Romney On Obamacare: It’s A Tax

There was a big decision last week.  The Supreme Court ruled that the AMA was constitutional under the ability of congress to tax.  Republicans, and I, jumped on this to claim that Obama broke his pledge to raise taxes.

Initially, Romney claimed that the AMA, Obamacare, was not a tax but rather a penalty:

In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown,” Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom was asked whether Romney agreed with last week’s Supreme Court ruling.

“The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax,” Fehrnstrom said.

When pressed by host Chuck Todd about whether Romney supported calling the financial burden placed on Americans who choose not to buy health care “a penalty or a fee or a fine” rather than a tax, Fehrnstrom replied: “That’s correct.”

However, governor Romney has changed his tune, to one that sounds more true:

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney attempted to clarify his campaign’s position on the individual mandate, calling the provision a “tax” days after his top adviser said otherwise.

“The Supreme Court has spoken and while I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said that it’s a tax and therefore it is a tax,” said Romney in an interview aired Wednesday on “CBS This Evening.”

This happens to be what I think.  Obama never meant this to be a tax.  He adamantly denied it was a tax.  It never would have passed had it been a tax.  It clearly was meant to be a mandate under the commerce clause.  However, that is not how the supreme court saw it.  To them, the mandate is a tax, therefore, legally, it’s a tax.

 

7 responses to “Romney On Obamacare: It’s A Tax

  1. Obama will still call it a penalty, and note that it’s the same as Romney’s in Romneycare. He’ll disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation, and note that only people don’t buy affordable coverage will have to pay the penalty. Reagan never agreed with Roe v Wade, many politicians on both sides of the aisle disagree with particular Supreme Court interpretations and definitions. The Supreme Court determines how the law will be enforced, but politicians have never been under any obligation to agree with their decisions or forced to accept their terms.

    • The Supreme Court determines how the law will be enforced, but politicians have never been under any obligation to agree with their decisions or forced to accept their terms.

      I agree. Obama is not under any obligation to agree with the court. However, by not agreeing with them that it’s a tax he’s saying that he has the authority under the commerce clause. And he the court decided that he doesn’t. So by saying that it’s not a tax he’s disagreeing twice with the court.

      He’s entitled, but legally, he’s wrong.

      I disagree with RvW, but legally abortion is legal. I can “think the court is wrong” all day long, but I’d be wrong to say it’s illegal.

      • And he the court decided that he doesn’t. So by saying that it’s not a tax he’s disagreeing twice with the court.
        He’s entitled, but legally, he’s wrong.

        I cannot explain this enough, apparently. The court DID NOT SAY THIS. Five justices said they wouldn’t have upheld it under the commerce clause, but that’s not actually law. It’s just a non-binding expression, they can change their mind tomorrow if they want. No (decent) lower court will ever cite those sentences, because it’s one of the easiest first-year concepts in law school. Parts of the decision that are incidental to the ruling are dicta, which means they are non-binding. Legally, those sentences have no significance or force. The court didn’t decide anything with respect to the commerce clause. Period.

  2. The only relevance now is whether Romney can call ObamaCare a tax during the campaign and get away with it . In the movie Miracle on 34th Street the Judge said ” Uh, since the United States Government declares this man to be Santa Claus, this court will not dispute it . ”

    The Supreme Court, the highest legal authority in the land, just declared ObamaCare a tax . It certainly has taxes in it . Logically Governor Romney should totally hammer President Obama over breaking his pledges not to raise taxes on the middle class.

  3. Your comment regarding a healthcare cap of 5,000 as not being very expensive is a bit off the mark. When My husband and I had our son, back in 1994, I was in the hospital for 3 days with complications. (my son was a large baby and I was an itty bitty thing). I got excellent care at the hospital and when it came time to take our beautiful bundle home, my husband wrote a check for $99.67. Fast forward 18 years later, where last weekend I spent over 700.00 at the doctor on my son when he became sick with a lung infection. While corrupt politicians and greedy bankers gladly help themselves to the public trough, our costs keep going up and up with no end in sight. What is wrong with the idea of having affordable health care in this country? Why is it okay to raid the taxpayers through bailouts, and other financial swindles, yet give NOTHING back? Is this the kind of country that you want? My parents were staunch Republicans back in the golden age of our country, but they haven’t voted Republican since George W. Bush pulled his reckless shenanigans just before leaving office. They look around them and see a country in shambles, not because of Obama, but because of mindless conformity that has infected the Republican party, and causes its followers to obstruct, deny, punish, and lambast everything, yet offer no solutions. When my father died last year, one of the last things he said to me was this: They will destroy this country in toto, just like Cain slew Able. What will be left will not be a country united, but a confederacy of dunces.

    • Your comment regarding a healthcare cap of 5,000 as not being very expensive is a bit off the mark.

      Hi Deb, I think that you’re referring to my post on the cost of health insurance, not this one discussing it as a tax. Which is fine, but you had me confused for a second.

      First, $5,000 is a lot of money. Certainly not an amount of money that can be assumed that can easily be raised. However, my comments regarding that $5,000 was a reference to the deductible, not the actual cost of the insurance.

      See, in the debate over health insurance, the president, and many on the left, would claim that sickness or medical emergency shouldn’t force someone into bankruptcy. While I don’t understand that argument, it’s the one that was debated. My point is that, while 5 grand is a lot of money, having a medical bill of 5k probably won’t bankrupt anyone.

      Fast forward 18 years later, where last weekend I spent over 700.00 at the doctor on my son when he became sick with a lung infection.

      I hope your son is okay.

      And yes, my high deductible plan wouldn’t help you out on the $700 bill.

      Again, I hope your son is doing better this week.

      While corrupt politicians and greedy bankers gladly help themselves to the public trough, our costs keep going up and up with no end in sight.

      I don’t think that bankers have much to do with the price of medical care.

      What is wrong with the idea of having affordable health care in this country?

      Nothing. However, Obamacare doesn’tdo anything about that problem. In fact, it’ll make it worse.

      My parents were staunch Republicans back in the golden age of our country, but they haven’t voted Republican since George W. Bush pulled his reckless shenanigans just before leaving office. They look around them and see a country in shambles, not because of Obama, but because of mindless conformity that has infected the Republican party, and causes its followers to obstruct, deny, punish, and lambast everything, yet offer no solutions.

      I would find it hard to argue with your parents. The republicans need to offer simple and effective solutions.

Leave a Reply to Pino Cancel reply