PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
maybe it was on a different thread, but I know I pointed out your error on this somewhere......instead of repeating it, just be aware you are wrong.....
SCOTUS deals biggest blow to Liberalism in 100 years!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
maybe it was on a different thread, but I know I pointed out your error on this somewhere......instead of repeating it, just be aware you are wrong.....
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I have to correct myself here. With the WH, The House of Reps and 50 seats in the Senate, Repubs can repeal the ACA using reconciliation procedures. The problem with that, is what would they replace it with? The provisions of the ACA which have all ready been implemented are very popular all ready. I don't think it takes a prophet to understand that much of remaining provisions will be equally popular. Particularly the health exchanges. That's why Republican Governors are delaying the implementation of health exchanges till after the election. They know that they would be extremely popular. Kinda disgusting that they would play these kinds of politics with peoples lives.
I'll retread that portion. You might have a point.
Postmodern, you are incorrect.
"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. "
"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. "
Postmodern, you are incorrect.
"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. "
"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. "
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
It is only logical.....if the government requires you to spend money for something and penalizes you if you do not.....and the IRS is in charge of collecting that......it is a tax.......bypassing the intermediate step of having the IRS collect the money and pay the healthcare for you is merely a meaningless formality.....
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So a traffic fine is a tax?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
PiMP seems less loquacious than usual, for some reason.
Incorrect. There are payments due the government that the IRS collects that are not taxes. For example, repayment of Bush's home loan stimulus is through the IRS.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Would PiMP claim that the method of collection means it's a tax?
apple0154
MEOW
apple0154
MEOW
PmP admit a mistake? Surely you jest.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Apple, I am not making a prediction.YOU are the one "predicting" things here, I am making a careful analysis based on the facts as we know them to be. You're offering NOTHING to refute that, except to pop off smarmy liberal insults directed at me personally. Bill Mahr isn't going to save your ass on this one.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Doublewide made a mistake?
He claims the Supreme Court ruled that the entire ACA is a tax, not just the penalty portion. When confronted with reality and cites to the pertnant portions of the decision he continues down idiot lane.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I correctly stated, as did the SCOTUS ruling, that Congress does not have the authority to regulate this under the commerce clause, and that funding can't come out of some other appropriation. You've shown us NOTHING to refute that, and NOTHING that says SCOTUS allowed this under the commerce clause.
You see, idgit... this thing was passed under the presumption that Congress had the power to regulate it under the commerce clause. If that were the case, then they could take money from Medicare or some other program, to fund it....(which is what they proposed) because the commerce clause supposedly allows them to do so. In being able to do that, they can hide the cost by stealing money from somewhere else, but the SCOTUS nixed that idea completely. They ruled that Medicare can't be raided to pay for this! Nor can any other appropriation for any other current program. This means, you have Obamacare... you just have no means of funding it. In order to fund it, you will have to go to the people and ask for more taxes.
You keep running to this one little part about the mandate and penalty being tax... but you fail to understand, the REASON for that, is because the authority to administer this program is NOT covered under the commerce clause. It's like; You have this person suffering a heart attack, and while people frantically try to save his life, you are suggesting that all he needs to do is cut out the cholesterol, eat healthy, and exercise! You're missing the Big Picture entirely, as you myopically cling to one little snippet from the ruling, and claim that was all there was to it.
You're an idiot. A complete and total illiterate fool. Go find the portion of the ruling that allows Congress to use the commerce clause to fund this! IT AIN'T THERE!
G