Originally Posted by hustler
(Post 896534)
+1.
I don't understand how it can violate the commerce section and still be constitutional; I know I don't care to pay for healthcare to people who didn't make their health a priority. The logic of the so-called "Individual Mandate", i.e. each citizen has to pay a penalty due to it, was found in violation of it. Or, to be more specific, the court found it was stupid to try to argue that people not engaging in commerce was a reason to fine them/slap a penalty on them. (I am actually thankful for this, although not an expansion of Congress' power per se, it has never before been affirmed by the court directly to be an actual power held by Congress, only indirectly.) However, if the Individual Mandate is a tax, and not a penalty, then it falls within the government's power. I.e., it is well-established that the government has the ability to tax people for doing X or not doing Y. Mg's friends posts are a good example of this, although I'd chime in one addition to them... Let's say the penalty/fine/tax/deduction is 5k - whether it's deducted, or fined, or whatever. Let's say you get insurance that costs 4k a year. If it's a deduction, you'd subtract 4k from that 5k, and pay 4k less in taxes. If it's a fine/penalty, you'd not pay that 5k in the first place, saving 1k since you only paid 4k. If I had a choice, all my taxes would be of the penalty/fine/etc. type, and not deduction type for the above reason. |
Gotcha. So the question stated isn't really an "1 or 2" question, it's more of a "2.0.0.1b or 2.0.0.1c" question.
There is no significant theoretical difference between the government forcing you to buy insurance or else pay a fine of $X, or raising taxes by $X and providing tax reductions of $X if you prove you have maintained insurance. In practice, however; the method whereby the government levies a fine of $X for those who didn't pay will likely draw in fewer dollars than the method of providing a tax credit of $X for those who did pay for insurance. In the fines method, the government has to show that you didn't have insurance, but in the credits method, the individual has to file for the credits. My greatest worry in all of this is a system where the government asks a high-income earner to "pay a little bit more" for health insurance than a low income earner. IMO, any healthcare system which asks someone to pay more based on their ability to pay more is outright unacceptable. Also, how do we make the unemployed homeless pay for insurance? They live in the same "free" country that I live in, I expect them to pay their own way just like I do. Does this law mean that if someone doesn't purchase insurance, they will be denied basic care if they can't afford to pay? I sure f*cking hope so. |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 896505)
A friend of mine just posted this. A fairly persuasive argument, actually...I'm struggling to respond to it.
If the entire law was simply a tax/penalty for not having health insurance, it wouldn't be over nine hundreds of pages, would it? ;) Just saying, for better or for worse, they're making a lot more changes than simply a penalty for not having health insurance. |
Originally Posted by brgracer
(Post 896561)
Almost wrote a long post about this, and it's not about being for or against obamacare, but your friend fails to take into account the other aspects of the whole law such as no denial for pre-existing conditions, coverages, etc...
If the entire law was simply a tax/penalty for not having health insurance, it wouldn't over nine hundreds of pages, would it? ;) Just saying, for better or for worse, they're making a lot more changes than simply a penalty for not having health insurance. My friend's argument is about the Supreme Court ruling on the consititutionality of the individual mandate, not whether the law will be good or bad. |
It's time for a 2 new constitutional amendments:
No man shall be forced to provide, either directly or indirectly, for the well being of another which he does not have voluntary direct custody of. No man shall be taxed for the provision of any goods or services which does not directly improve his own well being. |
how about starting more amendments with:
congress shall not... ya know, keep it old skool? |
genious
|
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 896562)
Are we discussing the bill in its entirety, or the Supreme Court ruling?
My friend's argument is about the Supreme Court ruling on the consititutionality of the individual mandate, not whether the law will be good or bad. Can't really argue against Congress's constitutional power to tax (unless you are Wesley Snipes), but that Commerce clause arguement (which they struck down) was garbage. |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 896528)
Your friend is one omnipotent dude.
</semantics> |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 896558)
There's a ---- ton of misunderstanding how our system works throughout this thread, and I don't have hours to spend (Minutes at best :() so I'll just respond to this one.
|
3:00 |
here's what I need answering:
if i drop my medical coverage and pay the tax. and I say need to go to the hospital. will i then get "free" coverage? |
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 896568)
It's time for a 2 new constitutional amendments:
No man shall be forced to provide, either directly or indirectly, for the well being of another which he does not have voluntary direct custody of. No man shall be taxed for the provision of any goods or services which does not directly improve his own well being. |
federal vs state.
|
"In a supreme court showdown today, the healthcare industry again tightens its grip on the balls of America - the entire healthcare field rejoiced as their government provided job security and benefits now outstrips that of the next nearest industry by 3:1 - in light of this success, the HLA (Healthcare Lobbyists of America) have begun working on new legislation which would grant them veto power over all new laws concerned with healthcare. The legislation is expected to pass in the senate later this week by unanimous decision."
Originally Posted by y8s
(Post 896613)
Guess we hire our own police-fire-ambulance-man to sit out in front of our house with a gun and a hose in his ambulance.
|
Originally Posted by hustler
(Post 896534)
+1.
I don't understand how it can violate the commerce section and still be constitutional; I know I don't care to pay for healthcare to people who didn't make their health a priority. |
‘Mandate struck down’: ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ moment for CNN, Fox News | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
By far the best part of this entire charade. Truly, a Dewey Defeats Truman moment. |
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 896643)
Tell us more about how taxes are unconstitutional.
|
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 896546)
So instead of asking the healthy to pay for the sick, we're now forcing the wealthy to again pay for the poor. We're once again providing an incentive for people to stay poor, and we're providing a de-incentive for businesses to produce profit. Pre-Obamacare, it was an incentive to become/remain sick or a de-incentive to stay healthy; but that is more than balanced out by the fact that no one ever really wants to be sick - most people are smart enough to think "I probably shouldn't jump off of my roof onto those large rocks" - or - "My broken ankle hurts when I put pressure on it, perhaps I shouldn't stand on that foot"
The incentive to produce profit is profit itself - in a world where profits are an exact and quantifiable measurement of economic gain, adopting policy which undeniably reduces profits isn't going to do anything to improve our national economic crisis, which is PE#1 on nearly every American's political radar. It is a tax on the poor to make healthcare more universal and to make it cheaper for the wealthy. It is far from a liberal Idea in the effort to get a few desired results. I still think it’s an improvement though. Single payer government healthcare I feel would be a better solution. Put most of the greedy insurance companies out of business. Bob |
Not exactly related to the SCOTUS ruling today, but tangentially linked:
Massachusetts would help the uninsured buy private insurance; it would create a deregulated online marketplace; and it would require that everyone carry insurance. Uninsured citizens no longer would use the emergency room as a primary-care facility and then fail to pay their bills. LONG but interesting article on Romneycare. WARNING: Likely too nuanced for many of the political readers here (I'm looking at you, Bbundy and Braineack). :party:“It’s a Republican way of reforming the market,” Romney said later that day. “Because, let me tell you, having thirty million people in this country without health insurance and having those people show up when they get sick, and expect someone else to pay, that’s a Democratic approach. That’s the wrong way. The Republican approach is to say, ‘You know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free ride.’ ” |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:26 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands