Health Care Law is a tax

I am finding out more about how the judicial system works right now with something personal I am going through. My attorney is showing me examples of previous cases he will be using to prove a point. It can help a prosecutor or defense attorney prove a point in a civil or criminal case. I do not see how this is any different, other than it would hold even more ground being it was the highest court in the land that made the ruling. I would be absolutely astonished if within 10 to 20 years this is not used to help create another mandate of some sort that punishes someone for not buying something.

Like I said, I am not trying to play politics and strictly go with the "I hate Obama" crowd, but I think that the ruling opened a new door for D.C. to abuse.

Cone_Junky wrote: In reply to ThePhranc: So your saying that if you needed a heart transplant and couldn't afford to pay cash for it you would just tell the Doc "No thanks"? I have a feeling your attitude would change on your death bed. Just sayin...

I wouldn't do it. I have no issues with dying. Been close enough before.

Brett_Murphy wrote:

As usual, The Onion says it best.

Beer Baron wrote: In reply to Anti-stance: I do not see this as a slippery slope.

My problem with this was Robert's opinion.

The Mandate is Unconstitutional, but if we just say it's a TAX, then it's OK, but the Dem's and Obama campaigned for it the entire time saying it wasn't it a tax.

As has been said, it does nothing about costs while adding people and money to a broken system.

Great job Congress.

i may be scared.... not sure yet.

Hey look a "discussion" about health care and I'm not involved

ddavidv wrote: Okay, I tried this on another forum and it quickly devolved into stupidity, but I have higher expectations from this crowd. How do we fix healthcare? Without reciting a political talking point, I want to know what it will take to fix this overpriced system we have, regardless if it's government run or not. Make your argument; bring the tech. I've developed a theory of my own, but I'll shelve it for the time being to see what you all come up with. Sell it. And if you disagree with an idea, don't dismiss it with a snarky comment; explain WHY it won't work.

Tax breaks for cash operations which have a restaurant-like menu.

There are 13-20 million people in this country illegally who don't pay for food, taxes, healthcare, cell phones, or heat in the winter, and then we give them a $500 "earned income" tax credit so they can put gas in their $40,000 dually quad cab pickups. School busses don't run on weekends. Fill them with 80 people a crack and run them non-stop back to the border.

You can't fix healthcare without fixing medicare/medicaid. Wealthy and old? I don't give a berkeley how much you "paid in," it's a safety net for people who can't afford it, pay with your own goddamned money, daddy warbucks.

Lower income cutoffs for medicaid, and reward employees who report fraud, rather than rewarding counties with more medicaid recipients by giving them more money.

On that note, don't get it backwards. Democrats want more poor people on the tit, as that's their voting base. Republicans want you to make lots of money so you can take care of yourself.

Want less poor people sucking on the tit? Make being poor SUCK. You lost your job? That sucks. Guess what? I keep hearing about how all the bridges are falling apart and we just need more "infrastructure" to make America great. So from now on, you don't get to sit on your lazy stoner ass playing Forza and collecting an unemployment check for the next two years; you get an orange jumpsuit and trashbag. Welcome to summertime in Georgia motherberkeleyer.

Want "free treatment" at the hospital? No problem! You are now either:

A: Automatically enrolled in Medicaid or B: On the hook for your bill up to "x" amount, and unlike the current system, the hospital can seize your assets. I hear all this horse E36 M3 about people "losing their homes" and "dying in the streets."

Let that E36 M3 happen for real and see how many worthless pieces of E36 M3 suddenly decide to sell the $200/month Kia Optima in favor of a 300,000 mile honda + health insurance.

Vote for me. Vote for Change.

Put the dollar signs back in for EVERYONE involved. We are so far removed from even being concerned about make health care work within financial constraints that there is no incentive to make things cheaper or more streamlined. Broken systems fail and are replaced by better ones. You either suffer through the transition and end up with a better replacement, or you legislate the old one into permanent existence and suffer a longer more painful demise of the current system.
There are already signs of the system trying to fix itself: cash only doctors, people buying larger deductible insurance policies, etc... Stand back and let it happen.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Hey look a "discussion" about health care and I'm not involved

proud of you Iggy. Let mguar do the trolling/annoying

JoeyM wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Hey look a "discussion" about health care and I'm not involved

proud of you Iggy. Let mguar do the trolling/annoying

Some people take longer to grow up than others....

and some just chug Ritalin and caffeine..

Whatever works, man. It is good to have you back.

Some people troll by saying "I's all growed up & smart now, so I won't participate in this conversation...except for the part where I join the conversation only to say that I won't participate because I's all growed up & smart." Gimme a berkeleying break.

poopshovel wrote: Some people troll by saying "I's all growed up & smart now, so I won't participate in this conversation...except for the part where I join the conversation only to say that I won't participate because I's all growed up & smart." Gimme a berkeleying break.

Wait, I trolled and participated, right?

ThePhranc wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: In reply to ThePhranc: So your saying that if you needed a heart transplant and couldn't afford to pay cash for it you would just tell the Doc "No thanks"? I have a feeling your attitude would change on your death bed. Just sayin...

I wouldn't do it. I have no issues with dying. Been close enough before.

I commend you for that, and hopefully we'll never have to find out if you have to stick to your word.

Now that that's out of the way: That's great.

Too bad nobody, myself included even though i hate this law, can see the value of changing the rules for the ONE person out of millions.

Do you hear that Mr Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability.

Duke wrote: I'm absolutely incensed at Justice Roberts. Not for breaking ranks with the other conservatives, but for handing down a bullE36 M3, post-rationalizing decision *just so he can be seen* breaking ranks with the conservatives.

That's not why he did it. Conservatives won here. I'm actually pretty much in favor of the health care law (not what I wanted, but step in the right direction) but I'm really unhappy with this decision. Hang around for a couple of years and it will become clear that, in doing it the way he did, activist Judge Robers has single handedly gutted the commerce clause.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

How about a 25 word summary of your perspective on that?

Completely uninterested in a flame war, but interested in your perspective.

In reply to Anti-stance:

It's a tax. It is only a tax.

The semantics are different, but it's precisely the same setup as taxing people for not buying a home, and not having children, and not buying a more efficient refrigerator. It's precisely the same thing, no matter what people call it.

You can choose to not buy insurance, and pay a higher tax, and nothing otherwise bad will happen to you. That's why Justice Roberts wrote the opinion he did. If Congress had passed any sort of other mechanism to 'mandate' purchasing healthcare, especially a criminal mechanism, then I don't believe he would have let it pass. It would have been found unconstitutional.

Talking heads say about 'unprecedented' and 'sweeping' PPACA is. It's not true. But it makes good TV and radio. How many years have we had a 'mandate' to buy new refrigerators? It's not any different from the insurance 'mandate'.

poopshovel wrote:

ddavidv wrote: Okay, I tried this on another forum and it quickly devolved into stupidity, but I have higher expectations from this crowd. How do we fix healthcare? Without reciting a political talking point, I want to know what it will take to fix this overpriced system we have, regardless if it's government run or not. Make your argument; bring the tech. I've developed a theory of my own, but I'll shelve it for the time being to see what you all come up with. Sell it. And if you disagree with an idea, don't dismiss it with a snarky comment; explain WHY it won't work.

Tax breaks for cash operations which have a restaurant-like menu. There are 13-20 million people in this country illegally who don't pay for food, taxes, healthcare, cell phones, or heat in the winter, and then we give them a $500 "earned income" tax credit so they can put gas in their $40,000 dually quad cab pickups. School busses don't run on weekends. Fill them with 80 people a crack and run them non-stop back to the border. You can't fix healthcare without fixing medicare/medicaid. Wealthy and old? I don't give a berkeley how much you "paid in," it's a safety net for people who can't afford it, pay with your own goddamned money, daddy warbucks. Lower income cutoffs for medicaid, and reward employees who report fraud, rather than rewarding counties with more medicaid recipients by giving them more money. On that note, don't get it backwards. Democrats want more poor people on the tit, as that's their voting base. Republicans want you to make lots of money so you can take care of yourself. Want less poor people sucking on the tit? Make being poor SUCK. You lost your job? That sucks. Guess what? I keep hearing about how all the bridges are falling apart and we just need more "infrastructure" to make America great. So from now on, you don't get to sit on your lazy stoner ass playing Forza and collecting an unemployment check for the next two years; you get an orange jumpsuit and trashbag. Welcome to summertime in Georgia motherberkeleyer. Want "free treatment" at the hospital? No problem! You are now either: A: Automatically enrolled in Medicaid or B: On the hook for your bill up to "x" amount, and unlike the current system, the hospital can seize your assets. I hear all this horse E36 M3 about people "losing their homes" and "dying in the streets." Let that E36 M3 happen for real and see how many worthless pieces of E36 M3 suddenly decide to sell the $200/month Kia Optima in favor of a 300,000 mile honda + health insurance. Vote for me. Vote for Change.

You got my vote mate, it is a pity about the left wing cities who will never vote for pulling their own weight

SVreX wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: How about a 25 word summary of your perspective on that? Completely uninterested in a flame war, but interested in your perspective.

Understood, and I'm not going to debate the merits (or lack of) either. But I think Roberts played his cards pretty well. Actually, he did a few things. Smart guy.

First, he made a move that gives him cred as running a non-activist court. That view would prefer upholding a law unless given clear reason to over-turn it. So well played there and well planned to deal with other issues down the road. Let's him play that card later.

Second, the law of the land is that it is a tax. Now Obama has to campaign against that. Note that absolutely nothing changed, but look at this thread. All of a sudden it's an issue. I'd never heard anyone say "it's a tax and Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes" until this decision. Not to mention, it gives Rmoney a good campaign position. Roberts isn't going to "fix" it. If you want it gone, going to have to overturn it.

Finally, and this really is the good one, he said it is fine because it is a tax, but he also said in a majority decision from the Supreme Court that the commerce clause does not allow Congress to compel anyone to buy a product. That is now legal precedent. By agreeing with the majority, but in a different way, he was able to write a majority opinion with a broad reaching precedent that will be difficult to undo. Obama wins the battle, Roberts wins the war.

It's a really interesting, smart, and maybe good decision. We'll see. I'm suspect, as I'm not a Roberts fan. But while I think "my side" came out the loser on this (even though almost no one is talking about it) I do respect what Roberts did. Conservatives will figure it out eventually and realize he played it much better than they think.

Apologies in advance if that doesn't make sense. So much noise here right now I can't think very clearly. I'll try to look it over later and make sure I said what I think I said.

The White House is standing by its position that individual mandate in President Obama’s healthcare law is a penalty despite the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it as a tax

“It’s not a tax on the middle class,” Gruber said. “It’s a choice they’re making.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Actually, that makes pretty good sense. Good summary. Very interesting. Thanks.

In reply to ronholm:

So, the core point is actually in conflict with itself.

Democrats don't want it to be called a "tax", but have no authority to collect a "penalty" that is not a tax.

Oh what a tangled...

Vote for Poop in '12!

Dude, what you said up above was spot on.

Done. Voted for Poop. (eeeeww!)