• 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

buck said:
I didn't read the entire discussion, but are you really claiming that this isn't a tax even though the government argued that it was a tax and the court agreed with that position and only allowed Obamacare to stand since the mandate was defined as a tax?

I don't know how you could possibly explain that away well enough to make that true except to people that want to play games.
Click to expand...

It is a fine in common parlance. Calling it a fine more accurately describes what it is than calling it a tax. That doesn't mean that the powers granted in the taxation clause don't enable Congress to do it.

Like, here, what do you see as the difference between a "fine" and a "tax"? Seems to me that they're basically just two different spins on the same thing. Well, the taxation clause enables Congress to do that thing.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

This discussion has got me thinking...Would anyone find it useful if I created a website where you could estimate your premiums and subsidies on the new individual health insurance exchanges? It wouldn't be 100% accurate (since the health insurance exchanges don't go live until 2014), but it could at least give you a good ballpark estimate of what you'd be paying. I can build an estimator if people would actually use it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Thunder said:
that has nothing to do with having a penalty tax for not buying health insurance.
Click to expand...

Yes it does

It's not a penalty and a tax btw. It's one nice big massive tax.

Obama and the Democrats lied to you when they sold this turkey and passed it upon straight ideological hyper partisan lines against the will of the people.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kandahar said:
This discussion has got me thinking...Would anyone find it useful if I created a website where you could estimate your premiums and subsidies on the new individual health insurance exchanges? It wouldn't be 100% accurate (since the health insurance exchanges don't go live until 2014), but it could at least give you a good ballpark estimate of what you'd be paying. I can build an estimator if people would actually use it.
Click to expand...

That would be very interesting to see, especially assuming that the medical care insurance "base" rate would likely be very much higher in 2014, yet wages about the same. Will it include state of residence differences, income level, deductable/co-pay, payment percentages (e.g. 80/20, until X amount paid and etc.), age, smoking, single, married, and number of children (and whatever other things might matter under PPACA)? It would be interesting to also include the "fine" or tax if you "opt out" as well. Sounds like quite an extensive undertaking to me. Good luck. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
Kiddo, seriously. You know why your claim is wrong. You must. I've explained it like 10 times in 10 different ways. Just pretending you don't get it is no way to win a debate.
Click to expand...

Obama's lawyers argued it was a tax

Supreme Court said it was a tax

It's a tax
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
It is a fine in common parlance. Calling it a fine more accurately describes what it is than calling it a tax. That doesn't mean that the powers granted in the taxation clause don't enable Congress to do it.

Like, here, what do you see as the difference between a "fine" and a "tax"? Seems to me that they're basically just two different spins on the same thing. Well, the taxation clause enables Congress to do that thing.
Click to expand...

It's a tax that is collected when someone does not do something the government requires. I understand completely why Obama and the democrats don't want to call it a tax, but you don't necesarily have to buy into their spin.

Using your reasoning, we can argue that excise taxes are not taxes. Instead they are just fines for engaging in behaviour that the government doesn't want to encourage. While that is true, it does not change the fact that it is, in reality, a tax.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
It is a fine in common parlance. Calling it a fine more accurately describes what it is than calling it a tax. That doesn't mean that the powers granted in the taxation clause don't enable Congress to do it.

Like, here, what do you see as the difference between a "fine" and a "tax"? Seems to me that they're basically just two different spins on the same thing. Well, the taxation clause enables Congress to do that thing.
Click to expand...

The BIG difference with a fine, is that you must DO SOMETHING to warrant the fine, and can usually appeal it in court. ;-)
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The irony here is that when I argued a few months ago that the penalty was a legitimate use of the taxing power, every single conservative who responded swore up and down that the mandate was NOT A TAX!! :2rofll:

I guess every single one of y'all are liars. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AdamT said:
The irony here is that when I argued a few months ago that the penalty was a legitimate use of the taxing power, every single conservative who responded swore up and down that the mandate was NOT A TAX!! :2rofll:

I guess every single one of y'all are liars. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It sounds like Roberts actually agreed with that, but caved to pressure exerted in the media and by Obama - at least if you believe CBS's reporting on the issue.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
That's right. It is totally obvious. That's why I was a bit baffled when you got so confused. Not every bill. Some bills are non-controversial enough that the majority party doesn't need to make any concessions at all. But, yes, pretty much all major bills, and certainly all major controversial bills contain many concessions to the other side. Health care is, of course, no exception.



That's right. They made concessions to the GOP on those issues. The GOP/insurance industry/Tea Party managed to bring enough public pressure that the Democrats in swing states could only sign the bill after those concessions had been made. That is no different than what I've been saying over and over.
Click to expand...
No, it is different. Initially, you claimed that the bill was a "compromise" in which 'concessions were made to the GOP.' That is false. There was no compromise between house democrats and republicans, and there were no concessions made between house democrats and house republicans and you know it. THe democrats sought to pass a health care reform measure with 218 democrats. There was no compromise with the GOP, there were no concessions to the GOP. The dems rammed it through by coercing and bribing enough of their own members to get the job done. Had they actually made concessions and sought compromise, they would not have been run from office in 2010.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

ttwtt78640 said:
The BIG difference with a fine, is that you must DO SOMETHING to warrant the fine, and can usually appeal it in court. ;-)
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I would consider it more of a fine than a tax. They're being punished for trying to freeload.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AdamT said:
The irony here is that when I argued a few months ago that the penalty was a legitimate use of the taxing power, every single conservative who responded swore up and down that the mandate was NOT A TAX!! :2rofll:

I guess every single one of y'all are liars. :shrug:
Click to expand...
You wouldnt happen to remember what thread that was would you? Because the only person I can remember who swore up and down that it wasnt a tax was Obama.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
That's exactly why I would consider it more of a fine than a tax. They're being punished for trying to freeload.
Click to expand...
If democrats are for punishing freeloaders with a fine or some kind then I am with you. Lets get started.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AdamT said:
The irony here is that when I argued a few months ago that the penalty was a legitimate use of the taxing power, every single conservative who responded swore up and down that the mandate was NOT A TAX!! :2rofll:

I guess every single one of y'all are liars. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You were right and we were wrong. A broken clock is also right twice a day.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Fletch said:
No, it is different. Initially, you claimed that the bill was a "compromise" in which 'concessions were made to the GOP.' That is false. There was no compromise between house democrats and republicans, and there were no concessions made between house democrats and house republicans and you know it. THe democrats sought to pass a health care reform measure with 218 democrats. There was no compromise with the GOP, there were no concessions to the GOP. The dems rammed it through by coercing and bribing enough of their own members to get the job done. Had they actually made concessions and sought compromise, they would not have been run from office in 2010.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you man. I explained it. You seem to understand. Not sure what the deal is. They had to make concessions to the Republicans to dull the impact of the teabagging and whatnot to try to protect their seats.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
That's exactly why I would consider it more of a fine than a tax. They're being punished for trying to freeload.
Click to expand...

I am NOT trying to freeload and willingly offer all of my wealth, declare bankrupcy and live on the dole until age 65, IFF I should need and recieve any such emergency life saving medical care. At age 60, I am willing to gamble that I will make 65 and qualify for medicare before that point, if not I will GLADLY pay the price. I can not afford to pay more for insurance than my rent ($300/month), as that is an either/or decision that I consider to be a "no brainer". I am much more likely to remain healthy living indoors and under a roof, than in a tent (or under a bridge) even with a fancy medical care insurance card to prove that I am being quite "responsible". ;-)
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Fletch said:
If democrats are for punishing freeloaders with a fine or some kind then I am with you. Lets get started.
Click to expand...

Right, that's all this is about. Democrats are trying to discourage freeloading by fining people who try to freeload off the public in health care. That's what this whole stink was about.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

OpportunityCost said:
He ran very heavily on not raising taxes on the middle class and those earning under 250k. By heavily, I mean most of his stump speeches touched on this idea.

He is now responsible for the single greatest tax increase on the middle and lower class of anyone, anywhere, any time. No wonder they are running from calling it a tax. You can't play both sides of the fence on that categorization either---the basis on which it was upheld and argued by the White House was to call it a tax because the mandate was declared illegal as the basis to regulate commerce; but you can tax it.

Im personally worried about the idea that government would be constrained by backlash from passing new legislation taxing the absence of commerce. Its frightening to think of how much they could tax with that as a principle idea.
Click to expand...


I wonder if Roberts was really sharp enough to do the old Chinese strategy of taking one step backward so as to take two steps forward. Maybe the CJ really stuck it to Obama in the long run
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

ttwtt78640 said:
I am NOT trying to freeload and willingly offer all of my wealth, declare bankrupcy and live on the dole until age 65, IFF I should need and recieve any such emergency life saving medical care. At age 60, I am willing to gamble that I will make 65 and qualify for medicare before that point, if not I will GLADLY pay the price. I can not afford to pay more for insurance than my rent ($300/month), as that is an either/or decision that I consider to be a "no brainer". I am much more likely to remain healthy living indoors and under a roof, than in a tent (or under a bridge) even with a fancy medical care insurance card to prove that I am being quite "responsible". ;-)
Click to expand...

If you don't get insurance through work and you're struggling to afford it, please, take advantage of the help we're offering you. That's the whole point of this thing. To ensure that folks in your boat get medical care without it costing them more than they can afford. You live in the richest country in the world. It's ridiculous that you should have to be like gambling your solvency on the hope that you don't get sick until you hit 65. Even people in many third world countries don't have to do that. Certainly you shouldn't have to. That's dead center of what we are trying to fix.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
Right, that's all this is about. Democrats are trying to discourage freeloading by fining people who try to freeload off the public in health care. That's what this whole stink was about.
Click to expand...

What of those that freeload by having out-of-wedlock children that they "can not" support? What of those that get SNAP benefits? What of those that drink/drug instead of working? What of those that simply refuse to earn enough to pay FIT, or get EITC rebates? Picking on those that DO attempt to get free care in the ER is one thing, but picking on those that simply MIGHT is quite another.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

TurtleDude said:
I wonder if Roberts was really sharp enough to do the old Chinese strategy of taking one step backward so as to take two steps forward. Maybe the CJ really stuck it to Obama in the long run
Click to expand...

Word is that Chief Justice Roberts is experiencing cognitive decline as a result of his epilepsy medicine. Medications have a helluva an impact on people's ability to think. That's why lots of lawyers and doctors ultimately decide to retire.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Albert Di Salvo said:
Word is that Chief Justice Roberts is experiencing cognitive decline as a result of his epilepsy medicine. Medications have a helluva an impact on people's ability to think. That's why lots of lawyers and doctors ultimately decide to retire.
Click to expand...

no way
roberts was quite clever in his application of the Constitution
hope he learned something from that citizens united abortion
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

ttwtt78640 said:
What of those that freeload by having out-of-wedlock children that they "can not" support? What of those that get SNAP benefits? What of those that drink/drug instead of working? What of those that simply refuse to earn enough to pay FIT, or get EITC rebates? Picking on those that DO attempt to get free care in the ER is one thing, but picking on those that simply MIGHT is quite another.
Click to expand...

Aren't they already being punished enough by having to live a life in poverty? While pile on more?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

justabubba said:
no way
roberts was quite clever in his application of the Constitution
hope he learned something from that citizens united abortion
Click to expand...

None of the other members of the Supreme Court signed the Roberts opinion. None of the liberals and none of the conservatives. His opinion was incoherent.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
If you don't get insurance through work and you're struggling to afford it, please, take advantage of the help we're offering you. That's the whole point of this thing. To ensure that folks in your boat get medical care without it costing them more than they can afford. You live in the richest country in the world. It's ridiculous that you should have to be like gambling your solvency on the hope that you don't get sick until you hit 65. Even people in many third world countries don't have to do that. Certainly you shouldn't have to. That's dead center of what we are trying to fix.
Click to expand...

I pay CASH and get all the care that I need, I pay my bills, I buy and take my medications and get HUGE cash discounts for doing so. The clinic that I use never even has to send me a bill, as I refuse to leave until I pay for that visit. They LIKE me there, and would help me in any way should I ask for it. They have even had me admitted to the hospital for surgery ($5,800) and I paid CASH for that as well (but it took 2.5 years). Paying cash is not impossible.

I do not WANT gov't help, if I really needed it, then my family, friends and neighbors would try to raise it, as we all did for another neighbor whose entire house was recently destroyed by a lighting strike fire. People CAN DO much more than most think, if they are simply willing to TRY and help each other when in need, what goes around, comes around.

I am old and have been in many motorcycle accidents that have taken their toll, over the years, via multiple broken bones, plates, screws, bone grafts and some messed up soft tissue (discs and nerves) and some circulation problems, but can still work, so I do, hopefully until at least age 62 to get SS help, that I will have worked 45 years for.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom