On one hand the court twisted concepts to redefine a fine as a tax. To fine someone for not purchasing a private product is a bit much. The method of the fine is getting close to being a bill of attainder, hence should have been tossed. The court chose to redefine it as a tax when the other two branches were adamant that it wasn't.
This struck me as very odd, too. No matter what you think of the bill (I'm generally in favor of it, at least insofar as that it's a step in the right direction; it may not go far enough, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and an OK law that gets passed is preferable to a better one that doesn't, at least for the moment), it should be plainly obvious that the fines are not a "tax" in any usual sense of the word.
In fact, the whole concept of taxing people for not doing something rubs me the wrong way, too, and I think the comparison that has been drawn to taxes that people have to pay simply by virtue of existing falls flat, too. Whether those are justifiable and to which extent is debatable in itself, but the fact that you can avoid paying this "tax" by doing something makes it very clear that it is intended to dissuade you from refusing to do that something — that it is, in other words, a fine and not a tax.
As for the Medicaid bit — I've been wondering, what would keep the federal government from letting the existing programmes under which states receive funding run out and replace them with new ones for equal amounts, with additional requirements that just so happen to match what was struck down now? It seems that this would not run counter to the letter of this SCOTUS ruling.
no subject
This struck me as very odd, too. No matter what you think of the bill (I'm generally in favor of it, at least insofar as that it's a step in the right direction; it may not go far enough, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and an OK law that gets passed is preferable to a better one that doesn't, at least for the moment), it should be plainly obvious that the fines are not a "tax" in any usual sense of the word.
In fact, the whole concept of taxing people for not doing something rubs me the wrong way, too, and I think the comparison that has been drawn to taxes that people have to pay simply by virtue of existing falls flat, too. Whether those are justifiable and to which extent is debatable in itself, but the fact that you can avoid paying this "tax" by doing something makes it very clear that it is intended to dissuade you from refusing to do that something — that it is, in other words, a fine and not a tax.
As for the Medicaid bit — I've been wondering, what would keep the federal government from letting the existing programmes under which states receive funding run out and replace them with new ones for equal amounts, with additional requirements that just so happen to match what was struck down now? It seems that this would not run counter to the letter of this SCOTUS ruling.