Target remains, I repeat, target remains...
That's what it looks like.That's my understanding...it's all going to be done through the tax code. If you don't have a valid, qualifying, insurance policy, you pay a higher tax. Mandate to some, tax to others.
So is the real winner here the insurance companies? Did we ever get it to where they can sell policies across state borders etc?That's my understanding...it's all going to be done through the tax code. If you don't have a valid, qualifying, insurance policy, you pay a higher tax. Mandate to some, tax to others.
What the President said in public statements is irelevent.
The administrations lawyers argued in court that it was a tax...and the court agreed with that argument. The court didn't change the law to make it a tax, they agreed with the administration's argument that it should be defined as a tax...and was therefore within the scope of Congress' authority.
Scary thing is what else will decide to pass and deem a tax now?
From SCOTUS Blog said:Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won.
That's my understanding...it's all going to be done through the tax code. If you don't have a valid, qualifying, insurance policy, you pay a higher tax. Mandate to some, tax to others.
So is the real winner here the insurance companies? Did we ever get it to where they can sell policies across state borders etc?
If what they are saying that 2/3 of the public is against the health care act then I hope it all comes back to bite the POS in November.
Enter your email address to join: