Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill UpheldFollow

Where should I begin? The 34 and 1/2 years of my life are a long and twisting road that have led to me being the person I am to-

Oh, you meant you didn't recognize my posting name?

Well, let me answer that with an analogy.

Does one have to be a coroner to recognize the stench of death?

But, but, but, but...

HE STARTED IT!!!

Wait a minute, did the post count just change? How the..? Hmmm.. must be a glitch.

As Joph might say, I won't even dignify this with a long string of "ha"s.


Except when a word is used in a legal context, in which case it has a very specific definition. The definition that you quoted is not the legal definition of "tax" in this context, and you'd have to be retarded to think or argue otherwise. Your statement above (and your argument based on the definition) is really a non-sequitor, and proves nothing except how blindingly stupid you are.

Here's the applicable definition: "a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income." Notice that nowhere in there does it state that a "tax" is applicable to the lack of possession.


I love paying for insurance, because it means that I won't be financially destroyed if something serious were to happen to me. Bemoaning a deductible (which you can partially control via your elected premium) and increased rates after an accident (which is determined by statistical and actuarial prediction models) just proves even further how little you understand insurance.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2012 7:13pm by Demea

This is true, but it's not just the results that matter, but the precedent it establishes.

Edit: also, I'm fairly certain that Obamacare originally passed in the Senate, then was passed through the House, after which it was amended using reconciliation. If this were truly a tax, wouldn't it have to originate in the House? Or does that not even matter at this point?


I completely agree; your argument is silly and pedantic.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2012 7:28pm by Demea

From what I heard or half recall, it was originally some other unrelated House bill that was essentially replaced entirely by the Senate bill. So it technically did start in the House. And yes, this is something both parties have done and which has passed master under the Supreme Court in the past.

The second time it hit the Senate, it passed under a budget reconciliation rule which can't be filibustered. The Republicans say they could use the same rule to repeal the mandate part (by lowering the tax penalty to zero) if they have a simple majority in the Senate.

They really shouldn't be able to do so since the Byrd rule states that any changes which would increase the deficit under reconciliation have to be offset and the ACA was scored to lower the deficit by 800 billion so technically they'd have to find money to offset that. Realistically, the GOP would likely just ignore the rule as they have in the past.

Oh really?



As a noun, there is no "legal" definition as prefaced in the verb definition. In any case, the two definitions say the same thing, except one is the government demanding money to support a service versus anyone else doing the same thing. There is no need for "lack of possession", it's support of a service.

Given the fact that the SCOTUS believes it's a tax and I doubt that you have more experience than them, I'll just stick with my gut on this one. But hey, maybe you can argue with SCOTUS on how they don't know how to use a dictionary.



Then you don't love paying for insurance, you love being insured. There's a distinct difference that I made in my argument which you obviously overlooked. If you could be insured for free with no backlash to anyone, would you do it? Some people work because they love getting paid, some people actually love their work and would do it for free as a hobby.

Besides, that didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if you love paying for insurance, but paying for a deductible that's less than the amount of the money paid in insurance.



That statement only proves your continuance of not knowing what the terminology "necessary evil" means. Just because I don't like it doesn't in any logical argument means that I don't understand it. As I said, insurance companies are businesses. Just like banks charge interests, insurance companies charge deductibles. It defers people from using the insurance money. People don't like paying interest on credit cards and/or loans, but that doesn't mean that they don't understand it or if the practice is beneficial.

All State seemed to have figured it out. Oh wait, I guess you know more than All State also.. hmmm. Aren't you the smart one?



So as I said. I win in any case, Mr. "I know more than the SCOTUS". Carry on now while the rest of us rejoice on the fact that there aren't people out there uninsured. I know that must bother you.

See, that word services I bolded? When you don't have health insurance and go to the emergency room, guess who picks up the tab? Hey, it's the government. So basically, Roberts decided that the ACA was a tax on people who used those services that the government provides.

Does that fit your definition well enough?

Well then, I believe that one guy has a better understanding on this scenario than Demea does. I could be wrong, as politicians tend to label stuff they don't like "unconstitutional", but I see no issue with the usage of that word.



This.

I don't see how the conservatives don't see this. Honestly, I think they support it and they are just jealous that a Democrat pulled it off. Furthermore, this "success" gives the president more leverage for the election. Both sides claim it's about the people and not politics, but we all know the politics play a major role.

Saying that the ACA individual mandate can be construed as a tax is as far as I'm willing to agree with you Alma. I can see why the anti-ACA crowd is up in arms, though. Barry O, as well as Dem leaders from Congress, told us over and over how it wasn't a tax, and then one of their (our) own stabs them (us) in the back and lets it pass muster and, of all things, says it counts as a tax.

I dunno. The same body told me that corporations are people.

This has nothing to do with Alma's "independent" remark; I just read it and found it interesting

Edited, Jul 3rd 2012 3:29pm by Jophiel