• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
so you just moved the goal posts.
Click to expand...

I moved nothing, this is what I've been saying all along.

first its "Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on the middle-class".
Click to expand...

Not accurate. He promised not to fund ACA with increased taxs and yet created a new tax.

now its "Obama broke his promise to not raise taxes on everyone that can't or won't afford health insurance, middle-class or not".
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the Individual mandate tax does.

Obama has slightly raised the yearly taxes of folks who don't have and refuse to buy health insurance, whether they be billionaires or lower middle-class. Those taxes will go down as soon as they buy insurance or get a job that includes it.
Click to expand...

Whether they go up or down is irrelevant. He emphatically claimed "No new taxs to support ACA"

suggesting that this can be considered a tax-increase on the middle-class, is intellectually absurd.
Click to expand...

Ignoring reality to fit your partisanship is what is absurd.
 
mac said:
...Not accurate. He promised not to fund ACA with increased taxs and yet created a new tax....

...He emphatically claimed "No new taxs to support ACA"....
Click to expand...

kindly provide your evidence that all revenue collected from the tax-penalty for not having insurance, will go straight to funding ACA.

I know you can't, as the claim is absurd & baseless.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Matt Foley said:
Anyone have something greater than a non-answer?
Click to expand...

The answer (to what happens if your state opts out) is that you're screwed. Your state will not participate in the subsidized insurance market, even though the state has no cost under the program for three years and only covers 10% after that. I don't know if the mandate would apply to those who would otherwise receive subsidies.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

missypea said:
I really hear your concern. Here are some sites I found that are looking for donations.
Giving of your money and your time is a good way to live.

Twilight Wish Foundation - Home
Charity Fundraising | Support Older People | Independent Age
How to contribute | Little Brothers Friends of the Elderly

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Thank you for your concern. But I set up a Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit charitable foundation some years ago to help low income working families. That's where I put my charitable dollars.
 
Thunder said:
kindly provide your evidence that all revenue collected from the tax-penalty for not having insurance, will go straight to funding ACA.

I know you can't, as the claim is absurd & baseless.
Click to expand...

:lamo That's the best you got?
 
Thunder said:
ok, but its not an increase in any income tax rates.

so calling it a tax-increase on the middle-class is intellectually absurd.
Click to expand...


So you agree Obama wasn't telling the truth when he said it wasn't a tax.
 
Kandahar said:
It's no different than giving you a tax credit for buying solar panels. They're two sides of the same coin...if you get a tax credit for solar panels, then it's essentially a tax on not buying them. And tax credits have been well-established for decades.



No, they still can't pass laws violating the Constitution. So for example, they couldn't tax me for not buying a Bible.
Click to expand...

They specifically said that the individual mandate is not constitutional anywhere in the constitution. not under the commerce clause. not under the necessary and proper clause. They can now pass laws that are not allowable by the constitution so long as the punishment of disobeying the law is only a tax. Because it's not a 'law'. It's only encouragement...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Albert Di Salvo said:
Thank you for your concern. But I set up a Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit charitable foundation some years ago to help low income working families. That's where I put my charitable dollars.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's great! Good on you. :)
What's the website?
 
fredmertzz said:
They specifically said that the individual mandate is not constitutional anywhere in the constitution. not under the commerce clause. not under the necessary and proper clause. They can now pass laws that are not allowable by the constitution so long as the punishment of disobeying the law is only a tax. Because it's not a 'law'. It's only encouragement...
Click to expand...

And in so doing, they have declared this manner of taxation that was forbidden by Article I of the Constitution now an acceptable way to tax. Who needs an Amendment process? We've got the SCOTUS.
 
Does any one remember the delegitimization the Supreme Court experienced in the eyes of Liberals and Leftists after the decision in Bush v. Gore? That decision poisoned the political culture of America. Many Liberals and Leftists said that Bush wasn't their president. The same thing will be true on the right based on the fraudulent passage of Obamacare and the decision in Roberts v. America.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

cpwill said:
Awesome, use your logic on this.

Under the mandate, I get charged about $300 if I don't purchase health insurance.

However,thanks to the fact that insurance has to take me no matter what, I am effectively covered - I can apply if I get hurt or sick and they have to take me and can't charge me any extra for my waiting.

Health Insurance for a family of four is around $11,000.

SO

I can' pay $11,000 for coverage, or $300 for coverage.

Which will I (and millions upon millions of Americans) choose?
Click to expand...

The penalty will rise somewhat rapidly in the next several years, so you'll be paying closer to $1,000. Still cheaper, right? But at least you've paid something to offset costs.

The other factor is that people tend to behave in a more ethical fashion when they're forced to make a conscious choice of acting ethically or not.

And of course all of this hand wringing is overblown insofar very few people will actually be impacted by the mandate. Most get insurance through their employer, or get Medicare/aid, or would qualify for subsidized insurance.

So to actually get hit you have to be able to afford insurance but turn it down, making the conscious decision to pay the penalty because you know you can screw over your fellow Americans if you do get sick by cheating the insurance system.
 
American said:
Okay, think about it this way. These bull**** programs were always sold under the Commerce Clause when everyone knew what they really are.....taxes. If nothing else, Roberts has removed the ability to do that and placed these programs out in the sunlight where they can be seen for what they are. No more commerce, no more bull****, no more slight of hand.
Click to expand...

You're right; this is a much better alternative than further devaluing the commerce clause to encompass an individual mandate to a non-existing market (the non-insurance holders). I just disagree that this can be reasonably be considered a 'direct tax'. But if they're going to get away with it one way or another, hopefully this will at least keep it a little more transparent to the fools who voted these politicians into office.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
So you agree Obama wasn't telling the truth when he said it wasn't a tax.
Click to expand...

No, because it's a tax penalty and he made no bones about it being a tax penalty. The penalty is exactly how it was described, and whether Congress created it under the auspices of its taxing power or it's power to regulate commerce doesn't change that one iota.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Albert Di Salvo said:
Santa Cruz Housing Foundation
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought your main concern was with the elderly. I guess I misinterpreted all those other posts you made about it. :thinking

I don't want to de-rail this thread from healthcare to first time home owner assistance so continue on.........
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

missypea said:
Hey, that's great! Good on you. :)
What's the website?
Click to expand...

After I set up the foundation I created the Planned Giving Program. There are many ways in which you can make a donation through the Planned Giving Program. Go to the website and click and check out my ideas about:



Supporting the Housing Foundation: Connecting with the future

Make a Planned or Deferred Gift

Planned, or deferred, gifts can provide significant benefits to you and your loved ones now and in the future, while offering financial support for the Housing Foundation's mission for many years to come.

Some popular planned giving vehicles include:
•Bequests
•Gifts of retirement assets
•Gifts of life insurance
•Charitable gift annuities
•Deferred gift annuities
•Charitable remainder annuity trusts
•Charitable remainder unitrusts
•Charitable lead trusts may also serve as a vehicle in appropriate cases

The Housing Foundation will work with you and your financial advisors to create a gift plan that works for you. For more information, please contact the Planned Giving Committee by telephone at (831) 464-2000, or by email at hf@scaor.org.
 
fredmertzz said:
They specifically said that the individual mandate is not constitutional anywhere in the constitution. not under the commerce clause. not under the necessary and proper clause. They can now pass laws that are not allowable by the constitution so long as the punishment of disobeying the law is only a tax. Because it's not a 'law'. It's only encouragement...
Click to expand...

You obviously don't have a very solid understanding of how the Constitution - or legal jurisprudence - works. Taxes ARE laws and always have been. What the Supreme Court ACTUALLY said was that it couldn't be justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, but it *is* justified under the "levy a tax" clause.

An analogy: Just because Congress has the power to establish post offices doesn't mean that everything they do has to be justified by the post office clause. They can also exercise their OTHER powers. Similarly, just because Congress passed a tax doesn't mean that it ALSO has to be justified by the commerce clause. As long as it's justified by ANY of Congress' enumerated powers, it does not exceed their authority.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

missypea said:
Oh, I thought your main concern was with the elderly. I guess I misinterpreted all those other posts you made about it. :thinking

I don't want to de-rail this thread from healthcare to first time home owner assistance so continue on.........
Click to expand...

That's ok. People make mistakes all the time.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

missypea said:
Oh, I thought your main concern was with the elderly. I guess I misinterpreted all those other posts you made about it. :thinking

I don't want to de-rail this thread from healthcare to first time home owner assistance so continue on.........
Click to expand...


This guy starts a non-profit to help the less fortunate afford housing and you use it as an opportunity to call him disingenuous about his other concerns in society? Then immediately after making the bold statement, claim to want to keep this topic 'on track' and ask for the conversation to end like that???

Man... I just don't know to say.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Does any one remember the delegitimization the Supreme Court experienced in the eyes of Liberals and Leftists after the decision in Bush v. Gore? That decision poisoned the political culture of America. Many Liberals and Leftists said that Bush wasn't their president. The same thing will be true on the right based on the fraudulent passage of Obamacare and the decision in Roberts v. America.
Click to expand...

What exactly is fraudulent about it? It was passed by both democratically-elected houses of Congress. It was signed into law by the democratically-elected president. And it was upheld by the Supreme Court, which are appointed by the democratically-elected president and confirmed by the democratically-elected Senate.

Fraudulent =/= any law you dislike. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom