Page 83 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 1220

Thread: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

  1. #821
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    07-25-17 @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,878

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    The Supreme Court said that it is authorized by the taxation clause. That isn't really the same thing. The only distinction anybody has come up with between a tax and a fine is that a fine is to punish you for something. This is to punish people who are trying to freeload off the system, so that sounds more like a fine to me. Either way though, fine or tax, it is authorized by the taxation clause.
    Two reasons I see it as a tax:

    The IRS is delegated to collect the 'fee'.

    The fee is a percentage of ones income and not a flat 'fee'.

    But your right either way it is authorized by the taxation clause.

  2. #822
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,580

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Here is the thing. Our assets are standing in line behind yours. If you get a major medical expense that would have dipped into your major assets if you had them, the expense doesn't just disappear, it comes out of our assets. And we want you to get insurance for the same reason you would want to get it if they were your assets being risked.

    Honestly, I think you're a good man and I think you're doing what you think is right. I respect what you're trying to do, but you've miscalculated. By trying to protect us from having to support you, you are actually imposing greater costs on us. Who knows, maybe you'll roll the dice and get lucky and never have a medical expense you can't cover yourself. But, then again, maybe you'll get an unlucky roll. And that couple thousand a year you're saving by not having insurance won't be much consolation if you impose $800,000 in medical costs on society. And that is VERY possible to run up $800,000 in medical bills. Cancer is common and cancer treatment regimens often run over $1 million. On average, it ends up better off for us all if everybody just gets insurance and goes in regularly for check ups and deals with medical problems as soon as they emerge. Even if we have to pay for the insurance, that is way cheaper, on average, than gambling on it. And like I say, based on the numbers you've listed about your income, it's free. You don't have that many more years before you're on medicare. Just go ahead and get the insurance now in case something happens before then. We don't want to take that gamble.
    I go to the clinic every month, for blood lab work and a basic checkup, and see the main doctor every three months and even bump into my vascular surgeon on occasion, he still can't believe that I paid his bill. ;-)
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #823
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    Two reasons I see it as a tax:

    The IRS is delegated to collect the 'fee'.

    The fee is a percentage of ones income and not a flat 'fee'.

    But your right either way it is authorized by the taxation clause.
    Yeah, I can see how those would make it seem more like a tax. But, then again, most fines are adjusted based on a person's means. Courts definitely drop or raise fines based on the person's income, and most fines from administrative agencies and whatnot are means tested. So, while that might suggest a tax, it isn't really determinative. To me, the fact that it is a punishment for undesirable behavior strongly suggests that it is a fine. Also, it just isn't about revenue. It is about trying to prod people to get insurance. Our hope is that everybody gets insurance and nobody pays the fine. That's the goal. And that sounds more fine-like to me.

    But really, that distinction is pretty meaningless. There certainly are some things that I would definitely see as a tax, but not a fine. Income taxes for example. But whether, for example, we call a charge that we give to people that pollute a "fine" or a "tax" doesn't really matter, does it? IMO the political debate in this country is far, far, too hung up on meaningless distinctions. If we give a $1,000 subsidy to corn growers, one whole group of people is up in arms because they hate subsidies. But, if we call it a "tax break" instead, then those same people all support it because they like tax breaks... But it is the same exact damn thing! Same deal here. Why would somebody support it if it were called a "fine", but oppose it if it is called a "tax"? It makes no sense.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  4. #824
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Hare View Post
    The law upheld in it's entirety, yet at the end of the day it seems as if conservatives gain more political clout and enthusiasm than the victors in all their glory.
    Actually, the law was NOT upheld in it's entirety. Yes, Roberts joined with the Liberal faction, but in striking down the Commerce Clause argument, and calling it a tax, he is opening the door to undoing a lot of FDR's agenda, much of which was based on the Commerce Clause. In the long run, this trend will be a defeat for the Liberals.
    Last edited by danarhea; 07-02-12 at 12:59 AM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #825
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, the law was NOT upheld in it's entirety. Yes, Roberts joined with the Liberal faction, but in striking down the Commerce Clause argument, and calling it a tax, he is opening the door to undoing a lot of FDR's agenda, much of which was based on the Commerce Clause. In the long run, this trend will be a defeat for the Liberals.
    Not even close. The commerce clause issue was limited to this unique case, or other attempts to "create commerce" and then regulate it under the commerce clause. That doesn't implicate existing commerce clause precedent at all.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  6. #826
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The BIG difference with a fine, is that you must DO SOMETHING to warrant the fine, and can usually appeal it in court. ;-)
    Or not do something, like not have insurance.

    As for appeal, you can still go to court.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #827
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, the law was NOT upheld in it's entirety. Yes, Roberts joined with the Liberal faction, but in striking down the Commerce Clause argument, and calling it a tax, he is opening the door to undoing a lot of FDR's agenda, much of which was based on the Commerce Clause. In the long run, this trend will be a defeat for the Liberals.
    That seems like quite a stretch, and a bit of wishful thinking from someone who disliked the ruling. Is it possible it will be seen as a long-term defeat for liberals? I suppose, but it's hardly likely. Even if Roberts sides with the conservatives on every case for the next 20 years, he'll be remembered for this single decision. In any case, I can't envision any piece of legislation that's likely to pass in the next 20 years that's more important than the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act...and after that I'll take my chances with a new Supreme Court.

    I think it's worth noting that Roberts also sided with the liberals on the Stolen Valor case, and the Arizona immigration case. Perhaps he simply isn't the hardcore conservative that many people feared/hoped he was, and is more in the Anthony Kennedy mold.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-02-12 at 01:16 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #828
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Not even close. The commerce clause issue was limited to this unique case, or other attempts to "create commerce" and then regulate it under the commerce clause. That doesn't implicate existing commerce clause precedent at all.
    Unfortunately, you are correct.

  9. #829
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well, from my perspective, the values you are espousing just aren't the values of a good person.
    Why?
    I am more concerned with the nation as a whole instead of an individual who is supposed to take care of their self.

    Secondly, I find that while you profess good intent, the end results are not good for the whole, but evil.
    And a person of the type we are speaking, wants it for their own good and is therefore selfish and greedy and without a care of who has to pay for it. They fit your stated "They are the values of a selfish, greedy, evil person.".

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    They are the values of a selfish, greedy, evil person. Somebody who only can understand why he should help somebody else in terms of how it helps him.
    Wait a minute now. I never said I wouldn't help others. That is what you are overlooking in your rush to judge another.
    But being forced to do so is wrong. No matter how you look at it, forcing it is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    So, just off the top, we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think debate can really rectify that.
    Of course. Which is why I am speaking my opinion to that which you espouse.
    Because what you espouse is harmful to the nation.


    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    But, even within your ultra limited moral system where you only care about yourself, you are still wrong. Investing in poverty amelioration is one of the highest return investments there is. We are radically underinvesting in it at huge cost to our society.
    Beside you being wrong about only caring for myself...

    If they can't provide for their own, or survive off the kindness of others, they are a burden and the nation does not need them.
    Eliminating the teat suckers before they are a burden would be a higher return and far more beneficial to the nation



    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Countries that invest more of their GDP in poverty amelioration (which is almost the entire rest of the first world) see huge returns. Poverty has practically been eliminated in most of the first world for decades. The problems we're still struggling with in regards to poverty- the economic drain, the crime, all that- are radically more manageable in the rest of the first world. We're making a huge mistake just letting a problem that is relatively easy to solve fester. We treat the symptoms with a huge prison system and whatnot when it is way, way, cheaper, and in fact much more economically advantageous, to just solve the problem itself.
    Ah yes. The everybody should suffer equally, bs.
    And that is what it is.

    The expenditures are coming back to haunt those nations. It is not sustainable with anything near the quality of care that is received in our current system.

    But as I see you would rather burden our future generations. Not only with a piss poor health care system that will cost far to much for what is provided, but one that allows the unproductive and to survive and reproduce.
    Yep. That is a real winner there.

  10. #830
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Living on about $900/month does not allow me to pay insurance, so I do what I can to avoid needing medical care, when my number is up, then that is it for me. If I had major assets to protect or others depending on my income then insurance would be a wise expense, I had it earlier in life through my job(s), as things are, it is not practical to try to live on less than $300/month rent, sharing an old 2BR singlewide mobile home is good enough for me. If Obama thinks I need to pay a fine for that "crime", then so be it. I hope this stupid PPACA law is gone by 2014, if not, I may just "retire" (at least from IRS view).
    You should get an HDHP. You will still be vulnerable to the mandate, and teamosil will still call you a freeloader (even though he can't explain why), but at least you wont impoverish yourself incase of emergency.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

Page 83 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •