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.
But yes, there's a $695 tax penalty for not carrying insurance.
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?
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 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, the MANDATED cost, is a TAX. Learn to read articles.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
RACISTS RACISTS RACISTS
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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'.
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?
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.
Not to mention that when taxes increase it slows down an already depressed economy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?