Latest Headlines
- Community Health Northwest Florida Targeted In Cyberattack
- Walnut Hill Convicted Felon Facing Weapons Charge In Atmore
- One Injured In Highway 29 Crash Near Roberts Road
- Softball Team Remembers Teammate Killed In Pace Wreck
- Wanted Flomaton Man Arrested On Drug Charges After Allegedly Breaking Into Home While Fleeing Police
- It’s Easy To Recycle Your Wrapping Paper And Boxes
- Escambia Deputies Seek Christmas Day Attempted Homicide Suspect
- Escambia County Again Seeking Applicants For Escambia Children’s Trust
- Ice Flyers Get Rewarding Win Against Macon Mayhem
- ECFR Says McDavid Mobile Home Fire Was Sparked By Trash Fire; Firefighters Respond To Ascend
Supreme Court Health Care Arguments Begins With Tax Issue
March 27, 2012
In the first day of landmark hearings, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday listened to arguments about whether a tax law should block a ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 federal health overhaul.
The Obama administration and the Florida-led opponents of the federal Affordable Care Act agree that the tax law —- known as the “anti-injunction act” — should not short-circuit a ruling in the case. The anti-injunction act is designed to prevent legal challenges to taxes until after they have taken effect.
The federal health overhaul would impose financial penalties, which could be considered taxes, on people who don’t comply with a requirement that they have health insurance. But that requirement will not take effect until 2014, raising questions about whether it is premature for justices to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
Gregory Katsas, an attorney for the opponents, said the tax law does not bar justices from ruling on the broader issues.
“The purpose of this lawsuit is to challenge a requirement — a federal requirement to buy health insurance,” Katsas said, according to a transcript of the hearing. “That requirement itself is not a tax. And for that reason alone, we think the anti-injunction act doesn’t apply.”
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made a similar argument. “This case presents issues of great moment, and the anti-injunction act does not bar the court’s consideration of those issues,” Verrilli said.
But attorney Robert A. Long, who argued that the anti-injunction act applied, said the act is a central part of tax litigation and requires that “you must pay the tax first and then litigate. That’s the baseline.”
Justices repeatedly questioned the attorneys during the 89-minute hearing but likely will not rule on the issue for months.
The court will move Tuesday into the main event of the hearings — whether the insurance requirement, known widely as the “individual mandate” — is constitutional. The hearings will end Wednesday, with arguments about the constitutionality of part of the Affordable Care Act that would expand Medicaid.
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
8 Responses to “Supreme Court Health Care Arguments Begins With Tax Issue”
Here is a ,liberals out look, I demand you do every thing I want, as long as I can make you pay or some one else pay for it. People who work ,and companies that work should take care of the rest of us. And why is that? Well liberals are to busy trying to tell the rest of us what to do.Because they know what is best for us. If you do not believe that, just ask them.
To all those who wish to save the world, feel free, give them all the money you have. But you have no right to take money that is not yours for your own selfish causes. And liberals love to spend money they do not have, and that is not theirs. Just remember, if you oppose a liberal, your wrong, and they will turn the truth any way they have to , to prove it! And a few examples, gun control, global warming, health care, But as a life long blue dog democrat, the party is in bad shape.! Oh wait, why don’t we kick all the liberals out of the democratic party and make them form their own left wing socialist party.Maybe they could get Van Jones. or some of obama’a old buddies to run it. Lets see how that works out.
REGARDING:
“Selfishness harms society”
Since selfishness harms society, quit harming society, give away all you own and give it to to others. NOW.
David for kindly forcing people to not be selfish
for the good of society
“The Justice Department has countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not “choose” to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services — costs that are shifted first to insurance companies and then passed on to consumers.”
For Republicans America is a platform for individual fulfillment. But here’s the catch: the Individual is defined in the narrowest possible terms. Any notion of the “The Public Good” is seen as “Socialism” (socialism being anything the government does for the non-wealthy). The Free Market will fix New Orleans levees. The Free Market will effectively control the amount of derivative based risk Wall Street will take. The Free Market will get us off imported oil(rather than spending decades making terrorists stronger). The Free Market will keep our rivers clean. The Free Market will make healthcare more efficient. The Free Market won’t bribe Washington in order to increase it’s profit margin. We don’t need to worry about “The Public Good”, individual selfishness driven by short term profit is a utopian reflex.
But the world doesn’t work that way. Selfishness harms society….tears it apart….destroys the world economy….spills millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico…..tears a hole in the ozone…creates a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas…melts the North Polar ice cap…..creates massive deficits by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy….
But the Republicans celebrate this selfishness. It is their core value. For them greed is good.
Kathy, I sure hope you do not shop the way you support this bill, if you do then you will buy any thing! No one read it,no one knows what is in it, and you think that is a good idea? So you want some government person to make your medical calls? Good luck with that, but I trust my horse Vet more than I do the government.
Right on Kathy!!!!
It’s a bad law. It opens the gates to give unlimited power to Federal Government.
Its a good law, the losers who refuse to purchase insurance coverage can’t depend on Medicaid to protect them from debt because they didn’t want to pay. You don’t want to pay for peoples health care through Medicaid but you don’t want anyone to have to be responsible either, you don’t get it both ways. The funny thing is if this was presented by republicans you would be tripping over yourselves to agree.