Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

So the mandate stays under taxing laws, but is unconstitutional under commerce laws?

I thought when they were pushing this through congress that they were insisting it wasn't a tax, yet when they got in front of the SCOTUS to argue their case it all of a sudden became a tax. Would representing this legislation as a tax from the get go have made the public think differently of this bill and how it would be paid for?

I'm sort of feeling like this is a bait and switch. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering how it was written, passed and argued.



Asked by QuinnMae at 10:29 AM on Jun. 28, 2012 in Politics & Current Events

Level 48 (292,718 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (24)
  • So much for Obama not raising taxes on anyone under 250K.
    all those poor people being taxed or going to Medicaid.
    which the states have the option to stop or not participate in.
    Oh look, no healhcare for anyone!! Just more taxes under the asshole

    Answer by jewjewbee at 11:25 AM on Jun. 28, 2012

  • yes, it is under commerce laws if I read it right.
    Now, romney can repeal that tax law.

    Answer by jewjewbee at 11:15 AM on Jun. 28, 2012

  • And by simply defunding the tax law, it can be stopped.

    Answer by jewjewbee at 11:24 AM on Jun. 28, 2012

  • If I were Romeny I'd be throwing Obama's own words back at him on this one...This is not a tax. Hmmm that's not how his lawyers argued it in court and not what the supreme court said it was.

    I'm also trying to fiugre out how my dd who is barely scraping by is going to come up with an extra $100/year to pay for insurance. She's making barely $700 a month now and trying to make it on her own. It sure doesn't sound like much but for her it's the difference between eating and not at times.

    Answer by baconbits at 1:54 PM on Jun. 28, 2012

  • Many of us knew that Obama was a big liar from before he was elected. Since this is suddenly a tax, then tax-exempt organizations like churches should be exempt. Oh, wait - they'll probably find a way to make them pay this "tax", too, or maybe they'll flip flop again and say it's not a tax.

    Answer by Iamgr8teful at 8:45 PM on Jun. 28, 2012

  • I will not comply. End of story.

    Answer by -Eilish- at 8:21 PM on Jun. 28, 2012

  • I don't think it matters what it's called, it's bad. The states that refuse to add to the Medicaid roles are going to have a lot of people still uninsured, AND the people paying for insurance are still going to be paying for them in addition to the increased rates the ins. companies have already promised. Medicaid patients WILL be denied higher costing treatments (just as they are now), and there is still no reform. Those who tout that preexisting conditions will have to be covered are ignoring the fact that if those patients can't afford top dollar coverage they will end up being denied treatment due to cost.

    What I wonder about is how many will be paying higher taxes, fines, or sitting in jail over this ... and if enough people are forced into bankruptcy what is left for the gov't. to run on? Another loan from China? I fully anticipate this putting us under if it isn't repealed.

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 10:49 AM on Jun. 29, 2012

  • I just read that too. I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, as soon as Obama Care was whispered, our health insurance premiums & co-pays skyrocketed! I was hoping (maybe naively so) that if everyone had to have it, it would make health ins. companies more competitive w/ ea. other & prices would actually drop a bit. Since I haven't read the bill (which I don't think most have - it's like the size of War & Peace & not as entertaining), I guess we'll just have to wait & see. :/


    Answer by mrsmom110 at 10:39 AM on Jun. 28, 2012

  • I feel trapped by our government. It seems like whether we vote Republican or Democrat, we get fed the same lies...and both "sides" line their pockets while laughinng behind our backs because we're threatening to vote for the other guy next election. Does it even matter anymore? I'm so angry at all of them..Obama, congress, the supreme court...they get a salary and health care for the rest of their lives, paid for by us, and they spend their whole career screwing us!!! If they had to give up their paycheck for bad decisions, you can bet things would be different!

    Answer by brandyj at 5:35 PM on Jun. 28, 2012

  • Since Obama's lawyers defined as either a tax or a penalty, and was either under the commerce clause OR the taxation clause, it opened up the door for the Supreme court to interpret either way. Roberts said that it doesn't uphold under the commerce clause, but it does uphold as a tax. There's a little catch-22 however. Since it is now a tax, there may some question about the validity of the law because it didn't originate from the House (a Constitutional requirement) and the House didn't even provide a final vote after the reconciliation. So it could be that the law is still invalid on the grounds that it's a tax and didn't go through the proper process (it was argued under commerce, not tax). In order to validate it (if the above is true), they would have to re-pass the law beginning and ending in the house. I don't see that happening with this Congress.

    Answer by -Eilish- at 5:46 PM on Jun. 29, 2012