Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2010, 12:18 PM
 
1,364 posts, read 1,931,399 times
Reputation: 1111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
Free choice, no punishment. Go against the Obama plan, there is punishment.
Even liberals should be able to undertand thais concept and stop lying about it.
Obama gonna take care of all of us. He got a stash, and he gonna share wit his brothas and sistas. Got Bless America!

Last edited by amerifree; 03-21-2010 at 01:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2010, 12:25 PM
 
32 posts, read 27,374 times
Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51 View Post
Let's see. If you buy it you claim that you get a tax exemption.

If you do not buy it, yu pay more taxes.

If you do not pay the more taxes, you go to jail or lose your property.

Yep, no punishment from the government for not mildly going along with a forced payment to remain free.

Got it.
If you buy health insurance, which you should because if no healthy person does (and if insurance companies can't deny coverage based on preexisting conditions why would they?) health insurance companies all go bankrupt and when you need health care you have no means of affording it, then you are exempt from a new tax that will be in the Internal Revenue code.

If you don't buy health insurance then you have to pay the new tax that will be in the Internal Revenue code. Which means you pay more in taxes than someone who bought health insurance but it's a new tax, it may be an increase from current law but it will be law so referring to it as "more taxes" seems to imply that there's an added tax penalty on top of the tax being added to the Internal Revenue code which people who buy health insurance will be subject to but exempted from. Think of it as them paying less not you paying more and it's much more accurate.

If you do not pay the more taxes the IRS garnishes your wages for the amount you owe, but since they tend to wait several years you could accrue a very large accumulative penalty. Though if you file a return and pay whatever you owe minus the new tax they'll probably get that new tax from you faster. If you were getting money back you'd just get that much less back. So you'd be liable then for the amount of the new tax plus a late penalty. If you managed to persist in not paying then you would, of course be violating the law. Agree or not it's the law. If you want to change the law you could chose to try doing it rationally without also breaking the law. If you chose to protest by breaking the law then you should also be willing to accept the consequences of breaking the law.

There's no forced payment to remain free, as I've explained in an earlier post, any bill that makes it impossible or even just more difficult for insurance companies to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions and/or removes or severely hampers their ability to drop people from their plans when they become ill must also include a mandate on healthy individuals to purchase health insurance then health insurance companies are almost certain to go bankrupt (lacking a sufficiently large pool of healthy premium payers to offset the unhealthy people that the company becomes obligated to pay health care providers for the care of).

Of course if you object to the provisions that remove the ability of insurance companies to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions, and if you also object to the provisions which make it more difficult for insurance companies to drop a person's policy based on minor details or technicalities when they become ill, then it's also reasonable to object to the so-called mandate in individuals to purchase health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 12:28 PM
 
Location: 44.9800° N, 93.2636° W
2,654 posts, read 5,770,407 times
Reputation: 888
no worries. The lack of a public option will allow Repubs to claim "victory" when the bill passes and sees some level of success down the line. THE SYSTEM WORKS!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,762 posts, read 14,681,526 times
Reputation: 18539
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Is this based upon your vast legal experience, and if so, can you sight legal presidence?
My "vast legal experience", as you put it, is practicing law in state and federal courts in two states for over thirty years.

What's yours? And why didn't someone teach you how to spell "precedent" in that time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 04:07 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,208,994 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
My "vast legal experience", as you put it, is practicing law in state and federal courts in two states for over thirty years.
But yet you failed to sight ONE case... FAIL!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 04:13 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,990,054 times
Reputation: 12829
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick is rulz View Post
^ you mean kind of like the law Romney passed in MA or was that acceptable because he is GOP
Romney's plan has been an abject failure. He did not get the GOP nomination, in part, because of "Ronmneycare".

The Treas. of Mass has recently stated that Mass healthcare system has been artificially propped up to keep it from going bankrupt until after this federal health legislation can be passed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 04:19 PM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,690,050 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyPants View Post
Let the Hillbilly revolution begin.
Let the holier-than-thou liberal "we know whats best for you" and are prepared to crap all over the constitution to get our way debacle continue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 05:52 PM
 
148 posts, read 169,421 times
Reputation: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyPants View Post
Let the Hillbilly revolution begin.
Why don't you run along and go watch some more south park eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 10:00 PM
 
1 posts, read 1,172 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathmunky View Post
every dollar residents of Texas pay in federal income tax the united states government gives Texas back something like 95 cents to fund the state's operations.
So what you're saying, deathmonkey, is Texas would actually have a NET GAIN of 5% if they were to secede and maintain a similar tax structure that they currently pay for federal taxes?

Sign me up. I miss living in the Republic of Texas.

--
Gamesta
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2010, 10:28 PM
 
4,604 posts, read 8,241,660 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
The Associated Press: Idaho first to sign law against health care reform
Spoiler


Idaho first to sign law against health care reform



Virginia Politics Blog - Cuccinelli's office confirms Virginia will sue over health care



This should be fun it obamacare passes - hopefully there will be an injunction on the legislation and tied up in the courts for a while.

I don't think I've ever witnessed the public and individual states so opposed to legislation proposed by the WH and Congress. This is truly unprecedented.

CNSNews.com - Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation to File Immediate Constitutional Challenge If House Dems Try to Pass Health-Care Without Actually Voting on It (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62939 - broken link)



I think it would be just grand if the states and individuals said "up yours" to the federal government and refused to comply with their unconstitutional laws.
Attorney General Greg Abbott was reelected as the 50th Attorney General of Texas on November 7, 2006. Prior to his election as attorney general, Greg Abbott served as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court and as a State District Judge in Harris County.

Quote:
Quote:
Greg Abbott - Just got off the AG conference call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top