STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. [Yeah. Only the Supreme Court can do that, evidently – ed] Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
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. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
I bolded the important bits in case a philosopher king happens by and finds him or herself curious as to how the little people think and argue.
(thanks to Pablo)
The insuarnace companies are losing bit money on the stock market right now. Gods of the copy book headings have bought a business class ticket and booked a room in town.
For those who understand legal shorthand, what’s Insty saying here?
What’s López?
United States v Lopez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
I’m more wondering about the misdirection Insty refers to in Marbury, by way of analogy to Roberts’ action, m’self.
United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
link
Beck reacts. I like the effect.
I’m thinking that on the road we’ve been on, inevitably careening toward the wall, today is the day the brakes went out. Hold on tight.
this Beck person is very deluded this is a HUGE setback and the American people are mostly a cowardly and whorish parasitic coalition of food stampers and government employees
I’m more wondering about the misdirection Insty refers to in Marbury, by way of analogy to Roberts’ action, m’self.
In Marbury, the Court decided that while Marbury had a right to receive his papers, and that the Secretary of State had the obligation to deliver them, nonetheless the Court decided that it lacked the jurisdiction to force the issue because the law giving them such jurisdiction was unconstitutional.
Thus, the Court decided against Marbury, while simultaneously granting itself authority to strike down laws it held as unconstitutional.
Personally, I have trouble believing that Roberts is half that clever.
You and your Hollyweird friends are not a representative sample of the American people, ‘feets.
this Beck person is very deluded this is a HUGE setback and the American people are mostly a cowardly and whorish parasitic coalition of food stampers and government employees
Spoken as a person who lives in SoCAL and not Texas, as Beck does.
Oh, he knows it’s a setback. He’s also determined to kick off hard against the wall we just crashed into.
you don’t need a representative sample in John Roberts’ America Mr. Pablo you just need 51 votes a whore in your white house and a sufficiently pliable bullshit constitution
check check and check
The SCOTUS just called Barack Obama a liar. The President, being the gentleman he is, made the SCOTUS king.
Bingo, JHo.
That was my take as well, JHo.
God. I am so tired. Five and a half years of this shit now…this may kill me.
I’m leaning towards unintended consequences myself. If the Rush paraphrase of the Roberts ruling is correct (It’s not the Court’s job to save the People from their elected officials), then Roberts has (accidentally? intentionally?) distilled the essence of what this election is about:
Are we a nation of free citizens under the law, or a nation of subjects bound by the whims of lawmakers?
I’m curious as to why anyone might think Obama would be the least bit concerned about being considered a liar and a hypocrite.
[…] you argue, it clearly wasn’t intended as a tax (or if it was, there’s no way of ever knowing that, given that it was presented as a penalty […]