• 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-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

That's right. My point is the WHO are comparing apples and oranges. Subsidized systems and systems that have contribution to health services from outside with those without that.

That's not much of an argument if you're trying to say that subsidies are bad.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

That "same either way" NONSENSE assumes EQUALITY in the penalty and benefit, which is NOT true under PPACA.

What I mean is that there is no functional difference between either of the following:
- Taxing someone 2.5% of their income for not buying health insurance.
- Raising taxes by 2.5%, then offering a 2.5% tax credit for people who buy health insurance.

In either case, everyone ends with exactly the same amount of money...the government, the participants, and the non-participants.

Having insurance saves me NOTHING, since I now pay CASH for my medical care and spend less than $2K annually at that. If I get sick or injured, beyond what I can pay for, then I will likely die; for that "privilege" I am now to be taxed?

No, you'll be taxed for the privilege of getting your bills covered if you get sick or injured, so that you DON'T die.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

You left out ONE important option, which is to sue the bus company, exactly what your medical insurance provider would do.

Wow, you're really in the mood to parse words instead of actually discussing the issue. Alright, well say you get hit by a falling rock then. Or something else where there's no one to sue. :roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I already told you I'm not going to play semantic games. I really don't care if you want to call it a tax, a penalty, a giraffe, or anything else you like. I'm interested in POLICY.

That's nice, and a wonderful moving of goal posts. But the subject at hand was whether or not the POTUS was lying when he continues to says it's not a tax.

You weren't arguing POLICY, you were arguing whether it was a tax or not.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

That's not much of an argument if you're trying to say that subsidies are bad.

I wasn't. Where did I ever say that?
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

My how the tune has changed. Anyone remember what proponents on this mandate argued before this ruling? Before SCOTUS upheld the mandate so many proponents on this board were using the arguement that it was a tax to those that were against the mandate and therefore was constitutional. Now that SCOTUS has affirmed that it IS a tax and this particular side of the arguement has come up it is magically "not a tax".

But regardless of what proponents are saying in this thread now, facts are facts. And the fact is that SCOTUS has upheld the mandate AS A TAX!. Not a penalty. You can continue to argue that it is not a tax all that you want but SCOTUS showed otherwise. If you continue to deny this fact then only one of three conditions arise.

1: You're stupid.
2: You're a liar.
3: You're both.

Or you can accept the facts and admit that it is a tax which will show everyone that...

1: You're not stupid.
2: You're honest.
3: You're both.

Obama and Co. has already shown which ones they are. Will you continue to follow him on this issue or think independently? Something which many of you claim to value and claim that those on the opposite aisle do not do.


I think that is a fair and correct assessment. The telling of how bad this is for the administration, is that they are running from addressing this honestly, talking about how they need to move back to the economy...Anytime that happens in the Obama administration you know they have a huge problem over this.
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

My how the tune has changed. Anyone remember what proponents on this mandate argued before this ruling? Before SCOTUS upheld the mandate so many proponents on this board were using the arguement that it was a tax to those that were against the mandate and therefore was constitutional. Now that SCOTUS has affirmed that it IS a tax and this particular side of the arguement has come up it is magically "not a tax".

But regardless of what proponents are saying in this thread now, facts are facts. And the fact is that SCOTUS has upheld the mandate AS A TAX!. Not a penalty. You can continue to argue that it is not a tax all that you want but SCOTUS showed otherwise. If you continue to deny this fact then only one of three conditions arise.

1: You're stupid.
2: You're a liar.
3: You're both.

Or you can accept the facts and admit that it is a tax which will show everyone that...

1: You're not stupid.
2: You're honest.
3: You're both.

Obama and Co. has already shown which ones they are. Will you continue to follow him on this issue or think independently? Something which many of you claim to value and claim that those on the opposite aisle do not do.

No, the argument before and after was that it's a tax penalty -- not a tax. Although in fact it could be structured as a tax with a credit to fully offset the cost of the tax.

The point is that the Supreme Court did not suddenly pull back the curtain and reveal that the penalty does something that we didn't think it would do before. There has never been any ambiguity about how the penalty operates. This is simply a semantic argument about how it's characterized.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

That's nice, and a wonderful moving of goal posts. But the subject at hand was whether or not the POTUS was lying when he continues to says it's not a tax.

No. Maybe that's the subject YOU want to discuss, but it's certainly not anything *I* care about. I'm interested in the policy, not in semantical distinctions. Call it a tax all day if you like, scream it to the high heavens if you think it will help your case in electing someone else. Whatever.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

I really don't care what you think you would do. Most people would suddenly decide that it is the public's responsibility to care for them after all, and the overall numbers are what our health care system needs to be concerned with. Not what you think you would personally do.

Yet, when I showed you the "overall" numbers, (i.e. what medicaid costs per person annually) you blow them off as "unrepresentative" of what these 45 million added people will likely cost. You can not have it both ways, medical care expenses are 1/6 of the U.S. economy, that FACT does not change by spreading the costs around differently. The numbers used to justify PPACA are pure BS, and have ALREADY been adjusted upward by the CBO by 70%, and it has yet to even take effect.
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

In watching the Sunday shows this morning I see a lot of fancy dancing by demo's on these shows...One thing strikes me as not only expected, but just as slimy, and underhanded as we've come to expect out of these demo's today....And that is that even though the opinion of the SCOTUS is clear, that the law is a tax, and a huge one, they are all over trying to paint this as not what CJ Roberts, and the majority opinion said it was in order to make it stand.

So, tell us demo's, now that it is classified as a tax in order to be constitutional, isn't Obama caught in the same lie that did in Geo. H.W. Bush....The "read my lips.." gambit? And how does he prevail now that he is being uncovered as the biggest taxer, and spender we've ever had in office?

If I were the Dems, I'd be amending the bill as soon as possible to get rid of the tax I claimed wasn't there to begin with.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Yet, whe I showed you the "overall" numbers, (i.e. what medicaid costs per person allually) you clow them off as "unrepresentative" of what these 45 million added people will likely cost. You can not have it both ways, medical care expenses are 1/6 of the U.S. economy, that FACT does not change by spreding the costs around differently.

Actually it does. And as proof of this, I submit the example of every other developed country in the world, which has universal health care and a fraction of the costs.

The numbers used to justify PPACA are pure BS, and have ALREADY been adjusted upward by the CBO by 70%, and it has yet to even take effect.

Sigh. I've already debunked this silly point in this thread. And I don't feel like responding to it, or even digging through posts to find my previous response.
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

which of my taxes will be going up?

income tax? SS? Medicaid?

state income taxes? local income taxes? local sales tax?

please, tell me.

Didn't the SC say that paying for health care insurance is a tax? So think outside the box. For those who do not currently have hc insurance, mandating they purchase hc insurance is a tax. If you currenty have hc insurace, your (new tax) would remain the same unless rates goes up. For those that donot purchase hc insurance, they will pay a tax penality.
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

No, the argument before and after was that it's a tax penalty -- not a tax. Although in fact it could be structured as a tax with a credit to fully offset the cost of the tax.

The point is that the Supreme Court did not suddenly pull back the curtain and reveal that the penalty does something that we didn't think it would do before. There has never been any ambiguity about how the penalty operates. This is simply a semantic argument about how it's characterized.

My goodness. The disingenuousness of it all should really disturb you as a defender of this administrations policies Adam. In 2009 Obama tried to 'school' George Snufolupogus when he pressed Obama on it being a tax, and indeed after years of getting to the point of Obama nearly visibly getting upset with anyone who said it was a tax, sent his lawyer to the SC to argue that it was exactly that, and now that they won the decision on that tact, liberals now want to immediately go back to saying is isn't a tax?

Well, y'all can do that if you want, but that is I think one step too far in the lies we've had to endure with this President.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

No. Maybe that's the subject YOU want to discuss, but it's certainly not anything *I* care about. I'm interested in the policy, not in semantical distinctions. Call it a tax all day if you like, scream it to the high heavens if you think it will help your case in electing someone else. Whatever.

You so obviously do care, at least your arguments here betray you do. It is a tax, the SCOTUS says it is, the president's legal team argued it is a tax. The only ones saying it's not a tax is the POTUS and those defending him for re-election.

If you only care about policy, then stop wiggling about the lies of the president and argue policy.

Tax or not tax, it's bad policy.
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

Didn't the SC say that paying for health care insurance is a tax? So think outside the box. For those who do not currently have hc insurance, mandating they purchase hc insurance is a tax. If you currenty have hc insurace, your (new tax) would remain the same unless rates goes up. For those that donot purchase hc insurance, they will pay a tax penality.

So you're saying that when I pay mortgage interest, that's also a tax? A tax I'm paying to Wells Fargo?
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

So you're saying that when I pay mortgage interest, that's also a tax? A tax I'm paying to Wells Fargo?

What do you think the SC said about health care? They ruled it is a tax., if it isn't then they would have ruled differently.

The govt. doesn't mandate you buy a house. Bad example.
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

My goodness. The disingenuousness of it all should really disturb you as a defender of this administrations policies Adam. In 2009 Obama tried to 'school' George Snufolupogus when he pressed Obama on it being a tax, and indeed after years of getting to the point of Obama nearly visibly getting upset with anyone who said it was a tax, sent his lawyer to the SC to argue that it was exactly that, and now that they won the decision on that tact, liberals now want to immediately go back to saying is isn't a tax?

Well, y'all can do that if you want, but that is I think one step too far in the lies we've had to endure with this President.

Again, there is nothing disingenuous about it. I knew in 2009 how the penalty worked and nothing about that has changed. Whether you call it a penalty, a tax penalty or a Sam Sausagehead penalty, it still does the same thing and everyone has known all along what it does.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What I mean is that there is no functional difference between either of the following:
- Taxing someone 2.5% of their income for not buying health insurance.
- Raising taxes by 2.5%, then offering a 2.5% tax credit for people who buy health insurance.

In either case, everyone ends with exactly the same amount of money...the government, the participants, and the non-participants.



No, you'll be taxed for the privilege of getting your bills covered if you get sick or injured, so that you DON'T die.

Then do that directly with taxation and make it REAL, don't play clever accounting games and then PRETEND that the PPACA is "fair". Medical care costs NOW amount about 1/6 of our economy yet NOBODY is talking about an 18% medical care tax, all of the numbers used are 2% to 9% range which is not even close to the REAL cost. The AVERAGE annual cost PER PERSON for U.S. medical care is over $7,000 yet is NEVER discussed, do the simple math of 45 million multiplied by $7K and see what PPACA is likely to REALLY cost.

Link: Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

What do you think the SC said about health care? They ruled it is a tax., if it isn't then they would have ruled differently.

The govt. doesn't mandate you buy a house. Bad example.

Au contraire. The government has mandated me to buy a house in the same way that it's mandating insurance. If I don't have a mortgage then I'm being penalized through the tax code insofar as I would be paying more than people who do have a mortgage. Thus, according to your logic, the mortgage interest I'm paying is a tax.
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

Seems it is a TAX to keep deadbeats from not buying insurance. Why is that so bad? We pay for their FREE medical care anyway so let them be forced to buy insurance.

Most of us have insurance already so this doesn't affect us. So why all the emotion?

I'm not at all sure how many different taxes there are in the good old USA but I'll betcha there are thousands of them.

Now Congress can tax us? Like this is something new?
 
Re: Health care mandate is tax, will negatively affect middle, lower class, some say

Au contraire. The government has mandated me to buy a house in the same way that it's mandating insurance. If I don't have a mortgage then I'm being penalized through the tax code insofar as I would be paying more than people who do have a mortgage. Thus, according to your logic, the mortgage interest I'm paying is a tax.

what a crock. Move the goalpost to all the tax code. So lets change the tax code so everyone, including the poor, pay taxes at the same rate.

Not my logic, it was the SC. Sorry bud, but its a tax according the the SC.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Actually it does. And as proof of this, I submit the example of every other developed country in the world, which has universal health care and a fraction of the costs.



Sigh. I've already debunked this silly point in this thread. And I don't feel like responding to it, or even digging through posts to find my previous response.

Then PROPOSE and pass a UHC law, not a bunch of smoke and mirrors mandates that pretend to get us "closer" to it. The simple FACT is that the 85% that now have private medical care insurance (90% of those as an employer provided benefit) would NEVER vote for gov't provided UHC. Anyone that looks at the REAL costs and believes that adding 45 million to the "insured" rolls (at 20% added overhead) will make costs go down is simply sipping WAY to much Koolaid.

Link: Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

Then PROPOSE and pass a UHC law, not a bunch of smoke and mirrors mandates that pretend to get us "closer" to it. The simple FACT is that the 85% that now have private medical care insurance (90% of those as an employer provided benefit) would NEVER vote for gov't provided UHC. Anyone that looks at the REAL costs and believes that adding 45 million to the "insured" rolls (at 20% added overhead) will make costs go down is simply sipping WAY to much Koolaid.

Link: Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We did. The GOP forced us to compromise away many of the key provisions.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Then do that directly with taxation and make it REAL, don't play clever accounting games and then PRETEND that the PPACA is "fair". Medical care costs NOW amount about 1/6 of our economy yet NOBODY is talking about an 18% medical care tax, all of the numbers used are 2% to 9% range which is not even close to the REAL cost. The AVERAGE annual cost PER PERSON for U.S. medical care is over $7,000 yet is NEVER discussed, do the simple math of 45 million multiplied by $7K and see what PPACA is likely to REALLY cost.

Link: Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually I *did* discuss costs. I pointed out many of the cost-control provisions within PPACA. You even criticized the IPAB, because you don't want any cost-effectiveness measures put in place...showing that you are part of the very problem you supposedly care so much about. And I also cited the evidence that shows other developed nations cover everyone and get better or equal quality, for far less costs. You conveniently brushed this point aside, because you don't ACTUALLY want to discuss costs. You might not like what the evidence shows.
 
Back
Top Bottom