Penalty, tax.....call it whatever.....it is historic

[garyd]

Absolute nonsense oreo a hell of a lot of people carry only catastrophic care because they make enough money so that they can cover there own medical bills in the case of reltively minor emergencies. Why penalize them for having the good fortune to not have to pay money up front for inusrance coverage. This isn't going to save anyone a damn dime. All it's going to do is force a lot of people to by inusrance coverage they don't need and don't want. About the most you can expect this to do is force a lot of poor people onto the medicare rolls whether they want it or not.

 

[Chris]

I don't have health insurance.

The insurance companies are a scam.

 

[oreo]

Um Car insurance is a state mandate not a federal mandate. States - in theory - are supposed to have far more leeway than the fed to enact that sort of legislation.

By the way that is an abslutely lousy rational in either case. It amounts to an a piori conviction. Why the hell should I be responisble for your investment be it a car or a safe deposit box or stocks?

Again--someone who is uninsured ends up in your hospital emergency room--who pays for it. YOU do. We all do.

Now the next thing you're probably going to come back with is "well--lets just not treat them"? Doctors & nurses take an oath to treat the sick & injured regardless of their ability to pay. So that's not going to happen.

 

[oreo]

Has anyone realized that whether we call it a penalty for not having insurance or a tax for not having insurance....it will be the first time that I can think of (correct me if I am wrong) where you are forced to pay for something (or have someone pay it for you) the minute you are born...

You, as an individual entity will have a government mandated cost of existance the minute you leave your mom's womb.

Am I the only one that finds that kind of eerie?

Everyone pays taxes of all kinds, and everyone benefits from government services.

You just realized that?

There are many that benefit from government services much more than they deserve--while being the permanent leech on others backs that pay taxes.

To many in this country pay no taxes at all. I am not talking about the wealthy who already pay 67% of the entire tax base of this country. I am talking about lower incomes who pay no federal income tax--are not contributors--& benefit more than anyone else from government programs. This too has got to stop.

 

[garyd]

Again no you don't cat making 80 grand a year goes to the emergency room for say a bad case of the hives. He has no applicable inusrance when he gets out he sends the hospital a check for 2 or 3 hundred dollars until he gets it paid off.

Further even if its a welfare bum what are you going to do take away his food stamps? Oh wait we pay for those too not to mention for medicaid if he's on that.

 

[Chris]

Has anyone realized that whether we call it a penalty for not having insurance or a tax for not having insurance....it will be the first time that I can think of (correct me if I am wrong) where you are forced to pay for something (or have someone pay it for you) the minute you are born...

You, as an individual entity will have a government mandated cost of existance the minute you leave your mom's womb.

Am I the only one that finds that kind of eerie?

Everyone pays taxes of all kinds, and everyone benefits from government services.

You just realized that?

There are many that benefit from government services much more than they deserve--while being the permanent leech on others backs that pay taxes.

To many in this country pay no taxes at all. I am not talking about the wealthy who already pay 67% of the entire tax base of this country. I am talking about lower incomes who pay no federal income tax--are not contributors--& benefit more than anyone else from government programs. This too has got to stop.

Everyone pays taxes.

Some pay no federal taxes, but it is the rich that are the leeches.

 

[garyd]

thanks Chris but we needed no reminder that you are a cluless hack-a-matic.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Has anyone realized that whether we call it a penalty for not having insurance or a tax for not having insurance....it will be the first time that I can think of (correct me if I am wrong) where you are forced to pay for something (or have someone pay it for you) the minute you are born...

You, as an individual entity will have a government mandated cost of existance the minute you leave your mom's womb.

Am I the only one that finds that kind of eerie?

The funny thing is liberals don't have a problem with the government intrusion into their lives like this. They seem indifferent to total government control over their pathetic existence unless it leans conservative and upsets their own little microcosm they live in. Then all hell breaks lose and we have a divided nation like we have today.

 

[Chris]

thanks Chris but we needed no reminder that you are a cluless hack-a-matic.

Thanks garyd but we needed no reminder that all you have are personal insults.

The hedge fund managers stole all the money and bankrupted the country.

 

[elvis]

thanks Chris but we needed no reminder that you are a cluless hack-a-matic.

Thanks garyd but we needed no reminder that all you have are personal insults.

The hedge fund managers stole all the money and bankrupted the country.

Were they the ones that bankrupted your brain, too, fuckstain?

 

[Oldandtired]

Has anyone realized that whether we call it a penalty for not having insurance or a tax for not having insurance....it will be the first time that I can think of (correct me if I am wrong) where you are forced to pay for something (or have someone pay it for you) the minute you are born...

You, as an individual entity will have a government mandated cost of existance the minute you leave your mom's womb.

Am I the only one that finds that kind of eerie?

Everyone pays taxes of all kinds, and everyone benefits from government services.

You just realized that?

You seem to divert from the reality...

You pay taxes if you opt to earn income....you are not forced to pay taxes if you live off someone else. YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

You pay auto insurance if you opt to own a car.....you are not forced to own a car. YOU HAVE A CHOICE

But...if the penalty for no insurance is made into law, you are, for the first time, MANDATED to buy something or pay a penalty.

There is no comparison...this is a first and it is historic (if it happens)....the minute you are born, there is a government mandated cost of existance...no option to avoid it...you are MANDATED to spend money....no choice whatsoever.

It is historic and a step in a very dangerous direction.

 

[ba1614]

Has anyone realized that whether we call it a penalty for not having insurance or a tax for not having insurance....it will be the first time that I can think of (correct me if I am wrong) where you are forced to pay for something (or have someone pay it for you) the minute you are born...

You, as an individual entity will have a government mandated cost of existance the minute you leave your mom's womb.

Am I the only one that finds that kind of eerie?

Everyone pays taxes of all kinds, and everyone benefits from government services.

You just realized that?

You seem to divert from the reality...

You pay taxes if you opt to earn income....you are not forced to pay taxes if you live off someone else. YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

You pay auto insurance if you opt to own a car.....you are not forced to own a car. YOU HAVE A CHOICE

But...if the penalty for no insurance is made into law, you are, for the first time, MANDATED to buy something or pay a penalty.

There is no comparison...this is a first and it is historic (if it happens)....the minute you are born, there is a government mandated cost of existance...no option to avoid it...you are MANDATED to spend money....no choice whatsoever.

It is historic and a step in a very dangerous direction.

It's because Chrissy lives on the outer edge of reality.

 

[Ravi]

Such hysteria.

The penalty should be the same amount that it would have cost to pay for insurance otherwise it won't work.

If everyone must have insurance the pool becomes big enough that insurance becomes cheaper for everyone.

People that don't have insurance will still get treated for emergencies...in other words, they will still be living off of the rest of us.

It's mind boggling that conservatives want to give people a free ride.

 

[Oldandtired]

Such hysteria.

The penalty should be the same amount that it would have cost to pay for insurance otherwise it won't work.

If everyone must have insurance the pool becomes big enough that insurance becomes cheaper for everyone.

People that don't have insurance will still get treated for emergencies...in other words, they will still be living off of the rest of us.

It's mind boggling that conservatives want to give people a free ride.

No Ravi.....conservatives do not like to give people a free ride. Conservatives have a phiolosophy.....do what you need to do to better the country but do not infringe on our liberties and freedoms seeing as the basis of our cxountry is liberty and freedom.

For me to have my liberty stripped so we can ensure others get something that they want is a backward approach.

Help them all you want....and yes...at my cost of taxes if you wish...(it is my choice to earn an income that results in higher taxes)....BUT DO NOT MANDATE SOMETHING and take away my liberties.

 

[Xenophon]

The penalty should be the same amount that it would have cost to pay for insurance otherwise it won't work.

Its astounding you defend a 'penalty' at all.

Do you not release that the government is now trying to REGULATE YOUR BEHAVIOR?

Suppose the far right manages to find a barry-type and get him elected using the same smoke and mirrors. Using the procedures YOU didn't just fight against, he decrees that gays are now to stop being gay OR PAY A PENALTY.

He decides if you don't go a church the government disignates YOU WILL PAY A PENALTY.

The far reach of abuse with this is astounding, yet you post lol smiles and happily support this, which is fact totalitarian in nature.

 

[Ravi]

Such hysteria.

The penalty should be the same amount that it would have cost to pay for insurance otherwise it won't work.

If everyone must have insurance the pool becomes big enough that insurance becomes cheaper for everyone.

People that don't have insurance will still get treated for emergencies...in other words, they will still be living off of the rest of us.

It's mind boggling that conservatives want to give people a free ride.

No Ravi.....conservatives do not like to give people a free ride. Conservatives have a phiolosophy.....do what you need to do to better the country but do not infringe on our liberties and freedoms seeing as the basis of our cxountry is liberty and freedom.

For me to have my liberty stripped so we can ensure others get something that they want is a backward approach.

Help them all you want....and yes...at my cost of taxes if you wish...(it is my choice to earn an income that results in higher taxes)....BUT DO NOT MANDATE SOMETHING and take away my liberties.

It doesn't take away your liberties. In fact it gives you something...cheaper insurance and lower medical costs since hospitals will not be forced to pass the cost for dead beats onto the rest of us.

And as you pointed out above, you are not FORCED to earn income. No income, no tax penalty.

 

[Ravi]

The penalty should be the same amount that it would have cost to pay for insurance otherwise it won't work.

Its astounding you defend a 'penalty' at all.

Do you not release that the government is now trying to REGULATE YOUR BEHAVIOR?

Suppose the far right manages to find a barry-type and get him elected using the same smoke and mirrors. Using the procedures YOU didn't just fight against, he decrees that gays are now to stop being gay OR PAY A PENALTY.

He decides if you don't go a church the government disignates YOU WILL PAY A PENALTY.

The far reach of abuse with this is astounding, yet you post lol smiles and happily support this, which is fact totalitarian in nature.

Those would both be unconstitutional. Silly.

 

[Xenophon]

The penalty should be the same amount that it would have cost to pay for insurance otherwise it won't work.

Its astounding you defend a 'penalty' at all.

Do you not release that the government is now trying to REGULATE YOUR BEHAVIOR?

Suppose the far right manages to find a barry-type and get him elected using the same smoke and mirrors. Using the procedures YOU didn't just fight against, he decrees that gays are now to stop being gay OR PAY A PENALTY.

He decides if you don't go a church the government disignates YOU WILL PAY A PENALTY.

The far reach of abuse with this is astounding, yet you post lol smiles and happily support this, which is fact totalitarian in nature.

Those would both be unconstitutional. Silly.

Thank you.

Just like Obamacare.

 

[Ravi]

Its astounding you defend a 'penalty' at all.

Do you not release that the government is now trying to REGULATE YOUR BEHAVIOR?

Suppose the far right manages to find a barry-type and get him elected using the same smoke and mirrors. Using the procedures YOU didn't just fight against, he decrees that gays are now to stop being gay OR PAY A PENALTY.

He decides if you don't go a church the government disignates YOU WILL PAY A PENALTY.

The far reach of abuse with this is astounding, yet you post lol smiles and happily support this, which is fact totalitarian in nature.

Those would both be unconstitutional. Silly.

Thank you.

Just like Obamacare.

Nope...income tax isn't unconstitutional and neither is making people participate in health care insurance. It would only enter that area if people were refused emergency treatment if they didn't have health insurance.

Funny, NO ONE ever complains about National Flood Insurance...something that many of us are FORCED to purchase.

 

[Navy1960]

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey: Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional - WSJ.com


This tax will face a long uphill battle in the courts and once this bill is signed into law you most likely see several constitutional efforts mounted against it. Taxing someone simply because they exist and were born in this nation regardless of financial reasons while not taxing others will be struck down because a tax cannot apply to one group at the expense of another. i.e. those with ihealth insurance and those without. The state insurance laws are completely different matter, as they fall under the states jurisdiction i.e. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Thus the reasone why a state can require you to purchase insurance for your car, and Mass.. can add a tax. So I would not celebrate this bills passage with too much fanfare just yet as it had a big hurdle to overcome.

What about penalties & interest that Americans pay for late filing fees to the IRS. Where is the constitutionality in that? If we need to refer to fineing Americans who are able to purchase their own medical insurance policies & choose not too--then call it whatever it needs to be--to get it done.

This has got to happen--there is no longer any choice in the matter. I imagine there a millions of Americans that are in this catagory. This is one of the few times that I agree with Obama.

We can no longer afford to look the other direction on irresponsible people. We end up paying for them. They create financial havoc for all of us that are responsible.

16th Amendment;

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That gives congress the power oreo to levy taxes on US Citizens and charge you interest for not paying them regardless of where that income source comes from.

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

That is the reason why you cannot levy a tax on on group of Americans and not another just to name one portion of the constitution that it violates.

Justice Harlan; ( On the 14th Amendment)

"Every one knows," he wrote,

that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons .... n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


While I can understand that many wish to reform healthcare and create an environment in which all Americans have access to affordable quailty healthcare, undermining the very fabric in which this nation was created is not the way to accomplish it. I remain very skeptical of this current bill and it's motivations and see nothing in it that would actually lower the costs of healthcare to average Americans other than eventually move people to a large Govt. run healthcare insurance program. In a bill that sets to accomplish it s goals through punishment rather than incentive it is destined to fail and more than that it will eventually cost much more than we can afford. If you really want to reform healthcare, and I mean really want to have it available for every American that wishes access to this there is no way in my opinion that anyone could remotly support this current legislation.