Penalty for not buying insurance.

[dblack]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Nope. That is a fee to drive your car on the street without insurance. It provides no insurance.

So you're saying it's exactly the choice some people make regarding paying a penalty and getting no health insurance.

Dear Arianrhod

If this was the FEDERAL GOVT dictating what constituted exempted insurance coverage, to the point people were losing access to affordable insurance and started having to pay more for options they didn't need
AND PAY FOR INSURANCE BEFORE THEY WANT TO BUY AND USE IT

And if this was the FEDERAL GOVT creating a whole bureaucracy for collecting registration information on all citizens in order to manage everything through central govt instead of leaving it to the states,
then YES it would cause similar problems as now with ACA trying to regulate citizens from a federal level
instead of allowing local representation, voting and management of policies and staying out of people's business.

So it's okay if the state government dictates terms, but not the federal.

It's 'not ok' in either case. But if it was limited to the states, 'We the People' would have a better chance of correcting it.

 

[emilynghiem]

My bro

It's just another step toward socialism. We don't need the government dictating what we should buy.

My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

Dear sealybobo The taxing power cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution.
The First Amendment clearly forbids govt from being abused to establish faith-based beliefs.

Just because govt is given power to tax, does not mean tax laws can be made that violate other rights and restrictions (such as religious freedom, and rights reserved to the states and the people). For example, just because the states have the right to pass laws does not mean they can pass a law "banning gay marriage" that goes too far and becomes unconstitutional.
Same with this tax law that went too far and created more authority for federal govt without amending the Constitution first (side note: if you and half the nation do not BELIEVE that a Constitutional amendment is needed first, well half the nation DOES believe that, so that is a clash of beliefs and needs to be settled instead of skirted over and letting one side dominate with their beliefs on this without the consent of the other sides' beliefs on this if BOTH beliefs are weighed equally under law for govt to be neutral)

The problem with "secular" areas of health care and "civil marriage" is they it INDIRECTLY
involves BELIEFS that are not necessarily RELIGIOUS but are still FAITH BASED; this
gets into GRAY AREAS that are BOTH belief based AND are involving govt as well.

So this crosses and blurs the lines with "separation of church and state"
where BELIEFS are involved that are inseparable from govt process.

We have never addressed POLITICAL BELIEFS specifically
and how to handle the First and Fourteenth Amendment respect for
religious freedom and nondiscrimination by creed, while at the same
time dealing with people's conflicting BELIEFS about govt that cannot be separated from govt.

We DO need to address this instead of running into the same catch-22 problems over and over
1. if one side BELIEVES in separation of church and state on an issue while the other does not
how do we separate the two beliefs from govt to be fair to both?
2. if one side BELIEVES the other sides' views constitutes a separate BELIEF that cannot be
imposed by govt, but that side does NOT BELIEVE their viewpoint constitutes a BELIEF,
what do we do? the two sides don't believe the same thing, yet both are entitled to their BELIEFS
3. in general, if one party BELIEVES in minimalizing federal govt to only what is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution while the other BELIEVES that any law can be passed to give govt any authority to do anything unless EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by law, then what do we do to respect both beliefs equally? What if BOTH sides believe their beliefs are infringed upon by the other? it seems clear to me the best way to accommodate both beliefs is to resolve the conflict where both can exercise freely without imposing on the other; and use that criteria to keep them both out of govt.

some rules I might suggest:
A. if you don't agree on political beliefs, a solution must be reached that satisfies both so THAT SOLUTION may be passed as public policy, but not either of the clashing beliefs.
B. people who want defense against discrimination must also agree not to discriminate against the creeds and beliefs of others; or else people who AGREE they want the right to reject and discriminate against certain beliefs they object to must agree to tolerate the same rejection/discrimination of their beliefs in return so it's equal.
C. people and businesses can sign mediation agreements and waivers, accepting to either resolve conflicts by consensus to avoid legal problems or expenses, or in the case disputes cannot be resolved due to differences in beliefs, the parties agree "NOT to do business together due to irreconcilable differences in beliefs" and NOT hold either side at fault for the conflicts that are mutual (instead of judging one side or the other for why their beliefs can't be resolved).

This is very very serious, sealybobo

If we cannot even agree what constitutes a valid belief, what is a creed protected by govt,
what is faith based and what is fact based, we need to address this head on.
or else we will go in circles and continue to fight battles where we don't even agree
what the terms and rules are. Very serious!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

There has been a penalty for not buying car insurance for as long as I can remember. You are forced to buy it.

Nope. That is a fee to drive your car on the street without insurance. It provides no insurance.

So you're saying it's exactly the choice some people make regarding paying a penalty and getting no health insurance.

Dear Arianrhod

If this was the FEDERAL GOVT dictating what constituted exempted insurance coverage, to the point people were losing access to affordable insurance and started having to pay more for options they didn't need
AND PAY FOR INSURANCE BEFORE THEY WANT TO BUY AND USE IT

And if this was the FEDERAL GOVT creating a whole bureaucracy for collecting registration information on all citizens in order to manage everything through central govt instead of leaving it to the states,
then YES it would cause similar problems as now with ACA trying to regulate citizens from a federal level
instead of allowing local representation, voting and management of policies and staying out of people's business.

So it's okay if the state government dictates terms, but not the federal. Interesting. It's almost as if there were 50 little independent fiefdoms, each doing as they pleased, with no interaction with an overarching entity that provided it with protection from enemy nations, created an interstate infrastructure and, in the case of many of the most recalcitrant states, paid out more than it took in in tax revenue. Hmmm...

Dear Arianrhod
Yes, I find there is more room for things like including God and prayer in school and in public institutions on a STATE level, if people of that STATE can agree to a policy. For example, even "JUSTICE" itself is a FAITH BASED concept, but if people of a state all agree on criminal justice policies, on how to deal with murder and the possibility of capital punishment (which also involves FAITH BASED BELIEFS) then the people at least AGREE to give the state this level of authority. Same with MARRIAGE that crosses lines between state jurisdiction and private/religious/spiritual areas of decisions. People agree that the STATES can pass laws about marriage on this level, but don't all agree on the federal level.

But if they cannot agree, then it escalates to a FEDERAL level and that can go either way.
if the FEDERAL LEVEL is ABUSED to impose a decision it makes the problem even worse!
if the FEDERAL LEVEL is used to CHECK the States to make sure Constitutional rights
and equality are not violated, then this can be used to resolve the conflict by redressing grievances.

In the case of "gay marriage bans" the bans went too far and needed to be struck down
to prevent exclusion and discrimination on the basis of faith and creed.

However then it went too far, and the federal courts were abused to ESTABLISH
gay marriage 'through the State' which is the equal and opposite imposition than what was contested. Two wrongs don't make it right.

The correct position would be to remain neutral and neither establish nor deny gay marriage
but to require the people of each State to form a consensus that respects beliefs equally,
neither excluding nor establishing one over the other.

Most of the problems I see are (1) people not respecting both sides' equal beliefs in the first place (2) not resolving their own conflicts locally and directly, so this gets pushed into state and federal govt to get involved in personal faith based conflicts (3) people deliberately abusing state, party or federal power to bully their beliefs onto others by coercion or exclusion; most of the solutions I see focus on resolving the conflicts, especially by recognizing equal rights to the separate beliefs without threat of abusing govt to let one dominate over the other, and working out policies that respect both sides' beliefs equally where govt can remain fair and neutral.

 

[sealybobo]

My bro
My bro lived in Switzerland for 4 years. First thing you have to show is that you have insurance. Sorry no freeloaders

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

Dear sealybobo The taxing power cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution.
The First Amendment clearly forbids govt from being abused to establish faith-based beliefs.

Just because govt is given power to tax, does not mean tax laws can be made that violate other rights and restrictions (such as religious freedom, and rights reserved to the states and the people). For example, just because the states have the right to pass laws does not mean they can pass a law "banning gay marriage" that goes too far and becomes unconstitutional.
Same with this tax law that went too far and created more authority for federal govt without amending the Constitution first (side note: if you and half the nation do not BELIEVE that a Constitutional amendment is needed first, well half the nation DOES believe that, so that is a clash of beliefs and needs to be settled instead of skirted over and letting one side dominate with their beliefs on this without the consent of the other sides' beliefs on this if BOTH beliefs are weighed equally under law for govt to be neutral)

The problem with "secular" areas of health care and "civil marriage" is they it INDIRECTLY
involves BELIEFS that are not necessarily RELIGIOUS but are still FAITH BASED; this
gets into GRAY AREAS that are BOTH belief based AND are involving govt as well.

So this crosses and blurs the lines with "separation of church and state"
where BELIEFS are involved that are inseparable from govt process.

We have never addressed POLITICAL BELIEFS specifically
and how to handle the First and Fourteenth Amendment respect for
religious freedom and nondiscrimination by creed, while at the same
time dealing with people's conflicting BELIEFS about govt that cannot be separated from govt.

We DO need to address this instead of running into the same catch-22 problems over and over
1. if one side BELIEVES in separation of church and state on an issue while the other does not
how do we separate the two beliefs from govt to be fair to both?
2. if one side BELIEVES the other sides' views constitutes a separate BELIEF that cannot be
imposed by govt, but that side does NOT BELIEVE their viewpoint constitutes a BELIEF,
what do we do? the two sides don't believe the same thing, yet both are entitled to their BELIEFS
3. in general, if one party BELIEVES in minimalizing federal govt to only what is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution while the other BELIEVES that any law can be passed to give govt any authority to do anything unless EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by law, then what do we do to respect both beliefs equally? What if BOTH sides believe their beliefs are infringed upon by the other? it seems clear to me the best way to accommodate both beliefs is to resolve the conflict where both can exercise freely without imposing on the other; and use that criteria to keep them both out of govt.

some rules I might suggest:
A. if you don't agree on political beliefs, a solution must be reached that satisfies both so THAT SOLUTION may be passed as public policy, but not either of the clashing beliefs.
B. people who want defense against discrimination must also agree not to discriminate against the creeds and beliefs of others; or else people who AGREE they want the right to reject and discriminate against certain beliefs they object to must agree to tolerate the same rejection/discrimination of their beliefs in return so it's equal.
C. people and businesses can sign mediation agreements and waivers, accepting to either resolve conflicts by consensus to avoid legal problems or expenses, or in the case disputes cannot be resolved due to differences in beliefs, the parties agree "NOT to do business together due to irreconcilable differences in beliefs" and NOT hold either side at fault for the conflicts that are mutual (instead of judging one side or the other for why their beliefs can't be resolved).

This is very very serious, sealybobo

If we cannot even agree what constitutes a valid belief, what is a creed protected by govt,
what is faith based and what is fact based, we need to address this head on.
or else we will go in circles and continue to fight battles where we don't even agree
what the terms and rules are. Very serious!!!

Half the nation believes unemployment is 50%. They believe whatever the GOP tells them.

The conservative supreme court said you are wrong. If it was liberal maybe I'd see your argument but it's not

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dear sealybobo
Switzerland is different from the US.

You might compare Switzerland to a single state in the US such as Texas.
So if Texas passes laws requiring ID or X Y Z in order to invoke certain privileges,
that is different from federal govt trying to mandate for all the states to do things the same way.

That is like the EU imposing a policy on all the countries in Europe that the individual
citizens and countries HAD NO SAY IN.

It is one thing for a STATE to pass something that the people of that STATE voted on.
It's another thing for a national Party like the Democrats to pass an agenda through
Congress that the other parties and whole states did not agree to but are forced to
either comply or now have to sue, to pass legislation, or vote other people into office
in order to change it back and restore rights and liberties that were deprived without due process.

sealybobo how would you like it if a Christian prolife proGod lobby passed a biased bill 51-49
through Congress and then got the Supreme Court to let it slide 5-4. And it violated YOUR beliefs
as a secular nontheist, but you had no direct say in this bill.

Yet you were forced to pay fines under it until it is changed.
Wouldn't you be furious? Why should YOU have to pay to either sue, to lobby for elected
officials or legislation, or pay to organize media outreach to change laws that violated
your beliefs and were unconstitutional to begin with?

This is like how DOMA got passed and then had to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In the meantime, that violated people's beliefs, who were forced to strike down an
unconstitutional law that shouldn't have been passed in the first place. it went too far.

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

Dear sealybobo The taxing power cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution.
The First Amendment clearly forbids govt from being abused to establish faith-based beliefs.

Just because govt is given power to tax, does not mean tax laws can be made that violate other rights and restrictions (such as religious freedom, and rights reserved to the states and the people). For example, just because the states have the right to pass laws does not mean they can pass a law "banning gay marriage" that goes too far and becomes unconstitutional.
Same with this tax law that went too far and created more authority for federal govt without amending the Constitution first (side note: if you and half the nation do not BELIEVE that a Constitutional amendment is needed first, well half the nation DOES believe that, so that is a clash of beliefs and needs to be settled instead of skirted over and letting one side dominate with their beliefs on this without the consent of the other sides' beliefs on this if BOTH beliefs are weighed equally under law for govt to be neutral)

The problem with "secular" areas of health care and "civil marriage" is they it INDIRECTLY
involves BELIEFS that are not necessarily RELIGIOUS but are still FAITH BASED; this
gets into GRAY AREAS that are BOTH belief based AND are involving govt as well.

So this crosses and blurs the lines with "separation of church and state"
where BELIEFS are involved that are inseparable from govt process.

We have never addressed POLITICAL BELIEFS specifically
and how to handle the First and Fourteenth Amendment respect for
religious freedom and nondiscrimination by creed, while at the same
time dealing with people's conflicting BELIEFS about govt that cannot be separated from govt.

We DO need to address this instead of running into the same catch-22 problems over and over
1. if one side BELIEVES in separation of church and state on an issue while the other does not
how do we separate the two beliefs from govt to be fair to both?
2. if one side BELIEVES the other sides' views constitutes a separate BELIEF that cannot be
imposed by govt, but that side does NOT BELIEVE their viewpoint constitutes a BELIEF,
what do we do? the two sides don't believe the same thing, yet both are entitled to their BELIEFS
3. in general, if one party BELIEVES in minimalizing federal govt to only what is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution while the other BELIEVES that any law can be passed to give govt any authority to do anything unless EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by law, then what do we do to respect both beliefs equally? What if BOTH sides believe their beliefs are infringed upon by the other? it seems clear to me the best way to accommodate both beliefs is to resolve the conflict where both can exercise freely without imposing on the other; and use that criteria to keep them both out of govt.

some rules I might suggest:
A. if you don't agree on political beliefs, a solution must be reached that satisfies both so THAT SOLUTION may be passed as public policy, but not either of the clashing beliefs.
B. people who want defense against discrimination must also agree not to discriminate against the creeds and beliefs of others; or else people who AGREE they want the right to reject and discriminate against certain beliefs they object to must agree to tolerate the same rejection/discrimination of their beliefs in return so it's equal.
C. people and businesses can sign mediation agreements and waivers, accepting to either resolve conflicts by consensus to avoid legal problems or expenses, or in the case disputes cannot be resolved due to differences in beliefs, the parties agree "NOT to do business together due to irreconcilable differences in beliefs" and NOT hold either side at fault for the conflicts that are mutual (instead of judging one side or the other for why their beliefs can't be resolved).

This is very very serious, sealybobo

If we cannot even agree what constitutes a valid belief, what is a creed protected by govt,
what is faith based and what is fact based, we need to address this head on.
or else we will go in circles and continue to fight battles where we don't even agree
what the terms and rules are. Very serious!!!

Half the nation believes unemployment is 50%. They believe whatever the GOP tells them.

The conservative supreme court said you are wrong. If it was liberal maybe I'd see your argument but it's not

Please provide your data on the umemployment numbers.

Half the nation does not belong to the GOP.

 

[emilynghiem]

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

Dear sealybobo The taxing power cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution.
The First Amendment clearly forbids govt from being abused to establish faith-based beliefs.

Just because govt is given power to tax, does not mean tax laws can be made that violate other rights and restrictions (such as religious freedom, and rights reserved to the states and the people). For example, just because the states have the right to pass laws does not mean they can pass a law "banning gay marriage" that goes too far and becomes unconstitutional.
Same with this tax law that went too far and created more authority for federal govt without amending the Constitution first (side note: if you and half the nation do not BELIEVE that a Constitutional amendment is needed first, well half the nation DOES believe that, so that is a clash of beliefs and needs to be settled instead of skirted over and letting one side dominate with their beliefs on this without the consent of the other sides' beliefs on this if BOTH beliefs are weighed equally under law for govt to be neutral)

The problem with "secular" areas of health care and "civil marriage" is they it INDIRECTLY
involves BELIEFS that are not necessarily RELIGIOUS but are still FAITH BASED; this
gets into GRAY AREAS that are BOTH belief based AND are involving govt as well.

So this crosses and blurs the lines with "separation of church and state"
where BELIEFS are involved that are inseparable from govt process.

We have never addressed POLITICAL BELIEFS specifically
and how to handle the First and Fourteenth Amendment respect for
religious freedom and nondiscrimination by creed, while at the same
time dealing with people's conflicting BELIEFS about govt that cannot be separated from govt.

We DO need to address this instead of running into the same catch-22 problems over and over
1. if one side BELIEVES in separation of church and state on an issue while the other does not
how do we separate the two beliefs from govt to be fair to both?
2. if one side BELIEVES the other sides' views constitutes a separate BELIEF that cannot be
imposed by govt, but that side does NOT BELIEVE their viewpoint constitutes a BELIEF,
what do we do? the two sides don't believe the same thing, yet both are entitled to their BELIEFS
3. in general, if one party BELIEVES in minimalizing federal govt to only what is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution while the other BELIEVES that any law can be passed to give govt any authority to do anything unless EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by law, then what do we do to respect both beliefs equally? What if BOTH sides believe their beliefs are infringed upon by the other? it seems clear to me the best way to accommodate both beliefs is to resolve the conflict where both can exercise freely without imposing on the other; and use that criteria to keep them both out of govt.

some rules I might suggest:
A. if you don't agree on political beliefs, a solution must be reached that satisfies both so THAT SOLUTION may be passed as public policy, but not either of the clashing beliefs.
B. people who want defense against discrimination must also agree not to discriminate against the creeds and beliefs of others; or else people who AGREE they want the right to reject and discriminate against certain beliefs they object to must agree to tolerate the same rejection/discrimination of their beliefs in return so it's equal.
C. people and businesses can sign mediation agreements and waivers, accepting to either resolve conflicts by consensus to avoid legal problems or expenses, or in the case disputes cannot be resolved due to differences in beliefs, the parties agree "NOT to do business together due to irreconcilable differences in beliefs" and NOT hold either side at fault for the conflicts that are mutual (instead of judging one side or the other for why their beliefs can't be resolved).

This is very very serious, sealybobo

If we cannot even agree what constitutes a valid belief, what is a creed protected by govt,
what is faith based and what is fact based, we need to address this head on.
or else we will go in circles and continue to fight battles where we don't even agree
what the terms and rules are. Very serious!!!

Half the nation believes unemployment is 50%. They believe whatever the GOP tells them.

The conservative supreme court said you are wrong. If it was liberal maybe I'd see your argument but it's not

Please provide your data on the umemployment numbers.

Half the nation does not belong to the GOP.

Dear @Sun Devil92
You do not have to be a member of the GOP to be against the ACA mandates.
I am not a Republican but a registered Democrat.
I have friends who are Libertarian or independents who are against it.
All the Constitutionalists I know are against it, and many of them are not GOP either.

Even my friends who are prochoice progressive Greens Liberals and Democrats
are against it as 'federal govt forcing people to give money to insurance companies'

So I count those people also.
In fact, I haven't found a single person who is FOR paying the fines to federal govt.
So it's more than 50%.

I am guessing it is more like 3/4 opposed to ACA mandates.

And if you look at the percentages of transgender and gay population
who got the exercise of their beliefs protected, that is estimated
at 3-5 % (the transgender is a fraction of that).

Would you agree that the people who believe ACA violates
Constitutional principles, beliefs and ethics is
"at least" as much as the gay/transgender population who got their protections
endorsed by court?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

Dear sealybobo The taxing power cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution.
The First Amendment clearly forbids govt from being abused to establish faith-based beliefs.

Just because govt is given power to tax, does not mean tax laws can be made that violate other rights and restrictions (such as religious freedom, and rights reserved to the states and the people). For example, just because the states have the right to pass laws does not mean they can pass a law "banning gay marriage" that goes too far and becomes unconstitutional.
Same with this tax law that went too far and created more authority for federal govt without amending the Constitution first (side note: if you and half the nation do not BELIEVE that a Constitutional amendment is needed first, well half the nation DOES believe that, so that is a clash of beliefs and needs to be settled instead of skirted over and letting one side dominate with their beliefs on this without the consent of the other sides' beliefs on this if BOTH beliefs are weighed equally under law for govt to be neutral)

The problem with "secular" areas of health care and "civil marriage" is they it INDIRECTLY
involves BELIEFS that are not necessarily RELIGIOUS but are still FAITH BASED; this
gets into GRAY AREAS that are BOTH belief based AND are involving govt as well.

So this crosses and blurs the lines with "separation of church and state"
where BELIEFS are involved that are inseparable from govt process.

We have never addressed POLITICAL BELIEFS specifically
and how to handle the First and Fourteenth Amendment respect for
religious freedom and nondiscrimination by creed, while at the same
time dealing with people's conflicting BELIEFS about govt that cannot be separated from govt.

We DO need to address this instead of running into the same catch-22 problems over and over
1. if one side BELIEVES in separation of church and state on an issue while the other does not
how do we separate the two beliefs from govt to be fair to both?
2. if one side BELIEVES the other sides' views constitutes a separate BELIEF that cannot be
imposed by govt, but that side does NOT BELIEVE their viewpoint constitutes a BELIEF,
what do we do? the two sides don't believe the same thing, yet both are entitled to their BELIEFS
3. in general, if one party BELIEVES in minimalizing federal govt to only what is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution while the other BELIEVES that any law can be passed to give govt any authority to do anything unless EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by law, then what do we do to respect both beliefs equally? What if BOTH sides believe their beliefs are infringed upon by the other? it seems clear to me the best way to accommodate both beliefs is to resolve the conflict where both can exercise freely without imposing on the other; and use that criteria to keep them both out of govt.

some rules I might suggest:
A. if you don't agree on political beliefs, a solution must be reached that satisfies both so THAT SOLUTION may be passed as public policy, but not either of the clashing beliefs.
B. people who want defense against discrimination must also agree not to discriminate against the creeds and beliefs of others; or else people who AGREE they want the right to reject and discriminate against certain beliefs they object to must agree to tolerate the same rejection/discrimination of their beliefs in return so it's equal.
C. people and businesses can sign mediation agreements and waivers, accepting to either resolve conflicts by consensus to avoid legal problems or expenses, or in the case disputes cannot be resolved due to differences in beliefs, the parties agree "NOT to do business together due to irreconcilable differences in beliefs" and NOT hold either side at fault for the conflicts that are mutual (instead of judging one side or the other for why their beliefs can't be resolved).

This is very very serious, sealybobo

If we cannot even agree what constitutes a valid belief, what is a creed protected by govt,
what is faith based and what is fact based, we need to address this head on.
or else we will go in circles and continue to fight battles where we don't even agree
what the terms and rules are. Very serious!!!

Half the nation believes unemployment is 50%. They believe whatever the GOP tells them.

The conservative supreme court said you are wrong. If it was liberal maybe I'd see your argument but it's not

Please provide your data on the umemployment numbers.

Half the nation does not belong to the GOP.

Dear @Sun Devil92
You do not have to be a member of the GOP to be against the ACA mandates.
I am not a Republican but a registered Democrat.
I have friends who are Libertarian or independents who are against it.
All the Constitutionalists I know are against it, and many of them are not GOP either.

Even my friends who are prochoice progressive Greens Liberals and Democrats
are against it as 'federal govt forcing people to give money to insurance companies'

So I count those people also.
In fact, I haven't found a single person who is FOR paying the fines to federal govt.
So it's more than 50%.

I am guessing it is more like 3/4 opposed to ACA mandates.

And if you look at the percentages of transgender and gay population
who got the exercise of their beliefs protected, that is estimated
at 3-5 % (the transgender is a fraction of that).

Would you agree that the people who believe ACA violates
Constitutional principles, beliefs and ethics is
"at least" as much as the gay/transgender population who got their protections
endorsed by court?

I was asking where Hackbooboo came up with his hack numbers.

 

[sealybobo]

The aca is a tax. Constitutional.

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

Dear sealybobo The taxing power cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution.
The First Amendment clearly forbids govt from being abused to establish faith-based beliefs.

Just because govt is given power to tax, does not mean tax laws can be made that violate other rights and restrictions (such as religious freedom, and rights reserved to the states and the people). For example, just because the states have the right to pass laws does not mean they can pass a law "banning gay marriage" that goes too far and becomes unconstitutional.
Same with this tax law that went too far and created more authority for federal govt without amending the Constitution first (side note: if you and half the nation do not BELIEVE that a Constitutional amendment is needed first, well half the nation DOES believe that, so that is a clash of beliefs and needs to be settled instead of skirted over and letting one side dominate with their beliefs on this without the consent of the other sides' beliefs on this if BOTH beliefs are weighed equally under law for govt to be neutral)

The problem with "secular" areas of health care and "civil marriage" is they it INDIRECTLY
involves BELIEFS that are not necessarily RELIGIOUS but are still FAITH BASED; this
gets into GRAY AREAS that are BOTH belief based AND are involving govt as well.

So this crosses and blurs the lines with "separation of church and state"
where BELIEFS are involved that are inseparable from govt process.

We have never addressed POLITICAL BELIEFS specifically
and how to handle the First and Fourteenth Amendment respect for
religious freedom and nondiscrimination by creed, while at the same
time dealing with people's conflicting BELIEFS about govt that cannot be separated from govt.

We DO need to address this instead of running into the same catch-22 problems over and over
1. if one side BELIEVES in separation of church and state on an issue while the other does not
how do we separate the two beliefs from govt to be fair to both?
2. if one side BELIEVES the other sides' views constitutes a separate BELIEF that cannot be
imposed by govt, but that side does NOT BELIEVE their viewpoint constitutes a BELIEF,
what do we do? the two sides don't believe the same thing, yet both are entitled to their BELIEFS
3. in general, if one party BELIEVES in minimalizing federal govt to only what is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution while the other BELIEVES that any law can be passed to give govt any authority to do anything unless EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by law, then what do we do to respect both beliefs equally? What if BOTH sides believe their beliefs are infringed upon by the other? it seems clear to me the best way to accommodate both beliefs is to resolve the conflict where both can exercise freely without imposing on the other; and use that criteria to keep them both out of govt.

some rules I might suggest:
A. if you don't agree on political beliefs, a solution must be reached that satisfies both so THAT SOLUTION may be passed as public policy, but not either of the clashing beliefs.
B. people who want defense against discrimination must also agree not to discriminate against the creeds and beliefs of others; or else people who AGREE they want the right to reject and discriminate against certain beliefs they object to must agree to tolerate the same rejection/discrimination of their beliefs in return so it's equal.
C. people and businesses can sign mediation agreements and waivers, accepting to either resolve conflicts by consensus to avoid legal problems or expenses, or in the case disputes cannot be resolved due to differences in beliefs, the parties agree "NOT to do business together due to irreconcilable differences in beliefs" and NOT hold either side at fault for the conflicts that are mutual (instead of judging one side or the other for why their beliefs can't be resolved).

This is very very serious, sealybobo

If we cannot even agree what constitutes a valid belief, what is a creed protected by govt,
what is faith based and what is fact based, we need to address this head on.
or else we will go in circles and continue to fight battles where we don't even agree
what the terms and rules are. Very serious!!!

Half the nation believes unemployment is 50%. They believe whatever the GOP tells them.

The conservative supreme court said you are wrong. If it was liberal maybe I'd see your argument but it's not

Please provide your data on the umemployment numbers.

Half the nation does not belong to the GOP.

Bill Maher slams delusional GOP debate as he highlights Obama successes

Bill Maher described the latest Republican presidential debate as "an amazing conspiracy of delusion among the people on that stage." He said that the GOP candidates spoke about the world as if it was on fire, and the United States was in the toilet.

Republicans constantly claim that worker participation in the labor force is lower than normal. What they never add is that one of the major reasons that is the case is that baby boomers are retiring. That volume alone will be reducing participation rates for some time to come.

 

[sealybobo]

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

Dear sealybobo The taxing power cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution.
The First Amendment clearly forbids govt from being abused to establish faith-based beliefs.

Just because govt is given power to tax, does not mean tax laws can be made that violate other rights and restrictions (such as religious freedom, and rights reserved to the states and the people). For example, just because the states have the right to pass laws does not mean they can pass a law "banning gay marriage" that goes too far and becomes unconstitutional.
Same with this tax law that went too far and created more authority for federal govt without amending the Constitution first (side note: if you and half the nation do not BELIEVE that a Constitutional amendment is needed first, well half the nation DOES believe that, so that is a clash of beliefs and needs to be settled instead of skirted over and letting one side dominate with their beliefs on this without the consent of the other sides' beliefs on this if BOTH beliefs are weighed equally under law for govt to be neutral)

The problem with "secular" areas of health care and "civil marriage" is they it INDIRECTLY
involves BELIEFS that are not necessarily RELIGIOUS but are still FAITH BASED; this
gets into GRAY AREAS that are BOTH belief based AND are involving govt as well.

So this crosses and blurs the lines with "separation of church and state"
where BELIEFS are involved that are inseparable from govt process.

We have never addressed POLITICAL BELIEFS specifically
and how to handle the First and Fourteenth Amendment respect for
religious freedom and nondiscrimination by creed, while at the same
time dealing with people's conflicting BELIEFS about govt that cannot be separated from govt.

We DO need to address this instead of running into the same catch-22 problems over and over
1. if one side BELIEVES in separation of church and state on an issue while the other does not
how do we separate the two beliefs from govt to be fair to both?
2. if one side BELIEVES the other sides' views constitutes a separate BELIEF that cannot be
imposed by govt, but that side does NOT BELIEVE their viewpoint constitutes a BELIEF,
what do we do? the two sides don't believe the same thing, yet both are entitled to their BELIEFS
3. in general, if one party BELIEVES in minimalizing federal govt to only what is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution while the other BELIEVES that any law can be passed to give govt any authority to do anything unless EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by law, then what do we do to respect both beliefs equally? What if BOTH sides believe their beliefs are infringed upon by the other? it seems clear to me the best way to accommodate both beliefs is to resolve the conflict where both can exercise freely without imposing on the other; and use that criteria to keep them both out of govt.

some rules I might suggest:
A. if you don't agree on political beliefs, a solution must be reached that satisfies both so THAT SOLUTION may be passed as public policy, but not either of the clashing beliefs.
B. people who want defense against discrimination must also agree not to discriminate against the creeds and beliefs of others; or else people who AGREE they want the right to reject and discriminate against certain beliefs they object to must agree to tolerate the same rejection/discrimination of their beliefs in return so it's equal.
C. people and businesses can sign mediation agreements and waivers, accepting to either resolve conflicts by consensus to avoid legal problems or expenses, or in the case disputes cannot be resolved due to differences in beliefs, the parties agree "NOT to do business together due to irreconcilable differences in beliefs" and NOT hold either side at fault for the conflicts that are mutual (instead of judging one side or the other for why their beliefs can't be resolved).

This is very very serious, sealybobo

If we cannot even agree what constitutes a valid belief, what is a creed protected by govt,
what is faith based and what is fact based, we need to address this head on.
or else we will go in circles and continue to fight battles where we don't even agree
what the terms and rules are. Very serious!!!

Half the nation believes unemployment is 50%. They believe whatever the GOP tells them.

The conservative supreme court said you are wrong. If it was liberal maybe I'd see your argument but it's not

Please provide your data on the umemployment numbers.

Half the nation does not belong to the GOP.

Dear @Sun Devil92
You do not have to be a member of the GOP to be against the ACA mandates.
I am not a Republican but a registered Democrat.
I have friends who are Libertarian or independents who are against it.
All the Constitutionalists I know are against it, and many of them are not GOP either.

Even my friends who are prochoice progressive Greens Liberals and Democrats
are against it as 'federal govt forcing people to give money to insurance companies'

So I count those people also.
In fact, I haven't found a single person who is FOR paying the fines to federal govt.
So it's more than 50%.

I am guessing it is more like 3/4 opposed to ACA mandates.

And if you look at the percentages of transgender and gay population
who got the exercise of their beliefs protected, that is estimated
at 3-5 % (the transgender is a fraction of that).

Would you agree that the people who believe ACA violates
Constitutional principles, beliefs and ethics is
"at least" as much as the gay/transgender population who got their protections
endorsed by court?

I don't like the individual mandate either. If it were $100 a month I wouldn't mind it but I know it is more like $300 or more a month for a single person and that's ridiculous.

Insurance companies should have a catastrophic insurance only package for $100 a month. If you get hit by a car or get cancer or aids you are covered but it doesn't cover anything else. Everything else you pay out of pocket.

 

[Arianrhod]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

 

[sealybobo]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

 

[sealybobo]

And I think the penalty depends on what you make? I could be wrong but my accountant was explaining it to me. Doesn't matter to me right now because I have a sweet job. But I didn't last year in January and February so I took a hit for not having insurance those two months.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's discriminatory taxation and an affront to equal protection and rule of law. Roberts betrayed his country.

You right wing nut jobs think you know the constitution better than judges and the rest of us. Laughable.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the Obamacare tax was “incidental” to the primary purpose of the Affordable Care Act, so it isn’t a revenue-raising measure as envisioned by the Constitution.



The origination issue had been in doubt after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision two years ago saying that while Obamacare’s “individual mandate” wasn’t allowed under Congress’s powers to control interstate commerce, it was valid as an exercise of lawmakers’ taxing power.

Dear sealybobo The taxing power cannot be taken out of context with the rest of the Constitution.
The First Amendment clearly forbids govt from being abused to establish faith-based beliefs.

Just because govt is given power to tax, does not mean tax laws can be made that violate other rights and restrictions (such as religious freedom, and rights reserved to the states and the people). For example, just because the states have the right to pass laws does not mean they can pass a law "banning gay marriage" that goes too far and becomes unconstitutional.
Same with this tax law that went too far and created more authority for federal govt without amending the Constitution first (side note: if you and half the nation do not BELIEVE that a Constitutional amendment is needed first, well half the nation DOES believe that, so that is a clash of beliefs and needs to be settled instead of skirted over and letting one side dominate with their beliefs on this without the consent of the other sides' beliefs on this if BOTH beliefs are weighed equally under law for govt to be neutral)

The problem with "secular" areas of health care and "civil marriage" is they it INDIRECTLY
involves BELIEFS that are not necessarily RELIGIOUS but are still FAITH BASED; this
gets into GRAY AREAS that are BOTH belief based AND are involving govt as well.

So this crosses and blurs the lines with "separation of church and state"
where BELIEFS are involved that are inseparable from govt process.

We have never addressed POLITICAL BELIEFS specifically
and how to handle the First and Fourteenth Amendment respect for
religious freedom and nondiscrimination by creed, while at the same
time dealing with people's conflicting BELIEFS about govt that cannot be separated from govt.

We DO need to address this instead of running into the same catch-22 problems over and over
1. if one side BELIEVES in separation of church and state on an issue while the other does not
how do we separate the two beliefs from govt to be fair to both?
2. if one side BELIEVES the other sides' views constitutes a separate BELIEF that cannot be
imposed by govt, but that side does NOT BELIEVE their viewpoint constitutes a BELIEF,
what do we do? the two sides don't believe the same thing, yet both are entitled to their BELIEFS
3. in general, if one party BELIEVES in minimalizing federal govt to only what is EXPRESSLY stated in the Constitution while the other BELIEVES that any law can be passed to give govt any authority to do anything unless EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED by law, then what do we do to respect both beliefs equally? What if BOTH sides believe their beliefs are infringed upon by the other? it seems clear to me the best way to accommodate both beliefs is to resolve the conflict where both can exercise freely without imposing on the other; and use that criteria to keep them both out of govt.

some rules I might suggest:
A. if you don't agree on political beliefs, a solution must be reached that satisfies both so THAT SOLUTION may be passed as public policy, but not either of the clashing beliefs.
B. people who want defense against discrimination must also agree not to discriminate against the creeds and beliefs of others; or else people who AGREE they want the right to reject and discriminate against certain beliefs they object to must agree to tolerate the same rejection/discrimination of their beliefs in return so it's equal.
C. people and businesses can sign mediation agreements and waivers, accepting to either resolve conflicts by consensus to avoid legal problems or expenses, or in the case disputes cannot be resolved due to differences in beliefs, the parties agree "NOT to do business together due to irreconcilable differences in beliefs" and NOT hold either side at fault for the conflicts that are mutual (instead of judging one side or the other for why their beliefs can't be resolved).

This is very very serious, sealybobo

If we cannot even agree what constitutes a valid belief, what is a creed protected by govt,
what is faith based and what is fact based, we need to address this head on.
or else we will go in circles and continue to fight battles where we don't even agree
what the terms and rules are. Very serious!!!

Half the nation believes unemployment is 50%. They believe whatever the GOP tells them.

The conservative supreme court said you are wrong. If it was liberal maybe I'd see your argument but it's not

Please provide your data on the umemployment numbers.

Half the nation does not belong to the GOP.

Bill Maher slams delusional GOP debate as he highlights Obama successes

Bill Maher described the latest Republican presidential debate as "an amazing conspiracy of delusion among the people on that stage." He said that the GOP candidates spoke about the world as if it was on fire, and the United States was in the toilet.

Republicans constantly claim that worker participation in the labor force is lower than normal. What they never add is that one of the major reasons that is the case is that baby boomers are retiring. That volume alone will be reducing participation rates for some time to come.

I care about what Bill Maher says why ?

I don't need him to tell me the GOP is disorganized and stupid.

But you say half the nation believes what the GOP tells them ? How do you know that ?

 

[Arianrhod]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

I always send people here to start (it's amazing how many don't know any of the above and are afraid to check the exchanges to find out):

Subsidy Calculator Widget

 

[dblack]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

 

[Arianrhod]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

Yes, they are.

 

[dblack]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

 

[dblack]

Arianrhod - I think you're confusing subsidies with premiums.

 

[Arianrhod]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

Plug in an income of $30,000 a year, and one of $100,000 a year:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

 

[dblack]

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

Plug in an income of $30,000 a year, and one of $100,000 a year:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

That's what I figured. You don't know the difference between a premium and a subsidy.