How does it feel to now be a taxpayer?

"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. " - Justice Roberts majority opinion!
 
Dixie said:
You need to brush up on how government works in the US. I am not sure about Canada, I'll admit, I don't really know how things work there... but in the US, the government doesn't have any money... in fact, they currently owe other governments $15 trillion and counting. Now, each year, the government is supposed to decide where and how the money collected from taxes are distributed, and pretty much all of that is already spoken for. In fact, not since Clinton, has the government actually had money left over, they generally overspend by several hundred billion... Obama & Co. have overspent each year by closer to $1 trillion (average).

You see, we can't "think of the government as the average Joe" because the government doesn't go to work and make a living like the average Joe. The government is more like the average Joe who is on welfare, and who gets a certain fixed amount of money given to him by the people. But here lately Welfare Joe has gone out and bought a new car, a new boat, new jet skis, one of those ATV things, a giant plasma screen TV, and maxed out all his credit cards. The measly little amount of 'welfare' he gets from the people in the form of taxes, is barely enough to pay the interest on all this shit, but he just keeps on buying more and more stuff, because his brain is controlled by liberal democrats.

Obamacare was not funded by Congress when it was approved. If it had been, it would have cost us about $10 trillion up front. I think we would have heard something about that, since we are already $15 trillion in debt. I can't imagine ANY Congressman approving such an expenditure, even IF we had the money to spend, which we don't. A considerable portion of the initial implementation, was funded with a $600 billion transfer from Medicare, which now has to be returned, according to SCOTUS. Another large chunk of the cost regarding implementation, was mandated to the States, who were ordered to pay for it out of their state Medicare funds. The court also ruled this was unconstitutional. So at this point, here is what you have:

A SCOTUS ruling that you CAN implement the individual mandate to purchase insurance or levy a fine, under the Feds ability to tax. That takes care of getting everyone on insurance... I don't know of a single Republican who is opposed to people buying their own insurance. Granted, it would be nice if we had the option to NOT do it... and I think that is encroaching our freedoms, but that's what the court has ruled. I can live with it being the law that every person has to be responsible and carry health insurance, or pay a fine if they don't. But now... THAT is NOT what Obamacare sought to do, was it?

You see... the "problem" is going to be the millions who can't afford to buy insurance. Someone will have to pick up the tab for them, and we don't have passage of any kind of a tax bill to remedy that. In order for Congress to do this, a special tax will have to be voted on and passed by supermajority in both houses, and signed by the president. The court has already told us, we can't take money out of something else to pay for this... so the only way to do it, is to introduce some legislation and put it to a vote. I don't think you are going to have the votes to pass ANY tax increase.
Click to expand...

How can the government cut costs if it can't take money from things? I'm not following your argument. If the government decides to cut a dollar from the military why can't it use that dollar towards ObamaCare?
 
Dixturd?


Are you running, or going to come back and spin in more circles... or man up and admit your mistake/lie...?
 
JugheadFool said:
Dixturd?

Are you running, or going to come back and spin in more circles... or man up and admit your mistake/lie...?
Click to expand...

Lie? Mistake? Where has that happened? You think because you are clever enough to find the portion of the ruling where Roberts deems the mandate a tax, it's some refutation of what I've said? I never argued that the mandate WASN'T a tax or that the SCOTUS didn't rule as such. Tom keeps trying to claim it's not a tax, perhaps you meant to post that for him? I'm clear on the matter, I understand Roberts found the mandate to be a tax. In addition to also finding the government has no authority to impose this program, except under Congressional ability to tax. If you can find where he states they have some OTHER constitutional authority, then by all means, please present that here! I promise I won't run away or spin it... although, I can't help the fact that you are spinning so fast that everything around you appears to also be spinning... that's a personal problem you have to deal with.
 
Dixie said:
Yah, well.. unfortunately, not everyone will be able to afford it. Insurance cost has risen about 30% since Obamacare passed, and that was BEFORE the SCOTUS mandated that every single American purchase it. Now that insurance companies have something that everyone has to buy, you can expect the rates to increase... especially since they will now be covering all the pre-existing illnesses out there, and 'children' until they are 26.
Click to expand...

that's what the 'exchanges' were for.. but too many con govs aren't going to allow those exchanges... so chalk up another clusterfuck to Republican leadership..

that's also what the 'expanded medicaid' was for because it's cheaper to cover a person thru medicaid than it is to subsidize the private insurance exchanges.. but since it was knocked down and the Con states are having tantrums over the exchanges, the costs will rise and people will get screwed..

so the happy dance Con's are doing for their 'win' from SCOTUS..is really a happy dance that people are going to get screwed..

but that's ok.. a cpl years of this and we'll usher in single-payer since it will be one option left to truly fix healthcare..

but in the mean time, wish people would really 'get' what the Cons are doing to them and how happy they are to be doing it..

so I guess the real question should be, how do you feel about the Republicans fucking you and celebrating that coital action? and why in the hell would you keep voting for them?
 
During his 1994 bid to unseat Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Romney supported the Senate Republicans’ alternative to President Bill Clinton’s health care initiative.


The centerpiece of that proposal was an individual mandate.


In 2007, well before Obama switched his position and backed the mandate, Romney said it was “a terrific idea.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/us/02iht-letter02.html
 
Dixie said:
Lie? Mistake? Where has that happened? You think because you are clever enough to find the portion of the ruling where Roberts deems the mandate a tax, it's some refutation of what I've said? I never argued that the mandate WASN'T a tax or that the SCOTUS didn't rule as such. Tom keeps trying to claim it's not a tax, perhaps you meant to post that for him? I'm clear on the matter, I understand Roberts found the mandate to be a tax. In addition to also finding the government has no authority to impose this program, except under Congressional ability to tax. If you can find where he states they have some OTHER constitutional authority, then by all means, please present that here! I promise I won't run away or spin it... although, I can't help the fact that you are spinning so fast that everything around you appears to also be spinning... that's a personal problem you have to deal with.
Click to expand...
That's not what the sulu perms court said and you have failed in my challange to find any quote that supports what you are claiming. You are a fool!
 
apple0154 said:
How can the government cut costs if it can't take money from things? I'm not following your argument. If the government decides to cut a dollar from the military why can't it use that dollar towards ObamaCare?
Click to expand...

Because, when Congress appropriated the funding for the military, it wasn't appropriating the money for Obamacare. The Supreme Court was clear, they can't use money appropriated for other things, to fund Obamacare.... it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL! IF the system existed that you envision, the Congress could simply pass the "Every American Deserves to be a Millionaire Act" promising that a modest increase in tax will enable the government to send every American a check for a million bucks.... THEN, when that is passed, decide to spend the money on something totally different. We'd have bills like that everyday! "Love for Fuzzy Cats Act" --designed to promote love for fuzzy cats, but instead, the money goes to fund abortions and gay marriage! You see, this is NOT how representative republic government is supposed to work. We expect them to vote on how to spend our tax dollars, and THEN, to actually DO what they voted to do, and not change that in mid-stream.

What this means is, the shell game with funding is OVER. You can't simply hide the cost of this program and borrow from Peter to pay Paul, while duping the public... it is not constitutional, and the court ruled as such. IF you want Obamacare, you will have to pass a specific tax increase to fund it. Congress has the power and authority to do that, the SCOTUS ruled that as well.
 
JugheadFool said:
That's not what the sulu perms court said and you have failed in my challange to find any quote that supports what you are claiming. You are a fool!
Click to expand...

Sulu Perms Court? WTF is that? The guy from Star Trek gives perms to people who sit on a court???

Challenge??? All you have done, is pick up a small piece of the SCOTUS ruling, and try to use it to prove that's all the court ruled on. That's just simply not the truth here, and everyone who isn't a retarded moron, understands that. The court ruled Congress does not have the authority to implement this program under the commerce clause, which means, the mandate and penalty can't fall under the commerce clause. It has to be a TAX in order to be constitutional, but so does the general funding of the program itself. That's the part you are missing here. Granted, the mandate and penalty most directly effect us as taxpayers, but the cost of the program also effects us as well.
 
ekg said:
that's what the 'exchanges' were for.. but too many con govs aren't going to allow those exchanges... so chalk up another clusterfuck to Republican leadership..

that's also what the 'expanded medicaid' was for because it's cheaper to cover a person thru medicaid than it is to subsidize the private insurance exchanges.. but since it was knocked down and the Con states are having tantrums over the exchanges, the costs will rise and people will get screwed..

so the happy dance Con's are doing for their 'win' from SCOTUS..is really a happy dance that people are going to get screwed..

but that's ok.. a cpl years of this and we'll usher in single-payer since it will be one option left to truly fix healthcare..

but in the mean time, wish people would really 'get' what the Cons are doing to them and how happy they are to be doing it..

so I guess the real question should be, how do you feel about the Republicans fucking you and celebrating that coital action? and why in the hell would you keep voting for them?
Click to expand...

So you are now going to blame CONSERVATIVES for the SCOTUS ruling? It wasn't up to the "con govs" to "allow" or not to "allow" anything, it was up to the SCOTUS to decide what was constitutional, and they ruled that your idea was unconstitutional... not conservatives.

Single payer is dead, it was quietly put to sleep by the benevolence of one, Justice Roberts, and four others who voted with him on Thursday. Congress has no commerce clause authority to regulate this, therefore, that puts an end to "public option" or "single payer" or whatever you wish to call it. You can pass a massive TAX to pay for it, if that's what you think will fly... I say, GO FOR IT!
 
Dixie said:
Sulu Perms Court? WTF is that? The guy from Star Trek gives perms to people who sit on a court???

Challenge??? All you have done, is pick up a small piece of the SCOTUS ruling, and try to use it to prove that's all the court ruled on. That's just simply not the truth here, and everyone who isn't a retarded moron, understands that. The court ruled Congress does not have the authority to implement this program under the commerce clause, which means, the mandate and penalty can't fall under the commerce clause. It has to be a TAX in order to be constitutional, but so does the general funding of the program itself. That's the part you are missing here. Granted, the mandate and penalty most directly effect us as taxpayers, but the cost of the program also effects us as well.
Click to expand...

You cant find any portion of the Supreme court ruling that supports your outlandish position, a position you are ALONE WITH. Not even Romney himself supports.
 
Jarod said:
You cant find any portion of the Supreme court ruling that supports your outlandish position, a position you are ALONE WITH. Not even Romney himself supports.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "outlandish" about what I have stated, and it certainly doesn't contradict anything others have said, or Romney, for that matter.

The SCOTUS ruled that ACA couldn't use the $600 billion it sought from Medicare, because Congress does not have such authority under the commerce clause. Now that $600 billion in funding, was completely separate and unrelated to the mandate or penalty proposed.

You argument is the equivalent of saying: The 1st Amendment means black people and minorities can say whatever they want and everyone else has to shut up and listen! That's CLEARLY NOT what the 1st Amendment says or means... but since you interpret the smallest of portions and apply it to your myopic example, that's how you view it. The whole reason the mandate and penalty were deemed TAX, is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to regulate health care under the commerce clause.
 
The majority of Americans have real concerns about the impact of this law and certainly do not relish the prospect of higher taxes.

At the same time, only a minority of hard-core conservatives — about a third of the electorate — want to see the law simply repealed; voters in the middle are more interested in hearing about the “replace” part of the Republican slogan.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/us/02iht-letter02.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top