How Is The Federal Govt Taxing People Un-Constitutional? Don't Want To Pay For Insurance? DON'T

[KittyWampus]

You will then pay a Federal TAX/FINE.

Americans do have a choice. You may not LIKE the choice, but it's there.

[Deep13]

1. A tax is a law requiring people to pay the government.

This is a law requiring people to pay a corporation.

[WeekendWarrior]

2. I'm required by law to pay a corporation every six months

It's called car insurance.

[Deep13]

4. Yeah, for driving not for living. nt

[berni_mccoy]

6. Driving is a necessity for some.

Actually, it's a necessity for most. Only those who live within areas that have Public Transportation have an option of not driving.

[Fumesucker]

13. Did you choose where you live?

Or did the government force you to buy or rent in the place you currently live?

[berni_mccoy]

15. Most people live where they grew up or where work takes them.

It's really not a choice. The fact that you argue that it is shows how weak your point is. Ask any American if driving is an option.

[Fumesucker]

20. There are lots of Americans that don't drive..

And not all of them live in areas with public transportation.

The legally blind don't drive and neither do a great many people with seizure disorders, just for two examples.

[berni_mccoy]

63. The fact that most cannot means it's not optional.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. "Ask any American if driving is an option"--actually, youre aware of commonlaw rights of ped, right?

See, the only reason pedestrians and bicyclists have any rights in this country is because of ancient legal precedent regarding the ownership and definition of the PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. Thus, driving is a practical requirement for many because of goegraphy, the opposite of the legal requirement some people seem to construe (including people in my supposedly liberal, very transit friendly suburb who once fenced off a major shopping area, said there were too many pedestrians, too many immigrants who didn't know how to drive and used the bus system -- they proposed a uniform drivers ID be required for all immigrants legal and illegal to ensure all those people would be on the roads in a car instead of trying to cross the road on foot) -- all of which is to point out the problem with construing a legal obligation out of a practical one. See, I could claim you are legally obliged to vote a certain way because you really have no choice, there being no other decent option! Some have actually used that argument to advance ballot access restrictions, claiming that democracy is "a two party system by design". Slippery legal argument.

[berni_mccoy]

64. It's not a legal argument. It's reality.

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. Then it has no bearing on a discussion. Peer pressure does not make law.

If I want to paint my house pink, the HOA can't arrest me for it on the basis that I am decreasing their property values and thereby hurting the majority economically. But if you believe in majoritarian, utilitarian political science, feel free. You have a whole party advocating your beliefs these days. The same people who say "don't like it? shop at Whole Foods." to people who criticize the government-funded demolition of small shops to make way for big box stores like Wal-Mart.

[laughingliberal]

105. "Reality" is many people draw breath & are counted as alive without a car every day

I know of no one without a body we can say the same for.

[laughingliberal]

104. Still it's really a question of lifestyle, not life

I lived without a car until I'd been out of nursing school more than a year. It wasn't fun but it didn't kill me. Giving up my body likely would.

It really is a choice.

[WeekendWarrior]

17. Do you choose what country you get healthcare in?

Or is the government forcing you to stay in the US?

That argument REEKS of Republicanthink. So don't even bother making it.

[laughingliberal]

101. Giving up driving would alter their lifestyle, Giving up their body, a little more serious.

No one says your life must be convenient which is what driving comes down to.

[Fumesucker]

11. You are required by law to own a car?

I did not know that.

/Johnny Carson

[KittyWampus]

16. You are required by law to pay Federal Taxes. Don't want to "buy" Insurance, pay the tax.

[Fumesucker]

21. I am required by law to own a body?

I did not know that.

/Johnny Carson

[Leopolds Ghost]

33. The rights of the people are reserved to the people, not just those enumerated in const.

They include umbrella right to privacy concerning ones private health care decisions. QED.

Single Payer works because it is the polis CHOOSING to provide coverage to everyone.

That's the only way a TAX can be equitable.

See, you claim mandates are the only way a PREEXISTING COVERAGE POOL can be equitable.

See how your argument cuts both ways against you as well?

[Statistical]

61. The govt ability to collect income taxes comes from 16th amendment.

Where is the amendment that allows collection of taxes based on insurance status.

Prior to 16th the govt had no ability to collect direct taxes which were not apportioned by state population.

All power the federal govt has must be delegated. Where does this power to tax "lack of healthcare" come from? Without delegated power that power is reserved by the States and the people.

[WeekendWarrior]

22. I'm required to own a car in order to survive

and the government insists I pay insurance in order to do that.

It would be nice if I didn't have to own a car, I don't particularly like driving, but I have no choice -- because, you see, I live in the REAL world, which, apparently, is a fantasy to you.

[Fumesucker]

23. There are lots of Americans that don't own a car..

So no, you aren't required to own a car to survive..

[WeekendWarrior]

27. As I said, I live in the REAL WORLD.

Most Americans need a car, just as every American needs healthcare.

Your argument is getting tiring. It is completely divorced from MOST people's day to day reality. The ONLY argument against this bill I've heard you guys spew is the mandate. Is that really all you've got?

[Fumesucker]

29. And the Americans that don't own cars don't live in the real world?

I did not know that.

/Johnny Carson.

[WeekendWarrior]

32. But don't they NEED healthcare? And doesn't healthcare cost money?

So what ever way you slice it, you'll either pay the mandate or you'll pay taxes -- NO MATTER what healthcare plan is implemented. Right now you're MANDATED to pay into Medicare with your taxes. Even if you CHOOSE not to have health insurance, you'll still pay into national healthcare through Medicare. THAT's a mandate.

Seriously, you are so divorced from reality it's just amazing to me.

[Fumesucker]

34. If I pay the tax I still don't get health insurance..

And health insurance still does not automatically mean I get health care.

[WeekendWarrior]

37. Then PAY the fucking mandate -- what do you think it is?

It's no different than paying your taxes for Medicare.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. We need you going out there and telling the uninsured this.

That would be the ticket to getting this bill overhauled. People would definitely "respond" to your approach.

[Fumesucker]

45. Medicare is a private corporation?

I did not know that either..

/Johnny Carson

[Sebastian Doyle]

114. It will be when the Emanuel brothers get through with it.

And the same people trying to justify corporate mandates now, will think that's just fine too. :puke:

[laughingliberal]

109. Like hell it isn't. Medicare spends 96% of the money they take in on paying claims to provide health

care.

Two casinos in town. One is know to have slots that are set for 96% payouts. The other is know to set the percentage payouts at 85% and they skim that one whenever they can. Guess where I'm going to spend my money?

[laughingliberal]

108. They do need healthcare. And they deserved better than to have to obtain it from a system that

overcharges and uses a lot of the money they get for purposes other than providing them with care.

[laughingliberal]

107. Most Americans need a car to maintain a lifestyle they choose and prefer

and your view of the REAL WORLD reveals much about why you don't understand why some people will have trouble with the additional costs of this in their life.

MOST people are those you see in your world who have resources and decent incomes and the ability to maintain an automobile. But there is a whole world of people right here in America who don't live in that world. The Democratic party was once the one who worked to help lift those people up.

[grahamhgreen]

48. I don't own a car! Keeps me happy, healthy and fit! My govt auto insurance in Australia was $25/yr

Why - because they have single payer - so you only have to cover the vehicle.

Private insurance is a selfish scam.

[laughingliberal]

106. No. You are required to own a car to survive in a lifestyle you prefer. nt

[kctim]

19. No, you are not

you AGREE to pay a corporation every six months for the priviledge to drive on govt roads. You're example is only valid IF it were law that you must pay a private corporation to drive on their roads.

[WeekendWarrior]

24. No, I don't agree to pay the insurance. I HAVE to pay it

by mandate, because I have no choice but to drive a car if I want to get to my place of work.

Now you can say, get a new job or go to a new state or whatever -- but that's RIGHT WING THINKING. So when you tell me that, all I hear are echoes of right wingers saying, "america, love it or leave it."

In the REAL world, people have to own cars to survive and we are forced to pay insurance in order to do that.

[kctim]

50. You do NOT have to pay it

by mandate. The federal government does not keep tabs on whether you have auto insurance or not and you are NOT penalized for NOT having auto insurance.

Simply dismissing choices as "right wing thinking" does not automatically negate them as choices. Hell, even carpooling is a choice. Is that less pollution, use less oil, protect the environment also dismissed as "right wing thinking?" I wonder if govt would fine me for doctor pooling? You know, where I just jump on the policy of somebody who does pay for health insurance?
Of course they would fine me, because unlike auto insurance, I have no choice.

[smirkymonkey]

80. Wait, I've lived in Boston, Vienna (Austria), San Francisco and

now New York and I have never needed a car. Are you saying everyone who lives in those cities (and many others where people can get around walking or using public transport) don't live in the REAL WORLD? I have managed to survive quite nicely without a car and would never choose to have one. What rock are you living under?

[Romulox]

26. I'm sure somebody has pointed out to you that car insurance is mandated by the STATES, not the Feds.

Little details like that make a difference.

[951-Riverside]

52. The government owns the roads you drive on this is why they can force you to buy car insurance

but they do not own you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. Actually, the foundations are even more civil libertarian than that. Roads are public commonwealth

They are public right-of-way, not property, and the government is charged with administering for public access -- pedestrians (bodily) primarily, all other users secondarily -- except in the case of federal freeways, which are classified as national defense in origin. Of course, this has been watered down to the point where well meaning pseudo-progressives in most jurisdictions think it is "beneficial to pedestrians" to give them access to a bridge here and there. But you can't be arrested for walking in a public right-of-way that has no sidewalk! Nor can you be detained without cause, e.g. asked to see your health insurance papers, ID, or $5 in your pocket to prove you aren't a vagrant. This was based on centuries of common-law designed to break down abuses of the "king's highway" in Europe.

[Statistical]

57. Not by federal govt. Read up on delegated vs. Reserved powers.

Limits on state/local powers are less restrictive than Federal powers.

[sabrina 1]

89. Sorry, but that talking point re auto insurance has been debunked

so often I'm surprised to see it repeated again.

You can live without a car, many people do.

You have a choice regarding owning a car. You cannot get rid of your body, unless you die.

There is simply no comparison between a person's right to live and the ownership of a car.

Some things are 'inalienable' rights, like the right to live. Owning a car doesn't fall into that category.

[Unvanguard]

3. The point is that the "penalty" is simply a tax. So it is no different from any other tax deduction.

And should be viewed as such.

[Deep13]

5. That could be true. nt

[tomber]

7. what is it a tax on?

Can you impose a tax on something that people don't buy?

[KittyWampus]

9. Do you understand what money take out of your paycheck for Social Security is?

Do you even understand that if there WAS Single Payer, the Govt would be taking out money?

[tomber]

14. SS

is a service I am paying for. Yes, if single payer was implemented it would be paid for with taxes and I would be paying taxes on that service. This "tax" for not buying insurance is a tax on nothing because you are provided nothing for it.

[laughingliberal]

110. We all understand that. We also understand Medicare operates with 4% overhead

I don't mind paying taxes to provide health care. I mind having to overpay to companies with bloated executive compensation and shareholder dividends.

[Romulox]

28. The gov't can't use its taxing power, e.g., to discriminate on the basis of race...

The taxing power must be used in a way that does not violate other portions of the Constitution.

[KittyWampus]

36. it certainly discriminates on basis of bearing children.

[Romulox]

41. There's no Constitutional prohibition against that. A racially discriminatory poll tax isn't saved

from Unconstitutionality by characterization as a "tax"--the 15th and 24th Amendments forbid it. The Congress cannot accomplish what is plainly Unconstitutional by playing word games!

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. Yeah, but taxation that encourages homeownership and such -- first of all, those are deductions

Not fines.

Second of all, they're often terrible and/or ineffective policy.

[Unvanguard]

53. But it can be used to promote certain behaviors for the general welfare.

And already is.

[Romulox]

55. Actually, be careful of the phrase "general welfare"--it doesn't independently add any poiwer

to the Federal government, and, due to technical reasons*, tends to confuse things.


*The Federal Government specifically does not possess a general so-called police power, defined as powers which "relate to the safety, health, morals and general welfare of the public."

[Unvanguard]

56. Again, tax deductions are used for all kinds of social purposes right now.

There is no reason to believe that this particular use is problematic.

[Romulox]

65. But the Congress may not achieve an Unconstitutional goal through its taxing power...

So the argument is circular; either it is Constitutional for the Congress to mandate Americans buy consumer products, or it is not. The taxing power will not save the practice from Unconstitutionality.

[Unvanguard]

66. And there is nothing unconstitutional about promoting socially-beneficial uses of money.

Compare, e.g., tax deductions for charitable donations.

For provisions like the tax power, it is unconstitutional only if it violates some independent constitutional provision, not merely if no other provision explicitly authorizes it. There is no explicit constitutional authorization for any tax deduction, or for the vast majority of things that our taxes pay for, for that matter.

[Romulox]

67. Now the argument has become that insurance profits are "socially beneficial"?

Because not even the President has dared make that argument--he argues that insurer's interests are being promoted at the expense of the public merely because it is politically expedient to do so. He assures us that he would prefer Single Payer...

"For provisions like the tax power, it is unconstitutional only if it violates some independent constitutional provision, not merely if no other provision explicitly authorizes it. "


Again, you're engaging in a circular argument. Nobody is arguing that the taxing power may save an otherwise Unconstitutional law but you! We're right back at the question of whether the US Government may compel a person to purchase a product from a private entity. And if so, what is the basis of this power? To say that the Government may tax simply doesn't answer these questions, since compelling purchase from a private entity is not a "tax". So the question is, not "may the government tax", but, "may the government use its power to tax to compel a purchase from a private entity?".

[Unvanguard]

68. That argument is either disingenuous or foolish.

The point of the mandate is not to increase insurance industry profits; it is to solve the adverse selection problem in the context of an insurance market that no longer is permitted to exclude high-risk individuals. Without it, insurance premiums would go way up as low-risk people left the pool. Plenty of progressives, ranging from Paul Krugman to Noam Chomsky, recognize this basic fact.

I'm not saying that the tax power can save an otherwise unconstitutional law. The problem with your argument is that no provision of the Constitution actually makes the mandate unconstitutional. The tax power merely provides for its authorization; it does not need to save it from a non-existent threat.

[Romulox]

69. Ad homs generally signal the end of the rhetorical line...

"The point of the mandate is not to increase insurance industry profits"

That is not relevant, really. The question remains: may the Federal Government compel the purchase of a product from private entity?

"The problem with your argument is that no provision of the Constitution actually makes the mandate unconstitutional"

I didn't realize I was discussing this matter with someone who doesn't understand how the Constitution works. To be brief, the Federal Government needs an affirmative grant of power to act--to say that its every action may be justified as an expression of its power to "tax", even when, as here, the primary behavior involved (namely, compelling the purchase of private insurance,) is not an activity designed to raise revenue for the government coffers, simply doesn't answer any relevant question.

Or, long story short: Yes, everybody agrees the Congress has the right to tax. The question is whether the Congress has the power to force people to buy products from private companies. If they do, that power is not likely derived from Congress' power to tax, but rather from its power to regulate Commerce. :hi:

[Unvanguard]

70. Again, your narrow reading of the tax power is at odds with the fact of tax deductions.

We are going in circles. Until you respond to that point, I see no reason to go any further.

[Romulox]

72. You can cite no precedent for the Federal Gov't's alleged power to compel purchase of a product.

So it's your reading that is calling for an expansion of existing doctrine. :hi:

[Unvanguard]

83. The federal government is not "compel[ling]" anything.

It is incentivizing the purchase of insurance--just as it incentivizes already employers purchasing insurance, as well as individuals giving to charity and purchasing homes.

If the idea here were to compel, the tax penalty would not be a fraction of the cost of insurance.

[Romulox]

84. The difference between your analysis and mine is that I have questions...

You have answers which ultimately can only be provided by courts. Characterizing a penalty as a tax, or compulsion as an incentive, for example, doesn't really get at the meat of the matter. We all know what the government wants to do: to whit--force us all to buy health insurance. The legal question is: may it?

It can't be disposed of presto change-o by the saying of a few magic words like "tax" or "incentive". The Justices will look at the question in full context (including the consequences for existing and future jurisprudence), should a case ever make it to them.

[Thothmes]

86. It is not a tax. If is a financial penalty for not having procured

health insurance. It will not be deductable

[KittyWampus]

8. the money would go to the Government.

[kctim]

10. And the government

would use it on what?

[Fumesucker]

12. Perks for Congresscritters? n/t

[KittyWampus]

18. that is up to Congress. Remember?

[kctim]

39. Such as

using it to pay for the same insurance you are paying a fine to not use.
There is no choice.

[Winterblues]

46. Unless you choose not to. Then you will be taxed by the Government

through the IRS as either penalty or incentive however you choose to look at it. You do not have to purchase insurance...You will not go to jail if you do not..

[Junkdrawer]

25. Having it both ways....

Use the phrase "Mandate" to scare people into buying health insurance....


Use the phrase "Tax Deduction" when justifying the legality of the new law....

[Romulox]

30. The whole thing is a triangulated mess; if the private sector was the key to HCR, we'd have utopia

already--anybody who wants insurance is free to purchase it, without the government forcing anybody to do anything. The problem being, the insurers want a minimum guaranteed profit margin (20%). This bill gives it to them.

[Junkdrawer]

35. Yep. And the more details I read, the worse it gets. For example: Health Care Reform and Walmart...

http://www.ufcw.org/docUploads/WalmartEmployerResponsibility%20-%20FINAL.pdf?CFID=9096217&CFTOKEN=77997717

[laughingliberal]

60. Walmart was well on board with this and said as much

They were afraid of facing a real employer mandate. They openly said the fine they'll pay for not covering people who wind up with a subsidy or on Medicaid was good by them.

[kenny blankenship]

76. Obeying the law is purely voluntary, apparently

I didn't know it either until now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. "Tax/FINE" -- make up your mind. Oh, and nice argument about choice.

Like the ones highway advocates use to say Americans can choose to walk on the public right of way and get killed if they want, their rights are in no way abrogated by lack of sidewalks or enforcement of anti-loitering "on foot and not from around here" laws.

[Matariki]

38. It's called a poll tax

and it's covered by the 24th Amendment. Look it up.

[beardown]

44. You don't have to drive 30 mph in a 30 mph zone.

You can choose to pay the speeding ticket.

A large part of auto insurance is to pay for liability to other drivers on the road that you may inflict damages upon.

Basically, a cut and paste of my post from yesterday.

Sorry folks, while there are some similarities, mandating citizens to buy health insurance from private corporations that were a major factor in creating the mess in the first place is a new threshold. Seeing as how the Constitution has been discarded and marginalized over the last several years I don't see it as a constitutional problem, but it is a new level of control being exercised by the federal government.

[grahamhgreen]

47. It's NOT a tax - read the bill. It's a "penalty" - FOR BEING ALIVE!

[onenote]

73. you do realize that money is a fungible commodity, right?

Call it a tax, a penalty, a fee -- its all the same. Its a mandated payment to the government. Now, like other taxes, fees, penalties that are payable to the government, this one comes with exceptions and limitations -- you can avoid paying this tax/penalty/fee to the government by engaging in certain behavior -- namely purchasing health insurance.

You don't want to do that? Okay, then pay a tax/penalty/fee to the government. From a fiscal standpoint -- and a constitutional one -- its no different than the government raising everyone's taxes by some amount (capped based on income) and then providing a credit equal to that increase for engaging in some behavior, like purchasing a hybrid car or energy efficient windows. The bottom line is the same -- the amount that you owe the government will go down if you purchase a product that the government has decided that it is in society's interest to promote. The fact that most people will choose the tax benefit of having health insurance over the cost of paying the tax/fee/penalty doesn't make it appreciably (or constitutionally) different than the tax credit for buying a hybrid that most people choose not to take (meaning that most people pay more taxes than they would if only they bought a certain governmentally favored product).

I have no problem with those that characterize the individual mandate as a tax increase because that is what it is. But tax increases, imposed on those who pay income tax and calculated as a percentage of income, aren't unconstitutional.

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. Incorrect. Federal taxes are income-based. The govt does not impose a $750 surcharge on all citizens

To encourage hybrid vehicles.

When the gov't did so, it produced the French and American Revolution. It was called monarchism and mercantilism.

[onenote]

49. exactly right

The law gives you a choice. You can buy insurance and pay less in taxes than you otherwise would. Or you can forego insurance and pay a higher tax. Its your choice.

Its really not, at least from a constitutional perspective, any different than the government providing a tax break to those who purchase hybrid cars. If you don't purchase a hybrid car, your taxes are higher than they would be if you did purchase one. If you don't purchase health insurance, your taxes are higher than they would be if you did purchase it.

[951-Riverside]

51. "Americans do have a choice" ...I just love DU'ers who spew this talking point

If someone stuck a gun in your face and said "Your money or your life" would you consider that a choice?

Under this bill you would have a choice to either pay high taxes or pay a corrupt for profit industry. There is a difference between having a choice and being forced to choose.

[Ikonoklast]

88. Where do you currently get your healthcare from?

I'm curious.

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. Do you have a choice when negotiating the cost of your Insurance plan? I am serious.

If you said no, then you're basically saying Insurance is not a commodity, there is no freedom of contract. It is a serfdom relationship.

Did you know the origins of 1,000 years of serfdom lie in Roman tax-law precedent, a late change to the Roman tax code on debt collection?

[csziggy]

54. Are the AGs who are suing the Federal government to stop this

Going to stop distribution of Medicare in their states? That is federally "taxed" medical care. How is this different?

[Statistical]

82. You really don't know the difference?

Someone paying FICA gets a benefit = Medicare when they are older.
Someone paying the healthcare tax gets nothing (except a lighter wallet).

Funds collected by mandating Medicare provide for the common good.
Funds collected by mandating private insurance make insurance shareholders richer (not the common good).

[laughingliberal]

58. I doubt it will be found unconstitutional

I just think they could have gotten us better value for our money.

[Statistical]

59. Not true. It is an illegal tax.

Prior to 16th amendment the govt has no ability to levy direct taxes that were not aportioned. The 16th amendment expanded that to include income taxes. The amendment is very clear it is an expansion of federal govt to tax income not tax status of health insurance.

The govt ability to tax is not unlimited. There are plenty of court cases to back that up. Don't try to say it is an excise tax either because that is plain silly. Excise taxes are on object not lack of objects. There is an excise tax on firearms. There is no tax on everyone lacking a firearm.

[onenote]

71. if its not a tax on income how come its calculated as a percentage of income?

[Statistical]

75. So a tax on blacks (based on income) would also qualify as an "income tax" and not a "black tax"

Please.

It is a tax on not having healthcare. Just because the tax/fine escalates with income doesn't make it an income tax.

In Finland speeding tickets are based on of % of income. Does that mean speeding tickets are an income tax?
Of course not. They are a punitive fine.

[onenote]

78. so if I have this right, your position is that it would be unconstitutional

for the government to raise taxes by an amount that ranged from $695 to 2.5 percent of income, depending on total income, and at the same time create a new tax credit (equal to the amount of the new tax increase) for anyone who can establish that they haven't gotten a speeding ticket in the past year.

[Xithras]

79. Ironically, THAT would be legal. But it's not what they did.

An across the board 2.5% tax increase for all citizens, coupled with a refundable credit of up to 2.5% for health care coverage, would have been perfectly acceptable and legal within the current tax system.

That's not what they did. Instead, they levied a targeted tax based on the lack of an event. There is no legal basis for them doing that. Income taxes can be applied however they want, but all other taxes must be apportioned and applied equally to everyone. The federal government can't say "You pay this tax, but that guy doesn't."

[Statistical]

81. That may be Constitutional (then again I don't sit on SCOTUS).

It further crapifies our taxcode and I think it is a bad idea however it likely would be Constitutional. Target tax breaks have never be found to be Unconstitutional.

The minor but key difference is either portion of that change change could be repealed by future legislation.

Despite passing them together you are essentially doing two distinct things:
a) raising marginal tax rates for various tax brackets
b) creating new deduction.

Either portion could be modified or repealed by future Congress.

Congress could have done that for the healthcare tax but didn't. They likely felt it would never be challenged plus they didn't want to be labeled as raising taxes (despite fact that most Americans will get credit and thus real taxes will not rise).

It is possible a tax break could be Unconstitutional depending on if it violates equal protection principles (for example tax break for Caucasians or Christians) it simply hasn't been tried/challenged. At least not as far as I know.

[Xenotime]

62. They have a choice to leave the country too.

[laughingliberal]

94. Not strictly true

In order to leave we must find a country who will take us. Alas, I waited too long and was 45 when I looked into it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. Oh the irony.

"If you don't like it, leave." You have no permission to leave.

"If you don't want to pay your health insurance, die." Assisted suicide is illegal.

[laughingliberal]

111. We're pretty well enslaved. nt

[cbdo2007]

74. The people complaining don't seem to know where health care costs come from.

They think it's all a big conspiracy and the rates are all made up.

The reality of it is that the reason health care and health insurance are so expensive in our country is because you can get health care for free by NOT having health insurance. You can go to the ER, give them a fake name, get $5,000 worth of stuff done and then get up and walk out.

Then do you know who pays for that? I do. You do. We all do! except for that person who got the care done and left. It's paid for in our taxes when the Hospital writes off the loss, it's paid for in our own health care by raising costs to make up for these people not paying, and it's paid for in our own health insurance premiums (see previous reason regarding high health costs).

Making people pay a fine for not having health insurance will lower costs for everyone who DOES have health insurance and who does get health care. Not to mention that it will encourage people to get health insurance (which the govt is pretty much going to pay for for them) which will then encourage them to go to the doctor which will save thousands of lives.

[kenny blankenship]

77. Yeah Welfare Queens! They're why everything has gone wrong in this country!

And you know they caused the housing crash too, right? I just knew insurance companies were blameless. And damn those unionized workers with their Cadillac plans as just as bad.

They're all going to be put back in their place.

[laughingliberal]

92. Indeed.

I wish when the Reagan Democrats came home they hadn't brought Reagan with them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. According to many affluent Dems I know, welfare queens DID burst the housing bubble.

Giving them access to purchase houses at inflated rates on bubble mortgages "created the problem" that burst the bubble, according to them. They believe their homes are naturally supposed to be at these inflated rates because they live in the nation's capital, which is supposed to be a haven for rich policy wonks like them. Hence, people who can't afford to buy and try to do so anyway are "living beyond their means". Welfare Cadillac!

[laughingliberal]

112. I'm well aware the people who bought houses during the bubble are taking the fall for the crash in

the minds of many. So much easier that way. I mean if we had to hold the institutions that stole our money and still have it accountable we might have to actually start to organize and work together and all kinds of hard stuff that citizens in other countries do in order to not be slaves to predatory capitalists.

As I said, when the 'Reagan Democrats' came home they shouldn't have brought Reagan with them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. cbdo, where did you learn welfare queens were conspiring to drive the cost of your care up?

[laughingliberal]

96. I know that every other country manages to cover their citizens for a lot less per capita

which tells me the difference here comes from executive salaries and shareholder dividends. I'm not sure people are as angry about the mandate as they are about the Democrats not trying to get us a little more value for what we spend. Remember Perot? He was a little nutty but he was dead on when he told us, regarding health care, that we paid for a Cadillac and got a Pinto. And that did not change with this bill.

Two choices: if I'm going to pay for a Cadillac, I want to drive a Cadillac; if I'm getting a Pinto, I want a Pinto price.

And the government is not going to pay the health insurance for 'them.' Some people will have subsidies to pay a percentage. Those over 400% of FPL will be responsible for the full premium and all out of pocket expenses.

[Matariki]

85. Educate yourself. Look up 'poll tax' and try to understand what it is

and why it's prohibited by The Constitution.

And do you *really* think having the IRS acting as enforcement for a private industry is a good idea?

[upi402]

87. Yeah, unfortunatley it's a terible presedent, they have a good case

I wonder how that terrible mandate will be undone for us;-) :evilgrin:

[Matariki]

98. You keep pushing this idiocy.

Having the government collect a fine for not purchasing something from a private business is a TERRIBLE idea. A terrible idea that will hopfully be overturned.

Your attitude is bizarre. "Don't want to buy this crappy product? Okay, we'll fine you". That's insane.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. But it'll make the product less crappy because suppliers will know everyone must buy their product.

It worked for Detroit for decades before the Japanese came along and mucked everything up.

It worked for Standard Oil and the trusts.

And as we all know, trusts are back in style.

[Greyhound]

102. Look up the meaning of the words, 'purposely' and 'obtuse'.

then you may return to...

[Sebastian Doyle]

113. Wasn't there a revolution started once over taxation without representation?

Now I realize there are clearly some people on this board who are represented by insurance corporations, but I do not fall into that category. So I will pay no TAX that goes to support those criminal pieces of shit.

[dashrif]

115. I dare

them to make me they can stand in line and kiss my red cdib card carrying ass

[Kablooie]

116. Or you could frame it that those who have insurance get a tax reduction.