Thread: Who you gonna believe - Obama or Webster ??

Obama: Healthcare mandate is not a tax BECAUSE I SAID SO[i]
posted at 8:40 am on September 21, 2009 by Karl
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...use-i-said-so/

During his Magical Mystery Tour of the Sunday chat shows, Pres. Obama took ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on a trip Through the Looking Glass on the question of whether the health insurance mandate is a tax:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
***
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase…
***
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.

Stephanopoulos went to the dictionary because — having been in a similar position during the Clinton era — he knew Obama would try to deny that the individual mandate is a tax. Yet Pres. Audacity rejected the notion that a dictionary should be considered as to the definition of a word.

Lewis Carroll would be proud:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Thw Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen may groove on that sort of newspeak http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._09/020025.php , but not even the left-leaning Moderate Voice’s Jazz Shaw was buying it http://themoderatevoice.com/46919/ob...st-uneducated/ . During the George H.W. Bush administration there was a “duck test” for taxes and the individual mandate waddles and quacks like a tax. Indeed, if you don’t pay the mandate, you also pay a tax. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/0...eting-sec-401/

Nor are these the only taxes mandated by the various flavors of ObamaCare. The Baucus bill would impose a new sales tax on drugs and medical devices and a new federal excise tax on insurance plans that exceed $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. Sen. Jay Rockefeller — not a member of the VRWC — calls the latter “a big, big tax” on the middle class.

It is not surprising that Obama would deny the mandate is a tax; the mandate is already unpopular, and — if fully debated — likely will fail to attract even Democrats. But people understand that ObamaCare means tax hikes — and they know Obama knows it. Blatant dishonesty only damages the president’s credibility, assuming he has any left on the issue. At some point, all the president’s men won’t be able to put Humpty together again.


Please read my note at bottom if you are using these at a townhall:
Today’s edition relates to the individual mandate for you to carry health insurance as of Jan. 1, 2013, which is in Section 401 of H.R. 3200.

In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
Subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
‘Subpart A–Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
Sec. 59b. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
‘(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of–
‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
‘(b) Limitations-
‘(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
‘(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
‘(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the ‘applicable national average premium’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
‘(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting ‘family coverage’ for ‘self-only coverage’.
2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as–
‘(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to
‘(B) the entire taxable year.

I could quote more, but if you are preparing for this you should read the section link above. Here are questions for your congressperson or Senator regarding Sec. 401.

If my adult child is a dependent of mine, am I required under HR 3200 to buy insurance for her or him?

If I become unemployed at any time during a year, am I required to get a qualified plan or enter a government plan to avoid this tax? (It appears this proration clause I ended on does impose that requirement. If someone can find a place where it says you’re not taxed, please point me in the right direction.)

If I am a millionaire and I choose to self-insure, am I required to pay both the 2.5% tax (which, you will note, is capped at average insurance premiums as determined by your Health Choice Commissioner) and the 5.4% surcharge in Sec. 441? http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111...nid=t0:ih:1327 Do you have an estimate of the amount of legal tax avoidance that will occur if you raise taxes by that amount? http://www.scsuscholars.com/2009/07/...her-taxes.html

Who is required to document that I have the appropriate coverage? (This will be a test of whether they read 401. It’s up to the Treasury Secretary. Follow the link for the exact language.) Doesn’t this increase in paperwork defeat the purposes of cost control? http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111...nid=t0:ih:1164

Now my note: My purpose in getting you these questions is to get you something that will tell give you information, get others in the room information, about whether the legislator understands the bill and to get you some real answers if they do. These are to be a substitute for yelling, not a complement. I agree with those who are saying to stop the shouting matches at the town halls. It’s unhelpful, it plays into the hands of the Democrats and their love-slaves in the media. (Tapper not included.) Ask the questions, record the answers, then find a reporter and tell them what you thought of the answer. Get your opposition, if you are opposed, in the newspaper and on the radio and TV in a way you’d be proud to show your grandchildren. Drop me a line at my blog if you ask one of these and tell me how it was answered. Thanks. http://scsuscholars.com/

Originally Posted by Bahet

Personally I don't mind paying a bit more in taxes if it means enabling someone to get needed medical care. I already do that for seniors and veterans so why not the anyone else? As long as they are citizens I cannot justify greedily hoarding a few extra dollars and in turn telling someone who lost their job that they are SOL and try not to breathe around sick people.

That is your choice ... there are many charities that offer an hand up to people in need that would love to receive your assistance. But there is a difference in wanting to assist others and being required to give money with no say in where it goes or how it is being spent.... which is what these mandates amount to.

If this new healthcare is soooo wonderful ... why are the politicains making sure they themselves are exempt from it ??

OK, I will say this. I have mixed feelings about health care. I do recognize the need for reform. Yes there are insurance plans out there but many can not afford them. I have stated this before but we currently have private insurance and pay $1,410 w/dental for our healthy family of five. I'm sure there are many that can't afford premiums like that. It is sad that people can't afford to see a dr. or lose everything they have ever worked for due to one major health crisis.

On the other hand, the govt has a really lousy track record w/healthcare (medicare, va, etc.). I'm also not to keen on subsidizing yet something else out of my $$. But I would rather my $$ go to keeping Americans healthy than half of the other crap the govt wastes my $$ on.

Yes - the system needs work ... no disagreement here. But seeing how the goverment mishandles other "public health options" : VA, SCHIP, NA, medicare & medicaid ... lets fix the existing problems FIRST before jumping headlong into a deeper pool of ......

Originally Posted by littlebuggy

Nabk to the op, I thought it was ridiiculous of obama to be arguing the definition of the word. Does he really think we are that stupid that we can't see what's going on?

Appearently the answer is YES.

On page 29 of the Baucus bill it says "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax"

How do you argue that?

On page 29 of the Baucus bill it says "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax"

How do you argue that?

Obama has spoken and declared it is NOT A TAX ... and that should be good enough for us peons who have to pony up the cash ....

My biggest problem with government health care is that the countries that have it seem to be having lots of problems....Canadians frequently come to the US to get procedures that they can't get (in a timely fashion) in their own country. I spent a bit of time in London and heard horror stories about their government health care plan. I don't know what the RIGHT answer is, but I'm not 100% sure that this is it.

Originally Posted by janelle

Interesting on O"Reilly tonight. He said the president is right, it's not a tax, it is a fine. If you don't get health insurance you will be fined.

That will not be unconstitutional. If someone is living and breathing they have to get insurance or they will face a big fine. And NO it is not like car insurance. People can choose not to have a car and drive, no one can choose not to live and breath.

So even the poor will be caught up in this one. No savings anymore for them.

For food, I can plant a garden to get out of paying taxes but the government will probably make people report how many tomatoes they got from their plants so they can tax it.

Is the saying correct? A Democrat never saw a tax they didn't like.

Yep,We m*******s have been fined here for quite awhile.About time the rest of the USA caught up.I guess a lot of you have had it easy.It has been hard for me long before Obama took over.

Originally Posted by janelle;96208647[B

]Fined in what way?[/B] I agree, Obama didn't start it but he sure is increasing it.

If you don't have insurance here you are fined,it has been that way for years.Anyone thinking Obama made this up is sadly mistaken.I see that you don't think he started it,but A lot of people do.This is not an Obama thing,it IS a government thing.