Shared publicly  - 
Does this limit his campaign arsenal?
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a “tax” has Republicans charging that President Barack Obama has hiked taxes on millions of middle-class American...
daniel farley's profile photoHarold Hobbs's profile photoAlison Haughney's profile photoBrady Postma's profile photo
Not if you are a proponent of states rights and less federal control and regulation.
Of course it limits his "campaign arsenal." America's attention span is short, but I'm concerned if no one remembers Romneycare.
The federalism argument is a red herring. Mitt Romney is not arguing that the ACA is a good idea but that the states should be able to decide for themselves.  He is arguing, vehemently, that it's a bad and even dangerous idea. That can't be squared with Romneycare. If it's a bad and dangerous idea, why did he work to pass it in MA?
+Eric Higgins If the system goes wrong in Massachusetts, citizens can visit nearby states for their health care.  If the system goes wrong across America, there is no such safety valve.

And yet, I agree that Romney is playing politics with it.  Every politician has shortcomings, and RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare is one of his.
Damn right it's a tax, a tax on irresponsibility. The American public is tired of footing the bill for the free-loaders who take advantage of us by refusing to pay for their own health insurance and dumping their ER bills on tax-payers and people who end up paying higher premiums for their health insurance. Now, if we could figure out a way to tax stupidity.....
By the way, everyone needs to be acutely aware that the ONLY people who will pay this new "tax" for affordable health care are the morons who refuse to get health insurance. It is NOT a general tax on the population, only the irresponsible people.
+Sue Robertson You don't want people free-loading?  I've never taken others' money for my health care, but thanks to ACA I will soon be taking others' money as a tax credit to pay for the penalty of not having insurance.  It is making me a free-loader against my will.

By the way, most health care providers (including mine) offer substantial discounts for people who pay out of pocket.  Am I a "moron" for trying to lower health care costs?
+Eric Higgins also while I agree that Romney Care is almost identical (almost) he did in fact veto 8 sections of it including the business penalty which the MA congress ultimately overrode 6 of the vetoes.  I'm not saying that I think Romney smells like Roses in this, I just personally prefer to have the federal government less involved in my life.  MA was set to vote on this before the congress passed it anyway.  I would hazzard a guess that if you put this to a national vote after people scrutinized the law, it would have been voted down. 
+Sue Robertson another factor you haven't considered is that you will pay for this, not through the tax but through increased premiums.  You don't think that insurance carriers can cover everything required of them now under the ACA without increasing their premiums do you?
You may be right, but the force of those arguments seems to have eluded Mitt Romney when he was governor.  My point was not that the ACA is a good law, although I happen to think that on balance it is.  The point I was trying to make has to do with Mitt Romney's chronic hypocrisy.  This has been Romney's biggest problem from the beginning. Whatever the issue, he has no political convictions, and he's all about political expediency.  It's his biggest liability as a candidate, and every time he excoriates Obamacare he makes it worse. In the end, he strikes me as a follower, not a leader. And that should be a deal breaker for us all.      
+Eric Higgins Every politician (and every person) has hypocrisy. Obama still supports ACA despite his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class and the Supreme Court's ruling that the ACA penalty (which will inevitably apply to middle-class families) is a tax.

It is Romney's biggest liability as a candidate among marginal voters (ie, people who might actually change their minds).  His biggest liability among the voting population at large is Democrat loyalism, though; the 40% or so of voters that will vote for Obama no matter what.  Obama has a virtually identical liability as to Republican loyalists.  Both of them (and virtually all politicians) obey public sentiment rather than leading toward better policy as a common (nearly necessary) consequence of being chosen by democratic election.  In essence, you're saying that being an effective campaigner is Romney's greatest liability.  And I cannot even disagree.
+Brady Postma It doesn't raise taxes on the middle class just so you know. It is referred to as a "penalty tax" and certain people are actually exempt from this tax. If you abide by the law and have health insurance, then you will not be paying higher taxes than you already are (maybe even less taxes because you won't be footing the bill for other people who don't have insurance). Additionally, this law will help low-income Americans finally better able to afford health insurance. 
+Alison Gotcher "Certain people" are exempt, it's true. But some middle class families will be paying more taxes. Perhaps many of them, since they will be helping foot the bill for the tax credit that folks like me are getting and ACA might increase federal health care spending.

To reiterate my specific case, I am not gaining access to medical care via ACA but I am increasing it's cost.  Individual cases where ACA does more harm than good do exist.  Maybe it is a net good for society, maybe not; but it is reasonable to criticize it for cases like mine.
+Brady Postma Sorry, but I'm a little confused by your specific case. Can you help clarify what you mean when you say that you are increasing ACA's cost for others? Do you not plan on getting health insurance and are you going to pay the fine?
+Alison Gotcher I have opted out of insurance and government aid in the past, in part for discounts health care providers give for out-of-pocket payment and in part due to scruples against others paying for my needs.

Under ACA, I must either buy insurance or pay a fine.  I have little income, so ACA provides a tax credit to cover the expense it mandates.  That tax credit is a cost to the ACA program; other taxpayers must cover it or the federal budget will lose that amount.
+Brady Postma Ok, thank you. Now I better understand what you are trying to say.  I see your point about the tax credit. However, because there are so many people that are gong to be paying into the system as a whole, the cost to everyone else will not be as high as you might think.  It's more expensive for tax payers to pay for those who are uninsured now, then it would be for them to cover those credit expenses.
+Alison Gotcher It may prove to be the case that ACA is cheaper for taxpayers than the uninsured, or it may prove otherwise.  Predictions go both ways.

It was once the case that Social Security was relief to the taxpayer rather than burden, but that situation has reversed with a vengeance in modern America.  Is that the future of the ACA?
+Brady Postma Only time will tell. Social Security, burdensome or not, is necessary for the people of the American society, as is healthcare.  
Some form of Social Security is necessary, I agree.  But that necessity could be met with in less burdensome ways.  Social Security would not be a concern at all today if it had been tied to average life expectancy rather than merely set to contemporary life expectancy, for example, and it could be improved if we made no new promises of benefits to already wealthy seniors, as Romney has proposed.

I do not believe ACA plans for the future any better than Social Security did.
It's a new law that has not even been fully implemented yet. As with most things in this world, it takes time to figure out what is working and what needs to be improved.
Agreed.  Time will tell.  It's just difficult for me to be optimistic about it's prospects when my lifestyle is being forcibly changed for the worse to bring it about.
Hey, anytime you guys wanna start reporting this correctly, about how the "tax" only kicks in as the penalty for not having the mandated insurance, that'd be nice. 

In short, the mandate isn't a tax. The punishment for going against it is. Are you guys new at government?
+daniel farley It's not a mandated tax on everyone, it's only a mandated expense to everyone.  But, don't worry: a tax credit has been established to pay that expense for the poor -- at the expense of taxpayers (including middle-class ones).
I think you need to read the decision ... Chief Justice Roberts specifically up held the mandate on the fact that it is a TAX and that congress can tax any group that they so wish as per the Constitution.  As a penalty the law fails to stand up to a Constitutional challenge.  It helps if you have read the decision and know what your talking about before to start slamming someone!
+Harold Hobbs You stated, "As a penalty the law fails to stand up to a Constitutional challenge." That's inaccurate, sorry.
+Alison Gotcher "The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to 'regulate Commerce.'"
-- (page 3, 2nd paragraph)

As a penalty, the law failed the constitutional test. As a tax, though, it's passed it. Thus, it was ruled to be a tax. Jon Stewart (of The Daily Show) joked that they were citing the landmark supreme court case Peeing On My Leg v. Telling Me It's Raining. I laughed.
I'm not sure "penalty tax" means anything in law. It was debated as an either-or question; claiming it's both seems like a cop-out.
As I said, semantics. Call what I said a "cop-out," but it's still a penalty tax. Also the statement, "the individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to 'regulate Commerce," doesn't   negate anything I've said. You say it's not a penalty and instead is a tax. I'm telling you it's both.
As long as "penalty tax" doesn't mean "You have broken the law if you have to pay this tax," we have no dispute.
Add a comment...