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.
The individual mandate, which amends the Internal Revenue Code, is not actually a mandate at all. It is a tax. It gives people a choice: they can buy health insurance or they can pay a tax roughly equal to the cost of health insurance, which is used to subsidize the government’s health care program and families who wish to purchase health insurance.
From your article there, that is obviously an "end run" around the law, and the courts have seen through that kind of nonsense in the pass.
You can call it a tax all you want, but it is the end result that matters, and in this case the end result is that you end up with "health care" whether you want it or not.
It would no different than the government levying a tax on you because you refused to put your money into a checking or savings account.
Those are nice articles you presented here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
Even the mandate on the purchase of car insurance is a state mandate state regulated (nanny) law.
That isn't entirely true.
First, driving is a privilege, not a right, and you do have the alternative option of not driving.
What alternative option do you have to Obamacare? None.
Second, even though States do mandate insurance, you are still not required to purchase automobile insurance.
Look at the wording of the laws. They are written as "financial obligation requirements." Because that is how they are worded, you have options to meet those "financial obligation requirements."
Your first option here of course is to purchase automobile insurance.
If you have a problem with that, you do have a second option and that is you can purchase a bond from a bonding agent (like a bail bondsman that you find near the court houses).
And many States also offer the option of purchasing an annual certificate to meet the "finanacial obligation requirement" from the State.
To summarize, you are not required to purchase auto insurance unless you voluntarily choose to drive an automobile, and even if you voluntarily choose to drive, you have alternatives.
That is very different than the Obamacare mandate which says you will purchase "health insurance" or pay a penalty and you have no options.
OK, I'll bite. Here is a synopsis of why the Commerce Clause applies. Ultimately, a couple of years from now, the SC will put an end to the conflict, but until then, have fun agruing about it.
Interesting. It's just too bad the commerce clause can't be applied when the federal government cannot expand the spectrum of available products by forcing states to accept a new option if some other state allows it. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Seems the goobermint likes to cherry pick how it applies this vaguely interpreted clause. Windshields are openly exchanged across states, so why isn't car insurance required as a federal mandate?
Oh yeah, your Faux News Media Matters news source sucks btw.
I don't know if I'm a liberal or not, however, I found a for and against argument that I thought were good.
I agree with Randy Barnett, so what label do I wear?
Commerce is taking place because you are mandated to buy health insurance and will face penalties under the law if you do not.
This bill also is a federal regulating the states and all individuals within the states. It will be overseen by the IRS. If you can not show the IRS your updated insurance card, then they will tax you from your pay check. (I think they will do both)
All programs, social security, medicare, Medicaid are voluntary programs. While there may still be a tax on the U.S. citizen it is not mandatory for any one to use their services. They are state regulated programs. What one state offers in assistance may be different in another state.
Even the mandate on the purchase of car insurance is a state mandate state regulated (nanny) law.
The federal government through health care will now tell the citizens and the state governments they answer to, there is not opt out on the purchase of health care. None.
Ever been backed into a corner and told there was no way out? We have now.
In an interview with Stephanopoulos before the bill was passed Obama vehemently denied that the individual mandate was a tax. Now the supporters of Obamacare are invoking Congress' power to tax in support of its constitutionality. Judge Hudson rightly shot down that argument.
In an interview with Stephanopoulos before the bill was passed Obama vehemently denied that the individual mandate was a tax. Now the supporters of Obamacare are invoking Congress' power to tax in support of its constitutionality. Judge Hudson rightly shot down that argument.
Right..not a tax and the IRS will deduct the fine from any refunds.
And hire more IRS personnel to oversee the fines and payments of them.
I will leave the fine points to you legal experts, but...
Can someone please explain to me how, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, this is possible:
The health care reform law makes it illegal for me to pay for my routine medical care with my own money out of my own pocket. It mandates that I MUST finance that annual physical and other routine preventive care by way of an insurance company. What possible public purpose does this serve?
If this can be forced upon us, could the government also mandate "lunch insurance" so that our expenses of eating the mid-day meal are paid by an insurance company? Could they mandate "oil change insurance" so that our oil changes are paid for by an insurance company? DO you have any idea how much lunch and oil changes would cost us if this were the case?
Please, please, please, if you have any inkling of how to explain this to me, respond to my question.
Can someone please explain to me how, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, this is possible:
The health care reform law makes it illegal for me to pay for my routine medical care with my own money out of my own pocket. It mandates that I MUST finance that annual physical and other routine preventive care by way of an insurance company. What possible public purpose does this serve?
If this can be forced upon us, could the government also mandate "lunch insurance" so that our expenses of eating the mid-day meal are paid by an insurance company? Could they mandate "oil change insurance" so that our oil changes are paid for by an insurance company? DO you have any idea how much lunch and oil changes would cost us if this were the case?
Please, please, please, if you have any inkling of how to explain this to me, respond to my question.
Well, it's the one-size-fits-all solution of the statist mindset. We've been dealing with that in Maine for as long as the Democrats have been in power (since the mid-70's). In this state you can't buy a policy to fit your needs like you can with automobile insurance, for example. Every policy sold in Maine must cover a multitude of services and conditions and, of course, the price of those policies reflects the overkill. So for us, Obamacare is nothing new.
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.
I will leave the fine points to you legal experts, but...
