Fine. I’ll admit it. Obama is President Mr. Liar McPoopypants. He was totally lying all along about what this thing was. Liar liar liar liar liar!
And that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of this particular tax or pseudotax or whatever it is. The Supreme Court is not a tool to punish politicians for making arguments you find deceitful.
The law’s function is precisely equivalent to the mortgage deduction in real-world behavior. In both cases, one behavioral choice results in a smaller tax burden than the other behavioral choice. What politicians label those behaviors is completely irrelevant when determining the law’s constitutionality, as I’ve been saying all along, and as the SC has confirmed.
Make no purchase, pay more.
Make purchase, pay less.
This isn’t that hard.
Is there a joke thread?
Tomorrow’s headline: “Single Black Man Sends Millions to Hospital in One Day”
The law can’t be treated so cavalierly. That’s why we have actual legislation carefully written. Process matters. As both a matter of practicality and constitutionality. But I don’t blame you for finding it more comfortable to couch you’re position with such imprecision. I
I will admit being a bit surprised at LHOD casual approach to the issue. As much as we disagree on things, I got the impression that he enjoyed arguments with more precision. ::shrug:: Maybe it’s just excitement of a win, which is fine.
I do enjoy arguments with precision. My argument is precise; it’s yours that’s sloppy, in its misunderstanding of what determines an issue’s constitutionality (hint: it’s not what things are named, it’s what they do). My argument is informed by my understanding of linguistics, and this latest decision by the SC bolsters my beliefs.
But I understand, maybe it’s just the bitterness of defeat that’s leading to the imprecision in your argument.
Amusing, in retrospect: Would it be constitutional for the feds to require you to get health insurance? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Here’s a nice site that steps you through what the law changed. Probably won’t answer every question you have, but should get a lot of them.
Please. The one thing you can’t argue is that my argument is not one of precision. You can fairly argue that I’m insisting on an unnecessary degree of precision and order, but not impression. I’m the one arguing for greater precision and consistency. As well as greater precision in consistency.
These are two different things. For the mortgage deduction, all that is happening is that the government does not collect tax on income that goes entirely to paying interest on your home loan. This was the Republican solution, and mine: to extend the existing tax deduction on employer-funded health insurance to self-funded health insurance, meaning the government does not collect tax on the money you earn to pay for your health insurance payments.
This revenue would probably be going into the general fund. It’s not earmarked, as such, for any purpose. The idea is that there’s some revenue collected that helps to offset some of the increased outlays the Federal government would have to states and individuals. There’s no specific mechanism driving this money into hospitals, no, but the system is set up in order to greatly reduce the number of those cases to begin with.
There’s a few possibilities. The first is that you make so little at your two part time jobs that you’re eligible for Medicaid. In that case, you have serviceable coverage for your accident. The next possibility is that your state opts out of the Medicaid expansion, in which case you’re exempt from the mandate and the tax, but you’re on the hook for your bills. Talk to your state legislators to ensure that this gap won’t exist in your state. The next possibility is that you make between 100% and 133% of the federal poverty level. In this case, you’ll receive a rebate with which to purchase some inexpensive private insurance. It’s likely that this rebate won’t completely nullify the cost of the insurance, but it would still make it affordable enough that you have coverage. One estimate I saw today has the insurance costing $40 per month at the most generous rebate level.
SNIP. Is this true? If so, why wouldn’t a state now (say Wyoming, a red state against this law) refuse the Medicaid expansion and refuse to set up exchanges. If that happened, would Wyoming residents be exempt from the mandate, but still have protection against pre-existing conditions and price discrimination? If so, that’s a win-win. I’ll do my “Health Insurance Application Filled Out and In Pocket” trick with a check made for the first month’s premium. When I feel a heart attack coming on, I’ll have a friend mail it in. Once I come home from the hospital, I’ll cancel the insurance.
Thank you.
I did not know about the GOVT’s immunity.
Auto insurance is required for people who own cars. Health insurance is required for people who own bodies.
Now, if you choose, like so many New Yorkers, to become a disembodied consciousness, I fully support your right to not purchase health insurance.
And, to be honest
This surprised me as well, not LHOD, but Roberts deciding that the law’s text doesn’t matter, just the effect. If the effect is that of a tax, then it doesn’t matter that they’re calling it something else, it’s a tax for constitutionality purposes.
There is actually precedent for that, and it makes sense, the constitutionality shouldn’t depend on the “descriptive words” it should depend on “practical operation”. Link
I suppose that the government is also forcing me to have kids, gouge out my eyes, drive a hybrid, add weather stripping to my house and contribute to the Westboro Baptists or pay additional taxes.
You should know by now that there’s nothing the right wing won’t do these days.
It happens. For example, in the 1990s, Virginia Gov. George Allen rejected federal education funds, claiming (falsely) that there were too many strings attached.
So is the government forcing me to quit my job because it taxes income?
That is the conservative argument, yes. Any tax is coercive.
I think you two need to read the thread closer. I was showing Magellan that his histrionics over the GOVERNMENT FORCING PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT!!1111 were misplaced.
The government incentivises many activities. The mandate is no different.
Well, to be precise, if it was Obama who actually wrote the legislation, he could have. But that was done by Congress. Which is why the mandate was held to be constitutional under Congress’ taxing authority.