I’m shocked, shocked:
The hardest hit won’t be those earning more than $250,000 a year–the group that he says needs to “pay their fair share.” Rather, it’s families whose combined annual income is around $100,000 who could be crushed under this plan.
Many of these middle-class families will probably opt to pay the federal fine, and go without health insurance until they get sick.These folks will be too “rich” to qualify for ObamaCare’s subsidies, but probably too poor to easily afford the pricey insurance that the president’s plan forces them to buy.
Many of these $100K families will be obliged to buy a policy costing an average of $14,700 for the mid-level, “silver” health plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. After income taxes, they’ll be spending almost a quarter of their net income for health insurance.
I think that if you pass a law that requires you to purchase something, and it’s enforced by the IRS, it’s not unfair to call it a tax. And it’s another demonstration that every one of Obama’s statements (this one about no raising taxes on people making less than a quarter million) has an expiration date.
[Late afternoon update]
A commenter asks what he can do to fight this in the final hours. This looks like a good place to start. Whatever your political affiliation, if you want to stop this, it’s all up to the Republicans at this point, and you’re going to have to help them this weekend, if not in the future. Don’t look for any help from the Democrats.
This assumes that employers will drop employees from health care plans. Which, since they would be required to offer plans to their employees and most do so now (with no requirement) defies logic.
Chris, it’ll be cheaper for the employers to drop coverage. If they have no health insurance for their employees, employers will be required to pay an 8% penalty (8% of the employees’ wages) which is less than what insurance will cost. You see, the morons in Congress filled the bills with perverse “incentives” like this.
And Rand, Obama will use the words “insurance premiums” or “fees” instead of taxes to weasel word his way about not raising taxes on the middle class. You see, a government mandated “fee” isn’t the same thing as a “tax” (yet if it walks like a duck…)
Anyone who was stupid enough to believe Obama wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class is dumb enough to get what’s coming to them. Unfortunately, those of us who never believed Obama’s lies will also get creamed.
Chris Gerrib,
You are assuming that the current plan the employer offers will be available. With new insurance mandates comes higher cost. An insurance plan that has give more coverage will cost more. If that cost exceeds what the fine for not offering a plan would be, employers might just opt for dumping their plan.
Employers quite possibly will drop plans. Which costs less, largely paying for them AND paying tax on the plans you offer, or paying fines for not offering plans?
And, of course, will employees drop the plans when they are taxed on the employer’s “contribution” as income?
The other requirements in the Obama bill drive the cost of insurance up.
Since its already above 8% for many businesses then the 8% penalty is a bargain. This is all a backdoor way to destroy the current insurance system so that single payer government insurance will come about.
Employers are not required to offer plans now. They do. Employers don’t all offer the same plan – they offer different plans, some cheap, some not. Price is only one factor in what plan(s) they offer. Other factors include what the competitors offer their employees and what the owners of the company (who frequently use the coverage they offer for their own use) want.
BTW, health care benefits for employees is a tax-deductible cost. So, if you cancel coverage, you lose the deduction AND add a tax. It’s more than an 8% swing.
And Rand, Obama will use the words “insurance premiums” or “fees” instead of taxes to weasel word his way about not raising taxes on the middle class. You see, a government mandated “fee” isn’t the same thing as a “tax” (yet if it walks like a duck…)
There is no precedent of a “fee” for the privilege of being a US citizen. This will be challenged, and will likely not stand. There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having the right to compel citizens to purchase anything at all. It’s a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.
That amount of money is 3x what we are paying now.
It’s an air tax, and we ain’t even on a space station.
I’m willing to kick in some money to fight this, like my $50 donation to Scott Brown’s campaign.
Any advice on where to do this?
“expiration date”
That’s a euphemism for, the stuff horses and bulls leave behind, right?
Whatever your political affiliation, if you want to stop this, it’s all up to the Republicans at this point, and you’re going to have to help them this weekend, if not in the future. Don’t look for any help from the Democrats.
That’s exactly backwards — the Republicans are already against it, so nothing is up to them. The only way to keep the reform bill from passing is to convince enough Democrats to vote no. Of course that means convincing them to kill their party’s signature initiative, which is why the odds favor passage.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having the right to compel citizens to purchase anything at all.
There’s nothing in the Massachusetts Constitution about that either, and yet RomneyCare’s individual mandate has not been struck down.
[Notice how Rand is arguing both sides of the question: it’s a tax, so Obama lied, and it’s not a tax, so it’s unconstitutional and will be struck down.]
Rather, it’s families whose combined annual income is around $100,000 who could be crushed under this plan.
Of course they were going to be crushed even worse without this plan, according to the CBO.
Indeed. The exchange will remove one of the biggest incentives for companies to offer health insurance, especially since Sherrod Brown is already working on the public option bill for later this year (likely underwritten by the taxpayers again, naturally). We can expect the same premium inflation that we see now with MassCare, so 8% is a bargain.
That’s because States are sovereign, and can enact almost any legislation that isn’t proscribed by their respective constitutions or a very narrow set of rights which flow down from the Feds.
“BTW, health care benefits for employees is a tax-deductible cost. So, if you cancel coverage, you lose the deduction AND add a tax. It’s more than an 8% swing.”
Chris, youre right that it is more than an 8% swing, but it isnt going to be a 25% to 35% swing. The benefits cost for most employees to their employers falls between that range. Rest assured that for many employers of varying sizes it will be far cheaper to stop offering insurance and downsize their human resources departments.
I don’t know about where you work. but where I work there is only one plan – which has gotten to be so expensive that the owner is probably going to drop it anyway. The loss of the tax write-off and the fine are cheaper.
Notice how Rand is arguing both sides of the question: it’s a tax, so Obama lied, and it’s not a tax, so it’s unconstitutional and will be struck down
What mental disability would result in your thinking that taxes can’t be unconstitutional?
[Notice how Rand is arguing both sides of the question: it’s a tax, so Obama lied, and it’s not a tax, so it’s unconstitutional and will be struck down.]
Word games Jim? They call it a fee. Unconstitutional. What they call a fee is essentially the same as a tax. So Obama lied. Considering all the convoluted logic you’ve used in the past, how is this too hard for you to understand?
Yeah, what Rand said.
So let me see if I got this right. Government gets a hidden 10.5% tax or “fee” on a bunch of income (for all the workers and employers who will get by within health insurance). In return for breaking the insurance system, they’ll probably get the opportunity to introduce single payer. There’s nothing government can’t fix!
Of course they were going to be crushed even worse without this plan, according to the CBO.
Only people that are unable to add up:
1) The fee/tax/revenue generation starts nowish. And yet the serious benefits start four years out. Yes it’s tricky and slow to set all this crap up – but that doesn’t change the fact that the CBO basically scored six years of payments against ten years of revenue.
2) 1.1 trillion from the Medicare Trust fund is donated to Obamacare – and thus marked as “revenue”. Never mind the fact that you’ve basically just stolen money from a different account that we’ll have to refill.
What bothers me and makes me fear for my children and grandchildren are the attitudes of people like Jim and Chris. The government is not the solution. Higher taxes and less freedom are not good. I have yet to hear a good reason for not trying less expensive reforms first. The only reason for a program like this is to expand federal control over our lives. Pelosi and Obama have both said this is just the beginning. I find this type of belief system anathema to what America is. You and those like you dim our shining light with your support of these socialist programs.
“Robbing from Peter to pay Paul”, is the old saw Gramps would have used.
Smoke and mirrors, is another way.
Lies and half-truths is closer still.
A pile of dung, by any other name…
There is no precedent of a “fee” for the privilege of being a US citizen. This will be challenged, and will likely not stand. There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having the right to compel citizens to purchase anything at all. It’s a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Amendment 1 to the Colorado state constitution is the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR). Among the provisions of TABOR is the requirement for voter approval for tax increases. Some local governments decided that calling the increase a fee instead of a tax was a way to get around TABOR and the state supreme court agreed. So now, the state and local governments are practically falling all over themselves creating new “fees.” I predict Obama and crew will do the same thing and claim that since he didn’t raise taxes, he kept his promise. It matters not the least to them that mandated fees are just as painful and damaging as taxes.
They also don’t talk about the health costs they are shifting to states to keep the cost of this bill “down”.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/tn-governor-tells-corker-gordon-that-state-cant-afford-obamacare/
Here’s where we get in trouble when the concept of limited government stops having any meaning. It’s not the 10th Amendment that is dispositive here, it’s the nature of the Constitution itself. Does anything in it grant the government the power to mandate health insurance? No. It takes some truly tortuous reasoning just to allow for things like Medicare.
Without clear limits around what the federal government can and cannot do, we are all threatened. If you’re a leftist who was appalled at what Bush did, just think what this unprecedented expansion of government power might mean for the next Bush and GOP Congress. These extraconstitutional power grabs keep happening, with the supporting partisans going rah-rah on the sidelines, acting like there’s nothing inherently dangerous in unlimited government.
As for the states, while they are restricted by their own constitutions (and by some limitations imposed via supremacy and incorporation), they are viewed as having something called general “police power.” This is what allows states to do most of the things they do. The police power is actually a much broader power than the federal government has, and we intentionally did not grant that sort of power to the central government, out of fear of it evolving into tyranny. Neither the Commerce Clause nor any other part of the Constitution was intended to morph into that sort of power (defeats the entire purpose of limited government).
Does anything in [the US Constitution] grant the government the power to mandate health insurance?
As stated later, morons will cite the Commerce Clause while ironically calling themselves liberal and denying they are full socialists. With passage of this bill, every American can be denied freedom for failing to pay now for a service they don’t want or need now. Mobsters used to call this protection money. Chicago liberals call this freedom.
Look, there is a simple way for liberals to get these kinds of health insurance regulation without the vagest shadow of unconstitutionality.
Let the states do it. All Congress need to do is get the federal government out of the way – that is remove the impediments in federal law that prevent states from cooperating in this arena. States cooperate all the time. We even have bistate taxes where I live.
The bonus is that different groups of states can try different things. We can see what works best. Sometimes states will benefit from having different health insurance regulations. For example, there are some environmental differences between states which might reasonably cause different regulations to be best.
In addition blue states can be more liberal and red states more conservative. What’s not to like?
Yours,
Tom
I know for a fact that taxes on the lower middle class have already gone up, judging by my own taxes and factoring out the anomalous Making Work Pay tax credit (which I found out about at the last minute).
Makes you wonder if the tax credit was put there to disguise the tax hike. Then again, they didn’t give it as much fanfare as they did the Haiti relief tax deduction.
“Robbing from Peter to pay Paul”, is the old saw Gramps would have used.
Actually, Peter and Paul rob each other, and third-party bureaucrat Mary scams a big percentage of their take.
What mental disability would result in your thinking that taxes can’t be unconstitutional?
Do explain how FICA can be constitutional but this isn’t.
I know for a fact that taxes on the lower middle class have already gone up, judging by my own taxes
LOL. And I know for a fact that global warming is real because it’s warm outside.
What bothers me and makes me fear for my children and grandchildren are the attitudes of people like Jim and Chris.
That bothers you more than the fact that, without this reform, half of Americans under 65 will find themselves without health insurance sometime in the next decade?
I have yet to hear a good reason for not trying less expensive reforms first.
These reforms will save the government over a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. How much less expensive do you want?
The only reason for a program like this is to expand federal control over our lives.
No, the only reasons for these reforms are to help people and protect the solvency of the U.S. economy. Strange concepts, I know.
I have yet to hear a good reason for not trying less expensive reforms first.
These reforms will save the government over a trillion quatloos… blah blah blah
And you still haven’t.
Reform, as is fixing the regulatory system and trying some alternatives to government-provided or controlled healthcare (which there is plenty of already), makes all kinds of sense. Which, of course, is why we’re not talking about doing any of that.
Above, someone mentioned that the states could do this. That’s true, though with the upside down tax regime, where the federal government gets more of your taxes than you state or locality do, it would be hard to fund. Massachusetts seems to be having fiscal problems with their mandatory insurance scheme, for instance. And no cash-printing options for the states, not to mention that many have balanced budget requirements of varying degrees.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This part of the constitution tells me two things.
1) Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises or any other fee for collecting revenue from the people amounts to the same thing regardless of what you call it.
2) These taxes are for defense alone. General welfare refers to defense of the country.
Everything else is retained by the states and the people. Taxes not for defense are unconstitutional.
all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
This is what makes our current definition of welfare unconstitutional. You can not rob or tax some people and give it to other people.
all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This also indicates that the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisanna Purchase (special giveaways to those states that are part of the Senate bill) are unconstitutional.
Pelosi is touting the CBO’s report about how much money this debacle “saves the government.” However, it transfers a great deal of the financial responsibility to the states, so they’ll have to raise state taxes to pay for the unfunded federal mandates. And to think some people are dumb enough to believe that’s a real savings to the taxpayers.
Larry J – that language was repealed by the 16th Amendment.
If the doom and gloom prognostications of the looming health care crisis bare any resemblance to the global warming scaremongering then I’d be willing to bet that it is all complete and utter bilge. It is a manufactured crisis that is being used as a justification for a power grab of 1/5 of the economy and further enhancement of control over our daily lives. You busy bodies need to stay out of my body.
Usually, the people trying to scare you the most are lying or, at least, have other axes to grind. We had some or a lot of that (depending on your point of view) before the Iraq invasion, we have it with AGW, we have it with healthcare, we’ve had it to a more limited extent with education, and we’ve had it in spades with the stimulus and bailout packages.
“What mental disability would result in your thinking that taxes can’t be unconstitutional?”
It’s called Socialism.
“Larry J – that language was repealed by the 16th Amendment…”
which was passed over massive opposition by promising that income taxes would never, ever, ever exceed 1%.
This [16th] amendment created an exemption for non-apportioned direct taxes on income, which were held unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
So the supreme court agrees with me and those that passed the 16th had no clear understanding of what our founding fathers intended or simply disregarded it.
Ken and Larry J – the 16th amendment passed fair and square. It has the same force of law as the 1st, 2nd or 10th amendment. The people who passed it knew EXACTLY what they were doing – the were overruling the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court. That’s the way the process works.
> Larry J – that language was repealed by the 16th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment did not overrule that portion of the Constitution. It modified it. All Duties, Imposts and Excises except Income Taxes must still be uniform.
> This also indicates that the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisanna Purchase (special giveaways to those states that are part of the Senate bill) are unconstitutional.
I was listening to a conservative constitutional law professor on the radio this morning and I agree with him that you are dead wrong. This says taxes must be uniform, not spending. Spending was never uniform. Never. Just think about it. Would the Constitution insist that because costal states get more Naval spending they must get less spending on postal services? The founders were not idiots.
Yours,
Tom
The people who passed it knew EXACTLY what they were doing
So Perfidy is not a recent invention. Thanks for the confirmation.
Prohibition….yea, because it was an amendment the proponents knew exactly what they were doing. No need to repeal anything there. Were in the very best of hands.