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 06-28-2012, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Sarasota, FL
1,695 posts, read 3,045,971 times
Reputation: 1143

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
No problem. Just a good thing I don't have to pay that tax if I decided not to, without consequence.
No Consequence - unless you plan to get a mortgage, rent an apartment, finance a car or other purchase, etc. Because not paying the tax wont lead to any criminal penalties, but it will lead to a lien for unpaid taxes, and your credit rating will be shot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:00 AM
 
27,231 posts, read 43,971,352 times
Reputation: 32342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
You mean pull an Obama and simply refuse to enforce the law? Not a smart move. Congress enacts, changes, or repeals all laws, not Presidents. If there is a provision within the law that gives the President the authority to grant waivers, that would be a much better approach. The President is merely exercising the power granted to him by Congress with regard to the law.

One thing is absolutely certain, this will bring a great many conservatives to the polls in Nov. that would not normally have shown up otherwise.
Says the guy from Wasilla...hmm.

You mean pull a GOP don't you? Which will have far more pull for non-voters who are tired of the GOP blocking all congressional bills sponsored by the Dems and supported by Obama. The writing is on the wall as to what the GOP has been up to and even the dimmest of wits should by now have figured that out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:01 AM
 
Location: NC
1,672 posts, read 1,772,309 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Not it won't. We live in the same state. They can continue to opt out. That just means those people will have to pay the penalty and does NOT mean they can get insurance. Like I said before, the left shouldn't celebrate just yet.
Think you misinterpreted the medicaid expansion ruling. It just means states can opt out of the "required" new benefits and not receive the new medicaid dollars. Before it was states that opt out lose ALL medicaid dollars. SC just reigned that in a little bit saying government can't take all the money, but can withold new money provided with the new law.

Bottom line, if it is tax, you'll pay it, like every other tax, or face the current tax evasion like laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:01 AM
 
Location: South East
4,209 posts, read 3,591,224 times
Reputation: 1465
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
So do I and this decision means they can continue to do that. What does that mean? Well, if you're in that state and can't get insurance, you have to pay the penalty. Such a weird decision. Upheld but struck down the part that forced the states to comply. In essence, Obamacare only was possible by making the states create these exchanges where people could get insurance that couldn't any other way. That part was struck down (part where Fed could withhold Medicare funds if states didn't make these exchanges). However, the part of having to either buy insurance or pay the penalty was upheld. What does this mean? If your state opts out and you can't get insurance, you will NOT get insurance. You will, however, be forced to pay the tax (e.g. the penalty).
Great Explanation! And once again, proving this decision is a mess.

The fact that the health care law is constitutional as a TAX, which the left adamantly denied, will bite the democrats hard during the election process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:02 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
8,145 posts, read 6,534,561 times
Reputation: 1754
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
We will see many workers between 50-65 quit their jobs starting Jan 2014. They were keeping these jobs ONLY for access to health insurance. They will be able to buy the insurance starting in 2014. They have the money to buy it.

We will see many workers of all ages quit their jobs to start small businesses starting in 2014. They wanted to start these businesses for some time but stayed in their current jobs for access to health insurance. Starting in 2014, they can start a small business AND have access health insurance.

With those folks above quitting their jobs, it will open these jobs to other workers.
This is so true but it never was talked about. We are back America!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:02 AM
 
1,635 posts, read 1,594,471 times
Reputation: 707
Default Judge Roberts made his decision,now let him enforce it.

A takeoff of a quote from Andrew Jackson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:02 AM
 
3,004 posts, read 5,152,937 times
Reputation: 1547
"In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. §5000A. For individuals who are not exempt, and who do not receive health insurance through an employer or government program, the means of
satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). The Act provides that this “penalty” will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties. §§5000A(c), (g)(1)."


Basically what this is saying is for those who are not exempt from said coverage and do NOT have coverage through either an employer or the government need to have a private insurance policy which as of right now the lowest one for a single individual is roughly $104 a month. If those people fail to do so (ergo forego having any type of insurance), they then become subject to the shared responsibility payment. Therefore if you HAVE insurance, this payment don't apply to you. If you do not and choose to stick your nose up at the government and do not obtain insurance, it then will apply to you.

If you are a person with means to obtain and choose not to, you should be charged as the taxpayers get charged when these same individuals show up in emergency rooms without insurance and don't pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:03 AM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,982,916 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
And all people that breath end up at a doctor's office sooner or later and you should have coverage so the rest of us don't have to cover your cheapness.
Everyone eats also. Should there be a mandate that we buy into FoodCare?

Personal responsibility - you might want to try it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 11,029,970 times
Reputation: 6192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maabus1999 View Post
Think you misinterpreted the medicaid expansion ruling. It just means states can opt out of the "required" new benefits and not receive the new medicaid dollars. Before it was states that opt out lose ALL medicaid dollars. SC just reigned that in a little bit saying government can't take all the money, but can withold new money provided with the new law.

Bottom line, if it is tax, you'll pay it, like every other tax, or face the current tax evasion like laws.
Yeah but that was the 'teeth' that forced states to set up the exchanges. Supposedly, the exchanges are the only way some people could get insurance. If you're in a state that opts out and you can't get insurance any other way and do not qualify for Medicare, then the only option for you is to pay the penalty. In essence, this does NOT guarantee health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:03 AM
 
Location: World
4,204 posts, read 4,692,130 times
Reputation: 2841
Well Done Supreme Court!!!!!
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. The time now is 10:44 AM.

© 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