LA votes to nullify health insurance mandate

[SpidermanTuba]

LA will have to get in line behind Virginia. We were the first to call Bullshit on this pathetic excuse for a law. And there are 15 more states getting ready to do the same.

You cannot FORCE citizens to buy something. Unconstitutional. Apparently you can read either.

You can FORCE them to pay tax on their income, says so in the damn 16th amendment. I dunno what makes you think the state of Virginia or Louisiana is going to be able to stop the IRS from garnishing bank accounts or income. Once the IRS finds you, they have very efficient means of taking what you owe.

That has nothing to do with it. The law says you must buy insurance or pay a fine. It doesn't call it a tax, it calls it a fine.

Sorry, wrong. It calls it a tax. Why did you think it called it a fine? My guess is you didn't actually read the law, and just made up in your head what you wanted it to say?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238

If you have to pay a fine, that's a penalty, therefore the government intends to FORCE the population to purchase something. UNCONSTITUTIONAL period.

Its functionally equivalent to making everyone pay the tax but offering a credit equal to the tax if you have health insurance. By your logic, education tax credits are unconstitutional because they penalize people for not going to school.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Blather.

I'll spot you the roads, you give me everything else. I'll bet I can close 75 agencies and sub agencies of the Federal Government and never touch roads.

The city of lafayette, Louisiana owns the water, sewer, trash, electric company, power plant, and internet service (1/3 of which is fiber optic and expanding to the rest of the city.)

They also voted 65% for McCain in 2008.

Figure that one out.

I'll spot you the roads, you give me everything else.

You are the first rightie ever to admit that the roads are a socialist aspect of our government.

I won't attempt to understand LA, they have parishes and Napoleonic law. Baffling.

Every enterprise government takes on is socialist, by definition. I think they need to do less taking on because they are rarely (almost never) good at running anything and that's a waste of my money.

I think the Republican voters of Lafayette like having cheaper energy and internet. Apparently the city is very good at running things like that.

 

[saveliberty]

The city of lafayette, Louisiana owns the water, sewer, trash, electric company, power plant, and internet service (1/3 of which is fiber optic and expanding to the rest of the city.)

They also voted 65% for McCain in 2008.

Figure that one out.




You are the first rightie ever to admit that the roads are a socialist aspect of our government.

I won't attempt to understand LA, they have parishes and Napoleonic law. Baffling.

Every enterprise government takes on is socialist, by definition. I think they need to do less taking on because they are rarely (almost never) good at running anything and that's a waste of my money.

I think the Republican voters of Lafayette like having cheaper energy and internet. Apparently the city is very good at running things like that.

There are certain things that are big enough to have an economy of scale, while benefiting from a limited service area.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I won't attempt to understand LA, they have parishes and Napoleonic law. Baffling.

Every enterprise government takes on is socialist, by definition. I think they need to do less taking on because they are rarely (almost never) good at running anything and that's a waste of my money.

I think the Republican voters of Lafayette like having cheaper energy and internet. Apparently the city is very good at running things like that.

There are certain things that are big enough to have an economy of scale, while benefiting from a limited service area.

I'm not sure how the Lafayette power company or its internet company get better "economy of scale" considering Entergy and Cox, the state's biggest electricity and internet providers, are far, far larger than the city of Lafayette. It probably has much more to do with the fact they don't have to turn a profit, and if they provide a shitty service, people can just vote them out of office.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You can FORCE them to pay tax on their income, says so in the damn 16th amendment. I dunno what makes you think the state of Virginia or Louisiana is going to be able to stop the IRS from garnishing bank accounts or income. Once the IRS finds you, they have very efficient means of taking what you owe.

That has nothing to do with it. The law says you must buy insurance or pay a fine. It doesn't call it a tax, it calls it a fine.

Sorry, wrong. It calls it a tax. Why did you think it called it a fine? My guess is you didn't actually read the law, and just made up in your head what you wanted it to say?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238

If you have to pay a fine, that's a penalty, therefore the government intends to FORCE the population to purchase something. UNCONSTITUTIONAL period.

Its functionally equivalent to making everyone pay the tax but offering a credit equal to the tax if you have health insurance. By your logic, education tax credits are unconstitutional because they penalize people for not going to school.

Apparently, the Washington Post (I know, a far-right wing rag, by your estimation), calls it a fine.

Most people will never notice the mandate, as they get insurance through their employer and that's good enough for the government. But of those who aren't exempt and aren't insured, the choice will be this: Purchase insurance or pay a small fine. In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive.

Washington Post

I did read the health care bill at the time and was left with the distinct impression that it was a fine. I don't have the time or inclination to comb through the 2,000 page bill to pull out the line that would prove how right I am, I'm satisfied enough that the Washington Post agrees with me not you.

You can successfully trump me here by posting the line or paragraph from the federal law that calls it a tax not a fine. Otherwise, you can say nothing in reply and people will tacitly know that you were pwned or you can own up to your being pwned whichever you choose. What you cannot do is post a simple link or meaningless drivel, if you wish to stay in the game. In simple terms -- I call.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That has nothing to do with it. The law says you must buy insurance or pay a fine. It doesn't call it a tax, it calls it a fine.

Sorry, wrong. It calls it a tax. Why did you think it called it a fine? My guess is you didn't actually read the law, and just made up in your head what you wanted it to say?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238


Its functionally equivalent to making everyone pay the tax but offering a credit equal to the tax if you have health insurance. By your logic, education tax credits are unconstitutional because they penalize people for not going to school.

Apparently, the Washington Post (I know, a far-right wing rag, by your estimation), calls it a fine.

Most people will never notice the mandate, as they get insurance through their employer and that's good enough for the government. But of those who aren't exempt and aren't insured, the choice will be this: Purchase insurance or pay a small fine. In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive.

Washington Post

I did read the health care bill at the time and was left with the distinct impression that it was a fine. I don't have the time or inclination to comb through the 2,000 page bill to pull out the line that would prove how right I am, I'm satisfied enough that the Washington Post agrees with me not you.

You can successfully trump me here by posting the line or paragraph from the federal law that calls it a tax not a fine.

Consider yourself successfully trumped

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238


Wonder how many times I'll have to answer the same question in this thread. This is 3 so far.

Otherwise, you can say nothing in reply and people will tacitly know that you were pwned or you can own up to your being pwned whichever you choose. What you cannot do is post a simple link or meaningless drivel, if you wish to stay in the game. In simple terms -- I call.

pwned? Dude, I posted the line for line direct text of the law which calls it a tax earlier in this very same thread!

 

[RDD_1210]

Apparently, the Washington Post (I know, a far-right wing rag, by your estimation), calls it a fine.

Most people will never notice the mandate, as they get insurance through their employer and that's good enough for the government. But of those who aren't exempt and aren't insured, the choice will be this: Purchase insurance or pay a small fine. In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive.

I did read the health care bill at the time and was left with the distinct impression that it was a fine. I don't have the time or inclination to comb through the 2,000 page bill to pull out the line that would prove how right I am, I'm satisfied enough that the Washington Post agrees with me not you.

You can successfully trump me here by posting the line or paragraph from the federal law that calls it a tax not a fine. Otherwise, you can say nothing in reply and people will tacitly know that you were pwned or you can own up to your being pwned whichever you choose. What you cannot do is post a simple link or meaningless drivel, if you wish to stay in the game. In simple terms -- I call.

Did you actually read the whole article? Maybe you missed these portions where he refers to it as a tax.

The irony of the mandate is that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax on decent, hardworking people who don't want to purchase insurance. In reality, it's the best deal in the bill:...

But for all the furor over the individual mandate, the danger in the bill is much more that it is too weak and too good a deal than that it is too strong and too punitive a tax.

Nice job of selective reading though and only looking for the parts that agree with what you want to believe.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Apparently, the Washington Post (I know, a far-right wing rag, by your estimation), calls it a fine.

Most people will never notice the mandate, as they get insurance through their employer and that's good enough for the government. But of those who aren't exempt and aren't insured, the choice will be this: Purchase insurance or pay a small fine. In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive.

I did read the health care bill at the time and was left with the distinct impression that it was a fine. I don't have the time or inclination to comb through the 2,000 page bill to pull out the line that would prove how right I am, I'm satisfied enough that the Washington Post agrees with me not you.

You can successfully trump me here by posting the line or paragraph from the federal law that calls it a tax not a fine. Otherwise, you can say nothing in reply and people will tacitly know that you were pwned or you can own up to your being pwned whichever you choose. What you cannot do is post a simple link or meaningless drivel, if you wish to stay in the game. In simple terms -- I call.

Did you actually read the whole article? Maybe you missed these portions where he refers to it as a tax.

The irony of the mandate is that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax on decent, hardworking people who don't want to purchase insurance. In reality, it's the best deal in the bill:...

But for all the furor over the individual mandate, the danger in the bill is much more that it is too weak and too good a deal than that it is too strong and too punitive a tax.

Nice job of selective reading though and only looking for the parts that agree with what you want to believe.

Did you read what you posted?

LOL..... "that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax"

That means not that IT IS a tax, but that someone is PRESENTING it that way (mischaracterizing it, hint: stand up and take a bow). The other quote is the "reporter" editorializing not reporting. I did say this was the Washington Post, right. They don't have good reporting there. The bottom line of the article was that the reporter thinks this is a good bill and he wants to convince you too. So he had to stray away from the facts and start editorializing to make sound good.

Now, I notice that you used a distractive tactic instead of actually posting the text of the bill that says it's a tax not a penalty or fine. Still waiting. I still call.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

apparently, the washington post (i know, a far-right wing rag, by your estimation), calls it a fine.




I did read the health care bill at the time and was left with the distinct impression that it was a fine. I don't have the time or inclination to comb through the 2,000 page bill to pull out the line that would prove how right i am, i'm satisfied enough that the washington post agrees with me not you.

You can successfully trump me here by posting the line or paragraph from the federal law that calls it a tax not a fine. Otherwise, you can say nothing in reply and people will tacitly know that you were pwned or you can own up to your being pwned whichever you choose. What you cannot do is post a simple link or meaningless drivel, if you wish to stay in the game. In simple terms -- i call.

did you actually read the whole article? Maybe you missed these portions where he refers to it as a tax.

but for all the furor over the individual mandate, the danger in the bill is much more that it is too weak and too good a deal than that it is too strong and too punitive a tax.

nice job of selective reading though and only looking for the parts that agree with what you want to believe.

did you read what you posted?

Lol..... "that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax"

that means not that it is a tax, but that someone is presenting it that way (mischaracterizing it, hint: Stand up and take a bow). The other quote is the "reporter" editorializing not reporting. I did say this was the washington post, right. They don't have good reporting there. The bottom line of the article was that the reporter thinks this is a good bill and he wants to convince you too. So he had to stray away from the facts and start editorializing to make sound good.

Now, i notice that you used a distractive tactic instead of actually posting the text of the bill that says it's a tax not a penalty or fine. Still waiting. I still call.

according to the law it is a tax

You can call it whatever the fuck you want but if you have to pay it you'll send your check to the IRS and if you don't pay it IRS agents will be the ones tracking your ass down.

 

[Tech_Esq]

did you actually read the whole article? Maybe you missed these portions where he refers to it as a tax.




nice job of selective reading though and only looking for the parts that agree with what you want to believe.

did you read what you posted?

Lol..... "that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax"

that means not that it is a tax, but that someone is presenting it that way (mischaracterizing it, hint: Stand up and take a bow). The other quote is the "reporter" editorializing not reporting. I did say this was the washington post, right. They don't have good reporting there. The bottom line of the article was that the reporter thinks this is a good bill and he wants to convince you too. So he had to stray away from the facts and start editorializing to make sound good.

Now, i notice that you used a distractive tactic instead of actually posting the text of the bill that says it's a tax not a penalty or fine. Still waiting. I still call.

according to the law it is a tax

You can call it whatever the fuck you want but if you have to pay it you'll send your check to the IRS and if you don't pay it IRS agents will be the ones tracking your ass down.

And you are still pwned. If you were right you'd just cut and paste the test from the bill.

 

[RDD_1210]

Did you read what you posted?

LOL..... "that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax"

That means not that IT IS a tax, but that someone is PRESENTING it that way

LOl, someone...that someone is the Federal Government. Presented in the bill itself which you have failed to actually acknowledge looking at which has been posted.

The other quote is the "reporter" editorializing not reporting. I did say this was the Washington Post, right. They don't have good reporting there.

So when the reporter says the word "tax" he's editorializing but when he is using "fine", that must be fact. LOL, are you for real? Your best evidence is this article which refers to it in both manners, yet the actual bill which calls it a tax....that you choose to ignore.

 

[RDD_1210]

And you are still pwned. If you were right you'd just cut and paste the test from the bill.

Now I know you're messing with us. Nobody can be that dense.

The exact text HAS already been posted. Look it up for yourself, even though I know you won't.

8 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in-
2 come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

ACTUAL BILL - look on Page 167.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...0nqkPpkZ43jVpSv9A&sig2=eM8nx4ISOz0epzWrpKcBEQ

 

[Tech_Esq]

Did you read what you posted?

LOL..... "that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax"

That means not that IT IS a tax, but that someone is PRESENTING it that way

LOl, someone...that someone is the Federal Government. Presented in the bill itself which you have failed to actually acknowledge looking at which has been posted.

The other quote is the "reporter" editorializing not reporting. I did say this was the Washington Post, right. They don't have good reporting there.

So when the reporter says the word "tax" he's editorializing but when he is using "fine", that must be fact. LOL, are you for real? Your best evidence is this article which refers to it in both manners, yet the actual bill which calls it a tax....that you choose to ignore.

Still waiting.

 

[Tech_Esq]

And you are still pwned. If you were right you'd just cut and paste the test from the bill.

Now I know you're messing with us. Nobody can be that dense.

The exact text HAS already been posted. Look it up for yourself, even though I know you won't.

8 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in-
2 come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

ACTUAL BILL - look on Page 167.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...0nqkPpkZ43jVpSv9A&sig2=eM8nx4ISOz0epzWrpKcBEQ

You're right. I'm pwned as to this point.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I guess I just became a Christian-Science member......LOL. You'll find a religious exemption on page 170.

I do think it is a legally dubious claim that because of a failure to purchase an item, I would owe an increased amount of taxation on my income. I see an Equal Protection clause case being brought. I see a 16th Amendment case. A Constitutional powers case.

I would ask you supporters whether we have a limited national government or an unlimited national government. And if there is a limit, what is it?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

did you read what you posted?

Lol..... "that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax"

that means not that it is a tax, but that someone is presenting it that way (mischaracterizing it, hint: Stand up and take a bow). The other quote is the "reporter" editorializing not reporting. I did say this was the washington post, right. They don't have good reporting there. The bottom line of the article was that the reporter thinks this is a good bill and he wants to convince you too. So he had to stray away from the facts and start editorializing to make sound good.

Now, i notice that you used a distractive tactic instead of actually posting the text of the bill that says it's a tax not a penalty or fine. Still waiting. I still call.

according to the law it is a tax

You can call it whatever the fuck you want but if you have to pay it you'll send your check to the IRS and if you don't pay it IRS agents will be the ones tracking your ass down.

And you are still pwned. If you were right you'd just cut and paste the test from the bill.

I already did shit for brains. Its on page two of this thread in the post linked to by this link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238

This is also the 2nd time I've posted you a link to this. So just to make sure you get it this time around, I'll post it a few extra times for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238


http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238


http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238


Man how can you be this stupid?


If you missed it above - click here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...y-health-insurance-mandate-2.html#post2307238

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Did you read what you posted?

LOL..... "that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax"

That means not that IT IS a tax, but that someone is PRESENTING it that way

LOl, someone...that someone is the Federal Government. Presented in the bill itself which you have failed to actually acknowledge looking at which has been posted.

The other quote is the "reporter" editorializing not reporting. I did say this was the Washington Post, right. They don't have good reporting there.

So when the reporter says the word "tax" he's editorializing but when he is using "fine", that must be fact. LOL, are you for real? Your best evidence is this article which refers to it in both manners, yet the actual bill which calls it a tax....that you choose to ignore.

Still waiting.

Still stupid

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And you are still pwned. If you were right you'd just cut and paste the test from the bill.

Now I know you're messing with us. Nobody can be that dense.

The exact text HAS already been posted. Look it up for yourself, even though I know you won't.

8 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in-
2 come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

ACTUAL BILL - look on Page 167.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...0nqkPpkZ43jVpSv9A&sig2=eM8nx4ISOz0epzWrpKcBEQ

You're right. I'm pwned as to this point.

You learned how to use a link and read! Finally!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I do think it is a legally dubious claim that because of a failure to purchase an item, I would owe an increased amount of taxation on my income.

It isn't a "dubious claim" - its actually the law.

I see an Equal Protection clause case being brought. I see a 16th Amendment case. A Constitutional powers case.

What the fuck are you, a Constitutional law scholar? What the fuck is a "Constitutional powers" case, did you just make that up?

This law is functionally equivalent to simply imposing a 2.5% tax on everyone, and issuing a credit equal to the amount of the tax for those who have health insurance. Nothing unconstitutional about that. People get tax credits all the time - for their children, for education expenses, etc.

I would ask you supporters whether we have a limited national government or an unlimited national government. And if there is a limit, what is it?

Here we fucking go again. You and your teabagging ilk cannot conceive of simply stating "we disagree with this law and think its bad policy" - either you agree with it, or it must be unconstitutional!

 

[saveliberty]

So 0bama taxed folks with middle and lower class incomes with this bill. You must be so proud. I especially like the part where you get hit with it even for being without coverage for a day.