PDA

View Full Version : Obama FACT CHECK: Obama says insurance mandate is not a tax, but legislation says otherwise


petegz28
09-23-2009, 10:30 PM
FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance _ and fining them if they don't _ isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.

"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS."

Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the 1990s' health care debate, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage _ carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it's becoming clear such a requirement will be part of any legislation that Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn't raise taxes, and it cost him the next election," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Obama is doing the same thing, but he's insulting people by telling them that if you don't call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn't be a tax."

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

"I think it's a metaphysical question as to whether it's a tax or not," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable."

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

"Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," Obama added. "Nobody considers that a tax increase.

"You just can't make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," he added.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don't get coverage. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said Monday he expects the family penalty to be slashed in half to $1,900.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage."

The coverage mandate is part of a political bargain under which the insurance industry would agree to take all applicants, regardless of prior medical history.

"If we're going to have coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions, it makes sense," said economist Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "Otherwise people will come in the door the day they get sick." He sees no distinction between the requirement to get coverage and the fines themselves.

"The fact that it is imposed on people and they have no choice in paying it, and the fact that it's administered through the tax system all make it look like a tax," Williams said. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

It wouldn't be the first asterisk added to Obama's campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children's health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

http://www.newser.com/article/d9asbj7g0/fact-check-obama-says-insurance-mandate-is-not-a-tax-but-legislation-says-otherwise.html

petegz28
09-23-2009, 10:33 PM
"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.


Read this a few times and try to keep a straight face while you do.....I couldn't

Taco John
09-23-2009, 10:48 PM
I think Obama believes that if he couches his socialist ideas in conservative "take responsibility for yourself" language, that Americans will be fooled and go for it. It's actually a hat tip to the idea that people do believe in responsibility for one's self.

banyon
09-23-2009, 10:52 PM
fines aren't taxes. I don't like the idea, but it's misconstrued here.

BigRedChief
09-23-2009, 10:55 PM
fines aren't taxes. I don't like the idea, but it's misconstrued here.I don't care what they call it or how they make it happen but we(the taxpayer) shouldn't be paying for the medical bills of individuals that could have affored health insurance but decided not to then they get in trouble and we bail them out.. Thats total BS and needs to stop.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 10:55 PM
fines aren't taxes. I don't like the idea, but it's misconstrued here.


Misconstrued in the legislation?

In BOTH the house and the senate?

Wow.

banyon
09-23-2009, 10:56 PM
Misconstrued in the legislation?

In BOTH the house and the senate?

Wow.

In the OP.

max sleeper
09-23-2009, 11:05 PM
"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

Sounds good! Notice the last line... you would think conservatives would be all for not having other people carry your burdens for you anymore! You have no car insurance you get a fine. By a local government office! This is not a tax to the car owner! It is a fine to get that person to buy auto insurance or face another or even go to jail. You can take every idea that Obama comes up with and try to spin it all you want. It makes since... everyone gets health insurance and we all start taking care of our own bills! Now I have given you the attention you so want... Go Chiefs!

Direckshun
09-23-2009, 11:22 PM
"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore."

I read this and it sounds like a conservative idea to me.

Am I wrong?

Taco John
09-23-2009, 11:34 PM
Calling a tax a "fine" doesn't make it any less of a tax.

banyon
09-23-2009, 11:35 PM
Calling a tax a "fine" doesn't make it any less of a tax.

Do you pay a tax on not having car insurance? Why not?

KCWolfman
09-23-2009, 11:37 PM
fines aren't taxes. I don't like the idea, but it's misconstrued here.

Really?

I have been to a doctor once as an adult, over 25 years. If I pay not to go to a doctor then it is a tax.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 11:37 PM
I read this and it sounds like a conservative idea to me.

Am I wrong?


Would mandating that everyone stand with their hand on their heart for the pledge of allegiance due to their civic responsibility to one another be considered a progressive idea?

KCWolfman
09-23-2009, 11:37 PM
Do you pay a tax on not having car insurance? Why not?

I don't have to drive a car, then I don't pay for insurance.

Your analogy is awful.

Taco John
09-23-2009, 11:39 PM
Do you pay a tax on not having car insurance? Why not?


I have car insurance. If I didn't I would be taxed for it if I got busted by a police man. Or "fined," if you prefer that parlance. Whatever you want to call it, the end result is the same: I'm writing a check to the government.

banyon
09-23-2009, 11:47 PM
I have car insurance. If I didn't I would be taxed for it if I got busted by a police man. Or "fined," if you prefer that parlance. Whatever you want to call it, the end result is the same: I'm writing a check to the government.

So, you aren't taxed for it, then?

Taco John
09-23-2009, 11:48 PM
So, you aren't taxed for it, then?

Only if I get caught without it.

Direckshun
09-23-2009, 11:55 PM
Would mandating that everyone stand with their hand on their heart for the pledge of allegiance due to their civic responsibility to one another be considered a progressive idea?

I don't think so.

I don't follow your point, though.

banyon
09-24-2009, 12:12 AM
Only if I get caught without it.

So, that's a no tax/fine then?

Taco John
09-24-2009, 12:52 AM
I don't think so.

I don't follow your point, though.


The point is, putting a "conservative" wrapper on a liberal idea doesn't make something "conservative."

2bikemike
09-24-2009, 01:16 AM
FACT CHECK: "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.



By that logic we should put and end to Welfare as well.

Direckshun
09-24-2009, 01:28 AM
The point is, putting a "conservative" wrapper on a liberal idea doesn't make something "conservative."

But isn't that exactly what a mandate delivers?

It forces an individual to have responsibility for himself?

Taco John
09-24-2009, 01:58 AM
But isn't that exactly what a mandate delivers?

It forces an individual to have responsibility for himself?


A mandate does not deliver personal responsibility. Where did you get such a notion?

How does the mandate that I provide the state with my earnings so that they can redistribute them how they see fit deliver personal responsibility?

Chief Henry
09-24-2009, 06:39 AM
I think Obama believes that if he couches his socialist ideas in conservative "take responsibility for yourself" language, that Americans will be fooled and go for it. It's actually a hat tip to the idea that people do believe in responsibility for one's self.

Its working too :cuss:

petegz28
09-24-2009, 07:42 AM
In the OP.

The OP quotes the legislation. :doh!:

petegz28
09-24-2009, 07:44 AM
I read this and it sounds like a conservative idea to me.

Am I wrong?

Except that we are going to be paying for everyone elese's health care. DOH!

Especially if we get a "Public Option" that you so badly want.

JFC, you people are a trip.

Donger
09-24-2009, 08:32 AM
In the OP.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don't get coverage. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said Monday he expects the family penalty to be slashed in half to $1,900.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage."

dirk digler
09-24-2009, 08:36 AM
I have car insurance. If I didn't I would be taxed for it if I got busted by a police man. Or "fined," if you prefer that parlance. Whatever you want to call it, the end result is the same: I'm writing a check to the government.

You are wrong if you get caught without insurance it is a fine because you are breaking the law.

In some states you can go to jail if you have no car insurance is your jail time a tax? Jeeze.

KCWolfman
09-24-2009, 09:29 AM
You are wrong if you get caught without insurance it is a fine because you are breaking the law.

In some states you can go to jail if you have no car insurance is your jail time a tax? Jeeze.

Regardless, the comparison made originally by banyon is horrible. As I said, you don't have to carry car insurance if you don't own a car or if you don't drive it.

This taxation is an attack on those who CHOSE not to be covered.

KCWolfman
09-24-2009, 09:46 AM
Regardless, the comparison made originally by banyon is horrible. As I said, you don't have to carry car insurance if you don't own a car or if you don't drive it.

This taxation is an attack on those who CHOSE not to be covered.

Plus paying for my car insurance is not used to pay for those who choose not to, or cannot afford car insurance.

Garcia Bronco
09-24-2009, 09:48 AM
Call it a fine. Call it a tax. If it's a tax then it's wrong. If it's a fine then the Governemnt is calling it a crime and that's wrong too.

Garcia Bronco
09-24-2009, 09:49 AM
Do you pay a tax on not having car insurance? Why not?

Mandated car insurance is a tax.

Garcia Bronco
09-24-2009, 09:51 AM
But isn't that exactly what a mandate delivers?

It forces an individual to have responsibility for himself?

That is a question that's a contradiction

wild1
09-24-2009, 09:54 AM
I think Obama believes that if he couches his socialist ideas in conservative "take responsibility for yourself" language, that Americans will be fooled and go for it. It's actually a hat tip to the idea that people do believe in responsibility for one's self.

The idea can't be sold to the public in the terms that make the most sense. Therefore, they repackage it using conservative terminology as buzzwords and hope most people aren't paying too much attention.

KC Dan
09-24-2009, 10:08 AM
But isn't that exactly what a mandate delivers?

It forces an individual to have responsibility for himself?
Your vision of how our republic should act and mine are very different....

Inspector
09-24-2009, 11:46 AM
In Missouri you are not required to buy car insurance if you drive a car.

You may opt to buy it if you choose but you can drive a car legally without buying car insurance.

I know someone who drives a car in Missouri, legally, and does not buy any car insurance.

Hydrae
09-24-2009, 12:16 PM
Something I have not read anywhere, when does the mandatory insurance kick in? At the age of 18? 21? What about college students as opposed to those already in the workforce at a young age?

Hydrae
09-25-2009, 07:36 AM
Something I have not read anywhere, when does the mandatory insurance kick in? At the age of 18? 21? What about college students as opposed to those already in the workforce at a young age?

*chirp*

Nothing? People are up in arms about this portion of this mess (among other portions) but noone knows how this is supposed to work or when it will kick in? I know there are umpteen different versions out there but there should be at least a hint about how they would like to implement this nonsense.

Unfortunately I expect to be very busy at work today but I will check back from time to time. This is an area of definite interest to me as I have children hitting adulthood.

RINGLEADER
09-25-2009, 11:53 AM
I don't have to drive a car, then I don't pay for insurance.

Your analogy is awful.

Yeah the whole car insurance comparison is a terrible analogy for what Obamacare professes to do. Come back when you're required to buy car insurance whether you drive or not. Or when the government gets to dictate what car insurance must cover, how much repair shops can charge, and it employs a new tax so that poor people can get their car insurance for free.

We're now in "what the meaning of 'is' is" territory.

:rolleyes:

KCWolfman
09-25-2009, 12:31 PM
*chirp*

Nothing? People are up in arms about this portion of this mess (among other portions) but noone knows how this is supposed to work or when it will kick in? I know there are umpteen different versions out there but there should be at least a hint about how they would like to implement this nonsense.

Unfortunately I expect to be very busy at work today but I will check back from time to time. This is an area of definite interest to me as I have children hitting adulthood.

Regardless of when, it doesn't make sense.

As I said, I have been to a physician once as an adult over the course of more than 25 years. What is the benefit to me?

KCWolfman
09-25-2009, 12:34 PM
Yeah the whole car insurance comparison is a terrible analogy for what Obamacare professes to do. Come back when you're required to buy car insurance whether you drive or not. Or when the government gets to dictate what car insurance must cover, how much repair shops can charge, and it employs a new tax so that poor people can get their car insurance for free.

We're now in "what the meaning of 'is' is" territory.

:rolleyes:

Thanks. I thought I was the only one seeing this.

Plus the fact that I have to pay for the coverage of every alcoholic obese chain smoking idiot in this nation at the same time.

Currently I don't have to assist in the auto coverage of those who have been deemed illegal to drive as they are a hazard on the road - I still would have to pay for the above, regardless.

BigChiefFan
09-25-2009, 12:53 PM
Wow. Time to vote in all new people. These guys can't get even get on the same page. Great use of tax dollars, wouldn't you say?

Hydrae
09-25-2009, 01:02 PM
Regardless of when, it doesn't make sense.

As I said, I have been to a physician once as an adult over the course of more than 25 years. What is the benefit to me?

Oh, I don't want ot see this crap passed. I am just trying to get a handle on some of the details so I can know how much KY to buy.

mlyonsd
09-25-2009, 02:15 PM
Yeah the whole car insurance comparison is a terrible analogy for what Obamacare professes to do. Come back when you're required to buy car insurance whether you drive or not. Or when the government gets to dictate what car insurance must cover, how much repair shops can charge, and it employs a new tax so that poor people can get their car insurance for free.

We're now in "what the meaning of 'is' is" territory.

:rolleyes:

QFT. Trouble is the same people that accepted the "what the meaning of 'is' excuse don't have a problem with accepting totally unrelated correlations spewed by the administration.