What will we be "mandated" to buy next?

We are all ready mandated to buy insurance and we have been for quite some time. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are all insurance policies that we all are forced to pay for through taxes. Other than some word play and minor technicalities, the way we pay for OC is pretty much the same thing. One big plus for OC is that it gives you choices in the kind and amount of coverage you want instead of being forced into a government program.
 
We are all ready mandated to buy insurance and we have been for quite some time. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are all insurance policies that we all are forced to pay for through taxes. Other than some word play and minor technicalities, the way we pay for OC is pretty much the same thing. One big plus for OC is that it gives you choices in the kind and amount of coverage you want instead of being forced into a government program.

Liberals want that and liberals never stop until they get everything they want and more.
 
Yes it is.

Originally: if you don't purchase health insurance you will be fined (penalty).

After today's ruling: if you don't purchase health insurance you will be taxed.

What's different?

Being FORCED to buy insurance and paying a tax if you don't are not the same. No one is holding a gun to your head.

And of all the things to protest paying for... there are a lot more protest-worthy things, things we can blame Obama for as well.

That's fucking retarded.

If I don't buy ins money is taken from me unwillingly.

fucking morons, yall just hate freedom

But since you're poor, there will be help for you to get that insurance. You will not be taxed. You're welcome.
 
To elaborate, I have no problem with taxes that are applied equally to generate the revenue required for government to function. My complaint is with tax policies that are formulated to manipulate us in ways that would be clearly unconstitutional if implemented as straightforward laws. If, for example, Congress passed a law that everyone was required to buy energy-efficient water heaters, and that those who didn't would be fined, I think most of us would recognize that as an unconstitutional law. Yet the tax incentives "rewarding" the purchase of energy-efficient water heaters are functionally equivalent.

Whatever.

I never understood this habit of labeling whatever you don't like about the government as unconstitutional.

We live in a democracy. That means we can use elections to fix any law we don't like. The only thing we need the Constitution for is protection of democracy and basic human rights.

What you lack, along with a lot of people today, is an understanding of the concept of constitutionally limited government. It's not there to protect democracy. It's there to protect us from democracy - or rather to protect the minority from the unchecked will of the majority.

Well, I can understand why the Founding Fathers were thinking that way 200 years ago, when democracy was still at experimental stage. But by now it is pretty obvious that one does not need protection from democracy, that it is democracy that needs protection.

A constitution can't protect the minority rights if only because it can be amended and or interpreted in different ways. That is why the minorities have their rights recognized only when the majority is willing to do so -- and US history provides prominent examples of that.

On the other hand, Founding Fathers clearly went too far by trying to "balance" the power of Congress with that of the President. The resulting system is deeply dysfunctional. In many countries that adopted it it helped to curb the democracy itself.
 
Any thoughts on that?

Since the Fed can now force us to buy hc ins, there's no end of things that can be mandated, for our own good.

not true.

why?

because:

The Government asked the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Semantics

If you don't buy, you get "taxed", if you can't afford the tax it comes out of your tax return, if your return isn't enough to cover the debt.

well

After it gets high enough, you get arrested.


"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

pay your taxes and stfu
 
Being FORCED to buy insurance and paying a tax if you don't are not the same. No one is holding a gun to your head.

And of all the things to protest paying for... there are a lot more protest-worthy things, things we can blame Obama for as well.

That's fucking retarded.

If I don't buy ins money is taken from me unwillingly.

fucking morons, yall just hate freedom

But since you're poor, there will be help for you to get that insurance. You will not be taxed. You're welcome.

How poor do you have to be? Point being, there will be a cuttoff. Above that, you take one for the team.
 
Being FORCED to buy insurance and paying a tax if you don't are not the same. No one is holding a gun to your head.

And of all the things to protest paying for... there are a lot more protest-worthy things, things we can blame Obama for as well.

That's fucking retarded.

If I don't buy ins money is taken from me unwillingly.

fucking morons, yall just hate freedom

But since you're poor, there will be help for you to get that insurance. You will not be taxed. You're welcome.
More wealth redistribution.

What are you going to do when you run out of other people's money? How will you buy votes then?
 
On the other hand, Founding Fathers clearly went too far by trying to "balance" the power of Congress with that of the President. The resulting system is deeply dysfunctional. In many countries that adopted it it helped to curb the democracy itself.
So where do you want most of the power vested?

Voters elect parliament -> parlament appoints the government, which then is accountable to the parliament. Britain or Canada are the closest examples. Government more often than not is supported by a stable majority in the parliament. Otherwise Government has to build a majority every time it needs a vote. If it fails, the deadlock is solved by new elections. This makes a tug of war between the executive and legislative branch impossible.

The Founding Fathers were afraid that the parliament can easily usurp all the power, but such things never happen in practice. If only because hundreds of MPs will never agree on how to share that power between themselves.
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts on that?

Since the Fed can now force us to buy hc ins, there's no end of things that can be mandated, for our own good.

I'm thinking life ins. Those evul grave diggers demand thousands of dollars just to dig a hole and put your loved one in it.

Forcing everone to get it, and giving it free to the poor will lower the cost of premiums and make certain no one ever has to pony up for any of the costs of dying.

plus all those evul life insurance companies = about $14 trillion dollar industry, so we should put more government regs on them.

This is a sad sad day for freedom.




you know... it strikes me that if the mandate were that you buy a gun, you wouldn't be complaining.

just saying.

now THAT'S sad...

In turn, does that mean the Left is OK with the precedent set as a result of the process and election consequences of Democrats between 2008-2012? Be careful what you wish for. A Republican dominated White House and Capitol could force US citizens to buy oil or derivatives to lock the US into fossil fuels or mandate all US households to have a firearm under the notion that criminals are less likely to rob a house of they know a firearm is present.

The precedent set by the Left is going to bit them in the Ass.
 
Any thoughts on that?

Since the Fed can now force us to buy hc ins, there's no end of things that can be mandated, for our own good.

I'm thinking life ins. Those evul grave diggers demand thousands of dollars just to dig a hole and put your loved one in it.

Forcing everone to get it, and giving it free to the poor will lower the cost of premiums and make certain no one ever has to pony up for any of the costs of dying.

plus all those evul life insurance companies = about $14 trillion dollar industry, so we should put more government regs on them.



This is a sad sad day for freedom.

Because the poor should die the evil fuckers. How dare they breath the same air as Republicans. What? Many of the poor ARE Republicans. Oops. Nevermind.
 
On the other hand, Founding Fathers clearly went too far by trying to "balance" the power of Congress with that of the President. The resulting system is deeply dysfunctional. In many countries that adopted it it helped to curb the democracy itself.
So where do you want most of the power vested?

Voters elect parliament -> parlament appoints the government, which then is accountable to the parliament. Britain or Canada are the closest examples. Government more often than not is supported by a stable majority in the parliament. Otherwise Government has to build a majority every time it needs a vote. If it fails, the deadlock is solved by new elections. This makes a tug of war between the executive and legislative branch impossible.

The Founding Fathers were afraid that the parliament can easily usurp all the power, but such things never happen in practice. If only because hundreds of MPs will never agree on how to share that power between themselves.
"That government is best which governs least."
-- Thomas Paine

The more roadblocks to government power, the better.
 
not true. the commerce clause is not in play.

you need new talking points and/or a refund for what passes for your education

:eek:

So we are not going to be forced to buy ins?

did I miss that part? or are we just going to be taxed for not having ins?


it's the fucking same thing. Using semantics and calling something a tax is just a lie.

No.. it's not the same thing.
Oh yes it is. Try telling that to the IRS when they come knocking on your door. Keep up not buying HC and you will end up behind their door. The ones with medal bars.
 
Nothing- it's 2014, or pay 1% of your income.. Do you have insurance now? NO CHANGE>

what if you dont have an income Frankie?....will you pay the guys way and give 2% of yours?

You get Medicaid for free....up to 133% of poverty line, $15k for individuals, 29k for family of 4- then subsidies to make insurance affordable up to $88k for family of four. I don't believe dupes have any idea what a good deal this is--just ridiculous talking points and hater insults...

And you really believe its for free? The left just doesn't get it. Someone is going to pay for it and the more free stuff that comes out the more people are going to have to pay. They do that through taxes.
 
Goods, services, and actions are taxed.

Today we learned that we can be taxed for NON-action.

lunacy

It is lunacy. But it's lunacy we already have a lot of. We need to understand that. For example, there are tax incentives that let you deduct from your taxes owed for making energy-efficient home improvements. The people who don't make these investments pay higher taxes than those who don't. They are taxed for their non-action. How is this any different?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating for this practice. I think it's all bullshit. But we need to understand that we've been conned for a long time, thinking that we're getting little 'bonuses' for playing along and doing what the government (or rather, their lobbyists) want us to do. When it's equally valid to recognize that the people who aren't jumping through these hoops are being punished with higher taxes.

I wonder if you think that all taxes are bad and should be abolished.

No just the gov't now able to take over anything it wants by declaring its just a tax. Its going to have its fingers in everything in the future. So be perpared.
 
My guess is that we won't be mandated to buy anything, but it will be mandated what we may or may not buy, depending on how good or bad it is for our health.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top