Obamacare Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court

• cruiser_96

  

  WebFire;1214919 wrote:I wasn't talking about the ultra-rich. I was talking about the normal everyday folk. I assumed that's who he was referring to. For the people that already go without insurance, of course they will just pay the fine. So there will be no real shift of insured vs. uninsured.

  If I'm reading this statement correctly, isn't this one of the issues??? Is this not analogous to acquiring tax revenue for cigarettes by placing a tax on the cigarettes for those who buy them...... and then fining those who do not?
• WebFire

  cruiser_96;1214945 wrote:If I'm reading this statement correctly, isn't this one of the issues??? Is this not analogous to acquiring tax revenue for cigarettes by placing a tax on the cigarettes for those who buy them...... and then fining those who do not?

  I am not defending the tax. Just stating that these people will just pay the tax. I am against the whole thing.
• cruiser_96

  

  ...I readja.
• Al Bundy

  How will they even check if people have health insurance? They can't even effectively check if people have auto insurance.
• O-Trap

  

  Al Bundy;1215095 wrote:How will they even check if people have health insurance? They can't even effectively check if people have auto insurance.

  Until they get pulled over or get into an accident, you're right.
  
  So until someone gets sick or injured ...
• Con_Alma

  
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1214643 wrote:So what, manhattan? The federal government owns General Motors, it picks some winners and mostly losers in green energy by torching future taxpayer funds, they supply satan's army with FREE weapons to kill American border agents, they announce with vigor which laws they want to enforce and which ones they'll ignore, and they tax taking a shit.
  
  This country, in its unyielding desire for fairness, equality of outcomes, and faux security in lieu of liberty will do anything and everything to attain these utopian goals until we are completely broke. That day is sooooo close to arriving.

  WTF?
• QuakerOats

  I Wear Pants;1215176 wrote:WTF?

  comprehension problem?
• WebFire

  
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;1215195 wrote:comprehension problem?

  I have trouble comprehending why people would say such stupid things if that's what you meant.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1215237 wrote:I have trouble comprehending why people would say such stupid things if that's what you meant.

  Are you going to defend Mexican drug lords and their disciples now? Here's what satan looks like - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/members-of-gulf-cartel-behead-five-rival-zetas-with-machetes-on-camera/
  
  Only satan would order beheadings of human beings on camera and then distributing it for all to see.
  
  Oh, I forgot, you're not religious. Probably means nothing to you then. Bush's fault I suppose? Carry on.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1215256 wrote:Are you going to defend Mexican drug lords and their disciples now? Here's what satan looks like - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/members-of-gulf-cartel-behead-five-rival-zetas-with-machetes-on-camera/
  
  Only satan would order beheadings of human beings on camera and then distributing it for all to see.
  
  Oh, I forgot, you're not religious. Probably means nothing to you then. Bush's fault I suppose? Carry on.

  Death means more to non religious than religious I'd imagine since we believe we only get one life. But this isn't about that.
  
  I do not like drug violence, which is why I do not support the "war" on drugs because it causes much of the violence instead of reducing it. I am for policies that would reduce the power of Mexican cartels and their violent ways.
  
  It isn't Bush's fault or Obama's fault that there is drug violence from Mexico. And we've been doing programs like Fast and Furious for a while if I recall correctly.
• I Wear Pants

  " 6. Does this ruling mean Congress can now regulate whatever it wants by way of imposing taxes on it?
  No. Congress’ taxing power, while broad, is not unlimited. Congress could not and cannot incentivize unconstitutional actions via taxation. For example, Congress cannot enact a tax break for people who don’t exercise their right to engage in political speech or give a deduction to individuals who don’t vote because that would create what courts have called an “unconstitutional condition” on receiving a government benefit.
  However, Congress taxation power has always been read to be very expansive. Can Congress charge you $50,000 more in taxes each year but give you a $50,000 tax break if you purchase more than a pound of broccoli a week? Probably. Why doesn’t it? For the same reason it rarely raises taxes on anything: electoral politics.
  The fact of the matter is that Congress could probably enact most of the doomsday scenarios some conservatives are wailing about today or tomorrow and the health care opinion did nothing to change that. Congress has had this power for the better part of a century, if not longer. The reason we haven’t seen it is because the electorate doesn’t like it and Congress knows it.
  If you stop to think about all of the tax incentives built into the code, you’ll quickly realize that Congress has been doing this forever, merely in ways the population writ-large doesn't mind as much. It's all in how you describe what Congress is doing.
  Did you know, for example, that Congress taxes you for not opening a small business? It does so by way of the deductions built into the code to incentivize people to start businesses. Congress also taxes you for not contributing to your retirement account (tax deductions for IRA contributions) and for not having children (child tax credit). Does this mean there is a big-government mandate to save for retirement or to have children? Of course not. There are just tax incentives for doing so.
  The debate raging around taxes-as-mandates is all about perspective. The above mentioned tax breaks are unquestionably constitutional and generally accepted as a normal fact of life, but call them a mandate to act and all of a sudden it paints a very different picture. It's all in the eye of the beholder."
  
  http://www.policymic.com/articles/10439/the-supreme-court-and-obamacare-plain-english-answers-to-6-common-questions
  
  Good article. The world is not ending, calm down.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1215274 wrote:Death means more to non religious than religious I'd imagine since we believe we only get one life. But this isn't about that.
  
  I do not like drug violence, which is why I do not support the "war" on drugs because it causes much of the violence instead of reducing it. I am for policies that would reduce the power of Mexican cartels and their violent ways.
  
  It isn't Bush's fault or Obama's fault that there is drug violence from Mexico. And we've been doing programs like Fast and Furious for a while if I recall correctly.

  So...do you retract this? -

  I have trouble comprehending why people would say such stupid things if that's what you meant.

  I'm off-topic here and I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss Fast and Furious. But my point to manhattan was this government will stop at nothing to gain more control, more power, and more authority over its citizens. This ruling is just another brick in the wall. Even if Romney is elected, he's not going to trash the whole Affordable Care Act. It's a ruse. He still believes in the government meddling in E V E R Y aspect of our lives, just not as much as the current socialist at the helm. He's a RINO and always has been. I would expect him to continue acting as such. We're pretty much fucked with him and we're definitely fucked with Barry.
  
  I shoulda backed Ron Paul.
• WebFire

  BGFalcons82;1215302 wrote:
  I shoulda backed Ron Paul.

  This is the most sensible thing anyone has said in this thread!
• Sage

  

  ron paul is a racist leprechaun, lol.
  
  lmao at the "satan's army" quote.
  
  thank u for ur tears conservatives, my dick is so swollen right now
• bigdaddy2003

  

  You talk a lot of shit Sage but you never seem to say anything with any substance.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1214700 wrote:Think Michael Jackson's death doctor was being paid through his major medical company? Think he even had major medical coverage?

  #whiterichtransvestiteproblems
  

  QuakerOats;1215195 wrote:comprehension problem?

  
  I even balked at that. Bad, sure. Satan? Eh ...
  

  BGFalcons82;1215256 wrote:Only satan would order beheadings of human beings on camera and then distributing it for all to see.

  Wait, wait, wait. Only Satan would? How did you come to that conclusion? Human beings have resorted to being murderous assholes since pretty early on.
  

  BGFalcons82;1215256 wrote:Oh, I forgot, you're not religious. Probably means nothing to you then. Bush's fault I suppose? Carry on.

  
  Most would say I'm religious, but I kinda drew a "WTF" from that comment as well.
  

  bigdaddy2003;1215407 wrote:You talk a lot of shit Sage but you never seem to say anything with any substance.

  He's too busy slingin' rocks on the corners of the real Internet.
• O-Trap

  

  Sage;1215394 wrote:ron paul is a racist leprechaun, lol.
  
  lmao at the "satan's army" quote.
  
  thank u for ur tears conservatives, my dick is so swollen right now

  A boner from political discussion ... sounds like therapy might be the answer.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;1215256 wrote:Are you going to defend Mexican drug lords and their disciples now? Here's what satan looks like - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/members-of-gulf-cartel-behead-five-rival-zetas-with-machetes-on-camera/
  
  Only satan would order beheadings of human beings on camera and then distributing it for all to see.
  
  Oh, I forgot, you're not religious. Probably means nothing to you then. Bush's fault I suppose? Carry on.

  Just because he doesn't believe that the Mexican Drug Cartels are the Army of Satan doesn't mean he's defending them now does it??? Surely he can be greatly disturbed and affected by such heinous conduct without believing it to be the devious work of Satan can he not?
• stlouiedipalma

  WebFire;1215235 wrote:

  
  Interesting point from yesterday. When it was close to 9:00 I went to Fox News, because I expected the ACA to go down. They had a "breaking news" headline which stated that the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional. The co-anchor, Meghan Kelly, was in a state of euphoria until someone must have told her through her earpiece that it was, in fact, the other way around. I haven't seen such a case of scrambling since Rick Perry forgot the third govt. agency was. She was clearly in a state after she heard the truth!
• O-Trap

  

  stlouiedipalma;1215437 wrote:I haven't seen such a case of scrambling since Rick Perry forgot the third govt. agency was.

  Reps for this comparison.
• tk421

  

  Seems like the Obama administration isn't too keen on it being called a tax. Well, too damn bad, everyone now is aware that they were lied to.
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
• Abe Vigoda

  

  Cincinnati congresswoman Jean Schmidt reacting to incorrect information about the ACA decision. LOL!
  
  [video=youtube;7QDi3muVedw][/video]
• queencitybuckeye

  If all citizens without health insurance have to pay a tax, can they get out of it by claiming they aren't citizens? After all, the same people who implemented this abortion are steadfast in the position that people shouldn't have to prove their citizenship.