President Obama’s campaign spokesman said on CNN this morning that his boss disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling on the individual mandate.
When prodded by host Soledad O’Brien, Ben LaBolt said that the Obama specifically believes that the mandate consists of a penalty.
“You saw our arguments before the Supreme Court. You see what the president has said over the past several years that it’s a penalty for that 1 percent of the population who can afford health insurance but hasn’t chosen to get it,” LaBolt said. “Because the fact is that has led the rest of us to pay a hidden tax of $1,000 a year, folks already covered. It drives up our premiums.”
“So, then he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision that says it’s now a tax?” O’Brien asked.
“That’s right. He’s said that it’s a penalty. You saw our arguments before the court,” LaBolt, rejecting O’Brien’s assertion that the tax angle was used by Obama’s side as a “backup argument” before the court.
“It never referred to it as — it never referred to it as a tax. It said it was a penalty,” LaBolt said. “And that’s under the section of the law that is the tax code, but it said very specifically it’s a penalty.”
The campaign spokesman was later pressed on why the “penalty” was administered by the IRS.
“Nowhere during the arguments — we are the ones who have been consistent here,” LaBolt said. “Consistent it’s a penalty. Mitt Romney has disagreed with his own campaign advisers and disagreed with himself about whether his own mandate is a tax. He made clear in 2009 in the USA Today op-ed that it was a tax.”
It was only upheld as a tax. If it’s a penalty, it gets struck down. So is Dear Liar now saying that ObamaCare/Tax is unconstitutional?
Hope the puppacita enjoyed her french fry.
Of course, it had to be argued by Obama’s attorneys that it was a tax in order to have that outcome. Which it was. That was their last ditch effort to get it passed by hook or by crook. Turned out by crook was the correct answer.
– Sheriff of Nottingham, the regime will call it whatever the moment requires.
“it’s a penalty for that 1 percent of the population who can afford health insurance but hasn’t chosen to get it”
So, he will take control of the entire healthcare system for 350million people, drive away private insurers, destroy everyone’s coverage, quality of care, enslave us to a string of govt panels for the rest of our lives, etc… just to “punish” 1% of the population? And, for some reason, we ALL have to be fined to achieve this?
God help us if that how he really thinks.
This goes along with what I have been thinking. So this penalty/not-a-tax is assessed on 1% of the population because they refuse to be “responsible” in the eyes of the government and get health insurance that they can afford BUT the Buffet Tax is a tax because that particular 1% of the population refuses to be “responsible” and kind and give their money to the government anyway to pay for things the government deems necessary?
How are these any different? One is a Tax outright and the other is a “penalty”. But both are punitive measures on people not acting the way the government wants them to.
Really? Why not use the executive power to discard the penalty/mandate/tax? What a joke!
Tell the Liar in Chief that if he wants it to be a penalty, he’ll have to accept it as being unconstitutional, and have the law struck down. You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Kenya-born, Muslim President.
By disagreeing with the decision, Obama can have his cake and eat it too. His disagreement gives him the room to scold the court should it venture to render a future decision he doesn’t like all the while raking in the taxes on young people who don’t want to buy insurance. When you don’t have principles and winning is the goal, anything goes.
Reality Check: President Obama and Mitt Romney Don’t Have Opposing Views On Healthcare? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gMfeature=plcp
Income tax is a penalty on those who work for a living. The harder you work, the more you are penalized. Those who refuse to work and take government money instead never get penalized. Doesn’t that have Obama written all over it.
It IS a tax, unless Obama wants to contradict what the Supreme Court said. Obama is in a bind, because the court clearly ruled against a mandate. So now either Obama accepts the tax, or he has to admit that all of Obamacare is unconstitutional. Since he won’t do that, he’s stuck with the tax, which is what this thing should have been called all along.
And I hope he chokes on those words. He lied day in and day out while Obamacare was being debated in Congress and never admitted that it was a tax. Well, now it is. And it’s not some small, little, tax. It’s the greatest tax increase this country has ever seen, and it will get bigger as time passes. Is this what people really want out of their government? Is this what people want to end up being, living off the charity of the state? This may be a tough election, but the goals are clear. We must stop the far-left socialist agenda and stop this country from becoming a total welfare state, like Greece or Spain, which are now bankrupt.
This is about health care, and I think all seniors should know this:
Do all the people all in really know what’s in it. I surely don’t. Heaven help us – how did we get this guy anyway?
And yet the aarp stands to get billions from this and is all in. Good luck seniors.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS.
At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment see page 272
What Nancy Pelosi didn’t want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, “pass it and then read it!!.” Here it is!
Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB 3200
JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX – highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200
Please read this……. especially the reference to pages 58 & 59
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors’ fees.
^^ Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:
“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If
they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”
HonorableDavid Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas
All of the above should give you the ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare.
I found this on snopes.
If Congress didn’t write or approve it as a tax what Roberts “created” was a different bill not approved by Congress. He doesn’t have the power to legislate. There’s nothing then legitimate to force anyone to pay anything.
What happened was that this was originally a bill that Harry Reid presented. He gutted that “shell” bill and added the ObamaCare language. No one read it as they had not seen it before it was presented. It was voted on and passed. Roberts did indeed change the language of the law to read “tax” instead of “penalty”. Nothing like legislating from the bench, hmmm? Now we have all three branches of government writing laws. In Roberts opinion he wrote that he felt it was his duty to do anything necessary in order to make sure that legislation written by congress was constitutional. That means that he does not believe in enumerated powers or one branch acting as a check on the others. Therefore, he should be impeached and the other justices should have term limits imposed upon them.
Obama disagrees because he’s racist. Only the white judges and the white latina consented.
Sorry, folks, the law is the law.
This is just another example of Obama voting, “Present”. It worked for him before, it got him elected so why won’t it work now?