Obamacare Constitutional - A great day for America, and therefore the world.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you serious? What does not being able to rise above part time employment have to do with the unemployment rate? gmfb

While it is fun to paint all of those without insurance as transient losers the reality is not that convenient for you to discount especially with the economic situation of this country for the better part of a decade.

A lot of people do not have health insurance and are not losers. Many are willing to work and work hard however the opportunity does not exist. A lot of people that have full time jobs that do not work for large businesses fall into the same category. Then of course there is the way that current health insurers handle risk management. If you had health insurance, got sick and then got laid off or forced to move or any of a myriad of things that cause people to migrate employment then you are screwed.

If you were 21 and were claiming that you were unfairly being forced to buy health insurance that you do not need then I could understand your position but that is not the case. You just want to paint everyone without insurance with the loser brush so you can discount them.

 

[peplaw06]

SCOTUS over and over again has stated that they look to see what something does rather than what it is called. The penalty is to be collected under tax code by the IRS. They didn't want to call it a tax because of how political rhetoric in this country works but they implemented it just like every other tax is implemented. You of all people should understand the difference between rhetoric and reality.

Even on the fist day of deliberations the DoJ peeps called it a tax although Sotamayor criticized him more than a little.

The government used the tax argument as a fallback argument. They wanted the commerce clause to cover it, and when they thought it might not, they threw the tax argument out there as a hail mary.

I understand the difference between rhetoric and reality. But when an administration consistently refutes the idea that they're increasing taxes to get a bill passed and after it's passed the public finds out it's a tax increase, that's not rhetoric. It's fraud.

I don't know of another tax that is levied for inaction. I don't know have the tax code memorized, so there might be one. But if there is, I have never heard of it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The government used the tax argument as a fallback argument. They wanted the commerce clause to cover it, and when they thought it might not, they threw the tax argument out there as a hail mary.

I understand the difference between rhetoric and reality. But when an administration consistently refutes the idea that they're increasing taxes to get a bill passed and after it's passed the public finds out it's a tax increase, that's not rhetoric. It's fraud.

I don't know of another tax that is levied for inaction. I don't know have the tax code memorized, so there might be one. But if there is, I have never heard of it.

Again the IRS administers the 'penalty' and it is outlined in the tax code. You can call it a chicken but if it walks, talks, and acts like a duck.....

Also characterizing arguments as 'hail mary' or whatever does not mitigate that they were made or even make an argument. It's a straight up fallacy. The argument WAS made and I personally do not think its a stretch to say that payments outlined in the tax code and collected by the IRS are a tax for all the spin the political realm put on it when they were trying to sell it. Wasn't that included in the ruling? With the climate of the last decade the word tax goes over like a fart in church.

As for the last exemptions are matter of course in the US tax code. If you looked at it like buying insurance as making you exempt from paying the tax would that make you feel better?

 

[Iamtdg]

The government used the tax argument as a fallback argument. They wanted the commerce clause to cover it, and when they thought it might not, they threw the tax argument out there as a hail mary.

I understand the difference between rhetoric and reality. But when an administration consistently refutes the idea that they're increasing taxes to get a bill passed and after it's passed the public finds out it's a tax increase, that's not rhetoric. It's fraud.

I don't know of another tax that is levied for inaction. I don't know have the tax code memorized, so there might be one. But if there is, I have never heard of it.

The income tax was enacted to paid for WWII, but has stuck around.

So, I suppose, it's inactive since it's not used for that anymore.

 

[peplaw06]

Again the IRS administers the 'penalty' and it is outlined in the tax code. You can call it a chicken but if it walks, talks, and acts like a duck.....

Also characterizing arguments as 'hail mary' or whatever does not mitigate that they were made or even make an argument. It's a straight up fallacy. The argument WAS made and I personally do not think its a stretch to say that payments outlined in the tax code and collected by the IRS are a tax for all the spin the political realm put on it when they were trying to sell it. Wasn't that included in the ruling? With the climate of the last decade the word tax goes over like a fart in church.

Then it's a fraud... glad we agree.

As for the last exemptions are matter of course in the US tax code. If you looked at it like buying insurance as making you exempt from paying the tax would that make you feel better?

no... that's not how the statute is written.

 

[peplaw06]

The income tax was enacted to paid for WWII, but has stuck around.

So, I suppose, it's inactive since it's not used for that anymore.

By inaction I'm meaning being taxed for doing nothing. Typically you get taxed for receiving income or buying something. You don't get taxed for not buying something.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then it's a fraud... glad we agree.

no... that's not how the statute is written.

Again, it's American politics where most everything can be interpreted as fraud. Bank regulations, bailouts, subsidies, no bid contracts, wars, immigration statutes, etc. If you want to take extra umbrage for this particular double speak then go ahead.

And exactly how is the statute written. What is the mechanism described as?

Beginning in 2014, most individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $350 in 2015, $750 in 2016 and indexed thereafter; for those under 18, the penalty will be one-half the amount for adults. Exceptions to this requirement are made for religious objectors, those who cannot afford coverage, taxpayers with incomes less than 100 percent FPL, Indian tribe members, those who receive a hardship waiver, individuals not lawfully present, incarcerated individuals, and those not covered for less than three months.

They talk of exceptions here but of course this is just from the summary. As I said word choice for rhetoric is fun and all but a SCOTUS ruling IS law.

 

[peplaw06]

Again, it's American politics where most everything can be interpreted as fraud. Bank regulations, bailouts, subsidies, no bid contracts, wars, immigration statutes, etc. If you want to take extra umbrage for this particular double speak then go ahead.

I'm taking extra umbrage here because I feel like the majority opinion has exposed the fraud for what it is. Like Roberts said, it's not the Court's place to rewrite the law, so most of my disgust is directed at the legislators and the administration. But that's exactly what the Court did is rewrite the law.

And exactly how is the statute written. What is the mechanism described as?

The statute calls the failure to follow the mandate a penalty.

They talk of exceptions here but of course this is just from the summary. As I said word choice for rhetoric is fun and all but a SCOTUS ruling IS law.

The word choice is the key to having this bill passed and the key to having it upheld. The majority opinion goes to great lengths to uphold the bill, and I believe they have overreached. It's right there in the opinion, it's not like I'm making an argument out of nothing.

 

[dbair1967]

at the stupidity some have over this

 

[superpunk]

at the stupidity some have over this

o u mad

 

[dbair1967]

o u mad

not really, it'll get repealed or states will sue/opt out anyway

its a garbage law that the vast majority of Americans didnt want, and with good reason

 

[superpunk]

not really, it'll get repealed or states will sue/opt out anyway

its a garbage law that the vast majority of Americans didnt want, and with good reason

keep dreaming david

 

[Cythim]

not really, it'll get repealed or states will sue/opt out anyway

its a garbage law that the vast majority of Americans didnt want, and with good reason

Vast majority? Nice made up statistic!


Did you know a vast majority of Americans are stupid? I'm assuming that includes you!

 

[Midswat]

Sometimes the depth of your ignorance amazes me. Your wheelhouse is getting dates with crazy ladies on craigslist. Stay away from politics, science, or current events if at all possible.

I still respect you.

PS - your wheelhouse is sucking my balls.

 

[dbair1967]

Vast majority? Nice made up statistic!


Did you know a vast majority of Americans are stupid? I'm assuming that includes you!

When over 60% dont want something, thats a vast majority

 

[dbair1967]

keep dreaming david

I'm keeping the faith

 

[Cythim]

When over 60% dont want something, thats a vast majority

60% At least you gave a number this time, but it is still a made up statistic.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Are you serious? What does not being able to rise above part time employment have to do with the unemployment rate? gmfb

While it is fun to paint all of those without insurance as transient losers the reality is not that convenient for you to discount especially with the economic situation of this country for the better part of a decade.

A lot of people do not have health insurance and are not losers. Many are willing to work and work hard however the opportunity does not exist. A lot of people that have full time jobs that do not work for large businesses fall into the same category. Then of course there is the way that current health insurers handle risk management. If you had health insurance, got sick and then got laid off or forced to move or any of a myriad of things that cause people to migrate employment then you are screwed.

If you were 21 and were claiming that you were unfairly being forced to buy health insurance that you do not need then I could understand your position but that is not the case. You just want to paint everyone without insurance with the loser brush so you can discount them.

I'm not talking about unemployment.

 

[dbair1967]

60% At least you gave a number this time, but it is still a made up statistic.

no, its not Barry lover

 

[Cythim]

no, its not Barry lover

Who is Barry? I don't know anyone with that name.