Individual Mandate Unenforceable?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

While there will be much spirited debate over the constitutionality of the mandate, a problem has arisen - from the Joint Committee on Taxation:

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3673

So, Obama/Pelosi were hoping for the honor system to make this work?

4

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

…So, Obama/Pelosi were hoping for the honor system to make this work?

[/quote]
Or is this an intentional built-in failure mechanism that will usher us into the next phase of reform?
[/quote]

My belief is that there are many facets of this bill that are purposefully designed to usher in it’s failure, and ultimately a single payer system. This is just another move in their political game of chess.

5

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

My belief is that there are many facets of this bill that are purposefully designed to usher in it’s failure, and ultimately a single payer system. This is just another move in their political game of chess.[/quote]

Push and Big,

It’s interesting. It is either:

  1. Galactic incompetence

or

  1. Intentionally designed to bankrupt the process and is the stalking horse for the public option, single payer, etc.

Honestly, both seem like rational choices. If there are others, I am all ears.

6

Regardless of the explanation, this will be great fodder for the debate leading up to November and beyond. I am no fan of O’Reilly, but he had Anthony Weiner on and they touched on this issue and Weiner was a trainwreck. It won’t get any better for the other mouthpieces trying to build support for the bill.

If this line of questioning gets pushed - and it will - that doesn’t bode well for the Social Democrats. They have to admit imcompetence, or they have to admit a most cynical approach to advancing their health care goal. Of course, they will admit neither, which is actually the worst answer of the choices.

9

[quote]pushharder wrote:

So as it stands now, one without insurance will have to report it on his tax form…and their will be a line item to fill in the calculated fine…but if one does so and mails off his return without including the fine…that’s the end of that?

Or is the government planning on most taxpayers having paid in more withholding taxes (via their employer) like many do who get a “refund” each year? Under that typical scenario the tax return preparer could not ask for that fine to be returned; the government would already have their hands on the money. So those folks would then forfeit the money and those who owed taxes after tax prep could then make the decision whether or not to pay the fine?[/quote]

Good questions, no idea. I would expect that anyone not getting government-approved insurance - likely willfully doing so in defiance of this law - would be savvy enough not to give an overpayment on taxes if they feared this “unofficial” enforcement.

10

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

My belief is that there are many facets of this bill that are purposefully designed to usher in it’s failure, and ultimately a single payer system. This is just another move in their political game of chess.[/quote]

Push and Big,

It’s interesting. It is either:

  1. Galactic incompetence

or

  1. Intentionally designed to bankrupt the process and is the stalking horse for the public option, single payer, etc.

Honestly, both seem like rational choices. If there are others, I am all ears.[/quote]

Personally, I think that our currently elected leaders are capable of great incompetence, especially obama himself. But my gut is telling me to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Never underestimating the enemy is always good policy, IMHO.

11

I see this as intentional sabotage. Like Push mentioned above, the lack of teeth on this thing will be the surface scapegoat as to why this will fail, and to why this will not be deficit neutral. Like many of the existing laws, if they are not enforced then they are doomed to fail.

12

You guys are all racists!

/sarc

13

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Regardless of the explanation, this will be great fodder for the debate leading up to November and beyond. I am no fan of O’Reilly, but he had Anthony Weiner on and they touched on this issue and Weiner was a trainwreck…[/quote]

Is it possible THIS is what Wiener was referring to?

I saw the interview too. Could Weiner have actually known there was no enforcement provision but didn’t want to openly admit it? Was he tacitly telling O’Reilly it’s a toothless provision?[/quote]

What we all forget is that Congress, for better or worse, writes law. But it is the IRS that writes regulation.

The IRS and its administrative law courts will write the rules by which the “meaning” of the law will be enforced. Where there is no clear meaning, they will create one. Without congressional review, for the large part.

And it is all legal and constitutional.

14

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Regardless of the explanation, this will be great fodder for the debate leading up to November and beyond. I am no fan of O’Reilly, but he had Anthony Weiner on and they touched on this issue and Weiner was a trainwreck…[/quote]

Is it possible THIS is what Wiener was referring to?

I saw the interview too. Could Weiner have actually known there was no enforcement provision but didn’t want to openly admit it? Was he tacitly telling O’Reilly it’s a toothless provision?[/quote]

We saw something like this, but on a statewide level here. When voters voted down tax hikes last year, the state tax board adjusted the tax brackets, lowering them, so now the highest tax rates kick in starting at an income of 46k. People bitched and moaned, but nothing could be done legally.

What we all forget is that Congress, for better or worse, writes law. But it is the IRS that writes regulation.

The IRS and its administrative law courts will write the rules by which the “meaning” of the law will be enforced. Where there is no clear meaning, they will create one. Without congressional review, for the large part.

And it is all legal and constitutional.

[/quote]

15

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Regardless of the explanation, this will be great fodder for the debate leading up to November and beyond. I am no fan of O’Reilly, but he had Anthony Weiner on and they touched on this issue and Weiner was a trainwreck…[/quote]

Is it possible THIS is what Wiener was referring to?

I saw the interview too. Could Weiner have actually known there was no enforcement provision but didn’t want to openly admit it? Was he tacitly telling O’Reilly it’s a toothless provision?[/quote]

We saw something like this, but on a statewide level here. When voters voted down tax hikes last year, the state tax board adjusted the tax brackets, lowering them, so now the highest tax rates kick in starting at an income of 46k. People bitched and moaned, but nothing could be done legally.

What we all forget is that Congress, for better or worse, writes law. But it is the IRS that writes regulation.

The IRS and its administrative law courts will write the rules by which the “meaning” of the law will be enforced. Where there is no clear meaning, they will create one. Without congressional review, for the large part.

And it is all legal and constitutional.

[/quote]
[/quote]

More speculation on the constitutionality questions:

http://roomfordembate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/is-the-health-care-law-unconstitutional/#james

I cite this for the last discussion by Dr. Blumstein.

For example, under ObamaCare, MedicAid must expand. It has been estimated that this expansion will cost California $3 billion per year.
Currently, California spends $40 billion dollars on MediCal, about half its cost with the other half paid by the Feds

As Maximus well knows, the California budget is currently at least $17 billion in the red.

So, Maximus, write a letter to the Governator:

  1. MediCal is a voluntary program. It can be ended, legally, at any time.
  2. Now that ObamaCare has mandated something called “Insurance Exchanges”–the provenance and funding of which is unclear–those dropped MediCal patients can now be enrolled in and Insurance Exchange, no questions asked!
    California goes from $20 billion in the red to $23 billion in the black, each year.
  3. What a gift! Several million new legal customers for the new Insurance Exchange–let’s call it CaLie–and the money will come from “somewhere.” True, there may be others wanting to enter it, but so far I have not read about any restrictions. Perhaps the Feds will pony-up their $80 billion per year to cover the whole cost of services.
  4. True, once one state drops Medicaid, others would follow. Why should Delaware pay for California’s problems, after all? But I am certain there is a carefully thought-out provision to cover every eventuality. Somewhere.
16

you guys are all racists

17

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
you guys are all racists[/quote]

We make fun of handicapped people too!

19

Dr. Skeptix,

This bill will affect California more than anyone else, it was reported that Cali has about 8 million of the 30 million who are uninsured. So I guess in a shitty way, all of you guys will be subsidizing many of us here.

When you talk about California, I should bring you up to speed on all aspects…

  1. The state has to start implementing provisions because of the state wide global varming bill that was passed (<—that is how Ahhnold pronounces it, so I must follow suit.) How will this happen, the state wants to increase energy rates by up to 30%, all for “green jobs.” Spain did a study on their experience with green jobs, for ever 1 job created for green energy, 2.2 jobs were lost. Should the state not follow the mandates, they will be fined by the state. Yes you read that right, they will fine themselves. By the way, this asshole drives his hummer around, and rides in his private plane, while promoting more carpooling and public transit.

  2. The state deficit is currently at $20 Billion, not 17, what’s a measly 3 billion at this point right?

  3. Unions will not renegotiate their pensions, costing us billions per year, they will not give ground. The state tried to raise taxes to compensate, it failed. Ahhhnold talked about, “oh the children (we have a near 40% dropout rate.)” Statements like, “people will die in the streets” and “firemen and cops will be laid off.” But no cubicle workers will. That’s right, cubicle hamsters remain instead of cops and firemen.

  4. The state raised tuition for public universities by 30%, and while this is alot, Cali has the cheapest public school tuition in the country. Students protested saying that college education is a “right.” Imagine that? There are more noble laureates teaching at Berkeley than at Yale, but the difference in tuition is $22k per year. Only 27% or the state population has a college degree.

  5. This is the WORST business climate in the country. The tax codes and provisions are so brutal, they run commercials inviting businesses to move to Nevada (not joking.) What’s worse, is that people are going there.

I wanna say this clear, and I hope all of you listen. You better make sure any Republican you vote for, is a staunch Republican. Fucking Arnold is not even luke warm, he bent over for everyone, he has no backbone to speak of. You can forget the tough guy in the movies you all know, he has a cavern of a vagina so big that would make good ol’ Maria say DAMN!

This is what happens when you have a Democratic Government, you have more spending, taxation, and entitlements than any state can handle. This is my version of an apology, for all of you paying for all of our mistakes.

20

Who is John Galt?