A Bad Day for Obamacare

[Coffee and TV]

Isn't declaring war a power given to Congress by the Constitution? The Constitutionality of declaring war is not at issue.

And Congress mandating health insurance won't be found unconstitutional either, but that's not my point.

Rick's cool with Congress spending ungodly amounts of money on bombs, but not with mandating a requirement for health insurance.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

And Congress mandating health insurance won't be found unconstitutional either, but that's not my point.

Rick's cool with Congress spending ungodly amounts of money on bombs, but not with mandating a requirement for health insurance.

So if the mandate is found unconstitutional...am I eligible for a refund on my taxes that went to pay for a war I didn't want (Iraq)?

What about military spending in general? The government is forcing me to pay for nuclear weapons against my will.

Edited April 3, 2012 by BeanCounterGrad'03

[Coffee and TV]

So if the mandate is found unconstitutional...am I eligible for a refund on my taxes that went to pay for a war I didn't want (Iraq)?

What about military spending in general? The government is forcing me to pay for nuclear weapons against my will.

Wouldn't that be the dream.

[forevereagle]

So if the mandate is found unconstitutional...am I eligible for a refund on my taxes that went to pay for a war I didn't want (Iraq)?

What about military spending in general? The government is forcing me to pay for nuclear weapons against my will.

How tax dollars are spent is different from mandating how I spend the money that is left after taxes.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

How tax dollars are spent is different from mandating how I spend the money that is left after taxes.

So then socializing healthcare by making it part of the tax structure is constitutional?

Either way, isn't the government making me pay for something against my will?

[Coffee and TV]

So then socializing healthcare by making it part of the tax structure is constitutional?

Yes.

Either way, isn't the government making me pay for something against my will?

Yes, but the power to tax is definitely constitutional and court ruling after ruling has said this.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Yes.

Yes, but the power to tax is definitely constitutional and court ruling after ruling has said this.

Gotcha...this is why I never became a lawyer.

[UNTFan23]

So then socializing healthcare by making it part of the tax structure is constitutional?

Either way, isn't the government making me pay for something against my will?

Yes, but that is not what Congress did. If you don't get health insurance, you are charged a fine (they called it a penalty during the hearings) via the IRS.

If it was a tax everyone's taxes would have to go up to somewhere around the levels Canadians pay.

[FirefightnRick]

So then socializing healthcare by making it part of the tax structure is constitutional?

Yes, fortunately OBCare Isn't a tax, it's a penalty, and it's unconstitutional.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

And Congress mandating health insurance won't be found unconstitutional either, but that's not my point.

Rick's cool with Congress spending ungodly amounts of money on bombs, but not with mandating a requirement for health insurance.

Where did I say I was cool with war? Did I miss a page?

Rick

[UNT90]

Yes, fortunately OBCare Isn't a tax, it's a penalty, and it's unconstitutional.

Rick

Actually, it's a tax disguised as a penalty, which is blatantly dishonest with the American public and unconstitutional.

It wasn't made a flat out tax because democrats knew what the penalty would be (losing both houses and the presidency).

Sadly, it's a lie. Happily, an unconstitutional one.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Thanks for the clarifications. This naturally leads me to another question. As a matter of consistency in principles:

If socialism is such an un-American concept, why haven't there been mass protests from conservatives about our military that's been socialized since the founding of our country?

[Monkeypox]

Thanks for the clarifications. This naturally leads me to another question. As a matter of consistency in principles:

If socialism is such an un-American concept, why haven't there been mass protests from conservatives about our military that's been socialized since the founding of our country?

The Constitution provides for the federal government to organize and fund the military "for the common defense." It also states that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states.

That's the point of contention. What are the federal government's boundaries, as defined by the Constitution?

Socialism is just a red herring. (on both sides, and yes, "Clue" reference intended)

Edited April 3, 2012 by Monkeypox

[UNTLifer]

Yes, fortunately OBCare Isn't a tax, it's a penalty, and it's unconstitutional.

Rick

Right there with you Rick.

[MeanGreenTexan]

I'm a novice here, so please don't kill me. When it comes to political threads, I usually California-cool, hip-hop my way into a thread, if I ever do...

But here's a serious attempt:

What if instead of making someone pay a penalty tax for NOT having insurance, you give some kind of credit for those that DO have insurance? That way, you're not forcing anyone to buy insurance (which according to the arguments, looks like it would appease the conservatives?), but you're rewarding those who decide to do so (which seems like it would appease the liberals?), be it financially or otherwise. The reward can be scalable: Virtually nothing for the highest tax bracket all the way to a hefty subsidy that covers alot of the cost of the insurance for the lowest tax bracket.

Thanks for your consideration.

I'll hang up and listen.

[Coffee and TV]

I'm a novice here, so please don't kill me. When it comes to political threads, I usually California-cool, hip-hop my way into a thread, if I ever do...

But here's a serious attempt:

What if instead of making someone pay a penalty tax for NOT having insurance, you give some kind of credit for those that DO have insurance? That way, you're not forcing anyone to buy insurance (which according to the arguments, looks like it would appease the conservatives?), but you're rewarding those who decide to do so (which seems like it would appease the liberals?), be it financially or otherwise. The reward can be scalable: Virtually nothing for the highest tax bracket all the way to a hefty subsidy that covers alot of the cost of the insurance for the lowest tax bracket.

Thanks for your consideration.

I'll hang up and listen.

It still won't bring down the overall costs of health care and health care coverage. I'd be in favor of a two-tier system like Australia. They provide health coverage for everyone, but also give big tax rebates to anyone who buys a health care plan on top of that.

[Green2012]

It still won't bring down the overall costs of health care and health care coverage. I'd be in favor of a two-tier system like Australia. They provide health coverage for everyone, but also give big tax rebates to anyone who buys a health care plan on top of that.

Why would anyone want to buy an additional health care plan on top of Obamacare though? Is it not a good plan?

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

It still won't bring down the overall costs of health care and health care coverage. I'd be in favor of a two-tier system like Australia. They provide health coverage for everyone, but also give big tax rebates to anyone who buys a health care plan on top of that.

I could definitely see the benefit in that...didn't realize Australia did that.

To Green2012, if the government healthcare only covers "catastrophic" conditions (cancer, heart attack, etc.), then many people would want the additional coverage to cover checkups and minor injuries (sprains, broken bones, etc.). The government coverage would insure that there is a minimum "safety net" for all while still allowing those who can afford it to get better care.

However C&T, doesn't medicare/medicaid already serve this purpose?

[forevereagle]

Why would anyone want to buy an additional health care plan on top of Obamacare though? Is it not a good plan?

It's so good that the people who created it decided it was for everyone but them.

[Green2012]

It's so good that the people who created it decided it was for everyone but them.

Funny how that works. Seems like Pelosi is passing out some exemptions in the San Fran area too. I guess its not as good as advertised.

BeanCounter, that's what I thought medicare and medicaid were for too...

Does anyone think that maybe the largest increase in healthcare is due to the large increase in technology??? Just look at a knee surgery 30 years ago compared to today.

[FirefightnRick]

It's so good that the people who created it decided it was for everyone but them.

Excellent point!!!

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

Does anyone think that maybe the largest increase in healthcare is due to the large increase in technology???

Leeches and amputations for the poor?

[GreenMachine]

Leeches and amputations for the poor?

No, just better care for the ones that can afford it.

[DeepGreen]

Leeches and amputations for the poor?

I'd say technology has caused a certain increase in the cost of healthcare, but so has the liability insurance that doctors have to pay to cover themselves from those "bloodsucking leeches" known as lawyers and unlimited amounts in lawsuits.

[UNTLifer]

The government coverage would insure that there is a minimum "safety net" for all while still allowing those who can afford it to get better care.

However C&T, doesn't medicare/medicaid already serve this purpose?

The government coverage is just a "safety net" now, but I see unfair competition in the future with the government offering full coverage.

Medicare/medicaid, the government runs this program so well just like Social Security, the post office, Amtrak, etc... Are any of these government run businesses not in bankruptcy?