Success of Obamacare, and Debunking Myths

[Galloism]

...

The mandate is that you do it or you won't have an exception to the new tax. That's the mandate. You won't have an exception to the tax unless you meet one of the exceptions, one of which (although not the only one) is get insurance.

Incorrect. The mandate is that you SHALL do it. Then, it spells out penalties for not complying.

And the effect is...?

[Llamalandia]

Incorrect. The mandate is that you SHALL do it. Then, it spells out penalties for not complying.

And the effect is...?

It isn't the end result that counts here. It is how one gets there.

I mean a 10% tax on 500 is $50. Which sure is essentially the same as assessing a penalty of $50. But it how the one is deprived of the money that matters in this case. Had the law been sold as a tax, Americans would have had a collective freakout and beated the D"s to a bloody pulp at the next election. Calling it a penalty, was the only way to get enough fence sitters on the issue, to be "ok that makes it sound like it has elements of persona; responsibility and fuck it as long as it aint a tax it sounds good enough".

[BK117B2]

Incorrect. The mandate is that you SHALL do it. Then, it spells out penalties for not complying.

And the effect is...?

As I said it is

[Geilinor]

And the effect is...?

As I said it is

The end result (tax vs. financial penalty) is the same and the Supreme Court sees it as a tax.

[Galloism]

And the effect is...?

It isn't the end result that counts here. It is how one gets there.

I mean a 10% tax on 500 is $50. Which sure is essentially the same as assessing a penalty of $50. But it how the one is deprived of the money that matters in this case. Had the law been sold as a tax, Americans would have had a collective freakout and beated the D"s to a bloody pulp at the next election. Calling it a penalty, was the only way to get enough fence sitters on the issue, to be "ok that makes it sound like it has elements of persona; responsibility and fuck it as long as it aint a tax it sounds good enough".

Actually, the end effect really is the most important part. The penalty meets all the common law elements of a tax. Therefore, it is one. What congress bills it as is irrelevant to what it is.

Otherwise, congress never needed the 16th amendment to levy tax at all. They could have called it a "general welfare fee", based it on income, and claimed it wasn't a tax but just a fee for collective services. Under your theory of law, mislabeling could actually allow congress to do literally anything it wants with no constitutional restrictions.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

'Success of Obamacare'
LOL.

To my knowledge, most health care facilities still do not accept any form of Obamacare.
This is what should've happened when Obama called it a success...

"Guyz, guyz! We gotted 7 million peepul insurances for healths!"

"Thats great! Now, tell me, why am i reading this article about how almost no health care facility is going to accept your absolute trainwreck of an attempt at a socialist idea to help society?"

Also, hilariously, last i checked, if you had no healthcare at all, you actually got fined. Which is ludicrous. Especially the alternative is Obamacare that chances are, your local hospital will not accept as health insurance.

So, no. You haven't actually gotten one single person health insurance. Because no where they go will accept it, they may as well not have it at all.

This is objectively false. There have been no major reports of hospitals refusing (en masse) those who hold insurance policies via the Affordable Care Act. Plus, over 11 million people and counting have received coverage.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

The federal subsidies are clearly illegal and unconstitutional though. I mean the plain language is unambiguous. Aside from perhaps how it would apply to DC but they created their own exchange anyway so that is kinda a moot point.

Neither you nor I can make that determination. The Supreme Court was rule in around a month or so.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

About your point #2, you say that health care prices are rising more slowly than before but Obamacare is fundamentally not a good law if you can't show that healthcare costs are declining rather than just increasing at a slower rate. It still fails to solve the root problem of health care getting more expensive every year unless the price increases is within or less than the current rate of inflation.

The point is, conservatives are faulting Obamacare for massively increasing medical costs when it has actually slowed down the rate of inflation. If a law improves on a situation (even if it doesn't fix it), it is one that you keep and build off on instead of heavily campaigning for its repeal.

[Llamalandia]

The federal subsidies are clearly illegal and unconstitutional though. I mean the plain language is unambiguous. Aside from perhaps how it would apply to DC but they created their own exchange anyway so that is kinda a moot point.

Neither you nor I can make that determination. The Supreme Court was rule in around a month or so.

Well sure I suppose in a certian technical sense that is true. but that would be likely congress passing a law saying it is illegal to say the word "orange". Obviously we all know that is patently ridiculous and a violation of the 1st amendment. The subsidy issue is equally clear cut. Of course, yeah, i wouldn't be surprised if this court doesn't bend over backwards to pull some convoluted ruling out of its ass.

[Dyakovo]

It IS an issue of liberty: creating 'laws' in violation of the Constitution means a government with no legal bounds.

The PPACA doesn't violate the constitution.

[Yorkvale]

I'm a conservative and I support it. Smart free market econ.

For all intensive purposes obama is a conservative and he's my main man.

[Todeslager]

I'm a conservative and I support it. Smart free market econ.

I don't know how you get from a government mandate commanding businesses and individuals to purchase a product (and offering exemptions to favored parties) and call it "free market econ." Please elaborate.

For all intensive purposes obama is a conservative and he's my main man.

I wouldn't go THAT far, but he's certainly not as far-Left as Right-Wing , Inc. paints him to be. Are you yanking my leg?

[Saiwania]

Incorrect. The mandate is that you SHALL do it. Then, it spells out penalties for not complying.

But too bad for the PPACA, the IRS doesn't have the power to really collect said penalties or to punish people for not complying, so there is little incentive for anti-Obamacare diehards to voluntarily pay up. No tax refunds ever? Please. Lots of people can live with that.

[BK117B2]

It IS an issue of liberty: creating 'laws' in violation of the Constitution means a government with no legal bounds.

The PPACA doesn't violate the constitution.

Yes, it does. Congress acted outside of the authority granted to it.

[Dyakovo]

The PPACA doesn't violate the constitution.

Yes, it does. Congress acted outside of the authority granted to it.

SCotUS disagrees.

[Greed and Death]

...

The mandate is that you do it or you won't have an exception to the new tax. That's the mandate. You won't have an exception to the tax unless you meet one of the exceptions, one of which (although not the only one) is get insurance.

Incorrect. The mandate is that you SHALL do it. Then, it spells out penalties for not complying.

Supreme court said it is a tax, I think the government put itself into a pretzel about it being a tax and it not being a tax(for injunction act purposes) but they managed to pull it off.

[BK117B2]

Yes, it does. Congress acted outside of the authority granted to it.

SCotUS disagrees.

5 of 9 members disagreed.

Of course, some of us prefer fact to their partisan disagreements. The fact is that mandating that someone engage in a private business transaction is not a tax.

[Jocabia]

SCotUS disagrees.

5 of 9 members disagreed.

Of course, some of us prefer fact to their partisan disagreements. The fact is that mandating that someone engage in a private business transaction is not a tax.

You have a strange definition of "fact". You mean your uneducated opinion is that it's not a tax. You're permitted to have your opinion, but you've done very little to demonstrate it's of more value than those 5 members of SCOTUS.

Galloism is explaining how you determine what a law is. You, rather than actually addressing his explanation, just keep declaring it a violation over and over. Closing your eyes and claiming it's night won't change the time of day.

[Dyakovo]

SCotUS disagrees.

5 of 9 members disagreed.

Okay? All you did is prove that I'm right.
Thanks, I guess.

[BK117B2]

5 of 9 members disagreed.

Of course, some of us prefer fact to their partisan disagreements. The fact is that mandating that someone engage in a private business transaction is not a tax.

You have a strange definition of "fact". You mean your uneducated opinion is that it's not a tax. You're permitted to have your opinion, but you've done very little to demonstrate it's of more value than those 5 members of SCOTUS.

Galloism is explaining how you determine what a law is. You, rather than actually addressing his explanation, just keep declaring it a violation over and over. Closing your eyes and claiming it's night won't change the time of day.

nothing strange about it. Look up the word sometime.....and while you're at it, look up 'tax'. You'll find no mention of mandating private business transactions.

You may be uneducated, but don't project that onto others

[Rednekylvania]

Galloism is explaining how you determine what a law is. You, rather than actually addressing his explanation, just keep declaring it a violation over and over. Closing your eyes and claiming it's night won't change the time of day.

And if a veteranarian arbitrarily decides to treat a cat as a reptile, is the layman pet owner obligated to shut up and accept it? They may not share the professional's credentials and tenure, but can still formulate a common sense disagreement.
Legal interpretation is hardly a science, and a three digit iq coupled with good reading comprehension skills will allow you to muddle through.

[Aggicificicerous]

SCotUS disagrees.

5 of 9 members disagreed.

Of course, some of us prefer fact to their partisan disagreements. The fact is that mandating that someone engage in a private business transaction is not a tax.

Please explain why anyone should take the opinion of an anonymous internet-goer on US constitutional law over that of the US Supreme Court.

[Galloism]

5 of 9 members disagreed.

Of course, some of us prefer fact to their partisan disagreements. The fact is that mandating that someone engage in a private business transaction is not a tax.

Please explain why anyone should take the opinion of an anonymous internet-goer on US constitutional law over that of the US Supreme Court.

And a resident expert in taxation.

I mean, it's not as if there isn't precedent for this. The early withdrawal penalty for IRAs and retirement accounts requires a business transaction to avoid: your retirement money must remain with a qualified retirement plan trustee in order to avoid that 10% penalty (which is legally a tax). That means you must engage the services of a bank, broker, or otherwise qualified trustee or you will pay not only income tax but an additional 10% tax on early withdrawals.

Hey look guys! A tax that only applies if you fail to make a certain business transaction!

[Galloism]

You have a strange definition of "fact". You mean your uneducated opinion is that it's not a tax. You're permitted to have your opinion, but you've done very little to demonstrate it's of more value than those 5 members of SCOTUS.

Galloism is explaining how you determine what a law is. You, rather than actually addressing his explanation, just keep declaring it a violation over and over. Closing your eyes and claiming it's night won't change the time of day.

nothing strange about it. Look up the word sometime.....and while you're at it, look up 'tax'. You'll find no mention of mandating private business transactions.

You may be uneducated, but don't project that onto others

A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state to fund various public expenditures. A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is usually punishable by law.

Hmm. Sounds like this is a tax.

An income tax is a government levy (tax) imposed on individuals or entities (taxpayers) that varies with the income or profits (taxable income) of the taxpayer. Details vary widely by jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions refer to income tax on business entities as companies tax or corporation tax.

hmm, and as the shared responsibility payment varies by income, it's an income type tax.

[Aggicificicerous]

Please explain why anyone should take the opinion of an anonymous internet-goer on US constitutional law over that of the US Supreme Court.

And a resident expert in taxation.

I mean, it's not as if there isn't precedent for this. The early withdrawal penalty for IRAs and retirement accounts requires a business transaction to avoid: your retirement money must remain with a qualified retirement plan trustee in order to avoid that 10% penalty (which is legally a tax). That means you must engage the services of a bank, broker, or otherwise qualified trustee or you will pay not only income tax but an additional 10% tax on early withdrawals.

Hey look guys! A tax that only applies if you fail to make a certain business transaction!

No kidding. It's fine to disagree with a supreme court ruling, but make sure you can separate the moral aspect from the legal.