That’s not the way it’s crafted. Why the fuck do you think the’ve been calling it a “mandate”. And you’ve participated in enough of these discussion to know that. The tax is a penalty.
We understand that you can craft two sentences together to make it sound like they are the same thing. Now, can YOU understand the differences that have been pointed out?
Are you forced to purchase a house?
Are you forced to have a child? Are you forced to get married? Are you forced to give money to charity?
Yes, actually, and I presented this argument, and somebody, I believe it was you, sneered at me condescendingly and patted me on the head for making such an obviously fallacious argument. So, on the probable chance the sneerer was you: neener, neener!
I will have to go back to memory lane, one item that I do remember from the long discussion of this subject is that the evidence showed that the system that we have in the USA is a system that only a Feudal Lord would be proud of.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/26/us-usa-healthcare-jobs-idUSTRE54O4K120090526
Once exchanges are available in 2014 many who do want to have the freedom to start a business on their own will find insurance to be more affordable and possible.
That is regarding personal liberty, looking at the big picture I have seen reports that show that because of the cost of our health care, foreign companies now think twice on setting shops in the USA. And it is also a reason why companies at home are shipping jobs overseas, I think that also in that regard many companies will have more opportunities to set shop or remain in the USA in the near future.
When you get hit by a truck or come down with metastatic explosive diarrhea, are you “forced” to get care? 
No, you’re going to get it anyway. The discussion is about who is “forced” to pay for it when you do. You’re trying to claim a “right” to have the rest of us pay for your share, and calling it “demonstrating responsibility.” That’s risible.
If it was me (I don’t recall the exchange, but it may have been), your neenering is merited. But, let me ask you, what did you base your thinking on. Up until now, there was zero examples of the government forcing people to buy something or pay a penalty.
I’m not trying to trick you with rhetorical razzle-dazzle. I’m showing you that you’re upset over literally nothing.
They raised taxes on everyone and gave a discount to those with health insurance. Big whup.
Also, George Washington signed laws requiring mandatory health care and mandatory purchases of weapons and kit for militia use. PolitiFact | Harvard Law professor says early Congress mandated health insurance for seamen and gun ownership for most men
No. You’re shifting the argument. No one has the opportunity to demonstrate personal responsibility if they are forced to do so. You’ve done nothing more than what you had to do. So, there’s no personal responsibility involved. Now, if there was no mandate, I would agree with you that we should encourage people to show some personal responsibility and buy insurance. For themselves, yes, but for the benefits of society, too, who will have to pay any bill should they incur them.
The larger question is not whether people should buy insurance. I fervently agree that they should. I also agree that it’s helpful to society that they do. But they shouldn’t be forced to through a mechanism like Obama set up If it is going to be done, it should be through the regular tax code. Taxes go up and we all have insurance. THAT would have been fine. harder to sell, maybe, but a sound idea.
No, you’re avoiding the argument. There is no opportunity, not in the real world, not to ever need major health care, or not to get it if you do. None. The only way to demonstrate personal responsibility in health care is to pay your own damn share of the cost. Now, there will no longer be an opportunity to duck that responsibility. Someone who truly understands and supports the principle of personal responsibility should be fucking delighted with this result.
This isn’t that hard. Come on now.
That’s pretty much what happened. Good to hear you’re fine with it. Now what’s with the continued whining? Would you be as miffed if the name “Obama” were not attached to the thing? :dubious:
No, that’s not what they did. If that is what they did, show met the language of the bill that stated something to that effect. Do you forget that Obama swore up and down that it was NOT a tax? You’re just making this up.
Now, if by “they” you’re talking about SCOTUS, it is not what they did either. Read the opinion. They upheld that the PENALTY functions largely as a tax (a tax the resembles nothing in the U.S. tax code, by the way). You’re saying that we’re assessed a tax and then receive a deduction. That’s factually inaccurate. There is no increased tax assessment. BUT if you don’t buy insurance, then you are hit with a penalty. Honestly. Look it up.
Interesting, but a hardly think looking at what was done to cobble together a nascent military over 200 years ago has any bearing on this.
So much for the original intent of the sainted Founding Fathers, then. 
He thought it worked under the commerce clause. As it happens, the court thought it worked by taxation power. Either way, it works.
The penalty is the higher tax rate than anyone without insurance pays. If I call you a duck, you’re still a man.
It does show that George Washington would slap you with a leather bladder full of birdshot if you told him that being encouraged to buy something by the government was un-American.
Wouldn’t you say?
When I read that thing about Washington my toes curled, because it’s such a shot in the nuts to the white-hot conservative-rage over the ruling.
I have an ex-boss that is very wealthy. He’s also a super health nut. He chooses to not buy insurance. He self insures. If anything happens, he just writes a check. He can afford it if the ball is $5,000 or $5,000,000. No sweat. I don’t think he should have to buy insurance, do you? I’ll let you know in advance that “Sure he should, he can afford it”, is not a good answer.
As far as personal responsibility, it sound like we both want people to demonstrate it. But you want to force them into it. That sends the wrong message. A system that truly embraced personal responsibility would put the person’s heath care in his own hands. Health Savings Accounts, funded with pre-tax dollars do a good job in that respect.
I wish everyone bought insurance. But I don’t want the government to force them to do so through a mechanism like Obama set up. What we have via Roberts’s decision is better, but the problem remains that politicians can do a kind of end run around the tax code and instate these penalties. This is a new mechanism by which the government can extract money from the populace. We should insist that it all be done through the tax code. Do you not think that tomorrow that there will be some other well-intentioned thing the the government will think beneficial to us? Let’s say you’re happy with a tax rate of X. Well, Mr. Well-Intioned in the White House of The Future will be able to say, “I’m not raising the tax rate one penny from X. But I am instituting program A, B and C, which will be funded through mandates.” Do you not see a problem with this.?
I was be just an incensed. Truly. I don’;t want the government to have another means by which to extract money from us. That’s why I keep saying that I would have been fine with paying for his program through good old fashioned taxes. Roberts mitigated the damage in this regard some, but it is still troubling and ill-conceived.
If he’s that rich he can pay the penalty. Freedom!
No, not either way. One way. (They argued two ways. Actually, more.)
I don’t understand your first sentence. But I don’t think it’s responding to what I said.
He already pays a lot in taxes. But since he can afford it, why not make it the law that he pays the penalty you or I would pay X 1,000? 10,000?
A progressive tax system would make sense.
But congress didn’t do it this time. So just pay the taxes or get insurance.
Do you think that George Washington was un-American?
Thanks. We have it back now but it really sucked being without power in almost 100 degree temps for just one day. I grew up in New Orleans so I am aware of the hardship of going without power for weeks on end. Strangely, I had completely forgotten how hard it sucks.
The dissent said a penalty has never been considered a tax. Are you suggesting that is not so? I’m no constitutional scholar so I am taking them at their word.
Yes, the government made the argument but, surprisingly, the court did not want to discuss this during oral arguments. The government claims that the penalty is a penalty but, since it is enforceable under the tax code, it should be constitutional under the government’s power to tax. That is tortured logic.