The only thing you need to read from the health care bill is this:
2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
The penalty for not paying the penalty is nothing. There is no mandate.
But they might call you up and be like, "dude, it's not fair, go buy some health insurance."
And they would be right that your kinda being a dick and taking advantage of the system.
They could send your money to the insurance penalty first, so that the money you're refusing to pay is your taxes. You would then be the IRS's bitch.
More passively, you could be locked out of other government programs or licenses until you're compliant with the insurance requirement.
So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.
We all know lower court cases are tried in specific places to get specific results.
Not being a Constitutional scholar, I don't really see how it is constitutional, honestly. Even though I support it.
The Commerce Clause.
The end.
Insurance is Intrastate Commerce, technically.
Secondly, I don't recall the Constitution having a YOU MUST BUY THIS clause.
The mandate is, technically, a tax penalty for not purchasing insurance, which is well within the taxation power the Constitution grants Congress. Especially since there are no criminal penalties for not purchasing insurance.
Also, the SCOTUS has already ruled that the Commerce Clause can apply to intrastate commerce that impacts interstate commerce.
So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.
We all know lower court cases are tried in specific places to get specific results.
Not being a Constitutional scholar, I don't really see how it is constitutional, honestly. Even though I support it.
The Commerce Clause.
The end.
Insurance is Intrastate Commerce, technically.
Secondly, I don't recall the Constitution having a YOU MUST BUY THIS clause.
The mandate is, technically, a tax penalty for not purchasing insurance, which is well within the taxation power the Constitution grants Congress. Especially since there are no criminal penalties for not purchasing insurance.
Also, the SCOTUS has already ruled that the Commerce Clause can apply to intrastate commerce that impacts interstate commerce.
So yeah, I'd say it's pretty darn Constitutional.
Yeah, saying it forces you to buy health insurance is like saying the government forces you to have kids. They both offer the same sort of tax break.
Except, iirc, the ACA actually goes out of its way to define not having insurance as a penalty, rather than defining having insurance as being a tax break.
The only thing you need to read from the health care bill is this:
2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.
The penalty for not paying the penalty is nothing. There is no mandate.
But they might call you up and be like, "dude, it's not fair, go buy some health insurance."
And they would be right that your kinda being a dick and taking advantage of the system.
They could send your money to the insurance penalty first, so that the money you're refusing to pay is your taxes. You would then be the IRS's bitch.
I don't know how they would differentiate money overpaid from money meant to pay all of or a portion of the tax. I doubt there will be a check box for wanting to not pay the voluntary mandated portion of the tax.
It's such a screwy way of going about it and it definitely feels more like a penalty then a tax deduction for good behavior.
No idea if this has been shared or not, but saw it on Fark and was compelled to post.
Quote is from the Republican debate.
CAIN: It is clear from the discussion tonight that America needs a leader and a uniter. I represent growth. All the issues that we talk about, if we don't get this economic engine moving by putting fuel in the engine, all of the rest of it won't matter.
A poet once said, life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line. We have a lot on the line.
Pokemon - The Power Of One Lyrics
Album: Pokemon The Movie 2000
You must always remember...
Life can be a challenge...
Life can seem impossible...
It's never easy, when so much is on the line...
So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.
We all know lower court cases are tried in specific places to get specific results.
Not being a Constitutional scholar, I don't really see how it is constitutional, honestly. Even though I support it.
The Commerce Clause.
The end.
Insurance is Intrastate Commerce, technically.
Secondly, I don't recall the Constitution having a YOU MUST BUY THIS clause.
The mandate is, technically, a tax penalty for not purchasing insurance, which is well within the taxation power the Constitution grants Congress. Especially since there are no criminal penalties for not purchasing insurance.
Also, the SCOTUS has already ruled that the Commerce Clause can apply to intrastate commerce that impacts interstate commerce.
So yeah, I'd say it's pretty darn Constitutional.
Yeah, saying it forces you to buy health insurance is like saying the government forces you to have kids. They both offer the same sort of tax break.
Your taxes don't go up if you don't have kids. Your taxes do go up if you don't have health insurance.
I am pretty sure you are incorrect, and a tax was leveled on everyone in that bill, thus setting a new baseline. From that baseline, you get a deduction for kids, and a deduction for having health insurance.
Your taxes go up if you don't have kids. Your taxes don't go up if you do have health insurance.
You don't say.
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited August 2011
Little known fact: Whilst campaigning for the presidency in 1988, George H.W. Bush often used the lyrics to the song "Dare to be Stupid" from Transformers: The Movie in speeches.
I'm halfway through the debate (it's not like it was high on my priority list)
So ... who the hell organized this? I don't see any balance of questions, replies, anything. It's going to be really entertaining when we get to the actual Presidential debates, and all of a sudden the guy on the right is shocked, SHOCKED that they would cut them off. Or not give them an umpteenth reply opportunity.
Steam
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Little known fact: Whilst campaigning for the presidency in 1988, George H.W. Bush often used the lyrics to the song "Dare to be Stupid" from Transformers: The Movie in speeches.
So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.
Though I recognize the necessity, I actually have difficulty with the constitutionality of the mandate as well.
Flip side? I have the same problem with auto insurance and the semi-monopolies held by health insurance companies.
A tax penalty for not buying something is functionally identical to a tax credit for buying something.
No, they are opposite. One is punishment for doing nothing, the other is reward for taking some overt action.
I recognize that ACA supporters need to go through these gyrations in an attempt to dispel the Commerce Clause argument while not actually grappling with the argument, but really guys. It's almost as silly as the "more courts have agreed than disagreed" argument. We don't tally up what all the courts say and then have penalty kicks if it's a tie.
So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.
Though I recognize the necessity, I actually have difficulty with the constitutionality of the mandate as well.
Flip side? I have the same problem with auto insurance and the semi-monopolies held by health insurance companies.
A tax penalty for not buying something is functionally identical to a tax credit for buying something.
No, they are opposite. One is punishment for doing nothing, the other is reward for taking some overt action.
I recognize that ACA supporters need to go through these gyrations in an attempt to dispel the Commerce Clause argument while not actually grappling with the argument, but really guys. It's almost as silly as the "more courts have agreed than disagreed" argument. We don't tally up what all the courts say and then have penalty kicks if it's a tie.
Before today, the courts had basically been ridiculously partisan (with the exception of one I think Reagan appointee, I know he was a Republican) on this issue, because they're abandoning judicial history to be political actors, which is a bad thing. Today we had a conservative Clinton appointee ruling against and a Reagan appointee blasting the majority in his dissent. I think that's a more cogent argument as far the courts.
It's still functionally the same as any other tax credit. Basically you're arguing that if we tried to add a child tax credit now, that would be a punishment for the childless. But because you are philosophically opposed to helping the poor (this is, again, the GOP plan from the 90s) you have to decide it's totally different somehow. It's bullshit. Much like every other time the GOP opposes its own god damn platform because the President supports elements of it.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
No idea if this has been shared or not, but saw it on Fark and was compelled to post.
Quote is from the Republican debate.
CAIN: It is clear from the discussion tonight that America needs a leader and a uniter. I represent growth. All the issues that we talk about, if we don't get this economic engine moving by putting fuel in the engine, all of the rest of it won't matter.
A poet once said, life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line. We have a lot on the line.
Pokemon - The Power Of One Lyrics
Album: Pokemon The Movie 2000
You must always remember...
Life can be a challenge...
Life can seem impossible...
It's never easy, when so much is on the line...
Somebody inside Cain's organization is sandbagging him, and giggling about it
So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.
Though I recognize the necessity, I actually have difficulty with the constitutionality of the mandate as well.
Flip side? I have the same problem with auto insurance and the semi-monopolies held by health insurance companies.
A tax penalty for not buying something is functionally identical to a tax credit for buying something.
No, they are opposite. One is punishment for doing nothing, the other is reward for taking some overt action.
I recognize that ACA supporters need to go through these gyrations in an attempt to dispel the Commerce Clause argument while not actually grappling with the argument, but really guys. It's almost as silly as the "more courts have agreed than disagreed" argument. We don't tally up what all the courts say and then have penalty kicks if it's a tie.
The point of saying "more courts have agreed than disagreed" is not that "therefore we win", but "therefore it's a little ridiculous to say it's obviously unconstitutional and going to be thrown out". I don't think it's a stretch to say that courts usually strike down things that fly in the face of the Constitution.
Wait if SCOTUS nukes the commerce clause does that mean the feds can't come after me for growing pot anymore, because how the hell do they justify that constitutionally?
Wait if SCOTUS nukes the commerce clause does that mean the feds can't come after me for growing pot anymore, because how the hell do they justify that constitutionally?
Wait if SCOTUS nukes the commerce clause does that mean the feds can't come after me for growing pot anymore, because how the hell do they justify that constitutionally?
They can tell you what NOT to do, but not force you to take an action. That outcome not the big brain teaser people are making it out to be.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
At the end of the day, Obama hasn't come across particularly strong, either as a Democrat or a president in general, and in an attempt to reach out to the middle, he's lost his base. He could win every independent in 2012 and it wouldn't matter. While it's still too early to tell right now, it's looking better for Perry by the day who if nothing else would know how to unite the GOP base and probably bring aboard a sizable number of independents. The left is tired and drained, I can't foresee them hating this guy enough to vote against him the way they did with McCain under the presumption that he was a proxy to Bush. Perry is showing a lot of heartland momentum without the Mormon or Tea Party baggage of Romney and Bachmann, respectively.
He actually rather reminds me of Bush during the 2000 election.
0
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
So blatantly unconstitutional that the courts have upheld it more often than not.
Though I recognize the necessity, I actually have difficulty with the constitutionality of the mandate as well.
Flip side? I have the same problem with auto insurance and the semi-monopolies held by health insurance companies.
A tax penalty for not buying something is functionally identical to a tax credit for buying something.
No, they are opposite. One is punishment for doing nothing, the other is reward for taking some overt action.
I recognize that ACA supporters need to go through these gyrations in an attempt to dispel the Commerce Clause argument while not actually grappling with the argument, but really guys. It's almost as silly as the "more courts have agreed than disagreed" argument. We don't tally up what all the courts say and then have penalty kicks if it's a tie.
The point of saying "more courts have agreed than disagreed" is not that "therefore we win", but "therefore it's a little ridiculous to say it's obviously unconstitutional and going to be thrown out". I don't think it's a stretch to say that courts usually strike down things that fly in the face of the Constitution.
You'd think, but we can't agree on what's constitutional, just because they're judges doesn't means they can. As everyone is happy to point out, their rulings are influenced by plenty besides the constitution.
I really don't understand why politicians keep falling into this trap of trying to "appeal to the independents." The number of non-affiliated voters who are non-affiliated as a result of a careful consideration of both parties' platforms is vanishingly small. Most of these "undecided independents" whose votes are truly up for grabs remain persuadable precisely because they don't care or don't know much about policy and decide their vote based on other factors (i.e. who would I like to have a beer with.)
Every time Obama tacks toward the center we hear that he's trying to appeal to independents, which I suppose is just lazy media analysis, but I doubt he's that dumb.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Huh. I wonder if the mandate gets struck down by itself, does that mean everyone's taxes still go up? That would be kind of hilarious.
Plus, Congress would shit itself.
Semantics aside, it's clearly trying to influence intrastate commerce in a direct way. I know that the country has used some collective handwaving to get around the Unconstitutionality of that in the past, but considering the political leanings of the current court, I'm not convinced they would bullshit this one over.
No idea if this has been shared or not, but saw it on Fark and was compelled to post.
Quote is from the Republican debate.
CAIN: It is clear from the discussion tonight that America needs a leader and a uniter. I represent growth. All the issues that we talk about, if we don't get this economic engine moving by putting fuel in the engine, all of the rest of it won't matter.
A poet once said, life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line. We have a lot on the line.
Pokemon - The Power Of One Lyrics
Album: Pokemon The Movie 2000
You must always remember...
Life can be a challenge...
Life can seem impossible...
It's never easy, when so much is on the line...
Somebody inside Cain's organization is sandbagging him, and giggling about it
An inspirational line for both children, and the mental equivalent of children (Teabaggers).
/Is there a shot so cheap that you get paid to take it?
Posts
I think they would have to throw out the whole thing, since, from what I've read, the ACA doesn't have a severability clause for some stupid reason.
Steam: pazython
The Commerce Clause.
The end.
Insurance is Intrastate Commerce, technically.
Secondly, I don't recall the Constitution having a YOU MUST BUY THIS clause.
More passively, you could be locked out of other government programs or licenses until you're compliant with the insurance requirement.
The mandate is, technically, a tax penalty for not purchasing insurance, which is well within the taxation power the Constitution grants Congress. Especially since there are no criminal penalties for not purchasing insurance.
Also, the SCOTUS has already ruled that the Commerce Clause can apply to intrastate commerce that impacts interstate commerce.
So yeah, I'd say it's pretty darn Constitutional.
Yeah, saying it forces you to buy health insurance is like saying the government forces you to have kids. They both offer the same sort of tax break.
I could be wrong on this.
I don't know how they would differentiate money overpaid from money meant to pay all of or a portion of the tax. I doubt there will be a check box for wanting to not pay the voluntary mandated portion of the tax.
It's such a screwy way of going about it and it definitely feels more like a penalty then a tax deduction for good behavior.
Quote is from the Republican debate.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Your taxes don't go up if you don't have kids. Your taxes do go up if you don't have health insurance.
You don't say.
A tax penalty for not buying something is functionally identical to a tax credit for buying something.
Opposing one but not the other is kind of ludicrous.
So ... who the hell organized this? I don't see any balance of questions, replies, anything. It's going to be really entertaining when we get to the actual Presidential debates, and all of a sudden the guy on the right is shocked, SHOCKED that they would cut them off. Or not give them an umpteenth reply opportunity.
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
...You mean the Weird Al song?
No, they are opposite. One is punishment for doing nothing, the other is reward for taking some overt action.
I recognize that ACA supporters need to go through these gyrations in an attempt to dispel the Commerce Clause argument while not actually grappling with the argument, but really guys. It's almost as silly as the "more courts have agreed than disagreed" argument. We don't tally up what all the courts say and then have penalty kicks if it's a tie.
Tax break for buying insurance is a reward.
Bam solved.
It's still functionally the same as any other tax credit. Basically you're arguing that if we tried to add a child tax credit now, that would be a punishment for the childless. But because you are philosophically opposed to helping the poor (this is, again, the GOP plan from the 90s) you have to decide it's totally different somehow. It's bullshit. Much like every other time the GOP opposes its own god damn platform because the President supports elements of it.
Somebody inside Cain's organization is sandbagging him, and giggling about it
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100100848/fried-food-and-retail-politics-at-the-iowa-state-fair/
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm pretty sure that's just the logo for the corndog stand.
Creepy cropping though.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Doesn't matter, still hilarious.
The same way they justify obscenity laws?
He actually rather reminds me of Bush during the 2000 election.
You'd think, but we can't agree on what's constitutional, just because they're judges doesn't means they can. As everyone is happy to point out, their rulings are influenced by plenty besides the constitution.
Every time Obama tacks toward the center we hear that he's trying to appeal to independents, which I suppose is just lazy media analysis, but I doubt he's that dumb.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Plus, Congress would shit itself.
Semantics aside, it's clearly trying to influence intrastate commerce in a direct way. I know that the country has used some collective handwaving to get around the Unconstitutionality of that in the past, but considering the political leanings of the current court, I'm not convinced they would bullshit this one over.
It'll make for an interesting decision.
An inspirational line for both children, and the mental equivalent of children (Teabaggers).
/Is there a shot so cheap that you get paid to take it?