SCOTUS Decision on Healthcare

[x__orion]

Originally Posted by origen01

there have been no changes to the statute given the gridlock in Congress.

The subsidy comes from the federal government in the form of an income tax credit.

Then I hope they've done their maths correctly and the books will balance but, frankly, Gov'ts don't seem to have very good accountants.

I suspect a lot of Americans will suddenly be paying a lot more than they thought they would.

[origen01]

Originally Posted by x__orion

Then I hope they've done their maths correctly and the books will balance but, frankly, Gov'ts don't seem to have very good accountants.

I suspect a lot of Americans will suddenly be paying a lot more than they thought they would.

Frankly, I find the eligibly requirements and the funds distributed for subsidies quite lacking. That's my major beef with the law.

And the GOP is not going to amend anything regarding this statute. For them, it's repeal or jack diddly.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

BULLSHIT,,,,,,,,,,,, a concocted number that has no factual evidence,,''50 MILLION UNINSURED'',,those are , young people that rarely need healthcare insurance,,illegal aliens that the leftists need for votes, the pre-exsisting conditions people,, that CAN join a pool through the private sector, and are generally covered under an existing federal/state entitlement,,stop embarrassing yourself by continuously repeating leftist talking points.

Hey Ace, is it OK for Young people who THOUGHT they didn't need any health care insurance to have you and me pay for the medical bills from the accident they had or illness they never THOUGHT they would have?

What about "personal responsibility"? What about them sucking up our tax dollars costing us all more money"? What about the deficit and government spending?

And as far as calling bullshit on me I think its quite evident the real bullshitter is you because you didn't dispute the fact the ACA has already insured millions more Americans and will insure millions more when the state insurance exchanges are set up. All you did is dispute whether there's actually 50 millions currently without insurance which the ACA is designed to fix.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

I'll answer your question.

No.

Employers have to report benefits provided to employees on their (the employer's) tax forms, but it seems like this should've been done already and it's just now formally required. There is nothing that suggests it's going to be taxable income.

You're absolutely right about this and Clarise is either one of the biggest phonies on the forum or the most inept because finding the information was one of those 30 second google searches.

Reporting Employer Provided Health Coverage in Form W-2

The Affordable Care Act requires employers to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan on an employee’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, in Box 12, using Code DD. Many employers are eligible for transition relief for tax-year 2012 and beyond, until the IRS issues final guidance for this reporting requirement.
The amount reported does not affect tax liability, as the value of the employer excludible contribution to health coverage continues to be excludible from an employee's income, and it is not taxable. This reporting is for informational purposes only, to show employees the value of their health care benefits so they can be more informed consumers.
More information about the reporting can be found on Form W-2 Reporting of Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...220809,00.html

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

And did you really just ask ace a question as if he knew what the fuck he was talking about in the least? Did that really just happen? Really?

I had to laugh at that one myself. It doesn't matter how soundly one defeats Ace's arguments or what sources they might use, he can never accept the actual facts and always falls back on false right wing propganda.

[stumbler]

Oh man this photo is just too precious not to share because I think it says it all about how the conservative/Republican/Tea Party feel right about now.

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by stumbler

You're absolutely right about this and Clarise is either one of the biggest phonies on the forum or the most inept because finding the information was one of those 30 second google searches.




http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...220809,00.html





I had to laugh at that one myself. It doesn't matter how soundly one defeats Ace's arguments or what sources they might use, he can never accept the actual facts and always falls back on false right wing propganda.

Yeah, I know. Asking ace was a calculated move to get him to agree. Together the two of them would yell and scream that it's true, especially ace. It was a way to get him riled. loud = right, right?

Originally Posted by clarise

First of all, fuck you.

Eh, I can do better.

Do not misquote and misattribute posters on this board.

First, who are you to tell me what to do? Did you really think that somebody would think you actually said that? Do you even know about the little triangle that brings you to the quoted post? Get over yourself, you're not important enough for anybody to give a fuck about you or what you say.

The fact is that you always have a similar strain. First, you tell everybody how great you are. Then you insult them. You especially like to pretend you're more intelligent than everybody else, and it's actually quite cute.

To repeat: fuck you, you worthless brainless spineless cowardly fuck.

Brainless? At least I know what I'm talking about. If I'm brainless, what's that make you...?

I'm not exactly sure where spineless or cowardly came into this, although I guess it's just part of your limited arsenal of shitty insults. Last time we talked you gave up because... wait for it... you were woefully incorrect.


AND

Second, you are probably not correct about the taxation issue. The IRS regs conflict with each other, and there seem to be situations in which employer contributions to household dependencies are taxable.

You're telling me I'm wrong based on..... nothing. Way to go. Unfortunately for you, I AM correct and stumbler posted it.

I did not pretend to have the answers. I do not pretend to know. You do not know, either.

It seems that I do. I'm sorry, but just because you say it doesn't make it true. I like to know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Fuck yourself.

You seem awfully angry.

Originally Posted by tim929

Have you ever seen a major federal mandate not go through many, extensive changes over the course of time that alter the conditions to the point that the final product doesnt even closely resemble the original law? Those limits may be in place now but they will never last. Lobbyists for the health care industry will see to that.

It was a nice gesture but at the end of the day we are still dealing with a massive, for profit industry second only to the oil industry that represents one in every seven dollars spent in America and controled by people who value profits over everything else. And if Darth Romney and the corperate empire get elected we can kiss the whole thing good bye and see it replaced by something far more beneficial to his corperate masters.

So....you wish they included something like what they did include, and now you're gonna say it doesn't matter that it was included because it'll be changed?

[hawkco119]

Obama lied about the taxes involved in this plain and simple Stumbler just keep believing the lies it makes you sound intelligent..............

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Obama lied about the taxes involved in this plain and simple Stumbler just keep believing the lies it makes you sound intelligent..............

You're the only one lying here and you're also right it would not take a necessarily intelligent person to be able to see that.

[hawkco119]

OH yeah I forgot it was me who went on ABC news on 20 sept 2009 And said the penality wasnt a tax sorry my bad I thought it was Obama my bad Stumbler I do apoligize for getting myself And your God Obama mixed up

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

OH yeah I forgot it was me who went on ABC news on 20 sept 2009 And said the penality wasnt a tax sorry my bad I thought it was Obama my bad Stumbler I do apoligize for getting myself And your God Obama mixed up

But it was you who first said President Obama promised never to raise taxes on the middle class. Personally I think that's a lie but even if I grant what you are claiming the penalty or tax if you prefer is not a tax increase on the middle class as you claimed. It only applies to those making enough money to meet the guidelines no matter what class they are in. Then you changed your story (an obvious lie) and tried to claim President Obama said he would not raise taxes on anyone when he actually campaigned on eliminating the Bush tax cuts for individuals making more than $250,000. So once again you were obviously lying. And now you are changing your story again (another obvious lie) claiming the issue is President Obama said the penalty wasn't a tax in his opinion. The Supreme disagreed but that does not make president Obama a liar.

You remain the only one doing that around here.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

OH yeah I forgot it was me who went on ABC news on 20 sept 2009 And said the penality wasnt a tax sorry my bad I thought it was Obama my bad Stumbler I do apoligize for getting myself And your God Obama mixed up

You are NOT supposed to remember that shit.

Because the leftists sure do want us to forget the ''lies and promises'' that Obama has made.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

OH yeah I forgot it was me who went on ABC news on 20 sept 2009 And said the penality wasnt a tax sorry my bad I thought it was Obama my bad Stumbler I do apoligize for getting myself And your God Obama mixed up

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

You are NOT supposed to remember that shit.

Because the leftists sure do want us to forget the ''lies and promises'' that Obama has made.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

You are NOT supposed to remember that shit.

Because the leftists sure do want us to forget the ''lies and promises'' that Obama has made.

It does not make it any less total bullshit for you to pretend you believe him Ace.

And Obama's lies and promises pale in comparison to the brainwashed bullshit you on the right crank out on a daily basis.

Plus you of all people know when you resort to personal attacks with no facts you've already lost the debate.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;5182086]

It does not make it any less total bullshit for you to pretend you believe him Ace.

Obama did say it,, I dont know when or on what show,,but I DID hear that lying leftist/dictating/socialist say it.

And Obama's lies and promises pale in comparison to the brainwashed bullshit you on the right crank out on a daily basis.

So, actually you are admitting, finally,,,that Obama has a pack of lies with sentence he says.

Plus you of all people know when you resort to personal attacks with no facts you've already lost the debate.

Thin skinned folks need to adjust their debating techniques on occasion,, you included.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=clarise;5180135]

Hi.

Hi ya...

No one is responding to my posts. I think they're too long. Whatever.

You sure are a chatty one.

Aces, am I right here, or am I all wet, with my understanding that under Obamacare, a provision will kick in (after his reelection) under which employer contributions to health care premiums will be considered taxable income?

I do remember hearing that horseshit,, but stumbler has convinced me that it is just a lie repeated by the republican/conservative/teabaggers,,,but,,,low and behold,,Forbes has a few questions that they would like to ask about it. Now that the constitutional status of the ACA has been determined, it is worth remembering how many other provisions in the ACA impact taxes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnov...ht-be-taxable/

Because all these people are parroting the party line that the affordable care act is going to be candy-lollipops-all-free-today, and it's driving me batty.

Dont fall for the lies and propaganda that you hear,,,IT'S NOT TODAY,,,,,,,,,,they are free,,, starting on NOVEMBER 1ST.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Hi ya...

You sure are a chatty one.

I do remember hearing that horseshit,, but stumbler has convinced me that it is just a lie repeated by the republican/conservative/teabaggers,,,but,,,low and behold,,Forbes has a few questions that they would like to ask about it. Now that the constitutional status of the ACA has been determined, it is worth remembering how many other provisions in the ACA impact taxes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnov...ht-be-taxable/

Dont fall for the lies and propaganda that you hear,,,IT'S NOT TODAY,,,,,,,,,,they are free,,, starting on NOVEMBER 1ST.

Hey Ace that's actually the rebates people like me might get for being over charged by their insurance companies isn't it? It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the bulllshit Clarise is trying to spread that insurance policies provided by employers will be taxed as income.

Damn Ace you just did what me and a few other detractors said you would do. Make up some bullshit instead of the actual facts. But the the sloppiness of this ridiculous dodge even surprises me.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Obama did say it,, I dont know when or on what show,,but I DID hear that lying leftist/dictating/socialist say it.

Which quote Ace?

He has changed his story three times now and you are fool enough to swear to them without even knowing what was said.

And bullshit again Ace. If President Obama said that don't try and tell me you can't find it. You can always find any other bullshit you want to.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

So, actually you are admitting, finally,,,that Obama has a pack of lies with sentence he says.

I'm admitting no such thing. I'm proving its actually you and hawkco119 are spreading.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Thin skinned folks need to adjust their debating techniques on occasion,, you included.

You and I both know instead of me being thin skinned you're the one caught in a logical fallacy which by nature are false.

[origen01]

This is getting silly...

Stumbler, Chief Justice Roberts has clearly stated that the individual mandate (Sec. 5000A.) acts as a tax on a certain population (ie those who do not buy insurance). People may choose to call it a penalty but a penalty can also be a tax and that is what the Court decision fundamentally and succinctly interpreted it as.

"The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation....""...Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance."
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS 567 U. S. 4 (2012)

The point is, I can understand why many wouldn't like the idea of being forced to pay for health insurance but it is NECESSARY to eliminate the uninsurability of those with pre-existing conditions. The mandate is a step in a responsible direction and there is simply NO way around it.

I'm sick of this country's freaking phobia towards taxes. Let's just call them what they are and deal with it. We'll be a better country (and balance the freaking budget) if we do.

[PatronofPorn]

Originally Posted by origen01

I'm sick of this country's freaking phobia towards taxes.

Here in Michigan, there's a commercial that's advocating another cross border bridge with Ontario, and basically it goes, "It will create hundreds of millions in economic activity, thousands of new jobs, and strengthen our ties with our greatest trading partner. And what will it cost Michigan taxpayers? Not one cent!"

I face-smacked myself when I heard that. Even if it were true, are we really so far gone as a society that we can't stand paying taxes for anything, including a new and valuable economic asset for our struggling state?

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;5182166]

Hey Ace that's actually the rebates people like me might get for being over charged by their insurance companies isn't it? It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the bulllshit Clarise is trying to spread that insurance policies provided by employers will be taxed as income.

As usual, you tend to never read or comprehend a fucking thing;

Several other tax provisions are set to take effect in the near future under ACA, including (among many others):

1. A $1-per-covered-individual excise tax on employers and insurers, which will take effect this year, to fund “comparative effectiveness research.” The fee will increase to $2 next year, and will be increased further for inflation thereafter.
2. A 0.9% increase in the Medicare payroll taxes imposed on the wages of certain higher-income-earners (i.e., those earning more than $250,000 (if married) or $200,000 (if single) per year), effective beginning in 2013. In some (but not all) cases, an employer will need to withhold the additional tax from an employee’s wages. The employee will remain liable for the additional tax to the extent the employer does not withhold it.
3. A 3.8% Medicare contribution tax on an individual’s net investment income, if and to the extent that the individual’s total income exceeds $250,000 (if married) or $200,000 (if single), effective beginning in 2013.
4. An annual $2,500 limit on employees’ payroll contributions to employer-sponsored health flexible spending arrangements (or “health FSAs”) – which allow employees to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses with pre-tax dollars – effective beginning in 2013.

It all means the same thing big guy,,the federal government loses several hundred billion dollars annually through healthcare tax expenditures,,so now they will tax some tax brackets to assist in expanding healthcare coverage, so yes,,what clarise is saying is not a lie,,it is factual as fuck,,to think the government wont tax people is some form or another,,is pretty fucking naive.

Damn Ace you just did what me and a few other detractors said you would do. Make up some bullshit instead of the actual facts. But the the sloppiness of this ridiculous dodge even surprises me.

The facts are in the fine print,,,,something you leftists would rather ignore,,claiming one of 2 things,,''those greedy insurance companies are out to get me'',,,,,OR,,,,''I hope those people dont read this''

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;5182196]

Which quote Ace?

He has changed his story three times now and you are fool enough to swear to them without even knowing what was said.

And bullshit again Ace. If President Obama said that don't try and tell me you can't find it. You can always find any other bullshit you want to.

In a Sept. 20, 2009, interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama denied that the mandate to buy health insurance was equivalent to a tax. "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said. He noted that Americans are required to have auto insurance, but nobody considers that a tax increase. (Auto insurance is a state mandate, but all the states except New Hampshire require it of resident drivers.)
When Stephanopoulos pressed Obama on whether the mandate was a tax, Obama said: "I absolutely reject that notion."
However, on July 16 The New York Times published a story that seemed to vindicate opponents of the health care overhaul who argued that the insurance requirement was a tax. The headline: "Changing stance, administration now defends insurance mandate as a tax."

Sarah Palin says Barack Obama once said the individual mandate "wasn't a tax"

Both of my findings are straight out of your beloved/cherished http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...id-individual/

Suck it ,,,,,,,,,,,AND hawkco119,,can change his story several more times if he chooses,,it still does not change the fact that Obama said the the mandate was not a tax..........

I'm admitting no such thing. I'm proving its actually you and hawkco119 are spreading.

You and I both know instead of me being thin skinned you're the one caught in a logical fallacy which by nature are false.

Typical of you.

[origen01]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

As usual, you tend to never read or comprehend a fucking thing;

It all means the same thing big guy,,the federal government loses several hundred billion dollars annually through healthcare tax expenditures,,so now they will tax some tax brackets to assist in expanding healthcare coverage, so yes,,what clarise is saying is not a lie,,it is factual as fuck,,to think the government wont tax people is some form or another,,is pretty fucking naive.
The facts are in the fine print,,,,something you leftists would rather ignore,,claiming one of 2 things,,''those greedy insurance companies are out to get me'',,,,,OR,,,,''I hope those people dont read this''

Ok, Ace now I agree with stumbler and you are just being a phony.

You are distorting several facts.

A $1-per-covered-individual excise tax on employers and insurers, which will take effect this year, to fund “comparative effectiveness research.” The fee will increase to $2 next year, and will be increased further for inflation thereafter.

This is proposed regulation and has not been finalized by the statute.

http://www.cov.com/files/Uploads/Doc...Regulation.pdf

A 0.9% increase in the Medicare payroll taxes imposed on the wages of certain higher-income-earners (i.e., those earning more than $250,000 (if married) or $200,000 (if single) per year), effective beginning in 2013. In some (but not all) cases, an employer will need to withhold the additional tax from an employee’s wages. The employee will remain liable for the additional tax to the extent the employer does not withhold it.

...and...

A 3.8% Medicare contribution tax on an individual’s net investment income, if and to the extent that the individual’s total income exceeds $250,000 (if married) or $200,000 (if single), effective beginning in 2013.

Obama has gone on the record many times and said that his anti-tax stance does not extend to families making more than $250,000 annually. Granted, he does brack-track on his anti-tax stance elsewhere in the statute but not here. Plus, you have to remember the law was written by Congress. The President doesn't have full control of the markup process. I know, you'll say it's a dodge. In return, I'd say get over it--it's a step in the right direction and some taxes are not the end of the world. I'm not happy about paying but they're necessary and they won't kill us.

An annual $2,500 limit on employees’ payroll contributions to employer-sponsored health flexible spending arrangements (or “health FSAs”) – which allow employees to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses with pre-tax dollars – effective beginning in 2013.

The ACA doesn't hide the fact that its intended purpose is discourage Americans from being underinsured. Flexible Spending Accounts
have been very useful in the past where individuals and employers were not able to purchase health insurance. Having a tax-free fund for medical expenses--oftentimes matched by employer contributions--was better than nothing but was unquestionably inefficient in providing comprehensive care..

However, Sec. 5000A of the ACA changes all of that and ALL Americans are simply urged to get health insurance. As for using FSAs for out-of-pocket medical expenses, the ACA limits out-of-pocket expenses for insured enrollees according to Sec. 1302 of the law.

I love how you hid the fact that you got all this info from Forbes.com. Always own up to your source, man, and the potential biases they might have.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnov...ht-be-taxable/

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Both of my findings are straight out of your beloved/cherished http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...id-individual/

Suck it ,,,,,,,,,,,AND hawkco119,,can change his story several more times if he chooses,,it still does not change the fact that Obama said the the mandate was not a tax..........



Typical of you.

What's so stupid here Ace is that this isn't a lie. Its a difference of opinion and terminology. So President Obama and the Democrats prefer the word penalty instead of tax and the supreme Court disagrees. That doesn't make it a lie.

A lie is saying that the ACA amounts to a massive tax increase on all Americans when in fact the penalty is estimated to effect less than 1% of the country.

Fox Vs. Fox On "Massive New Tax" That Only Affects A Small Number Of People

Lines in the sand have been drawn at Fox.


Discussing the Supreme Court's opinion upholding health care reform legislation, Fox White House correspondent Wendell Goler reported today that a fee for individuals who don't have health insurance would only affect one percent of the population. Goler's report is in marked contrast to his Fox News colleagues, who are claiming the fee is a massive tax on all Americans.


In contrast to Goler's report, Fox has been aggressively claiming that the fee would amount to a massive tax on all Americans.


For instance, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley said that the ruling will lead to "one of the biggest tax increases in American history and a highly regressive tax that is going to hit the poor and the middle class," and Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy claimed it creates a tax that is "going to hit everybody."


Likewise, Fox host Sean Hannity claimed that it is "a tax on every single American" and "the largest tax increase in American history," and Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes said it "will force a massive new tax on the American people."


In fact, Goler's reporting is backed up by the facts. In April 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 4 million people will face a fine for not having insurance in 2016.

A March 2012 report by the nonpartisan Urban Institute found that 94 percent of Americans "would not face a requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206290018

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by origen01

This is getting silly...

Stumbler, Chief Justice Roberts has clearly stated that the individual mandate (Sec. 5000A.) acts as a tax on a certain population (ie those who do not buy insurance). People may choose to call it a penalty but a penalty can also be a tax and that is what the Court decision fundamentally and succinctly interpreted it as.

The point is, I can understand why many wouldn't like the idea of being forced to pay for health insurance but it is NECESSARY to eliminate the uninsurability of those with pre-existing conditions. The mandate is a step in a responsible direction and there is simply NO way around it.

I'm sick of this country's freaking phobia towards taxes. Let's just call them what they are and deal with it. We'll be a better country (and balance the freaking budget) if we do.

I've already granted that people can call it a "tax" if they want to but its not a tax on the middle class. Its not the biggest "tax increase" in US history. And its not a massive new tax on the American people.

Whether penalty or tax it will still effect an estimated 1% of the population.

[stumbler]

Health care industry relieved by Supreme Court ruling on ACA?

“The market didn’t really care about the outcome of the Obamacare ruling, as stocks were in the red beforehand and stayed there all the way to the finish line,” said Steve Reitmeister of Zacks Investment Research.
The varied sectors of the industry reacted differently depending on the impact of the court’s decision on them.
Hospital owners gained, with shares of the country’s largest group HCA leaping 10.8 percent.
“The new law requires more Americans to have health coverage, reducing hospitals’ burden of unpaid bills from the uninsured,” explained David Evanson from stock analysts Canaccord.
Insurers went the other way because although the ACA could expand the number of people buying insurance, it also forces the companies to extend coverage more broadly, potentially cutting their profits.
Typical was Wellpoint, whose stock lost 5.1 percent Thursday, and Aetna, down 2.7 percent.
“The legislation will put in place a handful of potentially profit-stifling requirements, such as covering people with pre-existing conditions,” said Evanson.
Share of major drug companies, who collectively negotiated a complex deal involving both costs and benefits with the White House when the ACA was being shaped, were mixed.
Pfizer was 0.4 percent off, Merck gained 0.4 percent, and biotech group Gilead lost 2.4 percent.
Nearly all groups said the law was imperfect and called for changes.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/3...ruling-on-aca/

[stumbler]

Local Tea Party Leader: ‘I Hope The Supreme Court Justices Get Colon Cancer’

Conservatives have had a series of extreme reactions to the Supreme Court’s Thursday decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual health care mandate: from charging that Chief Justice John Roberts’s epilepsy medication caused him to support the majority opinion, to calling for an armed rebellion against the Court.
Now, the Merrimack Patch reports that a Tea Party leader in New Hampshire is wishing cancer on the justices:

Former Town Councilor Mike Malzone, the founder of the Merrimack Tea Party, said Thursday in a Facebook post reacting to the Supreme Court ruling on health care, “I hope the (5 supremes) get colon cancer.”


A day after posting the message, Malzone said he stands by what he said. He clarified that he doesn’t want anyone to die, and the cancer reference was more to make a point that he wants them to feel the pain being inflicted on Americans being overburdened by taxes.


“I didn’t wish for anyone to die, but I said I do wish for them to feel our pain,” he said. “No one cares about me, they all make their promises and then go do what they goddamn feel.”

Malzone later apologized for his heated rhetoric, saying in part, “I can’t believe how angry I was. But it is what it is. I apologized to Merrimack Tea followers for my language.”


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the majority opinion, was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1999 and had pancreatic cancer ten years later.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...-colon-cancer/

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Hey Ace that's actually the rebates people like me might get for being over charged by their insurance companies isn't it? It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the bulllshit Clarise is trying to spread that insurance policies provided by employers will be taxed as income.

Damn Ace you just did what me and a few other detractors said you would do. Make up some bullshit instead of the actual facts. But the the sloppiness of this ridiculous dodge even surprises me.

Why do you even bother with him? He clearly didn't even read the article beyond the fucking title. What he quoted isn't even what the fucking title is referring to, and when you pointed that out he changed his "point".

Why bother with somebody who's so fucking stupid? I genuinely wonder how some people here have actual jobs.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

Why do you even bother with him? He clearly didn't even read the article beyond the fucking title. What he quoted isn't even what the fucking title is referring to, and when you pointed that out he changed his "point".

Why bother with somebody who's so fucking stupid? I genuinely wonder how some people here have actual jobs.

I bother because of my personal battle against the lie of conservatism as it is preached and practiced in this nation. And because I also believe Ace is just acting dumb because he can't face the failure and falseness of his ideology.

Also he can pretty much be counted on to take what ever he sees or hears from the right wing false propaganda and post it on nearly a daily basis and therefore works well to shoot down the latest conservative/Republican/Tea Party lies and misinformation.

[hawkco119]

Stumbler once again proves his ignorance I have not changed my story have said since decision came out OBAMA LIED and I stick to it.... He said no taxes and he lied proof is in the pudding..... And you can call a dog a cat but its still a dog so you can call a penalty a penalty but its still a TAX so you can try to deflect as many times has you wish Stumbler but i stick to what i have said ALLL ALONG OBAMA LIED AGAIN and you cant just acceept that not my problem but i will continually state this simple FACT

[signatory12]

it's been two days now sice the "It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!" argument got flushed down the toilet, and now conservatives are trying their 'latest-and-greatest' lie on for size: "IT'S A TAX!!!!!!!" and trying to imply it's going to hit everyone.
guys, a hint: just remember all the folks who had egg on their faces right after the Supreme Court insisted the ACA *was* constitutional before you go trying to make some other false excuse up.

[signatory12]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Stumbler once again proves his ignorance I have not changed my story have said since decision came out OBAMA LIED and I stick to it.... He said no taxes and he lied proof is in the pudding..... And you can call a dog a cat but its still a dog so you can call a penalty a penalty but its still a TAX so you can try to deflect as many times has you wish Stumbler but i stick to what i have said ALLL ALONG OBAMA LIED AGAIN and you cant just acceept that not my problem but i will continually state this simple FACT

you know, if you just come out of the closet and admit you're a conservative troll, you'll feel such a wave of relief. no more having to hide it, just the freedom to be.....yourself (whatever the hell that might be).

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Stumbler once again proves his ignorance I have not changed my story have said since decision came out OBAMA LIED and I stick to it....

Oh yes you most certainly did change your story. Here's what you said in your own words.

Originally Posted by hawkco119

There are only two ways to look at this decision.....

First Obama comes out and declares victory and reaffirms the fact that he is a LIAR and does not care about the middle class because he has now raised taxes. Remember he has said so many times that this law contains no new taxes well he cant say that now can he.


Second, and least likely due to egos, Obama comes out and says he was wrong that this law as it is written is crap I am sorry but will lead the effort to repeal this and get ALL leaders of congress together and fix this now.

Just one proud citzen and ex military memebers humble common sense opinion.

Now you start out with the lie that President Obama raised taxes on the middle class. And once I proved that a lie you came back with he said he would not raise taxes which is a lie because he's always said he wants to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000. And then finally you claim President Obama thinks of this as a penalty not a tax and the Supreme court disagrees. It doesn't mean he lied. It simply means the Supreme court calls it a tax.

But even if it is a tax it will only effect about 1% of the population you ignorant bald faced liar.

Originally Posted by hawkco119

He said no taxes and he lied proof is in the pudding.....

Nope you're now the hysterical liar because President Obama campaigned on doing away with tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 and is campaigning on the "Buffet rule" right now that would raise taxes on millionaires.

Originally Posted by hawkco119

And you can call a dog a cat but its still a dog so you can call a penalty a penalty but its still a TAX so you can try to deflect as many times has you wish Stumbler but i stick to what i have said ALLL ALONG OBAMA LIED AGAIN and you cant just acceept that not my problem but i will continually state this simple FACT

And I stick by what I said and still say you are a bullshit, hysterical liar that even lies about what you said when you said it.

[tim929]

As for paying for the federal assistance part of making sure everyone has health care, that will obviously come from taxes. One of the things they are hoping for (goverment and insurance companies) is that millions of young people who currently dont carry health insurance will be forced to pay for something that many of us waited until we were in our forties to buy, thus increasing the number of profitable years a person pay into the system befor they start falling appart and getting sick.

In theory its a great idea but the fact that this is a mandate that forces people to buy a product from for profit companies whos shareholders expect obscene profit margins, I expect that within a decade this will all fall appart and we will be forced into some form of blanket, government health insurance instead. Like medicare but bigger and more expensive and ultimately doomed to fail.

Until the profit motive can be reigned in for the insurers, health providers, pharmsuitical companies and medical equipment providers, health care is going to be nothing more than a giant mine field.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by tim929

As for paying for the federal assistance part of making sure everyone has health care, that will obviously come from taxes. One of the things they are hoping for (goverment and insurance companies) is that millions of young people who currently dont carry health insurance will be forced to pay for something that many of us waited until we were in our forties to buy, thus increasing the number of profitable years a person pay into the system befor they start falling appart and getting sick.

No, not really, at least according to Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman. According to him, the real problem with our present system is it not only puts US businesses at a severe disadvantage, our current system is also mathematically unsustainable.

And I think Krugman offers an excellent explanation (especially for someone like you) of that right here:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...o-do-about-it/

Originally Posted by tim929

In theory its a great idea but the fact that this is a mandate that forces people to buy a product from for profit companies whos shareholders expect obscene profit margins, I expect that within a decade this will all fall appart and we will be forced into some form of blanket, government health insurance instead. Like medicare but bigger and more expensive and ultimately doomed to fail.

But you see Medicare is actually one of the most successful healthcare programs we've got, with the exception that the Veterans Administration at least got to put their medication and supply needs out for bid and there fore get a lot better deal than Medicare does. (A distinct advantage preserved for the pharmaceutical industry as a payoff for their suppport by the Obama Administration in the ACA).

And Medicare is also one of the most popular health care programs we have which I believe the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers will soon be reminded of.

The real problem is we have an entire for profit and Wall Street traded industry forcing themselves between the American people and their doctors and health care facilities for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible off those they are supposed to be serving.

But then on the other side we have somewhere between 30 and 50 million uninsured who still get sick and injured (those 25 to 35 year-olds as well) and must be treated but cannot pay. Which is why it costs more than $100 to cross the threshold of the emergency room and a band-aid in the costs $5.00 once inside.

We have to face the fact (and believe me I have questioned them on it often) that even the self identified "conservatives" on this forum are not willing to start allowing men women and children to die in the streets, so we have to figure out some way of paying for it. And that's where the billions in profits the health care insurance companies are skimming off need to go.

Originally Posted by tim929

Until the profit motive can be reigned in for the insurers, health providers, pharmsuitical companies and medical equipment providers, health care is going to be nothing more than a giant mine field.

Once again I most kindly invite you to at least skim Krugman's piece because while you are right about this most people overlook the fact that in an increasingly global market the rising health care costs not only result in the single largest reason for US personal bankruptcies, US businesses are saddle with providing insurance and absorbing those same increases which most businesses we are competing with in other nations don't have such a millstone around their necks.

[stumbler]

I've said this a few times before, but not for awhile, and must say it again now. It is at times very difficult to maintain my partisan passion and personal crusade in a time as politically fascinating to political observers as tin foil shiny side up is to a Pack Rat. And these past four or so years have not only been that, the intensity and fascination has only increased since then.

And the Supreme Court Case decision on the ACA is a perfect example of that. Because, just for example, I'd say it does not matter where you are on the political spectrum, anyone (including me) who claims they were not surprised by the decision is bullshitting.

So consequently all the various political camps were I suspect equally surprised which of course directs their response both offensively and defensively. But let's also get real here for a second and admit its not like the basic Republican and Democratic camps et. al. had not already prepared responses to both possible outcomes.

That was just so clear when the Republicans almost in unison, and down to the man (literally) all launched two basic arguments. One, just because the Supreme court said the ACA was constitutional didn't mean they said it was good policy or a good law. And the other was that President Obama said this was not a tax, and also said he would not raise taxes on the middle class. And yet the Supreme court said it was a tax. Therefore President Obama lied twice.

Ok so now the question to me at least is how are they doing on that?

Well because as I have said many many times President Obama is the most intelligent, effective, and hardest working President I've seen in my lifetime no so good it appears to me.

I know many pundits and others have claimed this is actually a conservative victory because it will fire up the base, but let's also face this fact, its the Independents that will likely decide this election, and they are now normally swayed by brainwashed parrot bullshit. So instead it appears to me the GOP has been crowded once again into impossible contradictions that thinking individuals cannot overlook.

Let's take the its a tax argument for a minute.

First the White House is sticking to their story it isn't a tax and turning the tables on the GOP to prove their point.

Check out White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew's response:

“First of all, the law is clear, it’s called a penalty. Second of all, what the Supreme Court ruled is that the law is constitutional. Actually, they didn’t call it a tax. They said it was using the power under the constitution that permits it. It was not labeled,” Lew said.

Does that sound familiar? Isn't it the same as saying; "the court said it was constitutional. They didn't say it was a good law"? Because in this case they are saying the court didn't label a tax, they just said what ever it was was permissible under the constitutional powers to tax.

“This is a penalty. It’s something that only 1 percent of people who can afford insurance and choose not to get it will pay. Everyone who has insurance, everyone who chooses to buy insurance will not pay it. What they’re going to get is security — they’re going to get lower premiums and better health care. That’s a good thing for the American people.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1zPXXDXZt

See its not a tax, its a choice. One that only effects 1% of the population.

And then ........... by the way, if this is a tax didn't Mitt Romney "raise taxes" when he implemented "Romneycare"? (God I love that one).

How do the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers answer that one? Simple, they don't.

On Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attacked President Obama for sneaking a tax increase past the American public.


“The Supreme Court has now declared it a tax. They have unearthed the massive deception that was practiced by the president and the Democrats, constantly denying that it was a tax,” McConnell said. “The chief justice has made it clear — it’s a tax.”


But the GOP leader dodged several questions on whether ‘Romneycare’ is also a tax increase.


“Well I think Governor Romney will have to speak for himself about what was done in Massachusetts,” McConnell said. “I can tell you that every single Democratic senator voted for this tax increase.”


On CBS’ Face The Nation, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also ducked questions about whether Romney has a credibility problem because of his mandate.


“This is an issue that was in Massachusetts — that’s one state,” he said. “That’s why we have 50 different states. They’re laboratories of democracy. Governor Romney understands that Obamacare will bankrupt our country and ruin the best health care delivery system in the world. … This is far more than any state has ever comprehended or tried to do.”
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the tax penalty will hit 4 million people in 2016, or just over 1 percent of the population.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ax.php?ref=fpa


Now strictly from my slanted perspective at least its very difficult to trap your opposition in their own arguments and use them against them. But this gets way better than that.


And that's because while the GOP had their arguments and political strategy all lined out, they completely forgot to consider any alternatives or solutions. So again consequently when all they did was say the court might have said it was constitutional but it was still a bad law they intended to repeal when asked what parts they would repeal or what their alternatives were the GOP talking heads were caught flat-footed (again).


Norah O’Donnell Hammers John Boehner: ‘When You Repeal [Obamacare], What Are You Going To Replace It With?’

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/norah-odo...place-it-with/

And believe me

Mitch McConnell On 30 Million Uninsured: 'That Is Not The Issue' (VIDEO)

And check the retracition his office had to issue after saying 30 million Americans didn't count.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, offered some additional information about Senate Republican leader's position on health care insurance.


"If you watched the interview, it was clear that the Leader believes we need to focus on lowering costs, first and foremost," Stewart said in an email. "That is the best way to help the 250 million Americans who have insurance today, and to help the 47 million who do not. We need to make it affordable, but Obamacare -- in its rush to expand coverage to everyone -- actually drives up health care costs by $300 billion. If health care is more affordable, more of the uninsured can find coverage."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1641033.html

So that's how the GOP is doing but what about my side. It would be kind of chicken shit just to watch the GOP self destruct without any risks of our own.

And to that end allow the most hated Nancy Pelosi to step into the ring and just put the verbal boots to the GOP proving once again she actually has the biggest balls in Congress:

Pelosi: Health care decision a ‘victory for the American people’

On Meet the Press, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/...31785#48032127


Now I'm sure opinions will vary but if you ask me its a good time to be a Democrat.

[AZRIEL]

[Captain_awesome]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EtwwTScsFI&feature=plcp

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Captain_awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EtwwTScsFI&feature=plcp

I just might agree with your screen name and proved mine by stumbling into posting this same clip without checking yours first.

But that being said what a wonderful and powerful response from TYT. Thanks for beating me to it.

It sounds better the way you said it.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=stumbler;5183592]

What's so stupid here Ace is that this isn't a lie. Its a difference of opinion and terminology. So President Obama and the Democrats prefer the word penalty instead of tax and the supreme Court disagrees. That doesn't make it a lie.

To fund an entitlement program designed to cover every single American in this country, along with several million illegal aliens, is not an fucking penalty,,it's a fucking TAX,, and a severe tax on several million Americans,, it's just the typical politicians playing with words.

A lie is saying that the ACA amounts to a massive tax increase on all Americans when in fact the penalty is estimated to effect less than 1% of the country.

Fox Vs. Fox On "Massive New Tax" That Only Affects A Small Number Of People

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......It is in fact the largest tax increase in American history,,along with the largest tax increase in the world,, the supreme courts decision allows Obamacare’s 20 separate taxes, totaling half a trillion dollars, to take effect next year, plus additional costs of $1.76 trillion,,,,OH FUCK,,,I'm wrong,,,,,,,,,,,it's the biggest ''penalty'' in U.S history......

[x__orion]

Say, Ace, will you have to pay extra tax as a result of this?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

To fund an entitlement program designed to cover every single American in this country, along with several million illegal aliens, is not an fucking penalty,,it's a fucking TAX,, and a severe tax on several million Americans,, it's just the typical politicians playing with words.

How can that be if the individual mandate only effects about 1% of the population?

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......It is in fact the largest tax increase in American history,,along with the largest tax increase in the world,, the supreme courts decision allows Obamacare’s 20 separate taxes, totaling half a trillion dollars, to take effect next year, plus additional costs of $1.76 trillion,,,,OH FUCK,,,I'm wrong,,,,,,,,,,,it's the biggest ''penalty'' in U.S history......

Ace I'm pretty sure you must be hysterical by this time because you have not basis in fact for that statement and its a complete fabrication which you can't back up and you know that.

[ladygodiva123]

[QUOTE=ace's n 8's;5186440]

Originally Posted by stumbler

To fund an entitlement program designed to cover every single American in this country, along with several million illegal aliens, is not an fucking penalty,,it's a fucking TAX,, and a severe tax on several million Americans,, it's just the typical politicians playing with words.

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......It is in fact the largest tax increase in American history,,along with the largest tax increase in the world,, the supreme courts decision allows Obamacare’s 20 separate taxes, totaling half a trillion dollars, to take effect next year, plus additional costs of $1.76 trillion,,,,OH FUCK,,,I'm wrong,,,,,,,,,,,it's the biggest ''penalty'' in U.S history......

No, the biggest penalty is NOT HAVING health insurance because you aren't poor enough to get Medicaid, you don't get it through your employer and you can't afford the insane premiums that individuals have to pay.

I met a guy, Keenan, who worked in construction. He was a hard working guy and made fairly good money but his employer didn't offer health insurance. He couldn't afford to buy insurance on his own for him, his wife and his children, so he just got insurance for his children. He was in an accident on the job and his leg was severely injured, almost amputated. Without insurance, the ER is only responsible to save his life and they did. If he had insurance they would have gone to the time and expense of trying to reattach the leg, but all they had to do to save his life was stop the bleeding. So they amputated the leg. Now, will he get worker's compensation? Of course. Does he have a case against his employer because he was injured on the job through no fault of his own? Probably. Will any of this get his leg back? Of course not. One provision of the ACA is that employers with 50 or more employees will have to offer health insurance or pay a penalty. Smaller businesses will be encouraged to provide health insurance for their employees through tax credits. But not soon enough for Keenan. Instead of working and contributing to the tax base, he's living on disability until he can get retrained to do some kind of work other than construction. That costs us money.

Think about all the people who are out of work. I know when I lost my job I couldn't afford to continue my health insurance through COBRA because the premium was $350 a month and it had a $2000 deductible. So I would have had to pay almost a quarter of my unemployment PLUS the first $2K out of pocket. I have some pretty expensive prescriptions I have to take and I couldn't afford the COBRA premiums AND my prescriptions. I kept it going for a few months, but eventually I had to drop it and there are millions of unemployed Americans and their families that are in exactly the same boat. Why should health insurance be tied to where you work? Why not make you buy car insurance through work too? It makes no sense, but that's the system we have.

We have a health insurance "tax" already whether you realize it or not. Those who have insurance pay for those who don't through higher premiums and through higher taxes for their county hospital districts. It makes more sense to encourage and help as many people as possible to GET INSURANCE. Then they won't have to use ER's as their primary care, which is very expensive. With insurance they can catch problems early when they are easier and cheaper to fix. That saves us all money and it makes for healthier people too.

The penalty/tax is hardly isn't exactly cruel and unusual punishment. For the first year it's $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is greater. If you make $100K your penalty/tax would be $1000, but if you make $100K YOU CAN AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE. I knew a real estate agent who was pulling enough money that he was paying my roommate for private voice lessons at $30 an hour. He moaned and groaned that his teeth on one side of his mouth were so bad that he was going to have to pay for $10K worth of dental implants because he didn't have dental insurance. Well DUH, why was he spending $30 a week on voice lessons and not $30 a month on dental insurance? Sometimes the government has protect us from our own stupid, shortsided decisions.

How many people would buy car insurance if they didn't have to by law? Wouldn't it be nice to drive without paying for insurance for years and then one day have an accident and just call up an insurance agent and tell them "Okay, I need insurance now." Well it makes just as much sense to think that you can cruise along without health insurance because for the time being you're healthy. We all get old (hopefully) so we pay Social Security taxes to help provide for the elderly and the disabled. When we become elderly or disabled, someone else will be paying for us. Like it or not, that's the way the plan works. How many people would pay for law enforcement and a fire department if they had to pay a monthly bill? Sometimes the government has to make us pay taxes because we need the things that taxes pay for.

We don't get to cherry pick. I wish my tax dollars weren't spent on the war in Iraq, but I don't get to make that choice. All I can do is vote for the politicians who will run this country in a way that I approve of, more or less, and spend our tax dollars on things I agree with, more or less. It's part of being a citizen. So you can take individual responsibility (Romney's term) and pay for health insurance or you can pay a nominal penalty. The choice is yours. You don't have to pay that "tax" if you don't want to. Just buy health insurance if you don't get it through your employer. The health insurance exchanges mandated by the ACA for the states should make insurance companies more competitive and make premiums more affordable. That way you won't go bankrupt from medical bills.

Rush Limbaugh said he was going to move to Costa Rica if Obamacare was implemented. Well, Costa Rica has UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE for all its citizens AND permanent residents and yes, the money for that has to come from somewhere. Just about any country on the planet that you would consider living in has universal healthcare and it's paid for with tax dollars.

[origen01]

I'm sorry stumbler but that spin Jack Lew is trying to bring about Sec 5000A not being a tax will not last. Legally, the penalty is a tax. Full stop.

[clarise]

Well, I have been away for a few days, and I see we are still trying to spin ACA as something other than the biggest tax hike in the history of civilization. Given to us by the man who pledged (on the campaign stump) that he would not tax anyone earning under $250,000 per year. And broke that promise within the first year by boosting the punitive federal tax on cigarette purchases.

Still can't get a handle on the conditions under which employer contributions to healthcare costs will be considered taxable income going forward.

The reasons that the IRS regs are inconclusive are that:

1. The IRS articles focus on present regulation, and on the IRS website, future provisions tend to link back to rules that are in place today. I am having a hard time finding an enumerated list of provisions that will be activated in coming years.

2. The funding provisions for ACA still have to be set through extra-legislative regulation. Congress still does not know exactly how the provisions will be funded, and every option is on the table.

I am hearing the argument, ex post facto, that only the fine for non-compliance is a tax, because one can elect to participate or not. So the fine is either a tax... or... blackmail? And if the participation requirement cannot be upheld under the commerce clause, under what Constitutional provision is it being upheld? What is it, if not a tax?

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

You seem awfully angry.

That is the only sentence in your response that I read.

Angry? Sure. Absolutely.

If you were not simply a sycophant for your more articulate idols on this board-- that is, if you had something of your own to say-- I would be inclined neither to read your words nor respond to them.

I am indifferent to your political opinions, such as they are. I am angered because you misquoted me.

I suppose you think yourself clever. Not unlike the way a chimpanzee in a cage shields its pecker from passersby with one hairy paw, wacks off with the other, and thinks itself clever. Yes, indeed. A clever little creature.

[hawkco119]

Oncagain you are an ignorant person Stumbler I will repeat for you. Obama said there wont be any new taxes and if you naive believe there arent any thats not my problem. TAXES will go up for all plain and simple he LIED. Exactly what i have been saying for the beginning the middle class and all will get neew taxes plain and simple. But this all takes place IF he wins, which i believe will be a longshot I honestly believe GOP will take over the senate keep the house, and take the Presdiency so this could all be mute. But until then keep believe your GOD Obama

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Oncagain you are an ignorant person Stumbler I will repeat for you. Obama said there wont be any new taxes and if you naive believe there arent any thats not my problem. TAXES will go up for all plain and simple he LIED. Exactly what i have been saying for the beginning the middle class and all will get neew taxes plain and simple. But this all takes place IF he wins, which i believe will be a longshot I honestly believe GOP will take over the senate keep the house, and take the Presdiency so this could all be mute. But until then keep believe your GOD Obama

when you tell preople they are stupid you should proof read your own post first...idiot...

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Oncagain you are an ignorant person Stumbler I will repeat for you. Obama said there wont be any new taxes and if you naive believe there arent any thats not my problem. TAXES will go up for all plain and simple he LIED. Exactly what i have been saying for the beginning the middle class and all will get neew taxes plain and simple. But this all takes place IF he wins, which i believe will be a longshot I honestly believe GOP will take over the senate keep the house, and take the Presdiency so this could all be mute. But until then keep believe your GOD Obama

That's getting to be a pretty tired talking point, especially since Mitt Romney's spokesperson just got through saying it isn't a tax. Furthermore, according to the CBO, the penalty will only apply to about 4 million people. And those are people seeking what Romney called a "free-ride" in the health care system.

[Earthboundhero]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

That's getting to be a pretty tired talking point, especially since Mitt Romney's spokesperson just got through saying it isn't a tax. Furthermore, according to the CBO, the penalty will only apply to about 4 million people. And those are people seeking what Romney called a "free-ride" in the health care system.

Honestly Kimi, I'm willing to say it's a tax myself, as that was the reasoning that let it pass. But the mandate being a tax doesn't make it a bad thing.

Taxes are not the enemy.

The enemy are those who refuse to attempt compromise whenever the word "tax" is mentioned. Like certain Republicans in congress who refused to entertain an offer of a 10:1 spending cut to tax deal.

For one brief shining moment I'm actually proud our fucking country. All 3 branches of government we utilized to actually DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!!!

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Earthboundhero

Honestly Kimi, I'm willing to say it's a tax myself, as that was the reasoning that let it pass. But the mandate being a tax doesn't make it a bad thing.

Taxes are not the enemy.

The enemy are those who refuse to attempt compromise whenever the word "tax" is mentioned. Like certain Republicans in congress who refused to entertain an offer of a 10:1 spending cut to tax deal.

For one brief shining moment I'm actually proud our fucking country. All 3 branches of government we utilized to actually DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE!!!

There you go being rational again.

But you're right...I don't really care what logic the Chief Justice used to arrive at his opinion, as long as he got the right answer. He started from the position that the ACA was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, which almost all unbiased legal experts consider utter nonsense. That, of course, didn't stop the four other conservative judges from arriving at their pre-ordained position.

The question of whether the penalty constitutes a tax is pretty much irrelevant, except for the fact that the right-wing goes into conniptions at the very mention of the word. To the rest of us, the distinction between the two words "tax" and "penalty" is arbitrary...the law still says what it says, and what the Supreme Court calls it does not change that one iota.

[signatory12]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Oncagain you are an ignorant person Stumbler I will repeat for you. Obama said there wont be any new taxes and if you naive believe there arent any thats not my problem. TAXES will go up for all plain and simple he LIED. Exactly what i have been saying for the beginning the middle class and all will get neew taxes plain and simple. But this all takes place IF he wins, which i believe will be a longshot I honestly believe GOP will take over the senate keep the house, and take the Presdiency so this could all be mute. But until then keep believe your GOD Obama

now, as I understand it, the penalty (which is the "mandate" part of the bill everyone like you what bitching and moaning about) only applies in certain instances. in specific, you only get hit by it if a) you do not have health insurance, and b) you have sufficient fund to be able to AFFORD to buy it.
so, explain to me how it is you stretch the above into some broad-based tax on the middle class? or is that asking you to make too much shit up?