Issa to Obama: What Happened to Obamacare Not Being a Tax?


In 2009, President Obama told ABC News that the individual mandate is not a tax. Today, SCOTUS ruled otherwise. Now Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) office is out with a statement hitting the Obama administration for passing new taxes. Look for more of this in the days/weeks/months ahead: 

"The Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the President's Obamacare.  Despite being viewed as Constitutional by a narrow majority, this law will do great harm to our country by imposing new taxes, burying job creators in new red tape and saddling future generations with debt they can't afford. 

"In selling Obamacare, Congressional Democrats and President Obama assured the American people that it was not a tax.  Today, the Supreme Court ruled it was, in fact, a tax.  This tax was imposed on the American people amidst an extended recession and is one of the many reasons our economy remains stagnant under President Obama's leadership.

"To date, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted 30 times to repeal, dismantle and defund Obamacare—and we will continue our efforts to repeal this law and replace it with health care reform that enacts needed reforms without imposing costs that will be paid by subsequent generations.

"In the days ahead, I will work with my colleagues to achieve real solutions to America's health care challenges that do not infringe on doctor patient relationships, impose unpopular mandates, and do not add to the nation's already significant debt."

NEXT: Supreme Court Rejects Obama's Commerce Clause Arguments, Upholds ObamaCare Anyway Under Tax and Spend Clause

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If tax cuts, tax breaks, tax deductions and tax credits can be called “incentives”, I see no reason that taxes can’t be called “mandates”.

  2. I think we need another Obamacare thread.

  3. A tax on those who cant afford health insurance has to be the most regressive tax in history.

    1. Maybe Roberts is just a Rovien level Republican operative and decided on the path that would do the most political damage to the Democrats this fall. If it had been struck down the lefty base would have been energized. Allow it under the commerce clause the Dems get to defend it as a mandate. Call it a tax then the base isn’t energized and Obama is stuck explaining why he wants to tax the young and the poor.

    2. Surely you can see how this will fix the problem of them not being able to afford the access to healthcare that insurance is supposed to provide!

  4. The four in the minority thought the thing was an unconstitutional exercise of the commerce clause. The four in the majority sans Roberts thought was a proper exercise of commerce clause power. The Congress said it wasn’t a tax. Basically Roberts is the one person on earth who thought this was a tax.

    1. I wouldn’t say Roberts was the only one:

      I recall very facile framings and re-framings of it as a tax or penalty depending on the audience being spoken to.

    2. consensus on k-street seems to be that he didn’t want to upset the apple cart. to disruptive to kill it.

      1. That is probably a good guess. He is a suck ass climber. In the end, he just didn’t have the moral courage to upset people.

        1. Climbing to where?

          He is already as high as his profession allows.

          1. It is, like the scorpion, his nature.

    3. I see the opposition has changed talking points to “it is a tax” from it is not Constitutional.

      1. It is not constitutional. Robers is wrong. But that said, the decision is what it is and we all have to live with it. Given that, it is the largest tax ever placed on the poor and lower middle class in American history.

        1. No it’s not.

          I believe the Social Security Tax has that distinction.

          No way that the penalty of Obamacare is 12% of the income of people not eligible for Medicaid.

        2. It’s both, shrike… it’s a tax, AND it’s not Constitutional.

          Your Obama-boner is showing.

      2. Uhm, no, the supporters have moved the goalposts. We’re merely now accepting the notion that it’s a tax, from the people proffering the idea that it’s a tax, and are running with their own logic.

        And we run with that logic because it damages democrats.

    4. Basically Roberts is the one person on earth who thought this was a tax.

      Agreed. Which, IMHO, does not make good law. So why then, should I have any respect for this opinion if it basically just one persons opinion?

      1. You shouldn’t. Fuck them, don’t pay the tax.

  5. To date, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted 30 times to repeal, dismantle and defund Obamacare

    Wait, really?

    1. Yes they have to their credit. Harry Reid has kept it from even coming to a vote in the Senate because he doesn’t want Dems stuck voting for Obamacare twice.

      1. I remembered that they did it like once right at the beginning, I didn’t know they’d kept pushing it since.

      2. The problem is they failed to attach it to important but unrelated bills.

        Let the senate strip it off. Then put it back on in committee. It passes or nothing passes.

        But the House GOP is a bunch of pussies.

  6. Does this ruling mean that the Republicans can now add to the health care law and add a $500,000.00 tax per abortion on any doctor that performs abortion?

    1. No, it means they can add a $500,000 tax that all doctors have to pay, but also add a $500,000 tax credit available to doctors who don’t perform abortions.

      1. Yeah, that’s a really interesting thought…

      2. Today for you Tomorrow for me. It could be a good tactic on the part of the Republicans to force the leftist to see what their actions could lead to. However, I don’t see this ending well on any level.

        1. Now try explaining that to people who look at political affiliations as if it were being a Yankees fan or a Red Sox fan (or whatever rivalry you enjoy). Those of us who just want to live freely get to continue trying to protect our assholes (with very limited success).

    2. Yup and a surtax on anyone who lawfully can own a firearm but doesn’t.

      1. Yup and a surtax on anyone who lawfully can own a firearm but doesn’t.

        That would be soooooooo funny.

        1. Ya. And by “legally” we mean no Federal prohibition. Live in NYC or Chicago or DC? Oh well, too bad. Either prove you have done the responsible thing and are able to protect your family, or pay the tax. I mean, if you aren’t responsible enough to protect your family, then the government has to do it for you, and you are a freeloader.

      2. “Because you never know when you may need a firearm to defend your family…” Same as healthcare I suppose.

        1. We all participate in the survival market.

      3. “The citizens who rely on the police to defend their person and property are putting a huge strain on the law enforcement system. This free-loading has to stop.”

        1. Time to make these free loaders pay up.

        2. Me likee, Suge.

      4. Imagine the news clip after this passes:

        Scene: Suburban living room. Middle aged, sad-faced, chinless, liberal couple sitting on the couch. A bored looking 8 year-old boy slumped in the corner of the couch. In front of them, a coffee table with a 1911 and a M-4.
        Sad Liberal Mom: I’m afraid of guns but we have to obey the Law.
        Sad Liberal Dad: I don’t know anything about guns but the tax penalty would have made it impossible to send our daughter Brittney to Tennis Camp.
        Bored kid: Mooom, can I go out to play now?
        SLM: Yes, and take these guns with you. I hate having them in the house.
        Kid picks up 1911 and twirls it with finger on the trigger then grabs the M-4 by the barrel and drags it out of the room.
        SLD: I blame Bush.

      5. Yes — in the event of a true crises, the military might not have time or resources to train and equip draftees. It is imperative for national security that everyone own and be trained in the use of a gun. Especially everyone in New York, D.C., and Chicago — after all, those are key targets for our nation’s enemies.

        1. Militia Act Bitches!

        2. Which would pretty much make us Switzerland.

    3. No, it means they can add a tax like that for a doctor who doesn’t not refuse to not do so.

    4. I agree with the idea for almost anything other non-action Congress wants to tax, but I’m afraid the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution (R.I.P.) would prevent such a tax on abortion.

      1. And by “agree with the idea” please understand that I meant “agree that according to this ruling such a tax would be allowed.” And not that I actually “agree with the idea” of passing such a law.

  7. I guess we really did have to pass it to find out what was in it.

    1. Apparently we not only had to pass it but take it to the Supreme Court.

    2. I still don’t know what’s in it.

  8. As somebody predicted, dccc has just sent out an email indicating that now is really the time to donate three dollars, so that they can “carry this momentum” into November.

  9. Time to start buying Romney contracts on InTrade.

    1. I am thinking the same thing.

      1. Well the good thing is that a Romney victory in November would be interpreted as a mandate to repeal Obamacare (similar to Scott Brown’s victory over Coakley was a vote against the health reform push at the time).

        ‘Mandate’ meaning Romney wouldn’t have to pussy-foot around it, and he’d have carte blanche to eradicate the damn thing without concern for political capital.

        In theory.

        1. (similar to Scott Brown’s victory over Coakley was a vote against the health reform push at the time).

          Yet we still wound up with ObamaCare.

      2. Doesn’t the mandate kick in in 2014? If so, O just won re-election. What can R say: “I support it at the state level, but not the federal level. ” That is a pretty weak argument. And people like free stuff, and there are more getting free stuff than paying, and the ones paying wouldn’t vote for O anyway.

    2. Obama reelection is up 0.9% on Intrade today. I’m a bit surprised.

      1. Intrade was also just about 75% that the ACA was going to get struck down as unconstitutional.

  10. This is going to eat up a lot of earned income credits.

    Time to double down on audits of poor people, I guess.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.