| Poll |
| If Newt's the Nominee, What Will the Nov. Election Results Be? |
|
|
|
Results
|
| The Stench |
Find out how Cooch took $55,000 from the disgraced "U.S. Navy Veterans Association," in apparent exchange for his promise to get the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs (which had "notified Thompson's group that it no longer qualified for an exemption from state registration requirements") off the group's back. Can we say "pay-to-play?" Find out more.
|
Progressive Legal Directory
www.criminallawyervirginia.net
www.virginia-duilawyers.com
www.virginia-personalinjurylawyer.com
www.recklessdrivinglawyer.net
www.helpdisabilitylawyer.com
www.criminallawdc.com
www.duilawsdc.com
ADT Home Security in
Virginia
|
|
|
Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 17:30:20 PM EDT
|
 As I'm sure you heard, our fine Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, is working hard to defend us against the evils of having to buy health insurance. In fact, Cooch claims, this is not just a bad policy but actually unconstitutional, and he's on a mission to prove it. Now, there are any number of obstacles to this suit making any headway, including the fact that its utterly devoid of any merit. But minor quibbles aside (heh), let's start at the beginning, with Cooch claiming a "mandate" is unconstitutional. There's only one problem, as Ezra Klein explains: this isn't really a "mandate" at all.
Most people will never notice the mandate, as they get insurance through their employer and that's good enough for the government. But of those who aren't exempt and aren't insured, the choice will be this: Purchase insurance or pay a small fine. In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive.
And what happens if you don't buy insurance and you don't pay the penalty? Well, not much. The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent. That's right, you have the option of buying health insurance or not buying health insurance. And if you don't buy health insurance, what happens to you? Not much, or at worst a "fine" - essentially a fee for being a "free rider" on the system - that you have essentially chosen to pay in order to not carry health insurance coverage. That's some onerous "mandate," huh? No, didn't think so. In fact, it's far more accurate to call this a combination incentive and disincentive to purchase health insurance. But you don't HAVE to. So where's the "mandate" exactly?
By the way, what's so hilarious about the sudden Republican hysteria on the individual (non-)mandate is that they're the ones who came up with this idea in the first place! That's right, back in 1993, Republicans supported the individual mandate "as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time." Even in 2006, Republican Mitt Romney wrote the following in the Wall Street Journal:
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate...But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian. Today, suddenly, Romney and other Republicans are against THEIR OWN IDEA of an "individual mandate," because that's the politically expedient thing for them to do. But that doesn't mean there's any merit to their argument that it's "unconstitutional." And that's before we even address the question of whether being given the OPTION of purchasing insurance or paying a fee/fine/whatever is truly a "mandate" at all. I'd argue it isn't, since you don't have to do it (which is what "mandate" means, right?).
Regardless, there's almost certainly nothing unconstitutional about government requiring people to pay a fee/fine/tax/whatever, unless the courts decide to overturn centuries of legal precedent. Which means that Ken Cuccinelli is simply wasting everyone's time and money on a wild goose chase that will lead nowhere, instead of doing his job - cracking down on predatory lenders, internet predators, gangs, etc., etc. Gee, aren't you glad you hired the "tough-on-crime" Republican as Attorney General? |
| lowkell :: It Can't Be Unconstitutional If It's Not A Mandate |
|
|
| Advertising |
|
| About |
|
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, and "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!
P.S. You can contact us at lowell@raisingkaine.com and you can subscribe to Lowell's Twitter feed here. If you'd like to subscribe to Miles Grant's Twitter feed, click here. For Teacherken, click here. For Kindler, click here.
P.P.S. To see the Blue Virginia archive, please click here. To see the Raising Kaine archive, please click here. To see the Blue Commonwealth archive, please click here.
RSS Feed
Subscribe to Blue Virginia - Front Page
|
|
