Romney advisor: individual mandate is a “penalty,” not a “tax”

Watch as Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, admitts Monday that he actually agrees with the Obama administration on something: the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is a “penalty” and not a “tax.”


Fehrnstrom’s statement seems pretty unambiguous to me….what so many Republicans have been parroting as a “tax” is really nothing more than a penalty that will only come into play for those individuals (or families) that choose not to purchase health insurance coverage.

Share:

Related Articles

4 thoughts on “Romney advisor: individual mandate is a “penalty,” not a “tax”

  1. Of course it is. And, now that the number is actually been revealed, as 700 USD for individuals, that is not too big a hit, if one wants to either self-insure, or opt out. Self-insuring is for really wealthy families, and opting out is for really stubborn ones, but the penalty cost is less than one month’s typical premium, wouldn’t you say?
    Speaker Boehner’s antipathy about revealing the specific Repub plan to replace the dreaded ObamaCare ( say it Loud, you’re Covered and Proud!) in the Norah O’Donnell interview indicates, amongst many things, the simple fact that the GOP wants the credit for the positive changes, and also wants to chew the budgetary heart out of some other programs to pay for it, instead of raising taxes, which NEEDS to happen for all kinds of intelligent reasons.
    Of course, they COULD submit to massive tax reform, lowering rates, eliminating deductions of most sorts, and making sure money comes back onshore, but that would just give the First Black President’s tenure another historic accomplishment, and, being the staunch Patriots they are, they simply cannot have that. It would not be good for the Party, I mean the Country’s legacy. ( I always misspell the word “money”. Is it because I am a progressive Democrat, or is it the layout of the keyboard? MBB

  2. “what so many Republicans have been parroting as a “tax” is really nothing more than a penalty that will only come into play for those individuals (or families) that choose not to purchase health insurance coverage.”

    Maybe so, but then Obmacare would be unconstitutional because its constitutionality rests on it being a tax.

    1. According to Chief Justice Roberts. According to the opinions of Justices Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Breyer felt that the penalty was constitutional under the Commerce Clause as is. So what it comes down to is a very nuanced, semantic argument by a justice who was trying to justify his vote knowing that the ACA was worth keeping. But since nobody who watches Fox News could spell nuance if spotted the first five letters understands anything in Roberts’ opinion other than the word “tax” such mewling by those folks should come as no surprise.

      Now, in reality, Roberts did all the RWNJs a huge favor by ruling the penalty as being under Congress’ authority to tax. And that is that they can change that tax. You would much rather have that than have the penalty be a fee, which falls outside Congress’ purview to tax, meaning fees can be changed by regulatory agencies without the advice from Congress. Hence the reason why the right has completely forgotten about what it was they were campaigning on before that was so critically important to them (the economy) and now they are fighting health care all over again. We’ll see how that plays out, but right now, ole Mittens is sitting in a 100+ electoral vote disadvantage.

      1. Its according to the Supreme Court not just Roberts. Remember this was a plurality decision but Roberts had a majority on the commerce clause issue as he was joined by Scalia, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas. Justices Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Breyer were in the minority on this issue and wrote a separate concurring opinion to address their dissent.

Comments are closed.