Mitt Romney contradicts himself for the 9001st time. Says mandate is a tax.

[NVGonzalez]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/04/now_romney_says_mandate_is_a_tax.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Averroës Nix]

The status of the mandate as either a tax or a penalty in the context of the campaign has always been wholly political.

[milhouse24]

Liberals can spin it any way they want, but it is no clear that every American has to pay more to the government regardless of whether they want the product or not. 

If rich liberals are so supportive of the mandate tax, then they should just double or triple their donations for the rest of the struggling middle class who have to decide between paying more taxes or gas money. 

If its one things Americans hate, its being forced to pay for things that they don't want. 

That's why this election will be far more favorable to Romney.  Its always better to have a strong anti-Tax, anti-Spending, anti-Deficit platform; than a pro-tax, pro-spending, pro-government platform. 

Nothing rallies Americans better than a strong anti-Tax movement. 

In 2008, the anti-War movement led to the anti-Spending groups than voted for Obama.  They won't be voting for Obama in 2012.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Liberals can spin it any way they want, but it is no clear that every American has to pay more to the government regardless of whether they want the product or not. 

If rich liberals are so supportive of the mandate tax, then they should just double or triple their donations for the rest of the struggling middle class who have to decide between paying more taxes or gas money. 

If its one things Americans hate, its being forced to pay for things that they don't want. 

That's why this election will be far more favorable to Romney.  Its always better to have a strong anti-Tax, anti-Spending, anti-Deficit platform; than a pro-tax, pro-spending, pro-government platform. 

Nothing rallies Americans better than a strong anti-Tax movement. 

In 2008, the anti-War movement led to the anti-Spending groups than voted for Obama.  They won't be voting for Obama in 2012.

I don't think you realize that the tax only applies to people who don't have insurance. It's not like everyone's going to have to pay.

[ajb]

Here's a nice, tidy article on why the ACA is not in fact the largest tax increase in galactic history, or whatever level of hyperbole John Boehner is on today. In fact, families with a household income of less than $100 000 will see modest benefits, and only those with incomes over $200 000 will see any increase in costs. Of course, in Republican terms, "household income of $100 000" = "working poor" and "household income of $200 000" = "middle class."

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-03/why-obamacares-tax-increase-isnt-the-biggest-ever?campaign_id=otbrn.bw.mf

[All Along The Watchtower]

Mitt Romney looked at himself in the mirror, and said, "Why are there several of me?"

[Yank2133]

Surprise!

[milhouse24]

Liberals can spin it any way they want, but it is no clear that every American has to pay more to the government regardless of whether they want the product or not. 

If rich liberals are so supportive of the mandate tax, then they should just double or triple their donations for the rest of the struggling middle class who have to decide between paying more taxes or gas money. 

If its one things Americans hate, its being forced to pay for things that they don't want. 

That's why this election will be far more favorable to Romney.  Its always better to have a strong anti-Tax, anti-Spending, anti-Deficit platform; than a pro-tax, pro-spending, pro-government platform. 

Nothing rallies Americans better than a strong anti-Tax movement. 

In 2008, the anti-War movement led to the anti-Spending groups than voted for Obama.  They won't be voting for Obama in 2012.

I don't think you realize that the tax only applies to people who don't have insurance. It's not like everyone's going to have to pay.

As a liberal, I know you cannot understand basic accounting.  Someone or some business owner is going to pay the tax or premiums. 

1st option) the business owner pays expensive health care premiums if he has more than 50 employees.

2nd option) the business owner pays a less expensive tax penalty if he does not pay the premiums.

3rd option) the individual person pays the expensive health care premium.

4th option) the individual person pays the tax penalty instead of health care premiums. 

In conclusion, someone will be paying, either its your boss or its you, but you're paying for it big time.  All the money will be going to subsidize insurance companies.  Its corporate welfare for insurance companies who are too lazy to acquire customers with competitive rates, but need the help of government martial law. 

The mandate tax penalty goes to the insurance companies.
The health care premiums go to the insurance companies. 

Its not that difficult to understand.  You are being taxed through your personal savings or through your company paycheck. 

[ajb]

Liberals can spin it any way they want, but it is no clear that every American has to pay more to the government regardless of whether they want the product or not. 

If rich liberals are so supportive of the mandate tax, then they should just double or triple their donations for the rest of the struggling middle class who have to decide between paying more taxes or gas money. 

If its one things Americans hate, its being forced to pay for things that they don't want. 

That's why this election will be far more favorable to Romney.  Its always better to have a strong anti-Tax, anti-Spending, anti-Deficit platform; than a pro-tax, pro-spending, pro-government platform. 

Nothing rallies Americans better than a strong anti-Tax movement. 

In 2008, the anti-War movement led to the anti-Spending groups than voted for Obama.  They won't be voting for Obama in 2012.

I don't think you realize that the tax only applies to people who don't have insurance. It's not like everyone's going to have to pay.

As a liberal, I know you cannot understand basic accounting.  Someone or some business owner is going to pay the tax or premiums. 

1st option) the business owner pays expensive health care premiums if he has more than 50 employees.

2nd option) the business owner pays a less expensive tax penalty if he does not pay the premiums.

3rd option) the individual person pays the expensive health care premium.

4th option) the individual person pays the tax penalty instead of health care premiums. 

In conclusion, someone will be paying, either its your boss or its you, but you're paying for it big time.  All the money will be going to subsidize insurance companies.  Its corporate welfare for insurance companies who are too lazy to acquire customers with competitive rates, but need the help of government martial law. 

The mandate tax penalty goes to the insurance companies.
The health care premiums go to the insurance companies. 

Its not that difficult to understand.  You are being taxed through your personal savings or through your company paycheck. 

If you're going to snark about liberals not understanding accounting, you might acknowledge that tax revenues are fungible.  You might also want to make reference to the CBO estimate that in 2017, when both the penalty for individuals not purchasing insurance and the penalty for businesses not offering insurance are expected, respectively, to raise about $5 billion and $10 billion a year in revenue, which should amount to about one-twentieth of one percent of total federal government revenue by then.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf

Oh, and you might point out that, should individuals or employers choose to purchase/offer health insurance rather than pay the penalty, they actually get something for it. Health insurance. It's something most people actually want.

I'd be curious to know how many of the Republicans on this forum who celebrate the right to be without health insurance actually exercise that right themselves today.

[DrScholl]

We knew this was coming.

[ajb]

If  he wants to keep talking on this subject, I think Romney's wiser to say that the mandate penalty is not a tax. That way, he can:
1) Escape blame for what was clearly the largest tax increase in the history of the universe when he was governor of Massachusetts, and
2) Say that he disagrees with the Supreme Court: if the mandate penalty is not a tax, then, per the rest of the same ruling, the ACA was unconstitutional, which means
3) Romney has his argument back for why Romneycare was good, and Obamacare is bad.

Of course, there are costs for him, too:

1) The opportunity cost of not getting to blame Obama for the worst tax increase in any possible universe
2) He just said it was a tax, so if he goes back to his campaign's previous claim that it isn't, he'll have flip-flopped again.
3) The argument I laid out for him above is pretty intricate; good luck with getting anyone to care.

Maybe he's better off just shutting up, and letting surrogates claim that Obama has destroyed freedom, and raised taxes to a million times GNP, or whatever. That'll get some people fired up, and anyone who can't be bothered looking up just how little revenue is likely to come in from the mandate penalty, probably won't really care that Romney introduced a mandate of his own in Massachusetts.

[whitneyB]

As a Republican, even I can accept it's a penalty not a tax. Nevertheless, I think it's a bad idea; it was bad when he proposed it in Massachusetts and it's bad now. I don't think the government should be in the business of telling people to buy things, it's plain and simple.

Anyway, this back-and-forth is all political posturing and I think Romney is trying to move on to bigger things, like the economy.

[milhouse24]

As a Republican, even I can accept it's a penalty not a tax. Nevertheless, I think it's a bad idea; it was bad when he proposed it in Massachusetts and it's bad now. I don't think the government should be in the business of telling people to buy things, it's plain and simple.

Anyway, this back-and-forth is all political posturing and I think Romney is trying to move on to bigger things, like the economy.

I think the Economy is tied to the Health Care mandate.  Many businesses will slow down hiring until they can figure out exactly how badly the taxes will hurt their budget.  Some businesses don't offer health care for a variety of reasons - temporary project workers, low wage labor, McJobs, etc. 

Instead of taking out loans and expanding the economy, business expansion grinds to halt, which means the economy stops expanding and just becomes flat at 8% unemployment. 

[milhouse24]

Liberals can spin it any way they want, but it is no clear that every American has to pay more to the government regardless of whether they want the product or not. 

If rich liberals are so supportive of the mandate tax, then they should just double or triple their donations for the rest of the struggling middle class who have to decide between paying more taxes or gas money. 

If its one things Americans hate, its being forced to pay for things that they don't want. 

That's why this election will be far more favorable to Romney.  Its always better to have a strong anti-Tax, anti-Spending, anti-Deficit platform; than a pro-tax, pro-spending, pro-government platform. 

Nothing rallies Americans better than a strong anti-Tax movement. 

In 2008, the anti-War movement led to the anti-Spending groups than voted for Obama.  They won't be voting for Obama in 2012.

I don't think you realize that the tax only applies to people who don't have insurance. It's not like everyone's going to have to pay.

As a liberal, I know you cannot understand basic accounting.  Someone or some business owner is going to pay the tax or premiums. 

1st option) the business owner pays expensive health care premiums if he has more than 50 employees.

2nd option) the business owner pays a less expensive tax penalty if he does not pay the premiums.

3rd option) the individual person pays the expensive health care premium.

4th option) the individual person pays the tax penalty instead of health care premiums. 

In conclusion, someone will be paying, either its your boss or its you, but you're paying for it big time.  All the money will be going to subsidize insurance companies.  Its corporate welfare for insurance companies who are too lazy to acquire customers with competitive rates, but need the help of government martial law. 

The mandate tax penalty goes to the insurance companies.
The health care premiums go to the insurance companies. 

Its not that difficult to understand.  You are being taxed through your personal savings or through your company paycheck. 

If you're going to snark about liberals not understanding accounting, you might acknowledge that tax revenues are fungible.  You might also want to make reference to the CBO estimate that in 2017, when both the penalty for individuals not purchasing insurance and the penalty for businesses not offering insurance are expected, respectively, to raise about $5 billion and $10 billion a year in revenue, which should amount to about one-twentieth of one percent of total federal government revenue by then.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf

Oh, and you might point out that, should individuals or employers choose to purchase/offer health insurance rather than pay the penalty, they actually get something for it. Health insurance. It's something most people actually want.

I'd be curious to know how many of the Republicans on this forum who celebrate the right to be without health insurance actually exercise that right themselves today.

Again, there are people who will be taxed for something they don't want and won't buy.  They may be too poor (and not poor enough) for Medicaid, so they have to decide how to spend their savings.  No one wants to be told that they have to pay taxes to subsidize unprofitable (or profitable) HMO's. 

Many small businesses don't want to offer health insurance because they are McJobs and have temporary workers for seasonal work or project work.  They may be restaurants which are very low margin industry, and don't have the budget for the health care tax.  To compensate, food prices will go up for the consumer.  You will be paying more in groceries and for meals. 

So to say that the health care taxes won't affect you is simply false.  The health care taxes will affect many businesses and many individuals; and force them to subsidize private corporations. 

[ajb]

Liberals can spin it any way they want, but it is no clear that every American has to pay more to the government regardless of whether they want the product or not. 

If rich liberals are so supportive of the mandate tax, then they should just double or triple their donations for the rest of the struggling middle class who have to decide between paying more taxes or gas money. 

If its one things Americans hate, its being forced to pay for things that they don't want. 

That's why this election will be far more favorable to Romney.  Its always better to have a strong anti-Tax, anti-Spending, anti-Deficit platform; than a pro-tax, pro-spending, pro-government platform. 

Nothing rallies Americans better than a strong anti-Tax movement. 

In 2008, the anti-War movement led to the anti-Spending groups than voted for Obama.  They won't be voting for Obama in 2012.

I don't think you realize that the tax only applies to people who don't have insurance. It's not like everyone's going to have to pay.

As a liberal, I know you cannot understand basic accounting.  Someone or some business owner is going to pay the tax or premiums. 

1st option) the business owner pays expensive health care premiums if he has more than 50 employees.

2nd option) the business owner pays a less expensive tax penalty if he does not pay the premiums.

3rd option) the individual person pays the expensive health care premium.

4th option) the individual person pays the tax penalty instead of health care premiums. 

In conclusion, someone will be paying, either its your boss or its you, but you're paying for it big time.  All the money will be going to subsidize insurance companies.  Its corporate welfare for insurance companies who are too lazy to acquire customers with competitive rates, but need the help of government martial law. 

The mandate tax penalty goes to the insurance companies.
The health care premiums go to the insurance companies. 

Its not that difficult to understand.  You are being taxed through your personal savings or through your company paycheck. 

If you're going to snark about liberals not understanding accounting, you might acknowledge that tax revenues are fungible.  You might also want to make reference to the CBO estimate that in 2017, when both the penalty for individuals not purchasing insurance and the penalty for businesses not offering insurance are expected, respectively, to raise about $5 billion and $10 billion a year in revenue, which should amount to about one-twentieth of one percent of total federal government revenue by then.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf

Oh, and you might point out that, should individuals or employers choose to purchase/offer health insurance rather than pay the penalty, they actually get something for it. Health insurance. It's something most people actually want.

I'd be curious to know how many of the Republicans on this forum who celebrate the right to be without health insurance actually exercise that right themselves today.

Again, there are people who will be taxed for something they don't want and won't buy.  They may be too poor (and not poor enough) for Medicaid, so they have to decide how to spend their savings.  No one wants to be told that they have to pay taxes to subsidize unprofitable (or profitable) HMO's. 

Many small businesses don't want to offer health insurance because they are McJobs and have temporary workers for seasonal work or project work.  They may be restaurants which are very low margin industry, and don't have the budget for the health care tax.  To compensate, food prices will go up for the consumer.  You will be paying more in groceries and for meals. 

So to say that the health care taxes won't affect you is simply false.  The health care taxes will affect many businesses and many individuals; and force them to subsidize private corporations. 

Only full-time workers count towards the minimum 50 needed to trigger the penalty.

[7,052,770]

It's very obvious that milhous doesn't really understand how PPACA works, and that he is uninterested in learning, so it's better to just not respond to his posts...

[milhouse24]

Liberals can spin it any way they want, but it is no clear that every American has to pay more to the government regardless of whether they want the product or not. 

If rich liberals are so supportive of the mandate tax, then they should just double or triple their donations for the rest of the struggling middle class who have to decide between paying more taxes or gas money. 

If its one things Americans hate, its being forced to pay for things that they don't want. 

That's why this election will be far more favorable to Romney.  Its always better to have a strong anti-Tax, anti-Spending, anti-Deficit platform; than a pro-tax, pro-spending, pro-government platform. 

Nothing rallies Americans better than a strong anti-Tax movement. 

In 2008, the anti-War movement led to the anti-Spending groups than voted for Obama.  They won't be voting for Obama in 2012.

I don't think you realize that the tax only applies to people who don't have insurance. It's not like everyone's going to have to pay.

As a liberal, I know you cannot understand basic accounting.  Someone or some business owner is going to pay the tax or premiums. 

1st option) the business owner pays expensive health care premiums if he has more than 50 employees.

2nd option) the business owner pays a less expensive tax penalty if he does not pay the premiums.

3rd option) the individual person pays the expensive health care premium.

4th option) the individual person pays the tax penalty instead of health care premiums. 

In conclusion, someone will be paying, either its your boss or its you, but you're paying for it big time.  All the money will be going to subsidize insurance companies.  Its corporate welfare for insurance companies who are too lazy to acquire customers with competitive rates, but need the help of government martial law. 

The mandate tax penalty goes to the insurance companies.
The health care premiums go to the insurance companies. 

Its not that difficult to understand.  You are being taxed through your personal savings or through your company paycheck. 

If you're going to snark about liberals not understanding accounting, you might acknowledge that tax revenues are fungible.  You might also want to make reference to the CBO estimate that in 2017, when both the penalty for individuals not purchasing insurance and the penalty for businesses not offering insurance are expected, respectively, to raise about $5 billion and $10 billion a year in revenue, which should amount to about one-twentieth of one percent of total federal government revenue by then.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf

Oh, and you might point out that, should individuals or employers choose to purchase/offer health insurance rather than pay the penalty, they actually get something for it. Health insurance. It's something most people actually want.

I'd be curious to know how many of the Republicans on this forum who celebrate the right to be without health insurance actually exercise that right themselves today.

Again, there are people who will be taxed for something they don't want and won't buy.  They may be too poor (and not poor enough) for Medicaid, so they have to decide how to spend their savings.  No one wants to be told that they have to pay taxes to subsidize unprofitable (or profitable) HMO's. 

Many small businesses don't want to offer health insurance because they are McJobs and have temporary workers for seasonal work or project work.  They may be restaurants which are very low margin industry, and don't have the budget for the health care tax.  To compensate, food prices will go up for the consumer.  You will be paying more in groceries and for meals. 

So to say that the health care taxes won't affect you is simply false.  The health care taxes will affect many businesses and many individuals; and force them to subsidize private corporations. 

Only full-time workers count towards the minimum 50 needed to trigger the penalty.

You answered your own question, there will be less full time workers and more part time workers and freelancers.  The tax will be on business owners, who will then face a decision between hiring full time workers, temporary workers, or part time workers.  Guess what, there will be more middle class workers that will be screwed because all they can get is freelance work, and they'll have to pay the health insurance tax out of their savings. 

I know the tax doesn't "affect you" directly because you have a full-time job with benefits, but it will affect lots of other freelance middle class workers and business owners.  It will affect single mothers who don't have full time work.  It will prevent women from getting divorced because they need their spouse's health insurance. 

[milhouse24]

It's very obvious that milhous doesn't really understand how PPACA works, and that he is uninterested in learning, so it's better to just not respond to his posts...

You obviously don't understand that the ACA tax will affect those Americans who don't have full time jobs.  Rich liberals just don't understand main street americans.

[milhouse24]

The status of the mandate as either a tax or a penalty in the context of the campaign has always been wholly political.

They should just call it "the forced subsidization of private health care companies by small business owners, laid off workers, part time workers, stay at home single moms, and the unemployed" mandate tax. 

[7,052,770]

It's very obvious that milhous doesn't really understand how PPACA works, and that he is uninterested in learning, so it's better to just not respond to his posts...

You obviously don't understand that the ACA tax will affect those Americans who don't have full time jobs.  Rich liberals just don't understand main street americans.

Last time:  The tax will only be levied on people who can afford health insurance but selfishly choose not to in order to game the system.  People making under 400% of the poverty line will get subsidies to make sure they can afford health insurance, as will small businesses.  Bottom line is if you have to pay the tax, it's a fine for being an ass.

[milhouse24]

It's very obvious that milhous doesn't really understand how PPACA works, and that he is uninterested in learning, so it's better to just not respond to his posts...

You obviously don't understand that the ACA tax will affect those Americans who don't have full time jobs.  Rich liberals just don't understand main street americans.

Last time:  The tax will only be levied on people who can afford health insurance but selfishly choose not to in order to game the system.  People making under 400% of the poverty line will get subsidies to make sure they can afford health insurance, as will small businesses.  Bottom line is if you have to pay the tax, it's a fine for being an ass.

You call the "working poor" selfish for not paying for things they dont want?  Its selfish to not want to subsidize private companies. 

You liberals don't seem to understand how businesses work.  A doctor or a hospital will charge you per items of service they provide you.  You either pay with a insurance co-pay or you can pay out-of-pocket with cash.  Many hospitals even offer payment plans! 

I know this may surprise you, but it is some times cheaper to not pay the expensive monthly premiums.  If you are so generous, then take out a life insurance policy that names the government the beneficiary. 

If you don't pay your hospital bills, then the credit agency comes after you.  Or you can retro-actively apply for Medicaid. 

Now, if the government doesn't approve you for Medicaid, then will you blame the government for killing the working poor. 

Just admit it, this is a health care tax on small businesses.  Small businesses will be mandated by the government to pay subsidies to HMOs. 

[Averroës Nix]

The status of the mandate as either a tax or a penalty in the context of the campaign has always been wholly political.

They should just call it "the forced subsidization of private health care companies by small business owners, laid off workers, part time workers, stay at home single moms, and the unemployed" mandate tax. 

Who is "they," and why would they call it that?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Keep in mind that in the interview, he stated that it was a tax only because the SCOTUS said so and they have the final say. He also said in the same interview that he disagreed with the rulling. As I said before, you can accept a rulling as the law of the land, which is why he said it was a tax today, but also challenge its basis and desire it to be overturned later. It isn't contradicting himself as much it is stating, "this is how the situation stands right now, eventhough I would prefer it to be otherwise". It is also very convenient for the political argument because he can effectively have it both ways thanks to the Supreme Court. It is a delicate line to walk and one that can be easily portrayed as a flip flop, since in politics you are guilty period and fair is fair. 

The problem is actually farther down in the interview when Romney states that the mandate in MA isn't a tax because it was legal as a penalty unlike at the Federal level. For one he is trying to preserve his argument that the difference between his plan and the MA plan, which was that his is constitutional while the Federal mandate is not, by adding the legal basis (Commerce clause/penalty) on which he based that previous statement, a basis which the SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in agreement with him on as far as the Federal Mandate is concerned. The problem comes when he tries to protect himself from the charge of having raised a tax as Governor. Being legal as a penalty at the state level doesn't preclude the tax interpretation at the state level, which theoretically the state also reserves under its taxing authority.

He isn't really contradicting Ferhnstrom, but that is how it is being reported in the media. Eventhough it isn't his style, he is some ways getting revenge for the etch' sketch comment a few months back.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You liberals don't seem to understand how businesses work.

That does tend to be true, I suppose. Of course most right-wing internet creatures don't either.

[ajb]

It's very obvious that milhous doesn't really understand how PPACA works, and that he is uninterested in learning, so it's better to just not respond to his posts...

You obviously don't understand that the ACA tax will affect those Americans who don't have full time jobs.  Rich liberals just don't understand main street americans.

Last time:  The tax will only be levied on people who can afford health insurance but selfishly choose not to in order to game the system.  People making under 400% of the poverty line will get subsidies to make sure they can afford health insurance, as will small businesses.  Bottom line is if you have to pay the tax, it's a fine for being an ass.

You call the "working poor" selfish for not paying for things they dont want?  Its selfish to not want to subsidize private companies. 

You liberals don't seem to understand how businesses work.  A doctor or a hospital will charge you per items of service they provide you.  You either pay with a insurance co-pay or you can pay out-of-pocket with cash.  Many hospitals even offer payment plans! 

I know this may surprise you, but it is some times cheaper to not pay the expensive monthly premiums.  If you are so generous, then take out a life insurance policy that names the government the beneficiary. 

If you don't pay your hospital bills, then the credit agency comes after you.  Or you can retro-actively apply for Medicaid. 

Now, if the government doesn't approve you for Medicaid, then will you blame the government for killing the working poor. 

Just admit it, this is a health care tax on small businesses.  Small businesses will be mandated by the government to pay subsidies to HMOs. 

You're aware (since I mentioned it upthread) that the CBO estimates that the mandate penalty on businesses will raise about $10 billion a year in revenue once it's fully in effect by 2018, and that that amounts to about one-twentieth of one percent of the amount of revenue the federal government will be collecting by then. Given the apocalyptic vision of the future that you offer, where women won't be able to divorce their husbands, because they'd lose the health insurance (which they dread having, because health insurance is a waste of money), I have to think that you believe the CBO to be wrong in its estimates. Perhaps you could share your own estimates with us?