Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23592)	4/4/2012 11:56:12 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

They would have had to structure the tax a bit differently than just removing any mention of penalty and replacing it with a tax. But they could have made it a tax and made it legal. They could have made it a new payroll tax, or they could have raised income tax but given a big refundable tax credit if your covered by insurance, etc. Or they might have been able to make the states impose a health care insurance mandate by withholding money if they don't. The current case in the USSC includes consideration of whether doing this to the states to impose PPACA mandates is constitutional, but assuming that the whole law isn't tossed out because of the individual mandate, I think this part would probably stand. The courts have allowed previous such efforts where the feds pushed the states to adopt 55mph speed limits, and a the 21 drinking age.