• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Changing Stance, Administration Now Defends Insurance Mandate as a Tax

You two were the ones arguing that the $695 tax penalty and the mandate were somehow separate things. Well, actually, that was just you. The Patriot was telling me I was wrong and then saying exactly the same thing I was saying. Oi, reading comprehension.

I never said there wasn't a mandate and I never said there wasn't a tax. In fact, I said precisely the opposite in the very first post I put in this thread. Why did it take you three pages to understand this?

I view it as the mandate being forced to buy insurance with the tax as being the penalty for failure to comply.
 
You two were the ones arguing that the $695 tax penalty and the mandate were somehow separate things. Well, actually, that was just you. The Patriot was telling me I was wrong and then saying exactly the same thing I was saying. Oi, reading comprehension.

I never said there wasn't a mandate and I never said there wasn't a tax. In fact, I said precisely the opposite in the very first post I put in this thread. Why did it take you three pages to understand this?

Because we're talking to you, and you twist what you say with each post, and back track, and side track,a nd alter, and deny, and obsfucate, and then claim you were right all along. We merely amuse you by pretending we actually CARE about your position on the issue, read somewhere that was good for your recovery and we're being charitable folks.

Also, you are full of ****, as usual. Your FIRST STATEMENT:

But yes, there's a $695 tax penalty for not carrying insurance. Is this a surprise to you? Did you not pay any attention at all during the last 18 months?

You are here, arguing that the OP Article is discussing the Mandated Tax Penalty for Non-Compliance. Which is so far from the truth as to be nothing more then proof you are incapable of admitting Obama is a liar, even when we have the proverbial 8x10 Glossy, as we do here. Obama and Co. are claiming the MANDATE, is Constitutional, because it's really a TAX.

Which when Obama was confronted with that VERY SAME logic prior to passage, rejected that term in the "strongest way".

So you want to keep pretending you haven't been pwned from the very get go because your poor attempt to change the discussion failed... so be it. I have the nail, the hammer, and have now sealed you in your coffin. The ball is in your court.
 
You mean uninsured people will have to start paying for some of the health care they receive in the emergency room? Dang. That's terrible.

I'm also not sure I'd describe $695/year for the uninsured as "big" or "fat" or "everyone."

But yes, there's a $695 tax penalty for not carrying insurance. Is this a surprise to you? Did you not pay any attention at all during the last 18 months?

Of course we all paid attention... it's nothing to do with the 695$, you were a RACIST back then. It wasn't because the bill doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, it's racism... Obama and his cronies laughed all the way to the bank when americans allowed him to sign that into law... I heard the video of one of the congressmen telling Obama after the fact "this is a big f***ing deal". Now you know why.

Oh, I bet everyone forgot that Bush's tax cuts are done this year...

No, the MANDATED cost, is a TAX. Learn to read articles.

That's how Obama pulled his double-speak : It's not a tax. I'm super-serious......................... unless you opt out.

Well I suppose you have a point... oh wait, no, no you have no point at all.

A TAX, cannot force an Average American CITIZEN to purchase a PRODUCT OR SERVICE he may or may not wish to purchase. Freedom, Liberty Trump any thing some worthless "progressive" legal group wants to claim. Obama's so far left he thinks this makes sense, and only those that far left with him would accept such nonsense a mere tax.

That's the failing of the entire affair. We are "Forced" to purchase a service, whether we WANT IT OR NOT, just to live in this country. That, is not acceptable, and will be struck down by the courts.

One would hope so, if they vote in that Keagan dude that wrote books as a thesis about how awesome communism is, it might get decided that it's actually a GOOD idea.

Its not a product or service it promotes the general welfare of people in the country. Forcing people to purchase insurance lowers the cost of insurance for everyone. Forcing people to pay for insurance and have free check ups prevents many emergency room visits that put a strain on the healthcare industry and raises the prices of insurance for people.

You're not going to beat Obama at his own game. Constitutional law is his domain.

It also allows it to be decided that you're not 'qualified' (or whatever term they would use), or a 'drain on resources or something' and decide that granny doesn't get a hip replacement because she's already lived a long life and the time would be better spent on someone who has alot of productive years remaining.

So, you're qualified to get your diagnosis, but you have to pay for the treatment yourself.

You don't understand at all. They already showed that such a concept was constituional with social security, in which they took a small portion of your pay check away each time until you retired. They've already shown that it will hold up in court. The article is showing that Obama found has already found a legal solution on the anticipation that the mandate would be challenged as unconstitutional.

HOWEVER, social security is a bit of an 'opt-in'... you can always get contract work off the books, that's the only reason it's constitutional is because you must 'opt-in' to such things.

I think the point is that Obama lied. And not just lied, but ridiculed and called everyone a fear mongering extremist for saying the bill would impose new taxes. Now Obama has changed his rhetoric and labeling in order to help him out in court. The point is that those very "fear mongering extremists" were vindicated by Obama's lie. Anyone who believed him were just played. What else is he playing people on? The stimulus? Immigration? This is just another Obama lie, but also vindication for those Obama and the media attacked as being extreme and wanting to lie in order to scare people.

So true... but you forgot racists... if you oppose the bill it's because you don't like brown people.

It's gotten worse, have you seen the video of congressmen stark?? He literally equates people looking to stop the flow of illegal immigrants as racist murderers.
 
Last edited:
Because we're talking to you, and you twist what you say with each post, and back track, and side track,a nd alter, and deny, and obsfucate, and then claim you were right all along. We merely amuse you by pretending we actually CARE about your position on the issue, read somewhere that was good for your recovery and we're being charitable folks.

Also, you are full of ****, as usual. Your FIRST STATEMENT:



You are here, arguing that the OP Article is discussing the Mandated Tax Penalty for Non-Compliance. Which is so far from the truth as to be nothing more then proof you are incapable of admitting Obama is a liar, even when we have the proverbial 8x10 Glossy, as we do here. Obama and Co. are claiming the MANDATE, is Constitutional, because it's really a TAX.

Which when Obama was confronted with that VERY SAME logic prior to passage, rejected that term in the "strongest way".

So you want to keep pretending you haven't been pwned from the very get go because your poor attempt to change the discussion failed... so be it. I have the nail, the hammer, and have now sealed you in your coffin. The ball is in your court.

I did not make any claims about the contents of the article in the OP. Nor did I even mention Obama's name anywhere in the thread. I mentioned that, yes, there was a tax penalty, because that fact seemed somehow new information to you. Then you derailed the entire discussion trying to explain to me how the "$695 tax penalty for not having insurance" was somehow separate from the mandate. That has been the limit of my participation in this thread. Had you asked me my opinion on Obama's statement, I would have agreed with you that he is incorrect.

So far, you've proven Obama to be wrong. You're right. Obama's calling this "not a tax" is a really bizarre definition of the word tax. One I do not share.

I was not wrong, because I was aware from the start that there was always a tax penalty in the bill. I was aware of it since before HR3200 even popped up on OpenCongress. I was also aware of the reasoning behind the tax and find it to be acceptable.

Any other claims of mine that you'd like to fabricate?
Or maybe you'd like to just admit that you didn't understand that what I mentioned is the mandate you were referring to, and that this derail started by your freaking out about it?
 
I did not make any claims about the contents of the article in the OP. Nor did I even mention Obama's name anywhere in the thread. I mentioned that, yes, there was a tax penalty, because that fact seemed somehow new information to you. Then you derailed the entire discussion trying to explain to me how the "$695 tax penalty for not having insurance" was somehow separate from the mandate. That has been the limit of my participation in this thread. Had you asked me my opinion on Obama's statement, I would have agreed with you that he is incorrect.

So far, you've proven Obama to be wrong. You're right. Obama's calling this "not a tax" is a really bizarre definition of the word tax. One I do not share.

I was not wrong, because I was aware from the start that there was always a tax penalty in the bill. I was aware of it since before HR3200 even popped up on OpenCongress. I was also aware of the reasoning behind the tax and find it to be acceptable.

Any other claims of mine that you'd like to fabricate?
Or maybe you'd like to just admit that you didn't understand that what I mentioned is the mandate you were referring to, and that this derail started by your freaking out about it?

Okay class, sit and watch:

No one, but you, is talking about the "Tax Penalty".

This is a NEW YORK TIMES Article, which is hammering Obama for "Changing his Stance". I.E. that the Mandated "You must buy Insurance" is not a tax, to now "Oh well it is a tax".

You have been so off base, so talking about things that don't matter this whole time, it's almost... ALMOST been funny reading you.

You never mentioned the "Mandate" you talked about the PENALTY. Welcome to pwnsville, population, Deuce.
 
I think you're the first person who has mentioned race in this thread?

That's the point... It's not being called racist anymore. I know that it's ridiculous to think that race even enters into the equation. It's got nothing to do with anything, but weak minded people that care more about Lindsay Lohan see, "racists don't want YOU to get free healthcare"... they are like 'yay free lunch.. damn racists'

Anyone that remembers those newscasts will know what I'm talking about.
 
That's the point... It's not being called racist anymore. I know that it's ridiculous to think that race even enters into the equation. It's got nothing to do with anything, but weak minded people that care more about Lindsay Lohan see, "racists don't want YOU to get free healthcare"... they are like 'yay free lunch.. damn racists'

Anyone that remembers those newscasts will know what I'm talking about.

I honestly don't remember the term racist being thrown around much with this particular bill. Mostly socialist, government takeover, radical left, and all sorts of other useless hyperbole.
But hey, just because I didn't hear it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Most of my news comes from written, honest news sources rather than TV "commentators" and bloggers. Have any links?
 
The government was already shouldering the cost of unpaid hospital bills before, the only difference was that there was not a specific financial pool to draw money from. Now there will be. I think the tax is justified, even though I hate the government's ability to take my money without explanation.

In an emergency, a patient's cost would easily exceed $700. I would rather pay the tax than the hospital bills if I am not well off.
 
The government was already shouldering the cost of unpaid hospital bills before, the only difference was that there was not a specific financial pool to draw money from. Now there will be. I think the tax is justified, even though I hate the government's ability to take my money without explanation.

In an emergency, a patient's cost would easily exceed $700. I would rather pay the tax than the hospital bills if I am not well off.

YouTube - Jimmy Carter Claims Those who Criticize Obama are Racist

This sentiment was repeated by alot of the talking heads, in some form, with stronger or weaker terms.

Anyway, I don't really get most of my info from these guys either, but I do pay attention to it all.
 
This does not refute anything I said.
Are you and MrV under the impression that people are actually forced to purchase health insurance? Like what, at gunpoint or something?

You are (and what a shocker it is) ignoring the fact that your health plan makes it easier to companies to opt out.

Well done
 
Health care reform did not come up at all in that clip. Yes, Tea Partiers have been called racist, but I've not heard that term applied to opponents of "Obamacare," specifically.

Well, to save myself the intense searching, perhaps it was more in the sense that since tea partiers essentially oppose most anything Obama does, what with him being a democratic fascist and all, and so they would generally be opposed to this health care reform (which I see it as a 'reform' in the sense that you can 'reform' your hand by shooting a bullet through it.)

So, by proxy, opposition to healthcare is racism (according to those talking heads)
 
:confused:

Why is it that even though what I said had zero to do with race, I got a reply about race?

Did the English language suddenly just change?
 
I don't really care when either Republicans or Democrats can't hold true to every single statement they make, they are politicians.
 
Well, to save myself the intense searching, perhaps it was more in the sense that since tea partiers essentially oppose most anything Obama does, what with him being a democratic fascist and all, and so they would generally be opposed to this health care reform (which I see it as a 'reform' in the sense that you can 'reform' your hand by shooting a bullet through it.)

So, by proxy, opposition to healthcare is racism (according to those talking heads)

Never try to extrapolate somebody else's opinion to mean what you want it to mean. Instead, go by what they actually say.

Also, you should go read up on fascism so you can figure out what that particular political philosophy actually means. People call Obama a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence, but it is literally impossible to be both of those things.
 
Never try to extrapolate somebody else's opinion to mean what you want it to mean. Instead, go by what they actually say.

Also, you should go read up on fascism so you can figure out what that particular political philosophy actually means. People call Obama a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence, but it is literally impossible to be both of those things.

Well, tehnically socialism and fascism can exist in the same government. A historical example would be Italy in the 30's and 40's. You had corporations and everything controlled by the state to serve the state, but you had wealth redistribution. Socialism requires wealth redistribution as a step in the removal of all private property. Under both systems the state is in control. Fascisms goal is to make the state all powerful at the expense of everything. Socialisms goal is to implement wealth redistribution and the destruction of private property in order for everyone to be equal then to dissolve once equality is acheived.

Not directed at you, Deuce:

As far as the talking heads are concerned, I would have to say that anyone that listens to them to form an opinion isn't exactly the brightest bulbs in the bunch. The talking heads are good entertainment for the laughs they provide in how they treat guests in 'interviews'.
 
Never try to extrapolate somebody else's opinion to mean what you want it to mean. Instead, go by what they actually say.

Why would I WANT to have people call me racist of the most nonsensical reasons...

When someone says : "I think the reason people oppose Obama are because they are racist", and I take it to mean that people are calling opposition 'racism'... I'm not sure that I took that the wrong way...

I really didn't extrapolate anything, in that the message was sent out that tea parties, who opposed obamacare, are called racist because of their opposition... it's simply inferred.

Also, you should go read up on fascism so you can figure out what that particular political philosophy actually means. People call Obama a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence, but it is literally impossible to be both of those things.

Ya... I didn't call Obama a socialist... but he's acted like a dictator (by violating the constitution, at least the intent of the constitution), he's taken control over the auto industry, and now healthcare (mixing the corporate and government worlds), and takes advantage of racism to get his position across (by using reverse racism and attacking his opposition as racist)... that's the DEFINITION of fascism.

And, as a matter of fact, Obama's even gone so far as to commit open acts of treason. Yes, that's right... Obama is an OPEN TRAITOR to the country... how and why you might ask?? Well, by suing Arizona and giving aide and comfort to an outside nation at the expense of his own (Ie : Suing arizona on behalf of the illegal immigrants that have invaded). Yes that is BY DEFINITION treason. Not quite high treason (which would be a capital offense), but it does satisfy the definition of treason as it appears in the constitution. All that's needed is two witnesses and the open pressing of the charges.
 
Well, tehnically socialism and fascism can exist in the same government. A historical example would be Italy in the 30's and 40's. You had corporations and everything controlled by the state to serve the state, but you had wealth redistribution. Socialism requires wealth redistribution as a step in the removal of all private property. Under both systems the state is in control. Fascisms goal is to make the state all powerful at the expense of everything. Socialisms goal is to implement wealth redistribution and the destruction of private property in order for everyone to be equal then to dissolve once equality is acheived.

Yes, it's the redistribution of wealth like a vacuum redistributes the dust. Otherwise I agree.

As far as the talking heads are concerned, I would have to say that anyone that listens to them to form an opinion isn't exactly the brightest bulbs in the bunch. The talking heads are good entertainment for the laughs they provide in how they treat guests in 'interviews'.

Yes, well, that's still a fairly large portion of the country. Hell, there are even people that look to Jon Stewart and Colbert as legitimate sources of news...
 
:confused:

Why is it that even though what I said had zero to do with race, I got a reply about race?

Did the English language suddenly just change?

I suppose it did... however, I was simply trying to illustrate a point, not hijack the thread with my sarcasm.
 
Tax and spend mother****ers! What did Obama say: "no new taxes for those earning less than $250,000 per year"? Lying mother****er. **** Obama!
 
Last edited:
You mean uninsured people will have to start paying for some of the health care they receive in the emergency room? Dang. That's terrible.

I'm also not sure I'd describe $695/year for the uninsured as "big" or "fat" or "everyone."

But yes, there's a $695 tax penalty for not carrying insurance. Is this a surprise to you? Did you not pay any attention at all during the last 18 months?

No, because even if it's a govt program, they're still poor. You can be sure the poor will still not pay for their own healthcare.
 
No, because even if it's a govt program, they're still poor. You can be sure the poor will still not pay for their own healthcare.

Not to mention that when taxes increase it slows down an already depressed economy.
 
Not to mention that when taxes increase it slows down an already depressed economy.

Are you comfortable with another $2.2 trillion worth of debt?
That is the estimate price of extending all of the Bush admin's income tax cuts.
 
Back
Top Bottom