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.
I agree that the Obama Admin did not want to label the fine as a tax. They believe there was justification for the fine via the Interstate Commerce clause as has been done before. But if the SC wanted to define the fine as tax, it is still justifiable to impose the tax. I also hear several TV talking heads say the fine/tax is moot as if people don't pay it, there is no recourse. If it had been determined to be a fine, those statements would be true, however, a tax is a tax and the methods of collecting and penalizing failure to pay them, are pretty well known. The Dems wanted it to be a fine and subsequently not really subject to penalty if not paid. They did not want people in the middle income area forced to pay. That you can thank the Conservative Chief Justice for.
So you do know that Florida will not implement this right? As well as about 30 other states?
And you can thank Obama for this loophole ( stating it's a tax)...
I agree that the Obama Admin did not want to label the fine as a tax. They believe there was justification for the fine via the Interstate Commerce clause as has been done before. But if the SC wanted to define the fine as tax, it is still justifiable to impose the tax. I also hear several TV talking heads say the fine/tax is moot as if people don't pay it, there is no recourse. If it had been determined to be a fine, those statements would be true, however, a tax is a tax and the methods of collecting and penalizing failure to pay them, are pretty well known. The Dems wanted it to be a fine and subsequently not really subject to penalty if not paid. They did not want people in the middle income area forced to pay. That you can thank the Conservative Chief Justice for.
Lol, not quite, as you originally pointed out it was the administration, not the SCOTUS, who defined the mandate as a tax. The administration claimed the mandate was justified under the commerce clause, the 4 liberal justices disagreed. The 4 liberal justice did agree, however, with the administrations view, that the mandate was a tax.
I don't think you should be so quick to thank us for Roberts, he put the Dems in a box. He showed Obama to be a liar, and the mandate to be a huge tax increase. The Dems can no longer argue that it is important to elect them to protect us from a right wing court. The decision has re energized the right. I think Roberts admonition will be heeded. We will vote the bums out!
So? Obama didn't consider it a tax. Justice Roberts disagreed and his opinion matters more. The fact that Obama's signature legislation benefited does not make Obama's opinion a lie -- no matter how much you want it to.
But the end result is President Obama will not lose one vote he otherwise would have had because you think he's a liar.
Justice Roberts didn't make that assertion, Obama's lawyers did. Justice Roberts tried to determine, since they used tax and penalty interchangeably, what the hell those idiots were actually trying to convey and said so in his opinion for the court. He also said that it's not his duty to go forth with the intention of a law automatically being assumed unconstitutional and that they must do everything within the power of the constitution to try and uphold a law as constitutional.
He and the court weren't impressed with Obamacare and that's very clear if you'd just read the opinions of the court. They actually used the phrase "gun to the head" when referring to the "required" Medicaid expansion which they found to be unconstitutional.
Lol, not quite, as you originally pointed out it was the administration, not the SCOTUS, who defined the mandate as a tax. The administration claimed the mandate was justified under the commerce clause, the 4 liberal justices disagreed. The 4 liberal justice did agree, however, with the administrations view, that the mandate was a tax.
I don't think you should be so quick to thank us for Roberts, he put the Dems in a box. He showed Obama to be a liar, and the mandate to be a huge tax increase. The Dems can no longer argue that it is important to elect them to protect us from a right wing court. The decision has re energized the right. I think Roberts admonition will be heeded. We will vote the bums out!
The Solicitor General ARGUED that the fine could be justified via Congresses Taxing authority. Roberts defined it is a tax. By the way, this is Settled Law now, step along. The States are.
This is not a hard concept. Earn your way, pay for those things you value. Let's be real here for a moment. The people that largely want this are looking for their free ride, their 'entitlement'. We're tired of paying for them! That should be easy enough to understand. I don't give a hoot what you call it. I call it a free society where you earn what you get get. If you aren't making enough money, change your situation and earn more. Yes, it is that easy. I've done it, my parents did it, my sister did it, my husband did it, and countless others.
Guess what, I'm a business owner too. You should get insurance risk based on your RISK not your 'status'. As a business owner, Obamacare is bad for me. Just raised my taxes. So, not sure why you think being a business owner helps with Obamacare. Business after business has come forward showing that Obamacare is bad for businesses.
Oh, come on! Most of us have our own insurance, that we pay for!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
God knows that the you and healthy never have vehicular accidents, are not susceptible vehicular accidents, miscalculated skateboard stunts, genetically acquired infections, organ collapse or minor things like cancer.
Exactly! I work in a pediatrician's office, and we see the above every day!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydive Outlaw
I can't wait until the government starts applying the strategy and flawed logic that made Health Care Reform possible to other types of insurance in the US.
Sorry, we all new it was a tax, the SCOTUS knew it was a tax, Obama's own lawyers kept slipping up and calling it a tax during oral arguments. Obama lied, by saying that is was not a tax. That's what a lie is, fool, it's claiming something is different from what it really is. Why else was the IRS involved in collecting it, if it was not a tax?!
It doesn't seem to matter to him what something actually is -- he likes to rename things to make them more palatable to the people. This is just another example of how he calls something by a term that it is not so -- an easy way to mislead and deceive.
He said no one who makes under $250K will see an increase in premiums or taxes. Guess again. We were misled on that, too. This bill will mean out of pocket expenses to people in lower income groups as well as the middle class - which isn't that much "middle" any more.
The Solicitor General ARGUED that the fine could be justified via Congresses Taxing authority. Roberts defined it is a tax. By the way, this is Settled Law now, step along. The States are.
Once again, you are supporting the notion (we all know is true) that Obama is a liar. Obama told the American people the mandate is not a tax, his solicitor general said it is. And the 4 liberal members of the court agreed!
Settled law, as Roberts pointed out, doesn't mean that the law can't be repealed. We will move along alright, by tossing every Dem we can out of office and repeal this job killing, health care destroying tax!
The Solicitor General ARGUED that the fine could be justified via Congresses Taxing authority. Roberts defined it is a tax. By the way, this is Settled Law now, step along. The States are.
The states were told they didn't have to comply with the Medicaid expansion via a government issued gun to the head.
How exactly do you think Obama was going to cover 32 million more people?
He thought the states no longer had to adhere to the very narrow group of people eligible for Medicaid and that he would expand Medicaid to cover 133% of poverty level for all Americans.
The court told Obama and friends that was an emphatic no no and the Federal Government couldn't hold a government issued gun to their head to enforce that.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can now tax you for something you didn't buy.
Actually, what the SCOTUS ruled is that the tax imposed by Congress, which Congress didn't want to call a tax in public but which Congress argued in front of the SCOTUS is allowable under the tax levying authority of Congress, is not unconstitutional. While I don't agree with the policy that Congress created here, and think that such a tax is a bad idea, I don't see any way to argue that it's unconstitutional. Congress has a long history of imposing taxes based on a wide variety of behaviors. We get taxed differently for being married or not, for having more or fewer children, for buying one kind of car or another. I oppose all of those things, but don't see how we can claim this new tax is fundamentally different.
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.
