- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
its not a traditional tax.
That doesn't mean it is not a tax. Since it is new, obviously it's not "traditional".
its not a traditional tax.
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.
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.
Wow, so you're the personification of the Santa Cruz Realtors Association? Great job with that housing crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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:
It's usually best to say nothing when you're in doubt.
......but yeah, when someone makes numerous posts about how the ACA is going to destroy our white elderly population, I want to see if he's putting his money where his mouth is.
Seems he's not. :shrug:
yes, shame on him for prioritizing his concerns and not having unlimited funds...
But they have no authority under the constitution for the individual mandate! So individual mandates are unconstitutional. They confirmed this yesterday.
But because this doesn't have any consequence of Congress beyond its authority to tax, it is allowed. What they're saying is that rules passed by Congress do not have to be constitutional so long as the consequence of breaking the rules is a tax.
If you forego insurance but have money and incur big medical expenses, you're billed for them. What happens if you have money but still refuse to pay?
What screws over fellow Americans is that there's any way at all to get oodles of health care at no cost.
There's about to be a lot less. PPACA mandates that they spend at least 80-85% of revenue on health care. If they don't, they have to rebate their customers for the difference.That only leaves 15-20% for everything else...administrative costs, overhead, profits, etc. They aren't going to have much money left to bribe politicians.
Oh come on, fred. Let's get this thread back on track. Whaddya say?
What are your thoughts about the ACA?
As soon as I saw the domain name I decided not to click on your link. Do you have anything remotely substantive or just rants from right-wing websites?
I would like to thank you also for all the information youve provided...Ive kept mostly quiet because I dont know enough but I have been reading...and if this is a fact then its a good thing as far as im concerned, they will concentrate more on patients than keeping care from patients for more profit
Later this summer, nearly 13 million Americans will receive $1.1 billion in rebates from insurance companies — an average of $151 for each family policy — because of the law’s requirement that at least 80 percent of insurance premiums paid by consumers must go for medical care or quality improvement measures. Insurers that don’t meet the standard must pay a rebate to their policyholders by Aug. 1 for the difference, either in cash or by a reduction in premiums.
Read more here: Ruling impacts millions of health care consumers - Florida - MiamiHerald.com
Correct. According to the Supreme Court, it would be unconstitutional for them to pass a law saying "Buy health insurance or we'll put you in jail." However, they also said that this isn't an individual mandate because you aren't being forced to buy health insurance. It's perfectly legitimate if you decide to pay the tax instead of buying health insurance.
That isn't at all what they said. If Congress has the power to do A, B, C, and D, they can pass a law that only exercises power B. They don't *also* have to make sure they exercise power A, C, and D in the same law.
As soon as I saw the domain name I decided not to click on your link. Do you have anything remotely substantive or just rants from right-wing websites?
Fair enough.
Other libertarians will hate me for this: but I'm all for a single-payer system, run at the national level, approved at the state level.
But the ACA... no way.
What the Supreme Court has done yesterday is said that the rules Congress sets does not have to be constitutional. I.E. the individual mandate was not found constitutional under the commerce clause or the necessary & proper clause. But so long as Congress does not use punishments beyond its taxing authorities, that any law they set forth is allowed, whether it is constitutional or not.
This is so backwards I don't know where to begin. I'd happily argue this is not a direct tax and that Congress does not have the authority to impose it. But even that seems to be getting too far into the argument. The fact that a law does not have to be constitutional so long as the consequence is only a tax seems absurd to me.
Fair enough.
Other libertarians will hate me for this: but I'm all for a single-payer system, run at the national level, approved at the state level.
How do you figure that, since I can almost GUARANTEE that when our Union Contract is up next year the Company I work for is going to do everything in their power to limit or take our health insurance benefit away from us due to the "Cadilac" healthcare provision in this bill?
Pay more for Medicare? Taxed for a hip replacement? Example #2,078,622 of someone criticizing the ACA without even understanding what's in it. There are no such provisions in the ACA.
You had a miscarriage? How does a guy have a miscarriage?
Slavery was once the Law of the Land also. Along with many other things that never should have been. Yet they were gotten rid of. Now we have another POS piece of legislation to get rid of. Just how do you think we're going to achieve this if we don't cry out against it? Sorry Lpast but I WILL NOT shut up about this and just "make it the best it can be". Because the best it can be is still crap.