Success of Obamacare, and Debunking Myths

[Llamalandia]

Ok, well tenth amendment bro. If the power is one delegated by the constitution, then feds have no right to exercise it. It may be in the interest of general welfare to ban intrastate sale of sugary soda for instance, but the feds aren't delegated the power to regulated intrastate commerce only interstate commerce, despite the general welfare clause.

'To provide for the general welfare' is a power delegated by the constitution.

Also the power to collect taxes.

Which general welfare clause are referring to? One has to do with taxes and actually does have substance, the other is the preamble and does actually carry force of law.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

yeah he did but I don't think he has his. I think he thinks he is GOING to have his. poor thing.

Nation of temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all.

[Llamalandia]

Letting some one die is necessarily immoral though to begin with. Taking something that doesn't belong to you clearly undisputedly is though.

Sure. If they have a terminal disease and ask to die.

You aren't going to start with taxes are theft know are you?

I kinda hate that meme but yeah, pretty much. Though really, I'd rather talk about how letting people die is different from murdering them and isn't necessarily and immoral act. In fact it is a presumptively neutral one in my estimation.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Which general welfare clause are referring to? One has to do with taxes and actually does have substance, the other is the preamble and does actually carry force of law.

Taxes and the spending therof, actually.

We've explained for pages and fucking pages how most of the ACA falls into one of those two categories.

[The Black Forrest]

He's already clarified that the answer is #FuckYouGotMine

yeah he did but I don't think he has his. I think he thinks he is GOING to have his. poor thing.

Ohh he believes the US is a meritocracy?

[Alien Space Bats]

Well then maybe it is time for a revolution. or more likely the silently majority will eventually elect another reaganesque republican who will rollback this crap.

Or maybe people will wake up and realize that they actually rely on government for a lot of things they like having (cf. submerged government), that these things don't just appear out of thin air or grow on trees, and stop petulantly whining about government's existence or scope and instead get down to the more reasonable project of making sure that the government they clearly want is run well enough that they don't feel inclined to carp and whine about it all the time.

But no, you're probaby right: Immaturity and childishness will likely prevail, to the ruination of us all.

[The Black Forrest]

Sure. If they have a terminal disease and ask to die.

You aren't going to start with taxes are theft know are you?

I kinda hate that meme but yeah, pretty much. Though really, I'd rather talk about how letting people die is different from murdering them and isn't necessarily and immoral act. In fact it is a presumptively neutral one in my estimation.

That's the beauty of "morals" they are malleable to the moment.

Harm that can be prevented and is not is immoral.

-edit-

As the taxes thing? Well everybody grumbles about them but most accept them as a part of life as the old saying about death and taxes.

So as Ash mentioned "Sucks to be you" on this matter.

[Llamalandia]

I kinda hate that meme but yeah, pretty much. Though really, I'd rather talk about how letting people die is different from murdering them and isn't necessarily and immoral act. In fact it is a presumptively neutral one in my estimation.

That's the beauty of "morals" they are malleable to the moment.

Harm that can be prevented and is not is immoral.

Why is failing to prevent harm immoral? What is the standard? When does one morally have to intervene?

[Llamalandia]

Well then maybe it is time for a revolution. or more likely the silently majority will eventually elect another reaganesque republican who will rollback this crap.

Or maybe people will wake up and realize that they actually rely on government for a lot of things they like having (cf. submerged government), that these things don't just appear out of thin air or grow on trees, and stop petulantly whining about government's existence or scope and instead get down to the more reasonable project of making sure that the government they clearly want is run well enough that they don't feel inclined to carp and whine about it all the time.

But no, you're probaby right: Immaturity and childishness will likely prevail, to the ruination of us all.

Oh believe me we need to get rid of government in other areas as well. Hell I say privatize everything with appropriate regulatory safeguards where needed.

[The Black Forrest]

That's the beauty of "morals" they are malleable to the moment.

Harm that can be prevented and is not is immoral.

Why is failing to prevent harm immoral? What is the standard? When does one morally have to intervene?

*shrug* I'm not sure you would understand.

[Ashmoria]

yeah he did but I don't think he has his. I think he thinks he is GOING to have his. poor thing.

Nation of temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all.

if I were living in the middle ages I would be a beautiful princess not a half dead peasant tilling the fields in rags.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Oh believe me we need to get rid of government in other areas as well. Hell I say privatize everything with appropriate regulatory safeguards where needed.

And I pointed out that what you are advocating for is anarcho-capitalism, and will inevitably devolve into neo-feudalism.

[Ashmoria]

Sure. If they have a terminal disease and ask to die.

You aren't going to start with taxes are theft know are you?

I kinda hate that meme but yeah, pretty much. Though really, I'd rather talk about how letting people die is different from murdering them and isn't necessarily and immoral act. In fact it is a presumptively neutral one in my estimation.

whereas taxation is just evil.

[Llamalandia]

Oh believe me we need to get rid of government in other areas as well. Hell I say privatize everything with appropriate regulatory safeguards where needed.

And I pointed out that what you are advocating for is anarcho-capitalism, and will inevitably devolve into neo-feudalism.

No I am for libertarianism but yeah, I am pretty sympathetic to anarch0 capitalists I think. Feudalism not so much.

[Todeslager]

Because the IRS checks to see if you have health insurance, and takes a fine out of your refund or adds said fine to your tax bill if you don't have health insurance. Not paying said fine becomes a criminal tax evasion / tax fraud charge, which... Hello?

You're STILL missing the point, aren't you?

If I'm pulled over by the Michigan State Police (or any municipal police force anywhere in America) and found not to have adequate proof of automobile insurance, the State of Michigan doesn't immediately levy my bank account; Hell, they don't even assess the penalty for not having insurance against my Michigan income tax return. NO STATE DOES.

They write me a ticket and I have to either settle the matter in advance of the deadline or show up in court for a hearing, and if I choose to do the latter, I only get assessed with the FINE for not having auto insurance AFTER I've been CONVICTED. Even then, the FINE isn't automatically taken out of my bank account or my income tax return; before the State can do THAT, they need to go to court AGAIN and get a FURTHER court order (for a levy or garnishment).

All of which screams "legal due process".

<pause>

And all of that "legal due process" should suggest to you that the FINE for not having auto insurance IS, in fact, a FINE, not a TAX, and that it's levied only after CONVICTION for the CRIME (in this case, a civil infraction) of violating State no-fault automobile insurance laws.

What is the word for multiplying an ante by a thousand? Kilopuling? I need to know for future reference if the number of times you insist upon your hilariously untenable position reaches the four-digit mark.

Forget your wickedly imbecilic apples to toilet brushes comparison between auto insurance and health insurance. No one is buying health insurance to protect against liabilities for damaging the life, limb, and property of another individual with their health. Munch a toilet brush at your leisure.

Now, back on topic. What is the criminal penalty for willfully falsifying a federal income tax return, say you fraudulently claim you had health insurance every month of the filing year when you didn't, or didn't have health insurance any month at all, or perhaps declaring less income to avoid taxation / fines / payment of accrued debts, and you are willfully seeking to mislead the IRS from reducing your refund by or billing you to collect an additional 2.5% of your annual gross income to cover your "shared individual responsibility" tax? (A confiscation of refund / tax bill that never goes away until satisfied?)

What is the criminal penalty for NEVER filing a federal income tax return, say you're willfully not cooperating with IRS efforts to collect a debt (defaulted federal student loan, unpaid taxes, avoiding the "shared individual responsibility" penalty, etc.?)

What is the criminal penalty or fine for unpaid / late paid taxes and fines?

The above three listed scenarios are possible routes (and not an exhaustive list) to avoid, or at least delay, enforcement actions from the IRS on fraud, tax evasion, and debt skipping one might attempt to try to escape the ACA tax on non-compliance with the individual mandate, all of which accrue ever-increasing penalties and eventually imprisonment.

Yes, it is theoretically possible to be eventually imprisoned for refusing to buy health insurance, under the color of the IRS's other enforcement schemes.

What you doubt and question from a glorious state of willful hyper-ignorance and a dollar will get you a trolley ride, maybe a pack of gum.

So show me again how not having health insurance results in the same kind of legal procedure as not having automobile insurance. Show me the indictments, show me the trials, show me the convictions, and show me the sentences.

The "health insurance requirement is just like auto insurance requirement" is a product of your seemingly insatiable desire to reinforce obvious displays of your ignorance of subject matter with bizarre, patently false analogies and rectal ventriloquism. If it's all the same to you, I prefer to not participate in your efforts to build bonfires from snow and wishful thinking.

Now, the ACA tax law has barely been active a year. Audits and enforcement actions upon tax fraud / tax evasion typically carry out 3 to 6 years from the last year the tax fraud / evasion allegedly occurred, with a statute of limitations that rolls forward with each year, or never expires (in the case of fraud). So, if you really think there is no enforcement of fines associated with the shared individual responsibility, try not having health insurance and giving one of those fraud / evasion schemes a whirl. See you in 2021.

I'm a patient advocate / service coordinator for one of the largest insurance companies in America, specializing in finding coverage for low income / no income individuals and families. In my spare time, I make a hobby of reducing dipshit pikers to spittle-flecked inanity when they decahedruple-down on their untenable positions. And you? Have any things you like to do when you're not displaying your ignorance of the Affordable Care Act?

I don't give a rat's ass if you're an insurance company CEO. Your entire way of expressing what happens here shows us all that you don't understand how laws work.

Says the guy munching a toilet brush.

(Snip repetitive irrelevancies)

So it is with health insurance. Congress cannot mandate that every American be covered by a qualified health insurance plan, nor that every employer cover every one of his or her employees with such a plan. Doing so is CLEARLY beyond the regulatory authority of the Federal government. But Congress CAN assess a "personal responsibility tax" against every taxpayer and against every business, and then exempt both those individual taxpayers who have secured insurance coverage for themselves and all of their dependents as well as those business (above a certain size) who provide insurance coverage for their full-time employees from said TAX, and generally achieve the same ends; and while the direct regulatory approach is not consistent with the Constitutional authority of Congress, the latter indirect approach is ENTIRELY within that body's defined legal reach.

It's a matter of how the LAW and the CONSTITUTION work, not a matter of how healthcare and insurance work. That's why your position with a major health insurance provider offers you no special insight into what's happening here, and why you therefore get it wrong. If the mandate were in any way, shape or form a positive legal requirement to secure insurance for oneself and one's dependents or ones employees, then failure to meet that requirement would result in criminal proceedings and criminal punishments (a/k/a FINES), just like failure to adhere to securities law, export restrictions, or environmental regulations do.

And on those terms it WOULD violate the Constitution, since such laws are well beyond the scope of Congressional authority.

So, your argument is that a law mandating a business transaction and a tax to compel such a business transaction aren't the same despite generally aimed at achieving the same effect, that tax fraud / evasion is a criminal offense, and that you're right and I'm dead wrong for agreeing with you.

Uh huh.

::pats head::

Go play, the adults are discussing adult stuff.

[Ashmoria]

yeah he did but I don't think he has his. I think he thinks he is GOING to have his. poor thing.

Ohh he believes the US is a meritocracy?

no I think its going to be by magic. or maybe he'll win the big lottery jackpot that *I* should win instead.

[Llamalandia]

I kinda hate that meme but yeah, pretty much. Though really, I'd rather talk about how letting people die is different from murdering them and isn't necessarily and immoral act. In fact it is a presumptively neutral one in my estimation.

whereas taxation is just evil.

Act of commission vs an act of omission. Causing a bad thing to happen is undeniably wrong, allowing something bad to happen that you didn't cause isn't.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

No I am for libertarianism but yeah, I am pretty sympathetic to anarch0 capitalists I think. Feudalism not so much.

Neo-feudalism arises from strict libertarianism/anarco-capitalism whether you believe in it or not.

In the absence of government, there is nothing to stop corporate exploitation and monopolization. Corporations inevitably become large enough to enforce their own law of the land.

[Llamalandia]

Why is failing to prevent harm immoral? What is the standard? When does one morally have to intervene?

*shrug* I'm not sure you would understand.

Translation: "I can't explain it to you".

Nice one.

[Llamalandia]

No I am for libertarianism but yeah, I am pretty sympathetic to anarch0 capitalists I think. Feudalism not so much.

Neo-feudalism arises from strict libertarianism/anarco-capitalism whether you believe in it or not.

In the absence of government, there is nothing to stop corporate exploitation and monopolization. Corporations inevitably become large enough to enforce their own law of the land.

Last time I checked no ceo has ever been made into a feudal lord at least in the usa. also, free enterprise prevents this. Plus you can always opt out and start over it is a big freaking country after all.

[The Black Forrest]

*shrug* I'm not sure you would understand.

Translation: "I can't explain it to you".

Nice one.

Fascinating. Your interpretations are rather interesting at times.

So how do you explain selfless acts to a selfish person?

[The Black Forrest]

whereas taxation is just evil.

Act of commission vs an act of omission. Causing a bad thing to happen is undeniably wrong, allowing something bad to happen that you didn't cause isn't.

Point being.....

[Llamalandia]

Which general welfare clause are referring to? One has to do with taxes and actually does have substance, the other is the preamble and does actually carry force of law.

Taxes and the spending therof, actually.

We've explained for pages and fucking pages how most of the ACA falls into one of those two categories.

Oh yes and yet no one has been able to show me in the aca legislation it says explicitly that the individual mandate is a tax.

[The Black Forrest]

Neo-feudalism arises from strict libertarianism/anarco-capitalism whether you believe in it or not.

In the absence of government, there is nothing to stop corporate exploitation and monopolization. Corporations inevitably become large enough to enforce their own law of the land.

Last time I checked no ceo has ever been made into a feudal lord at least in the usa.

We have an ancap society?

[Llamalandia]

Act of commission vs an act of omission. Causing a bad thing to happen is undeniably wrong, allowing something bad to happen that you didn't cause isn't.

Point being.....

That lettng people die in the gutters isn't necessarily immoral hence government has no right to deprive people of money by an act of commission (ie taxation) in order to prevent said deaths.