Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it were a fine then it would be a civil penalty that is appealable in several courts.I thnik teh congress definely wants to make it a tax to avoid thousands of court filing having to be done;just have the IRS handle it has taxes owed and let the person appeal as with any tax case.It also alows them to get the money many ways. If the law only allows a fine as a penalty teh courts have ruled that you can jail a person for that under even criminal law.Civil no chance.Tax evasion ;definitely.
Frankly, I am looking forward to the wording remaining unchanged in the legislation. It makes for the perfect target when challenging the law in the courts. If the federal mandate for states to perform background checks was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Brady Bill, then the federal government mandating individuals buy health insurance is equally unconstitutional.
See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
It was very obliging of the Democrats to include such unconstitutional language. Now it will not be any problem at all having the entire mess thrown out.
No, that dog won't hunt. The principle upheld in Printz is that the federal legislature may not direct the action of a state legislature. What was overturned in Printz was federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to compel state and local officials to carry out firearms background checks of a particular sort during a temporary period in which a federal system for support of background checks was being developed. The same background checks imposed on a permanent basis and adminstered by gun sellers were not affected by the ruling in Printz at all. If you have any doubt of federal ability to impose mandates via one means or another, see what your state's BAC limit for a DUI is and then go find out how it got there.
... health insurance is insurance for your own personal welfare. If you choose not to have it, you are not harming others in the process.
Actually, that's not quite accurate. If a person chooses not to have health insurance, and can always pay 100 percent of all medical expenses, he isn't harming others. But how many of the 46,300,000 people in the U.S. without health insurance have the ability to cover all of their medical expenses? They show up in emergency rooms, get treated, and if they are unable to pay, then all of us with health insurance pay for their treatment through increased premiums.
As an example, 25% of the people in Texas don't have health insurance. They are absolutely harming others when others end up paying for their health care.
It doesnt matter if driving is a right, a privilege or a punishment. If you're driving it's foolish not to have car insurance. I think someone on here said in some states you dont legally have to have it, you dont get ticketed or fined - but you're better off if you have it, just in case. That's what insurance is all about. (Car insurance is also there to protect you financially, not just other people.)
Health insurance is there to be sure you and your family are not financially decimated when "damages" occur. It is less expensive in the long run to have it than to not have it. It's just the realistic, mature thing to force yourself to accept, life being what it is and all.
As far as deliberately not insuring oneself, when that person finally crashes into that bus, he and the second and third parties in his life are going to wish they "only" had a $4,000 bill to pay instead of a $40,000 bill. Or worse. For example,
Kent Snyder, RIP (http://www.kylevarner.com/2008/07/20/kent-snyder-rip/ - broken link)
So which is more expensive, insurance or no insurance?
It's none of the government's business which one is more expensive for someone, nor it is it any of their business how it gets paid. There are better ways to handle people who choose not to have it then force it. It's a chumpy way to force people to buy something.
Politicians dont keep that little fact from stopping them from entering into all kinds of new mandates, followed by increased taxes, ooh I mean fees, (since I guess some think its not truly a tax) The only thing more laughable than this abuse of power by whoever hold Congress/WH, is those who defend the continuous increases as "not a tax"
Some of you think that you live in a country that is very different from the one that you actually live in.
It's none of the government's business which one is more expensive for someone, nor it is it any of their business how it gets paid. There are better ways to handle people who choose not to have it then force it. It's a chumpy way to force people to buy something.
What better ways?
It's not forced - they dont have to have it. They just pay an annual fee for the privilege of not having to be encumbered by it. Then when they fly off their motorcycle they pay cash to the doctors and hospitals, just as they would have before. Im not sure if the amount of their annual fee is applied to their medical care or what.
Also, the government doesnt "care" how you pay or whether you know which is the smarter choice.
call it what you want it is still a tax. SS used to be social security tax, and now it is called SSI or social security insurance.
Nita
Oh, please. SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income, and it is an income support program targeted to the elderly and disabled that is funded by appropriations from general revenues and adminstered by the Social Security Administration because they already have the technical capacities and capabilities needed to carry out the program. It is NOT related to Social Security in any other way.
Oh, please. SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income, and it is an income support program targeted to the elderly and disabled that is funded by appropriations from general revenues and adminstered by the Social Security Administration because they already have the technical capacities and capabilities needed to carry out the program. It is NOT related to Social Security in any other way.
who pays into SSI?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
