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

[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?

 

[WillowTree]

did you vote for obamalama? and did you not know this was coming down the pike?

 

[Oldandtired]

did you vote for obamalama? and did you not know this was coming down the pike?

lmao....no...I did not vote for Obama. He was never a consideration...especially when he admitted to be a liar and rationalized it by saying he had to lie for political expediency.

Besides...as a true conservative...there was no one worthy of my vote.....but McCain got it out of concern for what will happen if Obama were elected.

ANd now look where we are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

It's not that historic, cause Mitt Romney already did it in Massachusetts. But still, I don't agree with it.

Also, there are plenty of built-into-being-human costs that start the moment you are born. Born in a hospital? Already medical bills. Born at home? Someone's gotta pay the rent.

 

[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?

It's not that historic, cause Mitt Romney already did it in Massachusetts. But still, I don't agree with it.

Also, there are plenty of built-into-being-human costs that start the moment you are born. Born in a hospital? Already medical bills. Born at home? Someone's gotta pay the rent.

No....none of those are government mandated.....those are costs OTHERS incur to have you as a child.

But you, as a newborn, will be mandted by law to either buy insurance or pay the fine....and yes...others will pay it for you....but it is a mandate on YOU.

As for Romeny....you had the option to move to another state.....

Now it will be ....pay or move to another country

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

It's not that historic, cause Mitt Romney already did it in Massachusetts. But still, I don't agree with it.

Also, there are plenty of built-into-being-human costs that start the moment you are born. Born in a hospital? Already medical bills. Born at home? Someone's gotta pay the rent.

No....none of those are government mandated.....those are costs OTHERS incur to have you as a child.

But you, as a newborn, will be mandted by law to either buy insurance or pay the fine....and yes...others will pay it for you....but it is a mandate on YOU.

First of all, I've yet to see any text of a bill that would have this "penalty" in it.
Second, I would imagine that the mandate would apply to parents, until the child is 18.

As for Romeny....you had the option to move to another state.....

Now it will be ....pay or move to another country

Where, odds are, healthcare will be free.

EDIT TO ADD: I do NOT support this penalty. Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[Oldandtired]

It's not that historic, cause Mitt Romney already did it in Massachusetts. But still, I don't agree with it.

Also, there are plenty of built-into-being-human costs that start the moment you are born. Born in a hospital? Already medical bills. Born at home? Someone's gotta pay the rent.

No....none of those are government mandated.....those are costs OTHERS incur to have you as a child.

But you, as a newborn, will be mandted by law to either buy insurance or pay the fine....and yes...others will pay it for you....but it is a mandate on YOU.

First of all, I've yet to see any text of a bill that would have this "penalty" in it.
Second, I would imagine that the mandate would apply to parents, until the child is 18.

As for Romeny....you had the option to move to another state.....

Now it will be ....pay or move to another country

Where, odds are, healthcare will be free.

EDIT TO ADD: I do NOT support this penalty. Just playing devil's advocate.

Yes...as for the 18 thing...yes...but it is a mandate on YOU at the age of one second....very unusual.

A bit eerie.

 

[Oldandtired]

Put it this way...

This will be the first time (if enacted) that the government is MANDATING that you buy something.

Now beofre you say "what about auto insurance"....that is not a fair comparison. I can opt NOT to own a car.....

but the second one is born, if that person is to live in the US he or she MUST either purchase health insurance, pay a fine, or move out of the country.

It is very eerrie and very concerning that anyone even thought of it to begin with.

 

[Fatality]

obama wants to make sure the evil insurance companies have an endless revenue stream. the insurance industry supports the mandate.

 

[Xenophon]

I have heard that if they pass this it will be challenged on constitutional grounds, but I have no idea how.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have heard that if they pass this it will be challenged on constitutional grounds, but I have no idea how.

The Federal Government has no power to enact this. That is how. Check out the Constitution and find in it where the federal Government can force people to buy ANYTHING. Find where it can tax us for not having health Insurance.

There is no such clause. They want this? Make a fucking amendment and pass it.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Excellent insight

 

[Big Black Dog]

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?

This is the kind of bullshit laws liberal Democraps are famous for. Tell me the logic in this? If somebody doesn't have health insurance because they can't afford it, how is taxing them going to help them afford to buy it? What's the logic in this? I'd love to see some of those loud-mouth Obama supporters on this board explain this logic to me.

 

[alan1]

I have heard that if they pass this it will be challenged on constitutional grounds, but I have no idea how.

The Federal Government has no power to enact this. That is how. Check out the Constitution and find in it where the federal Government can force people to buy ANYTHING. Find where it can tax us for not having health Insurance.

There is no such clause. They want this? Make a fucking amendment and pass it.

If they pass it, I may just be tempted to drop the insurance I have.

 

[The Rabbi]

As for Romeny....you had the option to move to another state.....

Now it will be ....pay or move to another country

Where, odds are, healthcare will be free.
[/QUOTE]

ARRGGHHHH.
Healthcare is NEVER free! There is no free lunch. There is no free college education. There is no free paid vacation. SOMEONE has to pay for it. That someone is a productive member of society. Taxing him amounts to taking from the productive and giving it to the unproductive. If it goes on long enough there will be no productive people left.

The tax (and it is a tax, its called a tax in the bill and will be administered by the IRS) is unconstitutional and will be challenged on those grounds.
It isn't a tax on income. It isn't a tax on wealth. It isn't a tax on buying something. So what it is, and how do they have the power to tax it?

 

[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?

It's not that historic, cause Mitt Romney already did it in Massachusetts. But still, I don't agree with it.

Also, there are plenty of built-into-being-human costs that start the moment you are born. Born in a hospital? Already medical bills. Born at home? Someone's gotta pay the rent.

No....none of those are government mandated.....those are costs OTHERS incur to have you as a child.

But you, as a newborn, will be mandted by law to either buy insurance or pay the fine....and yes...others will pay it for you....but it is a mandate on YOU.

As for Romeny....you had the option to move to another state.....

Now it will be ....pay or move to another country

I really don't think newborns will be required to pay for their own insurance-the parents will be required to pay for them.

BEING A CONSERVATIVE MYSELF--this policy is about the only thing I agree with.

I have mentioned before that we are required to pay for auto liability insurance. This insurance protects the person whose property was damaged or personal injury by another who was culpable in an accident.

Now ask youself--what happens when an uninsured person goes to our emergency rooms. We are not protected & we end up flipping the bill for them. Therefore--this uninsured person commits personal financial havoc on all of us.

So yes--fine people who are capable of buying medical insurance & chose not to get it--because their car stereo is more important to them.

 

[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.

 

[garyd]

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?

 

[oreo]

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.

 

[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?