Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff, declared that the Supreme Court decision upholding ObamaCare should end the national debate about the Constitutionality of the overreaching law.
"It's time now to get over the debate and implement that law," he told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. Lew stated that one of the "great things" about America is that when the Supreme Court rules, the ruling is final.
Despite his enthusiasm for the Supreme Court decision, Lew cherry-picked what he liked about the ruling, as he would not call the individual mandate, the most disputed aspect of ObamaCare, a "tax", as was confirmed by the decision of Justice John Roberts.
The Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is Constitutional based on the premise that the mandate is a tax. The Chief of Staff, if he is to accept the ruling, needs to accept the entire ruling.
Politico reported on Lew's defiance during CNN's State of the Union Sunday morning, he stated that the mandate penalty is not a tax and the Supreme Court ruling didn't make it so. He further minimized it by saying that only one percent of Americans will have to pay the penalty. It is unclear as to what is a penalty and what is a mandate. If one does not pay the mandate (tax), then one has to pay a penalty, right?
Lew dug himself deeper when he insisted that ObamaCare is clear about the "penalty" and further stated specifically that the Supreme Court did not call this a tax. He is mistaken here or hoping that people are not paying attention, as the Supreme Court did specify that the mandate is a "tax" and on that basis, deemed the law to be Constitutional.
Jack Lew is attempting to gloss over the sticking point, which is that all along, critics of ObamaCare have called the ObamaCare Mandate a tax on the middle class, something the President has repeatedly stated he would not do. It is reminiscent of calling taxes "revenue", a silly word for what it is, more money out of the paychecks of tax-paying citizens for the government.
Here is a part of the exchange with George Stephanopoulos:
LEW: He - He went through the different powers that Congress has and found that there is a power, whatever you call it, to assess a penalty like this.
STEPAHNOPOULOS: He called it a tax.
LEW: (no response)
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're conceding that?
LEW: I'm saying that it was set up as a penalty for people who choose not to buy insurance, even though they can afford it, and for that one percent, we call it fair.
Lew also pointed out that ObamaCare is being used as tool to divide the country.
In 2009, Stephanopoulos had a similar exchange with the president whether or not the mandate was a tax. After a tense discussion about whether the mandate was, in fact, a tax, Stephanopoulos pulled out a dictionary, and President Obama told him it was a "stretch" to try to define the word "tax".
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.
Watch the exchange here:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 66
If these are not taxes in the health care bill, then there is no need for the Internal Revenue Service to be included as the collection agency within the bill.
This is a tax...As I said in another post, "You can call this a tree if you want to, but it is still the government collecting funds based on a specific situation." That is a tax, period...
When you get your bill for your cable, Internet, phone bundle, and the amount is $25 above your usual amount, and the added cost is not itemized to tell you the reason for the increase, you will not care what it is for. You will be concerned that you have to pay more. Once again, common logic is absent with many on the very principle of many issues...
Which is why the right is passing state laws at an astounding rate without rhyme or sane reasoning behind it. NO data to support most of it, but they're passing it, just the same. What do you mean, Cookie?
"The number of chronically uninsured people who would prefer to have insurance but can’t afford it is likely 10-12 million people, or one quarter of the number often repeated by the media."
?The Census Bureau itself says that “Health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported…†(See Appendix C of THIS report) For example, “16.9 percent of people with an MSIS record indicating Medicaid coverage reported…that they were uninsured.â€
?According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, “as many as 12 million uninsured Americans are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program–but they haven’t signed up.â€
?More than half of the uninsured are between 18 and 34 years of age, a group which has relatively few expensive health issues and for whom self-insuring (paying their own medical bills) makes sense. Only 14% of people over the age of 55% are uninsured.
?Over 9 million of the “uninsured†have household incomes over $75,000.
?Roughly 30% of the uninsured are without insurance for less than 6 months (though this statistic will likely worsen during the current recession).
?And finally, estimates are that between 7.5 million to over 10 million of the uninsured (15% of them or more) are illegal immigrants.
Then there are taxes that will impact the very components of the health care industry, and because of the implied taxes, the cost will be transferred to the actual cost of health care. The bill does not dictate, nor control how much the insurance will cost, and the insurance companies have promised that the cost will actually increase.
So people, who cannot afford health care, will be forced to buy health care insurance, but it will be at a cost higher than what they could not afford before the plan. There are many taxes in the bill, and the Internal Revenue Service is authorized and is set up to collect them.
This is not simply an attempt to provide health care, and in reality, it will not make the changes needed to do so. What it will do, and that was the true goal, is to give control of the industry to the government, as the government will share all of the benefits of the monetary part of the industry with the industry, itself.
Speaking of voter fraud...
The word "efficient" cannot be associated with the health care bill, and I will explain my reasoning. In a nation of 316,000,000, whereas by their own numbers, the government says that 30,000,000 are without health care insurance, it is absolutely ridiculous to come to the conclusion that we need to renovate or alter what is working for 286,000,000 Americans. If the bill would concentrate on the 30,000,000 who do not have health care insurance, and not apply the plan to the other 286,000,000 who currently have health care insurance, paying for the entire plan would not be a problem, and most would not be opposed to doing just that. Listen carefully...There is a reason for all 316,000,000 Americans to be included in this health care plan. Taxes will apply to every single person in this nation, either directly, or indirectly, and that is why the Internal Revenue Service is established as having a major role in this plan. Anything else that is said about this bill will only cloud this issue, but logic is not a strong point with the plan, itself. Once the 30,000,000 have health care insurance, then we could address the internal problems within the health care industry, but the industry, itself is not broken, and should not be addressed in its entirety...Vic Damico
Who can take our money and give us inefficient programs we don't want?
The Government Can!
I think Mr. Obama should take his "penalty" to the Supreme Court and insist they rule it is not a tax. Of course, he would lose...
The human animal is a social animal. We actually do need and depend on one another in many, many ways, and this is true even of the rich. Americans have been so conditioned by years of red-scaring that everything collective is bad, but we do need to do somethings collectively.
Even right wingers who claim to be committed to individual responsibility recognize that there are certain allegiances that trump the individual (country, the military, etc.).
We are better off as a society if we do not allow people to die of curable conditions simply because they are too poor to pay for expensive medical care. We are better off is we do not allow people to homeless and disposable.
We already have provided for people to be able to obtain medical care, in spite of poverty. It is called Medicaid.
There are also hospitals willing to accept partial, or no payment. There are clinics to see a Doctor an pay based on ability.
Then there are charities that will help those who need it.
However, since some are not actually living in poverty, and could pay for at least a portion of the care, they have chosen to not be covered.
Their choice.
NO one is refused care for a lack of ability to pay.
I am very sorry for your loss, but I must ask.
Why did he not qualify for Medicaid, if he was poor?
Every truly needy person qualifies. All they have to do is ask the Co-ordinator at the clinic/hospital.
Unless the nephew was in the country illegally, was well above poverty level in income, or had a large amount in assets, there is no reason for this to have happened.
What I have stated is 100% factual.
In your Nephews situation, there must be some extenuating circumstances you are leaving out.
If you refer to the money that must be paid if you choose not to purchase or maintain health care insurance as a penalty, Obama has not broken his promise that he will not increase the taxes on those who make under $250,000...
Either way, the amount of money that must be paid remains the same, and either way, it must be paid for the exact same reason. The simply choice between the words "tax" or "penalty" will determine if Obama has kept his promise...Just how screwed up are we with logical analysis?
I don't even know why people argue with Vic. He actually read the darn thing. Unlike 95% of Congress.