Since Obamacare is a tax . . .

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

Roberts did not say ACA is a tax. He said the penalty provision of ACA amounted to a tax.

and the relevance of this distinction matters how?

he ruled it legal because taxes are legal. Trying to claim significance over the notion of 'amounts' to taxes sounds much like how you like to misquote Heller and its 'not unlimited' phrase.

[tkhayes 348]

Which means what exactly? That people will have more incentive to health insurance? I thought that was the whole point of the bill. Your 'disaster' is actually the intent of the bill. More personally responsibility, mandated by federal law. as in so many other laws, it holds people accountable.

It will still fail because we left it up to private insurance companies, so they will turn it into a massive profit machine, which will pave the way for single payer. Probably sooner than I originally predicted.

[kallend 2,146]

kelpdiver

***
Roberts did not say ACA is a tax. He said the penalty provision of ACA amounted to a tax.

and the relevance of this distinction matters how?

he ruled it legal because taxes are legal. Trying to claim significance over the notion of 'amounts' to taxes sounds much like how you like to misquote Heller and its 'not unlimited' phrase.

You have a really hard time admitting that you're wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

DanG

Quote

I don't know . . . What other tax forces you to buy a product?

Does the mortgage interest deduction force you to buy a house?

Lack of a mortgage interest deduction is not a tax. Income tax is a tax. If you get a mortgage, the government allows you to deduct the interest you pay, essentially agreeing to split the interest bill with you, but you don't "come out ahead" of where you'd be if you hadn't gotten the mortgage in the first place. Similarly you can write off health insurance premiums for yourself, your spouse, and your kids (though not your domestic partner if, say, you're gay and live in a state that prohibits gay marriage.)

In either case, you either make the purchase or you don't, and the government deductions allow you to afford more of that product... (...until everyone can afford more of that product and the price just goes up leaving you right where you started but mortgage banks, health insurance companies, and real-estate firms are all up. But that's another discussion.)

In the case of the ACA you either get insurance and then you have insurance or you pay a fine to not have insurance. It is not like a deduction.

It is more similar to car insurance requirements where you are subject to fine for operating a motor vehicle on public roads without insurance. The ACA is saying that every inch of land in the country is a "public road" and being alive is "operating a motor vehicle" on it. It's a new concept. If you think it's the right idea, that's fine, but acknowledge it for what it is.

/edited to add: buying health insurance is now in a class with being called to jury duty and being drafted into the military.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

buying health insurance is now in a class with being called to jury duty and being drafted into the military.

Yup, you are a patriot if you condemn a man to death, or take up arms. You are an enemy of the state if you help pay for health care coverage for Americans.

[Amazon 7]

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

buying health insurance is now in a class with being called to jury duty and being drafted into the military.

Yup, you are a patriot if you condemn a man to death, or take up arms. You are an enemy of the state if you help pay for health care coverage for Americans.

I neither wrote nor implied either of those things. Who are you arguing with?

[turtlespeed 226]

kelpdiver

***
Show me where they passed a law that every individual must purchase car insurance or get fined.

CA will not give you a registration sticker without insurance or a posted bond. Not a fine per se, but definitely a consequence. (and no sticker translates to frequent tickets)

Unless you use public transportation.

Or do they make you have insurance for that, and fine you if you don't?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

tkhayes

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0324/Sections/0324.021.html

That is just Florida and it is only one example of which I stated there were many. try again.

I will believe your fervent eagerness to make an issue out of the ACA when I see you letters to state and federal representatives regarding your requirement to have car insurance as a 'tax'.

I didn't see anywhere in there that, if a person uses public transportation, they would need to purchase an insurance product or be fined as a tax if they don't.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

turtlespeed

******
Show me where they passed a law that every individual must purchase car insurance or get fined.

CA will not give you a registration sticker without insurance or a posted bond. Not a fine per se, but definitely a consequence. (and no sticker translates to frequent tickets)

Unless you use public transportation.

Or do they make you have insurance for that, and fine you if you don't?

Ah, now I see what your argument was. So you're correct, this would only apply to would be car owners within the state who want to drive on public roads.

That said, the response will be that everyone uses health care, while not everyone drives. And this is correct as well.

[tkhayes 348]

no, not every one drives. not everyone uses the military either, or social security, or education or for that matter health care. not everyone goes to the doctor, but in the 'new way' of the ACA, everyone is going to have health insurance or pay a penalty for it. The penalty is allowed under tax laws. This does not actually support the claim that the ACA it in its entirety is a tax.

The original statement is false.

"Given that Obama is a communist...." discuss.

same kind of statement. an assumption from the beginning that has no basis, therefore not actually worth discussing.

you people....really. get over yourselves. The Supreme Court already ruled on it. Which is great, unless of course you do not believe in the Supreme Court. Or the Constitution. Or the American way of things actually working. Don't like it? Get elected and change it.

[rushmc 23]

tkhayes

Don't like it? Get elected and change it.

Working on it....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

Good man- that is how the process works

[rushmc 23]

tkhayes

Good man- that is how the process works

Yep
the first thing the elected need to do it to take back control from the courts and the executive branch
Back to what the Constitution intended
Not what it is today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

well arguably all the issues relate to the failure of Congress. They have the ultimate power. If Congress was doing its job, the President might not be so inclined to use executive powers to get things done.
"Sometimes it is not enough to do your best, sometimes you must do what is necessary" - Winston Churchill and my all-time favorite quote

And if Congress (local state and federal levels for that matter) wrote sensible legislation instead of ideologies, then they would stand up to the test of the courts. I am Ok when the courts get involved in tossing out stupid shit - it is supposed to work that way.

Anyway, I agree with your premise....scary I know.....

[rushmc 23]

tkhayes

well arguably all the issues relate to the failure of Congress. They have the ultimate power. If Congress was doing its job, the President might not be so inclined to use executive powers to get things done.
"Sometimes it is not enough to do your best, sometimes you must do what is necessary" - Winston Churchill and my all-time favorite quote

And if Congress (local state and federal levels for that matter) wrote sensible legislation instead of ideologies, then they would stand up to the test of the courts. I am Ok when the courts get involved in tossing out stupid shit - it is supposed to work that way.

Anyway, I agree with your premise....scary I know.....

the situation does not matter
The law does
Once we ignore it because our opinions do not agree with what is going on we are headed a direction we not be able to change

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

The law does

yes it does but it is seldom black and white. that is why we have courts. If the laws were all black and white and there was little or no interpretation of said laws, we would hardly need the courts.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

Hi rush,

Quote

the first thing the elected need to do it to take back control from the courts and the executive branch
Back to what the Constitution intended

I do not claim to be any constitutional scholar but it does seem to me that our founders specifically had these as seperate entities, not one in control of the other(s).

Seperate!!!!!

I do think that is what the Constitution intended.

JerryBaumchen

[kallend 2,146]

turtlespeed

******
Show me where they passed a law that every individual must purchase car insurance or get fined.

CA will not give you a registration sticker without insurance or a posted bond. Not a fine per se, but definitely a consequence. (and no sticker translates to frequent tickets)

Unless you use public transportation.

Or do they make you have insurance for that, and fine you if you don't?

Your fare includes paying for the insurance that the transportation company carries.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

More personally responsibility, mandated by federal law. as in so many other laws, it holds people accountable.

Wow, can't believe this came from you. There's lots of room for us to agree on here...

How about this - every child's birth certificate must have the father's name on it? That way, we can all hold the father responsible for raising that child. And, eliminating single motherhood would reduce poverty in America more than any other measure we could take. And, it would enforce the concept of a nuclear family, which is the cornerstone for civil society.

What do you think?

We are all engines of karma

[Amazon 7]

StreetScooby

Quote

More personally responsibility, mandated by federal law. as in so many other laws, it holds people accountable.

Wow, can't believe this came from you. There's lots of room for us to agree on here...

How about this - every child's birth certificate must have the father's name on it? That way, we can all hold the father responsible for raising that child. And, eliminating single motherhood would reduce poverty in America more than any other measure we could take. And, it would enforce the concept of a nuclear family, which is the cornerstone for civil society.

What do you think?

Oh yeah that works out so well for abusers across America, although with the rates of domestic violence who is it supposed to help with that "cornerstone for civil society", certainly not for the beaten women or abused children.

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

the first thing the elected need to do it to take back control from the courts and the executive branch
Back to what the Constitution intended

I do not claim to be any constitutional scholar but it does seem to me that our founders specifically had these as seperate entities, not one in control of the other(s).

Seperate!!!!!

I do think that is what the Constitution intended.

JerryBaumchen

As do I

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

Hi rush,

Quote

As do I

However, that is a complete contradiction of this:

"the first thing the elected need to do it to take back control from the courts and the executive branch"

Your words, not mine.

You remind me of John McCain in 2008; he didn't know where he stood either.



JerryBaumchen

[richravizza 28]

I must Buy insurance for my Wife and I.
But I can not Buy a Policy for my Child.She must go to Medical.Still haven't Heard a Word from them and no Bill to be Paid.
NO Shit. Covered CA would not let me Purchase health ins.for my child.?

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

As do I

However, that is a complete contradiction of this:

"the first thing the elected need to do it to take back control from the courts and the executive branch"

Your words, not mine.

You remind me of John McCain in 2008; he didn't know where he stood either.



JerryBaumchen

Yes, those are my words

the courts and the executive branch have already usurped more power than they are supposed to have

From both us the people and the states

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln