• 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

Bronson said:
Yahoo news isn't fair and balanced? :lol:

Facts are facts. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings that people are exposing the truth about this fraud of a bill that rammed down the throats of the American Public against their will with shady reconciliation tactics. Next you'll be whining that Obamacare is about "Free HC for all" or some other such emotional nonsense.

Obamacare is filled with 20 new taxes. It wasn't sold as a massive tax increase. You support passing legislation through deception? It's a bloated Big Government mess that is an absolute disaster. I love how hope and change junkies like you are trying to have the debate again that Obamacare is "deficit neutral", not filled with massive tax increases on the poor and middle class, and isn't a massive grab for more Centralized Power. You lost that debate back in 2010.

Are you claiming that any source you use is going to be unbiased? Let's stop with the pretentious nonsense. You've been bleeting Ezra Klein and Daily Kos talking points all week.
Click to expand...
Yahoo is fine.....besides the fact that they are using an interview with a guy who lost is securities trading license for fraud. But even he makes clear that the tax increases fall predominately upon those making over $250K....which was known from the start.

If you make under $250K and have even the most minimal of health insurance, this will not impact you negatively.

The point still is that you claimed that "Factcheck.org" is a horrible LW source (it isn't) while continuing to promote the Grover Norquist view of the bill.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Bronson said:
Hey nice hyperbole guy

Dems wage pressure campaign on Supreme Court over health ruling - The Hill's Healthwatch

Not surprising to see a Socialist approve of thuggery and intimidation tactics in order to get their way politically.
Click to expand...

Nice acknowledgement of your own cluelessness. Maybe we should ask for a big sarcasm gif from the moderators so some folks could more readily grasp reality when their political opponents post a comment.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....your claim was that YOU would be taxed on the sale of your home, I showed you probably won't be.....and your defense is NOW to say you don't want to talk about your private life?


Whatever Billy, self contradiction is your MO lately.
Click to expand...


Keep on trying, Gimmie. Did this type tactic work on the play ground for you. :2razz:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

ttwtt78640 said:
It is amazing that for every FACT that you provide they have a spin that makes it OK, usually that it will effect only a "rich guy", corporation or business, as if those folks don't just pass along the costs of all taxes, fees and regulations as increased prices for the goods and services that they provide, sticking those at the bottom, consumers, with the REAL cost of all taxation. Fools on the left can never see this simple truth; the more that the gov't takes the less the little guy has UNLESS the gov't gives them some back. The goal of the left, in a democratic republic, is to have more tax benefit getting voters than tax payers, after that, the game of democracy is over.
Click to expand...


They have to spin it because they bought the whole ball of wax. But, IMO, everyone, that pays taxes, will have to chip in to pay for this whale. It's a TAX.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Gimmesometruth said:
That argument only applies to business, and the amount of the taxation to business is small in relation to the total economy along with the fact that the cost to consumers is spread out over a very wide area and time frame. Don't like the tax on tanning salons? Go outside and get a tan. Don't like the hike on cigarettes? Stop smoking. The direct effects of these increases are very small and are more than offset by the cost controls, increases in the size of insurance pools, etc.
Click to expand...



Keep on sippin' that Kool Aid, Gimmie.

Are you trying to convince ttwtt or youself?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Boo Radley said:
They are paying for them now, before reform. I don't think this is wonderful, but keeping the status quo, where we're not only paying, but paying a lot, doesn't seem like something those worrying about paying for others should want to go back to.
Click to expand...


I believe you and I have posted about the scenerio of "Lucy/Charlie Brown/Football" before.

President Obama said over and over and over this was not a TAX. And then his JD lawyers HAD TO ARGUE that it was a TAX to the Supremes, who ruled on the issue ONLY because it was a TAX.

Now you want me to believe that I'm supposed to believe liars? It's a TAX. And the only way to pay for this monstrosity is to TAX those who pay taxes.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
Keep on trying, Gimmie. Did this type tactic work on the play ground for you. :2razz:
Click to expand...
It still works, you can't talk about your original point.

Apparently you didn't learn your tactic fails on the playground.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Albert Di Salvo said:
I think the way to deal with Obamacare is to overwhelm it with increased costs for the federal govt. through states opting out. That forces the federal govt. to step in and the federal budget skyrockets.

Maybe it would have been a better idea for President Obama to have proceeded incrementally.
Click to expand...



This could happen.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Somerville said:
Did you know that Chief Justice Roberts only agreed with the decision because Obama threatened his children?
Click to expand...


I find this hard to believe.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
Keep on sippin' that Kool Aid, Gimmie.

Are you trying to convince ttwtt or youself?
Click to expand...
Is that it Billy, this is the extent of counter-argument?

You are falling apart in front of everyone. Give it a rest.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Gimmesometruth said:
It still works, you can't talk about your original point.

Apparently you didn't learn your tactic fails on the playground.
Click to expand...


Nah, your tactics fail, but keep on trying. I like this look on you.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The conservative Heritage foundation is vindicated by the Supreme Court in its promotion of the insurance mandate!

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate

"James Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal’s excellent “Best of the Web” column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.

This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question:

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK."

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
I believe you and I have posted about the scenerio of "Lucy/Charlie Brown/Football" before.

President Obama said over and over and over this was not a TAX. And then his JD lawyers HAD TO ARGUE that it was a TAX to the Supremes, who ruled on the issue ONLY because it was a TAX.

Now you want me to believe that I'm supposed to believe liars? It's a TAX. And the only way to pay for this monstrosity is to TAX those who pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you, if you have insurance, what is your tax increase?

But that has nothing to do with what i said. Let me repost:

They are paying for them now, before reform. I don't think this is wonderful, but keeping the status quo, where we're not only paying, but paying a lot, doesn't seem like something those worrying about paying for others should want to go back to.
 
Boo Radley said:
Let me ask you, if you have insurance, what is your tax increase?
Click to expand...

Everyone who didn't have coverage previously (because they couldn't afford it) but will have coverage now (and not be paying for it) creates increased tax burden on whoever's left in the group that's still paying taxes. The more people who can't pay squat for health care that we cover and give health care, the more that burden falls to taxpayers. And since we are all federally mandated to buy insurance, we might as well consider all health insurance costs essentially a tax. SCOTUS approves of it being called that, after all.

They are paying for them now, before reform.
Click to expand...

That's the problem.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Boo Radley said:
Let me ask you, if you have insurance, what is your tax increase?

But that has nothing to do with what i said. Let me repost:

They are paying for them now, before reform. I don't think this is wonderful, but keeping the status quo, where we're not only paying, but paying a lot, doesn't seem like something those worrying about paying for others should want to go back to.
Click to expand...

Congress has been given the authority to tax you and/or make you pay a (fine/penalty) that was not a tax but is now a tax for NOT buying a private good or service, or engaging in a private contract with a corporation. That's what private health insurance companies are. Corporations. Obama can tax you for not buying their products using congress's taxing authority now. So in the future if some right winger gets a super majority he can pass a bill that will make you pay a penalty/tax that was not a tax but now is a tax for not buying a bible or a koran.

You call that "Health Care Reform". I call it tyranny.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Everyone who didn't have coverage previously (because they couldn't afford it) but will have coverage now (and not be paying for it) creates increased tax burden on whoever's left in the group that's still paying taxes. The more people who can't pay squat for health care that we cover and give health care, the more that burden falls to taxpayers. And since we are all federally mandated to buy insurance, we might as well consider all health insurance costs essentially a tax. SCOTUS approves of it being called that, after all.



That's the problem.
Click to expand...

If you don't like the conservative's insurance mandate, we can always upgrade to a public option like most of the rest of the industrialized world! :cool:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Bronson said:
Congress has been given the authority to tax you and/or make you pay a (fine/penalty) that was not a tax but is now a tax for NOT buying a private good or service, or engaging in a private contract with a corporation. That's what private health insurance companies are. Corporations. Obama can tax you for not buying their products using congress's taxing authority now. So in the future if some right winger gets a super majority he can pass a bill that will make you pay a penalty/tax that was not a tax but now is a tax for not buying a bible or a koran.

You call that "Health Care Reform". I call it tyranny.
Click to expand...

But your tax has not increased, as I assume you have insurance.

And your definition of Tyranny may be a little hyperbolic.

And you still haven't answered my original post:

Boo said:
They are paying for them now, before reform. I don't think this is wonderful, but keeping the status quo, where we're not only paying, but paying a lot, doesn't seem like something those worrying about paying for others should want to go back to.
Click to expand...
 
Neomalthusian said:
Everyone who didn't have coverage previously (because they couldn't afford it) but will have coverage now (and not be paying for it) creates increased tax burden on whoever's left in the group that's still paying taxes. The more people who can't pay squat for health care that we cover and give health care, the more that burden falls to taxpayers. And since we are all federally mandated to buy insurance, we might as well consider all health insurance costs essentially a tax. SCOTUS approves of it being called that, after all.



That's the problem.
Click to expand...

Yep. It is simply income redistribution disguised as medical care reform. What used to be private medical care insurance is now the long awaited "public option". Of course to prevent panic it is still called "private", yet the minimum/maximum benefits, what must be no-cost, what the premiums can cost (and be based on) and how much overhead is allowed are ALL 100% gov't controlled, leaving the "private" insurance companies under 95% gov't control. That makes only paying CASH enable one to get better care (or to the head of the line) than the gov't allows, the only hole in the dike left, that must be quickly plugged, once the lines start to form for the rest of us. Yes he did!
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Bronson said:
Congress has been given the authority to tax you and/or make you pay a (fine/penalty) that was not a tax but is now a tax for NOT buying a private good or service, or engaging in a private contract with a corporation. That's what private health insurance companies are. Corporations. Obama can tax you for not buying their products using congress's taxing authority now. So in the future if some right winger gets a super majority he can pass a bill that will make you pay a penalty/tax that was not a tax but now is a tax for not buying a bible or a koran.

You call that "Health Care Reform". I call it tyranny.
Click to expand...

You can't be forced to buy something you already have and everbody has free healthcare at any emerency room. You now have to pay something for it and that burns you up. It is pretty ridiculous.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep. It is simply income redistribution disguised as medical care reform. What used to be private medical care insurance is now the long awaited "public option". Of course to prevent panic it is still called "private", yet the minimum/maximum benefits, what must be no-cost, what the premiums can cost (and be based on) and how much overhead is allowed are ALL 100% gov't controlled, leaving the "private" insurance companies under 95% gov't control. That makes only paying CASH enable one to get better care (or to the head of the line) than the gov't allows, the only hole in the dike left, that must be quickly plugged, once the lines start to form for the rest of us. Yes he did!
Click to expand...
I don't keep up with Faux News, but is this the new RW talking point, that because the govt requires you to purchase HI, that HI corporations suddenly lost their "private" corporation designation? I just got done arguing this same point with another koo....er....."right winger" in another thread where he was making the same "point", so where exactly does this "idea" come from?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Boo Radley said:
Let me ask you, if you have insurance, what is your tax increase?

But that has nothing to do with what i said. Let me repost:

They are paying for them now, before reform. I don't think this is wonderful, but keeping the status quo, where we're not only paying, but paying a lot, doesn't seem like something those worrying about paying for others should want to go back to.
Click to expand...


I may be giving you more credit than I should. I don't buy into the "everything will be paid for from some unknown entity". Coverage, including all the doctors, drugs, hospitals, etc., that will be needed will not be covered. And how someone like you, who I thought had at least some sort of a handle on this, could believe that this TAX isn't going to fall on the middle class is beyond me.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
I may be giving you more credit than I should. I don't buy into the "everything will be paid for from some unknown entity". Coverage, including all the doctors, drugs, hospitals, etc., that will be needed will not be covered. And how someone like you, who I thought had at least some sort of a handle on this, could believe that this TAX isn't going to fall on the middle class is beyond me.
Click to expand...

If that cost is picked up through taxes, it won't from the mandate. From the mandate, you are not being taxed if you have insurance. if you have other information I don't have on that present it. Otherwise, I'm correct that the mandate has not raised your taxes.

No one here that I know is arguing magic will pay for anything. The law assumes something that will either prove true or false, like that the pool growth will help pay for the preexisting conditions and that cutting the middle man out of school loans will save money that can be used on health care. But, until a tax is passed, you can say you are being taxed now.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

How does the 3.8% tax on real estate work exactly? I have heard that it applies to any house sold for $500,000 and above. What if someone is holding a mortgage for 350 thousand and sells for 500 grand? Your walking away with 150 grand but have to pay a new tax of $19,000. Is this correct? If so that is quite a hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom