I had read everything Stephen King wrote up through ~1995 so I can say I have passed that point.

I have a full Baroque Cycle notch on my bookshelf.

Not sure why people are so dismissive of the tax argument. Here's an excerpt from Yale prof Jack Balkin:

"The term “individual mandate” is misleading for two reasons. First, the law would not actually require all individuals to purchase insurance. The mandate would not apply to persons receiving Medicare or Medicaid, military families, persons living overseas, persons with religious objections, or persons who already get health insurance from their employers under a qualified plan.124
Second, it is not actually a mandate. It is a tax, which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes a penalty tax for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan.125
The tax is part of a comprehensive reform of health insurance that insures more people and prevents them from being denied insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions. Successful reform requires that uninsured persons—most of whom are younger and healthier than average—join the national risk pool; this helps lower the costs of health insurance premiums nationally.
The tax gives uninsured people a choice. If they stay out of the risk pool, they effectively raise other people’s insurance costs, and Congress taxes them to recoup some of the costs. If they join the risk pool, they save the system money and so they do not have to pay the tax. A good analogy would be a tax on polluters who fail to install pollution-control equipment: they can pay the tax or install the equipment."

Hasn't the administration given up the mandate=tax argument? Seems that this argument has been dismissed by the lower courts.

The states have the power to mandate auto insurance AND health insurance (like Massachusetts does now). The Federal govt does not. It has to do with enforcement powers.

If Obamacare had been structured so that instead of a mandate, there would have been a tax on the folks who didn't want to buy health insurance, it would have been completely legal. But they couldn't get it passed that way.

The tax penalty is an illegal non-apportioned direct tax on those without health insurance. It is clear in the Constitution. It is an illegal capitation.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

It would be a lot more interesting to read the various arguments ITT if every single one of them didn't align so conveniently with the poster's policy preferences.

I have to agree. Plus, the Republicans speeches write themselves too: Obama tried to jam through health care and the neutral supreme court said he was doing something unconstitutional. Obama hates the constitution.

I'd prefer the mandate get struck, but constitutional law clearly doesn't prohibit it.

Romney Ad:

Obama appears taking his oath of office, the background tract plays the CNN talking heads with the breaking news that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Romney appears with his family in the background at a stump speech, "I will fight to preserve, protect and defend our constitution."

"Why does Obama hate our freedomz?"

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

I'm not sure this actually counts as a capitation, as it's not a tax concerning an individual per se, but economic activity/non-activity. But I leave this point to Con-Law experts. My understanding of a capitation is rather different.

Would this case even be in front of the supreme court if there was more bi-partisan support for it?

Capitation Tax:
An assessment levied by the government upon a person at a fixed rate regardless of income or worth.
Since it is a tax upon the individual, and not upon merchandise, a capitation tax is frequently labeled a head tax. A poll tax is a capitation tax.

The Affordable Care Act's tax penalty is $695 or 2.5% income (whatever is greater). The $695 floor makes it a direct head tax. It is non-apportioned. It is a capitation. It is illegal.

Completely out of context, wouldn't you call "$695 or 2.5% income (whatever is greater)" more of an income tax than one "levied at a fixed rate regardless of income or worth."

Edit: to add that there's also a minimum income required here, which is of course relevant to the above comment.

http://www.redstate.com/steven_willi...de-capitation/

This is a good article from RedState. He makes good points but alas RedState is the far-right equivalent of the Kos so read it with skepticism.

You can make that argument yes.

I would say the $695 (minimum floor) would make it a capitation on whatever taxpayer has to pay it though. The argument is that the Act will require a taxpayer to pay this direct $695 tax, an illegal capitation, for existing, for not participating and having "minimum healthcare coverage".

For what its worth I think the mandate is good policy. It eliminates adverse selection. It is illegal though in my interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The tax penalty is also illegal in my interpretation of illegal non-apportioned taxes.

A tax that's of the form "3% of income, not imposed if income is less than $20K" -- would you consider that a capitation, or an income tax?

A poor attempt at a graphical representation of the $700 or 3%, with a floor on income:

My understanding was the Solicitor General (who should be fired because he can't explain himself worth a damn) had earlier argued that since it was ultimately a tax derived from income in either case, the capitation issue did not apply. But we will see what the court says about that. Seems to me if there is any clause that's severable, that one might be it, anyway.

The issue is one: the statue for the tax penalty is under "excise taxes" not "income taxes" and it's clearly not an excise tax and two: the fact that it references income is in regards on how to apply the tax. There is still a floor of $695.

Income tax.

But what you are describing is not the tax penalty of the Affordable Care Act.

It's one to say it's a tax, but not allowed because of capitation. It's another to say it's not a tax at all.

The liberals on the court, as well as the conservatives, seemed to dismiss that it was a tax at all.

BTW, despite my defense of the mandate's constitutionality, I don't have strong feelings on it either way from a policy prospective. I actually think it's going to be hard to enforce and the enforcement mechanism seems poor.

If the current law is not strong enough it will be strengthened to the level necessary for the scheme to become viable. There are some on the right wing that argue that the enforcement mechanism is purposefully weak to ensure the demise of the private healthcare insurance market. I don't buy this line of thinking but it exists.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016110.html

OK. But they seem pretty close to me. Let me simplify the tax penalty for individuals.

The greater of $695 per year or 2.5 percent of income, unless income is less than $9,350.

If I change the $695 to $233.75, would this be acceptable?
(That's 2.5% of income, waived if income is under $9,350.)

If not, what about:
0% of income under $9,350
100% of income between $9,350 and $10,045
0% of income between $10,045 and $27,800
2.5% of income exceeding $27,800

The last one I think you'd have to agree is a pure income tax. Easy fix to the law, even if it's not exactly the same thing...

Yeah, didn't help that Obama specifically said it wasn't a tax.

#shootingselfinfoot