Seems like some false wharrrrblllgrrrbl to me. Taxes are not normally optional.

Dalar: Seems like some false wharrrrblllgrrrbl to me. Taxes are not normally optional.

except that in this case it's a bit MORE than 'just a tax'. If I were an evil corporation, I'd absolutely love having the federal government pass a law that says 'buy my product or go to jail'.

If the constituents were McCain/Palin supporters, then they were idiots.

These are people who voted for a man who didn't know how many homes he had. A man who claimed we were all "Joe the Plumber". A man with a so-called plan to capture bin Laden, based on his military experience. a man who was in the bottom 5% of his class in the Naval Academy. A man who picked a woman who never correctly anwered the question of what the VP does as his running mate.

Idiots. No wonder bullshiat like Hot Air and NRO play to these imbeciles. They can lie because their constituents are too goddamn stupid to find the truth.

Weaver95: Dalar: Seems like some false wharrrrblllgrrrbl to me. Taxes are not normally optional.

except that in this case it's a bit MORE than 'just a tax'. If I were an evil corporation, I'd absolutely love having the federal government pass a law that says 'buy my product or go to jail'.

I think you may be radically confused about almost everything you just talked about.

It's not more than "just a tax": just like normal tax evasion, if you evade the insurance requirements, you're subject to fines and/or imprisonment. It doesn't require imprisonment; it simply provides it as an option for the judge.

What they're saying is no different than how driving requires you to have driving insurance. We don't want people to externalize the costs of their behavior onto their neighbors. If you don't have car insurance and get in an accident, then the other person (at fault or not) is stuck with the cost of your behavior. As such, we make it illegal to drive without insurance. If you don't have medical insurance and you get sick, then the cost of treating you (if you don't pay it yourself) gets carried by the hospital and whatnot. Your inability to pay carries major externalities.

RevMercutio: Idiots. No wonder bullshiat like Hot Air and NRO play to these imbeciles. They can lie because their constituents are too goddamn stupid to find the truth.

Bipartisan Joint Committe on Taxation: Page 3 (^)

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."

I can't believe what farking liars they are! Only an idiot would believe that.



mattharvest: Weaver95: Dalar:

What they're saying is no different than how driving requires you to have driving insurance. We don't want people to externalize the costs of their behavior onto their neighbors. If you don't have car insurance and get in an accident, then the other person (at fault or not) is stuck with the cost of your behavior. As such, we make it illegal to drive without insurance. If you don't have medical insurance and you get sick, then the cost of treating you (if you don't pay it yourself) gets carried by the hospital and whatnot. Your inability to pay carries major externalities.

Except in this case it isn't a requirement imposed to exercise a privilege; it's imposed for being alive. This is a small difference, I realize, but a significant one. One for which no cognizable Constitutional authority exists.

MuadDib: Except in this case it isn't a requirement imposed to exercise a privilege; it's imposed for being alive. This is a small difference, I realize, but a significant one. One for which no cognizable Constitutional authority exists.

Incorrect. It isn't imposed for living, but rather for living in the USA. That's within the General Welfare clause, not to mention Interstate Commerce clause.

MuadDib: RevMercutio: Idiots. No wonder bullshiat like Hot Air and NRO play to these imbeciles. They can lie because their constituents are too goddamn stupid to find the truth.

Bipartisan Joint Committe on Taxation: Page 3 (^)

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."



I can't believe what farking liars they are! Only an idiot would believe that.


somebody got told!

MuadDib: I can't believe what farking liars they are! Only an idiot would believe that.

i lol'd.

mattharvest: MuadDib: Except in this case it isn't a requirement imposed to exercise a privilege; it's imposed for being alive. This is a small difference, I realize, but a significant one. One for which no cognizable Constitutional authority exists.

Incorrect. It isn't imposed for living, but rather for living in the USA. That's within the General Welfare clause, not to mention Interstate Commerce clause.

why do you defend this legislation? There are better ways to go about it, and yet you defend such heavy handed thuggish tactics. why?

MuadDib: I can't believe what farking liars they are! Only an idiot would believe that.

So your claim is that Hot Air & NRO always speak the truth? Because your quote does nothing to dispute my point, it simply agrees with the headline on Fark, which I didn't argue with.

So you've not only missed my point, you appear to be defending a blog with credibility issues as being gospel.

MuadDib:
Bipartisan Joint Committe on Taxation: Page 3 (^)

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."


BTW, You do realize that you're quoting a partisan press release and treating it as God's honest truth, right?

Weaver95: why do you defend this legislation? There are better ways to go about it, and yet you defend such heavy handed thuggish tactics. why?

Perhaps mattharvest is under the misguided believe that any government "reform" will be an improvement and not screw things up even more.

Weaver95: There are better ways to go about it,

Such as?

RevMercutio: BTW, You do realize that you're quoting a partisan press release and treating it as God's honest truth, right?

I like how these press releases aren't even written by people who are familiar with how code is written.

Weaver95: why do you defend this legislation? There are better ways to go about it, and yet you defend such heavy handed thuggish tactics. why?

Dude, every country in the world that does NOT have single-payer, uses a double-mandate. Sh*t, look at Germany. They have it, and their per-capita costs are way lower than ours. Even their wait times are lower.

Weaver95: mattharvest: MuadDib: Except in this case it isn't a requirement imposed to exercise a privilege; it's imposed for being alive. This is a small difference, I realize, but a significant one. One for which no cognizable Constitutional authority exists.

Incorrect. It isn't imposed for living, but rather for living in the USA. That's within the General Welfare clause, not to mention Interstate Commerce clause.

why do you defend this legislation? There are better ways to go about it, and yet you defend such heavy handed thuggish tactics. why?

Just because I think it's a bad idea doesn't mean I think it's illegal or unconstitutional.

I think it's unwise in its current form. However, the fines and imprisonment for violating it aren't; neither are many other features.

Your assumption that I was defending the legislation as a whole is unfounded and wrong. I was defending the issue at hand in this thread, i.e. the fines and imprisonment.

It was falsely claimed it's unconstitutional; it isn't.

It was falsely claimed that this is somehow a new issue; it isn't.

This is looking to turn out very badly for people like me. I'm marginally self-employed (which means thanks to the economy, I don't make much money, nor do I receive regular paychecks, nor do I have the ability to join a group insurance plan).

I scrape up just enough money to stay afloat. I'd get a new job if there were any to be had, but for every job opening there are 1000 applicants. I can't afford the $400+ a month it would cost me to buy an individual plan for myself.

So if the government passes the individual mandate without passing the affordable public option, or somehow else making the cost of insurance affordable, I will unwillingly in violation of the law, simply because I have no money to satisfy the mandate.

Will I end up in jail? Perhaps. But it seems an awful miscarriage of justice to imprison someone for their lack of ability to pay for exorbitantly priced health insurance. Maybe I can cut a deal where the government agrees I don't have to buy insurance and I agree I will not go to a doctor unless I can pay cash. Of course then I'll end up dying from some trivial illness that could have easily been fixed, but that's the American way, apparently.

Epsilon: This is looking to turn out very badly for people like me. I'm marginally self-employed (which means thanks to the economy, I don't make much money, nor do I receive regular paychecks, nor do I have the ability to join a group insurance plan).

Wait, so a bill that helps people like you get group rates is going to turn out badly for you? You'll have to explain that.

Heh, heh. I was just imagining a scenario of me sitting in jail and talking to other inmates.
Me: "What are you in for?"
Him: "Attempted murder of my girlfriend."
Me: "And you?"
Him: "Armed robbery."
Them: "What are you in for?"
Me: "I couldn't afford to buy health insurance. I might get five years."

cameroncrazy1984: Wait, so a bill that helps people like you get group rates is going to turn out badly for you? You'll have to explain that.

I have not yet seen a bill like that pass. Many, many people are opposed to it. Talk to me when the final bill is in place and in law. I'm getting very nervous that it WON'T provide for affordable options for people like me.

Epsilon: I have not yet seen a bill like that pass.

Really? Because even the Baucus bill had an amendment to that effect. Where have you been?

Hey, guys, I heard that if this bill passes, government agents will break into your local hospital, hunt down patients in surgery, and choke the life out of the patient as soon as the anesthetic kicks in.

And then they'll blow that hospital the fark up.

cameroncrazy1984: Dude, every country in the world that does NOT have single-payer, uses a double-mandate. Sh*t, look at Germany. They have it, and their per-capita costs are way lower than ours. Even their wait times are lower.

You're fighting wharrgarbl with facts. That'll never work.

cameroncrazy1984: They have it, and their per-capita costs are way lower than ours. Even their wait times are lower.

Germany also has more doctors per capita than the US does. So as we can see lower pay keeps people away from the medical profession. Wait....

Since I mentioned it, Germany has 340 doctors per 100,000 people. The United States has 230 doctors per 100,000 people.