{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

To prove further that the individual mandate is

Info iconThis preview shows pages 28–30. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
To prove further that the individual mandate is indeed a tax in character, the Supreme Court came up with three analysis to show how the shared responsibility payment for violating the individual mandate can be constitutional as a tax. The first analysis concludes that for most of the Americans who end up not getting insurance and become subject to the tax, this tax will be less than the price of any insurance they would get. Also by law of the provision, it could never be more. (pp 35 567 U.S.) The Supreme Court used a prior case of Drexel Furniture to compare a large tax which was placed on those companies who ignored law. What the Supreme Court is trying to say here is that even if an individual decides to ignore the provisions of the individual mandate, the payment they would have to make would not be substantial as in the case of Drexel . The second analysis of the court involves that the mandate contains no scienter requirement. Scienter refers to the knowledge of wrongdoing. The third analysis of the court of why the mandate is a tax is because the means of collecting the mandate payment is the exact same as
Background image of page 28

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
collecting federal taxes in the United States- the IRS (pp36 567 U.S.). An interesting part of the opinion of the Court in my opinion has to do with the fact that the Court admits that the individual mandate was created in order to expand medical coverage by influencing conduct. Some of our earliest taxes in the history of the country were made in order to influence or deter Americans from purchasing foreign goods in order to spur domestic industry (pp 36 567 U.S.). An example the court uses to show a tax in the country today that exists to deter and influence people is the tax on cigarettes. There are high taxes in order to help curb the growth of smokers in this country, so therefore if there is a tax would encourage individuals to buy insurance, this would be acceptable. To further help distinguish that the individual mandate is a tax rather than a penalty, the Supreme Court write that the definition of a penalty is “punishment for an unlawful act or omission” (pp 37 567 U.S.). When the Affordable Care Act is read, the act gives an individual two ways to satisfy the individual mandate. One way is to acquire the minimum amount of health coverage pursuant to what the Act calls for. Failing to do this is breaking the law and a fee will be assessed. No negative legal consequences to not buying the minimum health coverage will be brought upon an individual besides the fee that they will have to pay. When this fee is paid, the law has been satisfied. It has been determined that about 4 million people will not obtain the health coverage and pay the tax. The Supreme Court concluded that “Congress would be troubled by such conduct if it were determined to be unlawful and that Congress would not try to create 4 million outlaws” (pp37 567 U.S.). What this suggests is that the shared responsibility payment for violating the individual mandate imposes a tax that citizens can pay instead of buying health insurance.
Background image of page 29
Image of page 30
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}