• 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!

Ga. governor to name special AG for health lawsuit

Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

If you owed 60k in federal income taxes, and you bought a hummer, and that hummer resulted in a 50k tax incentive, then your taxes would then be 10k.

If you chose not to buy a hummer, then your taxes would be 60k. Thus not buying a hummer cost you 50k.

Now, whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant. The question is whether it is constitutional or not.
That's not how a tax deduction works, but that aside... the incentive part is constitutional. The mandate part is not. Congress cannot say "buy a Hummer or pay us $50k a year"
 
SD...

In simplest terms,

Incentives are optional

Mandates are not.
 
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

That's not how a tax deduction works, but that aside... the incentive part is constitutional. The mandate part is not. Congress cannot say "buy a Hummer or pay us $50k a year"

Do you not get it? When this is argued in the federal courts what do you think the government lawyers are going to argue. They are going to argue that there is a tax incentive for purchasing health insurance if you don't have it. They will point out that the tax code is full of those kinds of incentives. They may even point to various retirement investments where there is an incentive to keep your money in them until you reach 62, and a penalty if you don't and choose to spend your money in that investment plan prior to retirement age.

Think about it, if you have a 401k, it is your money in it. Yet the government mandates that you keep your money in that 401k until you retire. They even mandate that your employer increase your contribution out of your income by 1% a year automatically. If you want your money out before you reach retirement age, the federal government mandates that get a loan from the financial institution that manages that plan, and pay interest on that loan. Otherwise, you pay a 20% tax penalty for early withdrawal. It is your money, but there are all those legal mandates that apply to it. All of it is perfectly constitutional because it is enforced through the federal tax code.
 
SD...

In simplest terms,

Incentives are optional

Mandates are not.

The mandate is completely optional. If you choose to get insurance, your taxes will be lower than they otherwise would be. If you choose not to, your taxes will be higher than they otherwise would be. It is that simple.

There are no other penalties associated with not having insurance other than what you pay in taxes.
 
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Do you not get it?.
Oh, I definitely get it. I just keep waiting for some kind person on the left to gently tap you on the shoulder so that you stop embarrassing yourself.

When this is argued in the federal courts what do you think the government lawyers are going to argue. They are going to argue that there is a tax incentive for purchasing health insurance if you don't have it.
If they called it a "tax incentive" they would be laughed out of the room. No, they are going to call it a mandate because that's what it is. They are going to take a position opposite that of Obama's -- claiming that it is indeed a tax -- and a constitutional expenditure under the general welfare clause.
 
The mandate is completely optional. If you choose to get insurance, your taxes will be lower than they otherwise would be. If you choose not to, your taxes will be higher than they otherwise would be. It is that simple.
Somebody help him out :doh
 
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Oh, I definitely get it. I just keep waiting for some kind person on the left to gently tap you on the shoulder so that you stop embarrassing yourself.

Let's just see who wins in the courts. It seems the GA Attorney General does not think my argument is wrong.

If they called it a "tax incentive" they would be laughed out of the room. No, they are going to call it a mandate because that's what it is. They are going to take a position opposite that of Obama's -- claiming that it is indeed a tax -- and a constitutional expenditure under the general welfare clause.

Look at the bill. Here it is. http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

There is once paragraph in the entire bill where the term "mandate" is used.

(d) PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT.—No grant shall
10 be allowed under subsection (a) unless the Secretaries of
11 Health and Human Services and Labor, in consultation
12 with other appropriate agencies, jointly certify, as a part
13 of any certification described in subsection (b), that each
14 wellness program component of the qualified wellness pro-
15 gram—
16 (1) shall be available to all employees of the
17 employer;
18 (2) shall not mandate participation by employ-
19 ees; and

That section deals with participation requirements for company wellness programs. The only time the term "mandate" is used in the entire bill is where the bill states that a company cannot mandate participation in a company wellness program. In the bill, mandatory insurance is not called a mandate, it is treated as a tax issue.
 
Last edited:
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Let's just see who wins in the courts. It seems the GA Attorney General does not think my argument is wrong.
He agrees with you on the conclusion, not the argument.


There is once paragraph in the entire bill where the term "mandate" is used.
...and if they outlawed pets we'd be left to conclude that dogs are perfectly legal because a word seach for "dog" yielded nothing.
 
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

He agrees with you on the conclusion, not the argument.

The argument in the bill is the mandate is enforced through the tax code. That is the argument. When this goes before the federal courts, they are not going to use Taylor's, the Debate Politics member with a flower avatar, argument. They are going to argue the text of the bill. The bill treats the mandate as a tax issue.

For example, it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that you have kids and fine you or imprison you if you don't. It is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to encourage you to have kids in the tax code. It may well be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that you purchase insurance and fine you or imprison you don't. It is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to encourage you to purchase insurance in the tax code.

If you don't have employer provided insurance, and you don't purchase insurance, then you won't go to jail or anything, you will just potentially pay higher taxes. Ultimately it is purely a tax issue from a legal perspective. It is pointless to argue this any further. We will just have to wait and see how it plays out in the courts. When they rule in favor of my argument you can always throw out the activist judges claim then.
 
Last edited:
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

For example, it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that you have kids and fine you or imprison you if you don't. It is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to encourage you to have kids in the tax code.
Yes I see your position:
Unconstitutional to mandate citizens to have kids under threat of fine or imprisonment,
...Unless of course you call that fine a tax, then it's completely legit.

It is pointless to argue this any further.
On that much we can agree. :cool:
 
So, when you don't get the answer you want, hire someone to give you that answer... With Tax-payer dollars.

Nice.:roll:

You included it in your OP, but I don't think you understand what "pro bono" means.
 
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Yes I see your position:
Unconstitutional to mandate citizens to have kids under threat of fine or imprisonment,
...Unless of course you call that fine a tax, then it's completely legit.

That is not just my position, or just one way of looking at it. It is the law. Your beef is not with me, it is with the constitution.
 
I miss Roy Barnes. Purdue should be more focused in trying not to destroy our education system over some silly ideological battle. Especially when other states are suing over the same thing and essentially footing the bill for this fight.
 
Last edited:
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

That is not just my position, or just one way of looking at it. It is the law. Your beef is not with me, it is with the constitution.
It is not the law.

The Constitution doesn't grant Congress an infinite power to compel people's behavior through the tax code.
 
Ga. governor to name special AG for health lawsuit



Why, you ask? Why hire a "Special AG" when you already got a perfectly good one?

Well, when the elected AG tells you:



The State does not have a viable legal claim.

So, when you don't get the answer you want, hire someone to give you that answer... With Tax-payer dollars.

Nice.:roll:

Why hire a special AG? Because using the regular AG does not get the same kind of press as announcing that you have hired a super duper top secret with whipped cream and a cherry on top AG.

Oops.... I forgot the nuts. That's OK, the Tea Party will supply those. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Well, no threads complete without Dana taking a pot shot at the tea parties in an entirely unrelated, off topic, way. :roll:

First, Right already hit on the pro bono thing and tax dollars.

Second, I would say my agreement with this would be based in part on what the general feeling of the state is with regards to the bill. If its not costing them money and the majority of people are against it I don't have a big issue with it, though I think its kind of pointless. If most in the state were for the legislation I would be against this though.
 
Well, no threads complete without Dana taking a pot shot at the tea parties in an entirely unrelated, off topic, way. :roll:

First, Right already hit on the pro bono thing and tax dollars.

Second, I would say my agreement with this would be based in part on what the general feeling of the state is with regards to the bill. If its not costing them money and the majority of people are against it I don't have a big issue with it, though I think its kind of pointless. If most in the state were for the legislation I would be against this though.
And the fact that Sarah Palin associated herself with the movement makes it doubly important to slam them. No doubt this is all Bush's fault.
 
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

It is not the law.

The Constitution doesn't grant Congress an infinite power to compel people's behavior through the tax code.

Have you never filed a federal income tax return?? The entire tax code consists of congress compelling behavior through the tax code.
 
Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

Have you never filed a federal income tax return?? The entire tax code consists of congress compelling behavior through the tax code.
Again you fail to see the difference between an incentive and a mandate. If I do just fine taking public transportation, I don't feel "compelled" to go spend $25,000 on a new car simply because I can get a minor cost offset on my taxes.

Feeling "compelled" is Obama saying, "I don't care if you want a car or not. You either buy one, or every year I'm going to make you pay me what everyone else pays for their car."
 
Ga. governor to name special AG for health lawsuit



Why, you ask? Why hire a "Special AG" when you already got a perfectly good one?

Well, when the elected AG tells you:



The State does not have a viable legal claim.

So, when you don't get the answer you want, hire someone to give you that answer... With Tax-payer dollars.

Nice.:roll:

The tards in Georgia do not have a case. If they even ATTEMPT such an action, the SCOTUS will crush their sorry asses.
 
Back
Top Bottom