlerod on the other morning. The man is an idiot who stumbles over his words. You can tell that he knows he is full of shit. The SCOTUS calls it a tax, so that is what it is! You can bet that MSNBC will be calling it a penalty though.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-whUx0mNX4Q[/youtube]

[Bad Dog]

Is it just me or does Axlenut look like some sort of human/rat genome experiment gone terribly wrong.

[Kyle Ricky]

Is it just me or does Axlenut look like some sort of human/rat genome experiment gone terribly wrong.

The man has no idea what he is doing, or talking about.

[JohnnyReb]

Is it just me or does Axlenut look like some sort of human/rat genome experiment gone terribly wrong.

Well, we had that "pig nose man", so I guess it could be.

[Freeper]

Someone help me out, the SC said that the mandate can only go forward if it is a tax, so if 0bama doesn't go forward with it as a tax is he violating the SC decision?

[Kyle Ricky]

Someone help me out, the SC said that the mandate can only go forward if it is a tax, so if 0bama doesn't go forward with it as a tax is he violating the SC decision?

Obama violate the SCOTUS decision? He would never do that. 

[Bad Dog]

Someone help me out, the SC said that the mandate can only go forward if it is a tax, so if 0bama doesn't go forward with it as a tax is he violating the SC decision?

They aren't going to impose it till after the election so, I doubt ABM will give a shit what they call it.  Solution, elect Mitt and call it revoked.

[Freeper]

They aren't going to impose it till after the election so, I doubt ABM will give a shit what they call it.  Solution, elect Mitt and call it revoked.

Don't be so sure, and no I'm not bashing Mitt, I believe that he wants to repeal it, but unless we have the numbers in the house and senate then he can't just pull an 0bama and not enforce the law.

Okay maybe he can since 0bama can do that so maybe I'm wrong.  Seriously though even if I agree with the outcome if he governs like 0bama I will be pissed.

[Bad Dog]

Don't be so sure, and no I'm not bashing Mitt, I believe that he wants to repeal it, but unless we have the numbers in the house and senate then he can't just pull an 0bama and not enforce the law.

Okay maybe he can since 0bama can do that so maybe I'm wrong.  Seriously though even if I agree with the outcome if he governs like 0bama I will be pissed.

Remember ABM set the precedent by passing out all those waivers to his friends.

[Freeper]

Remember ABM set the precedent by passing out all those waivers to his friends.

Yes but regardless of the precedent set, if I don't like it when the other side does it, I can't in good conscience like it when we do it, though I have to admit if we did there would be a part of me enjoying the fact we used their own tactics against them. 

[Danglars]

Yes but regardless of the precedent set, if I don't like it when the other side does it, I can't in good conscience like it when we do it, though I have to admit if we did there would be a part of me enjoying the fact we used their own tactics against them. 

The difference is, in this case, the ends do justify the means. This "law" is so profoundly unAmerican that it needs to be excised by any means possible.

[Lacarnut]

Repubs need to remind voters every day between now and election day that Obama and the democraps have raised their taxes.

[docstew]

The difference is, in this case, the ends do justify the means. This "law" is so profoundly unAmerican that it needs to be excised by any means possible.

"Zealotry in the defense of Virtue is not a vice"?

[miskie]

This is such a typically Obama maneuver.

It's just like the crap he pulled when he agreed to stick to public financing against McCain, then decided not to after McCain committed to do the same. This time however, he has his back up against the wall - Either the mandate is a tax, or it's unconstitutional.

[seahorse513]

mandate

▶noun /ˈmandeɪt/ 1 an official order or commission to do something.
2 Law a commission by which a party is entrusted to perform a service, especially without payment and with indemnity against loss by that party.
3 a written authority enabling someone to carry out transactions on another's bank account.
4 historical a commission from the League of Nations to a member state to administer a territory.
5 the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.

Is it a mandate, penalty, fine or is it a tax?? If so, who will be paying for it?? It is so confusing and I am getting frustrated by the whole affair!!

[sybilll]

Don't be so sure, and no I'm not bashing Mitt, I believe that he wants to repeal it, but unless we have the numbers in the house and senate then he can't just pull an 0bama and not enforce the law.

Okay maybe he can since 0bama can do that so maybe I'm wrong.  Seriously though even if I agree with the outcome if he governs like 0bama I will be pissed.

Well, what Roberts either did (or did not) anticipate is since ObamaCare was passed under reconciliation with 51 votes, calling it a tax means it can also be overturned via reconciliation with 51 votes, and we already have 47.
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/dean-clancy/freedomworks-five-point-plan-to-achieve-full-repea
There are very winnable seats, we've just got to help them.  This IS the ballgame, folks. 

[Danglars]

"Zealotry in the defense of Virtue is not a vice"?

That's my opinion. We're talking about something that will extend its tentacles into our lives from birth to death, and give the federal government unprecedented power of control. We all know this.

Romney can choose to simply sign a full budget that appropriates not one cent for this law, then shrug his shoulders and say Congress has defunded it, and he's not going to take monies Congress didn't give him, because he can't. If we have fewer than 50 in the Senate, then repeal will have to wait until 2014--unless some Dems jump ship, which is something I would NOT bet against. If they fight this all over again by refusing to pass a budget that doesn't appropriate for Obamadeath, 2014 will be 2010 all over again. All nicely Constitutional.

[Danglars]

"Zealotry in the defense of Virtue is not a vice"?

Another way to think of it is that this is war. The Obama agenda is nothing less that the agenda to obliterate the American way of life. We need to fight this with at least as much (currently non-lethal) ruthlessness as we would fight a foreign enemy. As is likely enough with this "American" tyrant, we are probably fighting a foreign enemy.

[miskie]

Is it a mandate, penalty, fine or is it a tax?? If so, who will be paying for it?? It is so confusing and I am getting frustrated by the whole affair!!

The USSC court determined that the only way the 'mandate' can be considered constitutional is if it is a tax. As for who is paying, we all are in one form or the other - either you are going to buy insurance through a private company, that will be taxed by Obama - or you'll get it from your employer who will be taxed by Obama, or you wont get it at all, and be taxed directly by Obama -or some combination of all of the above.

If the insurance you elect isn't considered to have enough coverage, you'll be taxed anyway. I'm pretty sure the same holds for businesses who either offer unsatisfactory insurance or none at all if they have more than 50 employees, but I could be wrong on this.

The only way you won't be getting taxed is if you fall at 133% poverty level or below - which is something like making less than 12K a year if you are single.

[Carl]

Since it is a tax it is an illegal one as it was the Senate bill which passed.
Tax bills have to originate in the House.
Roberts is doubly condemned because he rewrote it into an illegal statute.

[docstew]

Since it is a tax it is an illegal one as it was the Senate bill which passed.
Tax bills have to originate in the House.
Roberts is doubly condemned because he rewrote it into an illegal statute.

He may have done that to give a safety valve in case O won. Come 2014 when it starts being collected, someone (anyone, really, since it will apply to everyone) can sue that it is an Unconstitutional tax. Even the 9th Circus can't argue it originated in the HoR.

[Maxparrish]

The courts and government often ignore their own irrationality. Yes, if it is a tax then as it did not origniate in the House it is illegal, and yes it should be subject to reconciliation.

But everyone knows that if someone filed a suit on the basis that the tax did not originate in the House that Roberts and his new buddies would find a reason that suddenly does not apply.

American law and the courts are a farce. And I am very bitter against "moderate" Republicans who brought us Kennedy, Souter, and now Roberts. Until the GOP cleans house we are doomed.

F'&^& when are we going to learn? When? Over and over and over I have seen this party shoot itself in the foot.

[EagleKeeper]

For what it's worth, the bill did originate in the house, Dingy just stripped out the language creating a shell and inserted the ACA language.

So for all intents and purposes it originated in the house.

It ain't right but that how this whole thing started.

[Danglars]

The courts and government often ignore their own irrationality. Yes, if it is a tax then as it did not origniate in the House it is illegal, and yes it should be subject to reconciliation.

But everyone knows that if someone filed a suit on the basis that the tax did not originate in the House that Roberts and his new buddies would find a reason that suddenly does not apply.

American law and the courts are a farce. And I am very bitter against "moderate" Republicans who brought us Kennedy, Souter, and now Roberts. Until the GOP cleans house we are doomed.

F'&^& when are we going to learn? When? Over and over and over I have seen this party shoot itself in the foot.

Have to disagree there, EK. The operative phrase in your post is "for all intents and purposes," and for that, it DID originate in the Senate. A shell is just a shell. This is a parliamentary trick to get around the Constitutional requirement of House origination for spending/finance-related bills. A gutted shell does not fulfill the spirit of that requirement, only the most empty letter of it.