• 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!

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

TacticalEvilDan said:
No, no, no. You the one making the accusation that this piece of legislation is a bill of attainder, and it is therefore your job to either prove your accusation to be true or to admit that you can't or won't prove it.
Click to expand...
You stated that this bill allows for due process regarding the fines.
Prove this to be true or admit you cannot.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I guess it's a good thing we don't have to buy the air we breathe. :lol:
Click to expand...
The air thay you breathe is not a commodity oenwd by someone else.
However, the goods and services provided to you by heath care providers are, and they have a right to be compensated for doing so.

The value of an individual person has nothing to do with their net worth, and I can't see a good argument for letting someone die for lack of care because they have no money with which they can pay for it.
Click to expand...
See above. Goods and services are not free.
 
Goobieman said:
You stated that this bill allows for due process regarding the fines.
Prove this to be true or admit you cannot.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that you first made the accusation that the bill constitutes a bill of attainder.

I responded with what I understand from skimming the bill.

If you wish to refute that, being the one who first made the accusation, you need to look at the bill and then show me where your accusation is correct.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You forgot to mention that you first made the accusation that the bill constitutes a bill of attainder.
Click to expand...
Yes, and you said it was not so because it allows for due process.
If that is true, that's fine - but it is then encumbent upon you to show that it is true.
 
Councilman said:
Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance? - Political Punch



I like the part that reads: "Obama Said: that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance."
Is there anyone who believe he wouldn't be tripping all over himself to get to sign this crazy Bill.
I am getting tied of pointing out that this legislation is not what it needed and that any person who has ever run a successful business can come up with much better solutions at a mere fraction of the cost of this monstrosity.
I beg you to demand a more reasonable approach to Health care and Insurance. It makes no sense to give up our Liberties to help the 12 to 20 million who have no health care. Hell I have solutions to the high cost and insurance and it's not that hard to do if we address the questions and not add a bunch of junk that is not related to the initial issues and only serves special interests and drives the cost up needlessly.
Click to expand...

Mark my words...this isn't going to lead to jail time, but it will lead to families that don't comply having their income tax returns withheld by the IRS to pay for these penalties.

In the end, this is only going to lead to the government claiming more money from the people who can least afford it.
 
Looks like another brick in the tax protestor's wall when it comes to this situation.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
That's what a bill of attainder is, that isn't what this is.

Like any matter dealing with taxes on your income, you're not automatically guilty just because the government says you are. Nothing in the bill says you're automatically guilty of anything. You are entitled to due process. Nothing in this bill denies you due process.

Ergo, it is not a bill of attainder.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have never had to deal with the IRS in an adversarial manner.
 
Crunch said:
Obviously you have never had to deal with the IRS in an adversarial manner.
Click to expand...

I did once. And I won, for the most part, but it was the most grueling and pointless exercise in proving the obvious: the government can't efficiently run an ant farm.

And even though I "won", it still costed me close to two grand.
 
jallman said:
I did once. And I won, for the most part, but it was the most grueling and pointless exercise in proving the obvious: the government can't efficiently run an ant farm.

And even though I "won", it still costed me close to two grand.
Click to expand...

Been there..... It's the only place in this country where you are guilty until you prove you are innocent
 
Goobieman said:
Yes, and you said it was not so because it allows for due process.
If that is true, that's fine - but it is then encumbent upon you to show that it is true.
Click to expand...

Allow me to illustrate for you how these things are supposed to work:

First person: Accusation of some sort regarding the subject at hand
Second person: Expression of surprise and disbelief regarding the accusation
First person: Production of evidence to reinforce accusation
Second person: Reasoned response to evidence

Now allow me to illustrate for you how you seem to want these things to work:

First person: Accusation of some sort regarding the subject at hand
Second person: Expression of surprise and disbelief regarding the accusation
First person: Demand for evidence that disproves accusation
Second person: Head explody

That's not how it works in a court of law, that's not how it works in polite discourse between adults, and that's not how it's going to work here, sorry.

Please produce your evidence backing up your claim regarding the "bill of attainder" nature of the health reform bill which passed the House, citing specific sections as appropriate.

Thank you.
 
jallman said:
Mark my words...this isn't going to lead to jail time, but it will lead to families that don't comply having their income tax returns withheld by the IRS to pay for these penalties.
Click to expand...

More like whatever portion of the 2.5% they owe (if any) will be taken out of the return, resulting in return reduction rather than withholding of the return.
 
Crunch said:
Obviously you have never had to deal with the IRS in an adversarial manner.
Click to expand...

If your suggestion is that the due process system for matters of taxation sucks, okay. So does the due process system for matters criminal. Speaking from experience with respect to criminal courts, it's not uncommon for innocent defendants to take a plea offered by the prosecution simply because they'd rather have the certainty of a shorter sentence instead of the high probability of a longer sentence.

That doesn't mean that due process does not, in fact, exist. It just sucks.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Allow me to illustrate for you how these things are supposed to work:

First person: Accusation of some sort regarding the subject at hand
Second person: Expression of surprise and disbelief regarding the accusation
First person: Production of evidence to reinforce accusation
Second person: Reasoned response to evidence

Now allow me to illustrate for you how you seem to want these things to work:

First person: Accusation of some sort regarding the subject at hand
Second person: Expression of surprise and disbelief regarding the accusation
First person: Demand for evidence that disproves accusation
Second person: Head explody

That's not how it works in a court of law, that's not how it works in polite discourse between adults, and that's not how it's going to work here, sorry.

Please produce your evidence backing up your claim regarding the "bill of attainder" nature of the health reform bill which passed the House, citing specific sections as appropriate.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Look, if you cannot show that the proposed fines allows for due process, just say so.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
More like whatever portion of the 2.5% they owe (if any) will be taken out of the return, resulting in return reduction rather than withholding of the return.
Click to expand...

You've never dealt with the IRS, obviously.
 
Goobieman said:
Look, if you cannot show that the proposed fines allows for due process, just say so.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you don't understand that it's not my job to prove that your accusation is false, it's your job to prove that your accusation is correct.

Having already delved into 1990 pages of tripe, I'm not eager to do so again unless you are willing to expend that same kind effort to put some meat on the skeleton of your argument.
 
jallman said:
You've never dealt with the IRS, obviously.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have, both as an independent businessman and an employee of a corporation.

I've got plenty of experience sending in my quarterlies and having the return of those quarterlies reduced by my calculate tax liability on April 15th.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yes, I have, both as an independent businessman and an employee of a corporation.

I've got plenty of experience sending in my quarterlies and having the return of those quarterlies reduced by my calculate tax liability on April 15th.
Click to expand...

OK, whatever you say.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I
can't believe you don't understand that it's not my job to prove that your accusation is false, it's your job to prove that your accusation is correct.
Click to expand...
I cannot believe that you do not understand this.

Its my assertion that someting does not exist. One cannot prove a negative, and so, if you disagree with my assertion, as you have, then it is up to you to show that it does exist. Its really that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom