Why not? If Obama believes, as I do, that this law will save lives, and if he believes, as I do, that whether it’s called a tax or a penalty is a bit of semantics with little actual effect, why wouldn’t he direct his attorneys to argue for the law’s constitutionality along lines that he personally rejects but that he thinks might save the law?
Claiming that doing so is immoral seems mighty pedantic to me.
When people are able to get regular medical attention overall costs go down because they don’t wait until their condition is critical, and therefore more expensive to treat.
I think this misses the point. The concern with the mandate, for me at least (before it was transformed into a tax :D), is the power it grants the government. Whether or not it directly impacts me personally now doesn’t matter in that regard. It’s a power the government ought not to have, and one that might impact me later once that authority is established. So, you left out a question: Are you angry because ANYONE is being forced to buy something, even if it’s not you?
Also, I can’t bear the thought of going back and reading the opinion again, but ISTM from my recollection that a law similarly structured that compelled the purchase of a Chevy would now be constitutional, so long as the compulsion came from a tax one could otherwise avoid by buying said Chevy. What would be the argument against it, that didn’t gut the logic of this decision?
RNATB, wasn’t the court pretty dismissive of the whole “healthcare is really unique” argument? Certainly the decision didn’t seem to hinge on that (sorry–again, I am too lazy to go back and read it again.)
That’s absolutely ridiculous. There’s a bike that I have and really want to keep, but I don’t think the government has any right to force me to buy it. Same for just about everything else I chose to buy: bookshelf, stereo, computer, blue blazer, cool old fan, blender, tool bag, armoire, art, electric razor, hiking boots, etc.
So, I only pay it if I stop breathing? Let them knock themselves out trying to collect from my non-breathing body. You need a better analogy.
But everyone doesn’t have to do it to make the system less financially stable. It just takes a few people deciding that insurance covers it so they will go the the ER to get their kid’s snot filled nose checked to be sure it’s not something more serious than a cold. Common sense is not universally common.
Or why drive to the doctor, struggle to find parking, and wait in the waiting room when you can get an ambulance ride for free? After all, you want to get your money’s worth out of your insurance. Most won’t do that, but some already do. Expect it to get worse when its “free” for everyone.
Ok, fine. I reserve the right to think that reasoning is asinine.
Please provide citations that this has ever been the case in any of the nations already providing “free” socialized medicine. I bet you can’t.
That’s what we currently have: people without medical insurance can’t afford regular medical care, so they go to the ER, the only place where they can’t get turned away. The ER is really inconvenient, though, so people like this will stop going there, which will represent a significant cost savings.
I’ll expect this when you show me cites for frivolous ambulance abuse in any country with UHC.
Because it turns him into a liar. He holds a unique position of power, which he was elected to. He gave speech after speech arguing for Obamacare, and the mandate specifically. The mandate was the sticking point. He swore up and down that it was NOT a tax. That no doubt made some percentage of the people more comfortable with it. And that encouraged more congressmen to vote for it, thinking that their constituents were supportive of it. But after assuring everyone in God knows how many interviews and speeches that the mandate was not a tax, he seeks to have it pass constitutionality on that basis. The is either flat out lying or being comfortable with selling people one thing and switching what you told them you were selling at the last minute and having them not have the opportunity to back out of the deal. BOTH of those options are unethical.
As I’ve mentioned in earlier threads. The SCOTUS decision should require a new vote. Because what was voted on was not the law that was passed. THAT is the ethical avenue.
Could Obama have told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that, as a matter of principle he (Obama) does not believe the mandate is a tax and Verrilli is not to argue that it is before the Supreme Court? Why didn’t Obama do that?
You actually know people who do this? Call an ambulance to avoid having to search for a parking space, etc?
Maybe he believes it’s not a tax as a matter of law, not as a matter of principle; as a matter of principle he believes the bill will save lives. He could easily say, “Look, it’s not a tax, obviously, but whatever description of it is gonna get those jokers at the SC to accept it is fine by me.”
Under such circumstances he can personally believe it’s not a tax, but allow the SC to accept that argument. No lie thereby occurs.
The only part of it that is asinine is what you offered up. And I showed it to be. Now, if you choose to not defend it, at least you’re moving in a less asinine direction. Progress!
But I would like to see an attempt. For laughs if nothing else.
You crack me up. You present these questions that you think are so profound, these carefully constructed Super-InescapableTM logic traps. So ingenuous are these question(s) that…
[QUOTE=Chimera]
To date no one has answered the question. Instead they ignore it and keep raging.
[/QUOTE]
And you profess oh-so-dispassionate curiosity:
[QUOTE=Chimera]
I have no idea, and I’d really like to know.
[/QUOTE]
Someone (actually multiple people at this point, but I’ll speak for myself) easily answers your question (you know, that one you’re just SO curious about), and shows it to be an exercise in ridiculosity, and your defense: “that reasoning is asinine”. :roll eyes:
How about you explain why you think the reasoning is asinine? You know, like in a debate, never mind Great Debate. Now that you’ve had this gnawing curiosity of yours slaked, do you have nothing else to offer? Nothing?
Yes. So? Whether he lied or told the truth has nothing to do with Congress’ power to tax. Congress has the power to tax. Your ire appears to be that Congress, at Obama’s behest, passed a tax, and Obama refuses to admit it’s a tax. That’s a political problem, not a legal one.
No. But the federal government can tax you if you fail to buy that product.
This is not an exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. It’s an exercise of Congress’ power to tax.
I’m sorry to say this, Shodan, but in this complaint, you sound like a liberal to me.
By that I mean you are conflating what pisses you off with what violates the Constitution. I absolutely disfavor the ACA, and have from the get-go. But I do not confuse that with believing it’s unconstitutional. Congress can tax. Its says so in black and white, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. This is a tax. Period.
I thought he did.
Ask any paramedic. It happens.
You are either not very good at understanding others, or you’re very good at deliberately not understanding others.
I pose a question about the reason for being angry about this. You didn’t actually answer the question. You continued the “because they’re making me buy it!” line. I referred to that as asinine if it is something you have and want. I have already explained my reasoning there.
How about YOU offer up something more than frothing anger that you’re being forced to buy something you both have and want?
Let’s try an analogy, because those ALWAYS work:
Bob walked around naked in his hometown, because his interpreted the anti-indecency laws in his town to apply only to lascivious conduct, and he was just wanted to be free, man.
He got arrested.
His lawyer suggested he try a first-amendment defense. “Bullshit,” Bob said, “that’s only supposed to protect political and religious speech, not walking around naked.” So at his bench trial, he told the judge about his interpretation of the anti-indecency laws. “Also,” he said, “my lawyer tells me other people have gotten away with nekkid strolling through a first-amendment defense. I think that’s nonsense, but here are the relevant cases.”
The judge rejects Bob’s reading of the anti-indecency laws, but accepts the first-amendment defense.
Has Bob lied at any point?
It got worse in Edmonton, AB Canada:
It is a frequent enough issue to make the FAQs for the ambulance service in Toronto.
It has required entirely reworking primary care in the field in the UK. Cite:
Ambulances are not being reserved for serious medical emergencies. To a select group of “frequent flyers” they are a glorified taxi.
The best part about this is that he managed to get this tax past a bunch of Republicans who think “tax” is a four letter word. I want to point and laugh at the Republicans who are so upset that a politician lied about something. OMG :eek:
He laid his cards face up on the table. Everybody knew exactly what was being proposed with the individual mandate. Then he said “King high Straight”, took the pot, the Reps went home broke and said “Waaaiiiit… since when does a straight beat a flush?”