Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   "ObamaCare" is a tax. You can't sue the government over a tax until you've first paid it. "ObamaCare" doesn't go into effect until 2014. So... welcome your new healthcare overlords   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 383
    More: Interesting, Anti-Injunction Act, obamacare, technicality, Justice Kennedy, home health care, Bush v. Gore, oral arguments, individual liberty  
•       •       •

4495 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2012 at 12:45 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-24 01:18:44 PM  
As I grasp it, it's not a tax.

It's a tax *penalty*. You're not being taxed for some action or holding, you're being penalized through the tax system for non-compliance.
 
2012-03-24 01:19:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The thing that gets me is that I understand that the GOP wants to appeal Obamacare. But then what's the next step.

Prices aren't going to magically go down, more people aren't going to get magically covered. Does the GOP actually have a plan once they repeal Obamacare or will they just stick their thumbs up their ass and pretend the problem will just go away?

/thinks he already knows the answer...


Why would they? Supposedly the system we have now is completely fine despite being grossly expensive and covering very few people.
 
2012-03-24 01:20:53 PM  

Skyrmion: On the bright side, it did lead to a pretty funny South Park episode.


I dunno. The reasoning isn't completely clear from the article aside from general public health stuff, but I can see where it would be of great benefit to the community. It frees up space for retail, and avoids having 6 burger joints across the street from each other offering pretty much the same thing. Ordinances like that keep a community livable, rather than letting any franchisee or corporation who thinks they can squeeze a few more dollars out set up shop. There are already many planned townships all over that already do this sort of thing, including forcing the businesses to adopt less gaudy architecture, and in every case I've ever seen it's led to a more pleasant community than the endless strip malls and parking lots that you get with the "build it however".
Greenville, South Carolina is a good example of the pain of zero planning. Anytime cheap land opens up, there's always a mad rush to pave it, plop down a new Best Buy or Barnes and Noble and a bunch of boutiques, and shutter the old ones. Without any sufficient planning or proper infrastructure surrounding, the whole city packs itself onto a two lane road to get into a parking lot the state has mandated is not allowed to have more than one entrance. Nevermind the old Best Buy is not more than two miles away on a six lane road and has three times the parking. That's just not the cool side of town anymore, and it sat empty for years next to an abandoned Sams Club and a Circuit City. The other streets are littered the same kind of crap "Oh yeah, you can tell that used to be a Wendy's/Jack in the Box/Taco Bell" that will sit empty just as long.

Anyway, Obamacare. You need health insurance. If you're not willing to let the sick die in the street, and not willing to pool the entire country into the same risk pool via single-payer, this is what you're stuck with. Either pick one or the other, or stop whining you get a shiatty amalgam.
 
2012-03-24 01:21:09 PM  

SunsetLament: "Not a Tax" Comes Back to Haunt Obamacare

President Obama had promised that he would not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000. When asked whether the penalty attached to the individual mandate was a tax, President Obama said it was "absolutely not a tax." He also said "[n]obody considers [it] a tax increase." Nevertheless, in an attempt to prevent the court from ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Obama Justice Department argued that the penalty was in fact a tax. The Justice Department argument failed because the individual mandate provision was written in a way clearly to avoid using the word "tax."

The language of the bill and the legislative process demonstrated that Congress chose to make the payment for failure to have health insurance a penalty, and not a tax. Early drafts of the bill had referred to the payment to be assessed as a tax. The fact that the word "tax" was dropped from the final version was very significant.

/Constitutionally speaking, I actually think Obama's "not a tax" statement is irrelevant.
//The removal of the word "tax" during the legislative process? Pretty relevant.


I don't know that it matters what Congress and/or the President refer to it as. If the court determines that it's a tax (as some of the lower courts have) then it's a tax.
 
2012-03-24 01:23:43 PM  
Does anyone else here think this whole thing boils down to Kennedy?

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia say it's unconstitutional.
Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan say it's constitutional.
Kennedy????

Also, is anyone else disturbed that the average person, who's paid any attention to SCOTUS decisions, can make a call like this and be spot most of the time, even though most of us have absolutely no legal training and have probably never even read the document these decisions supposedly interpret?
 
2012-03-24 01:24:10 PM  

MFAWG: Exactly. There seems to be a feeling that White Christian Real Americans should be able to waltz into the DMV, say 'My name is Joe Blow' and BAM! get a license.

There's a fair amount of 'Well, this is how you wanted it, DUMBASS' going on, but still.


In their defense, their skin isn't brown, so they're (as the laws are written) exempt from the "prove immigration status or be arrested" acts...
 
2012-03-24 01:25:53 PM  
Christ, can we just move to UHC and be done with it. It's inevitable anyway. The current system is totally inadequate and Obamacare is just a bandaid. Please, let's join the rest of the civilized world and actually make sure everyone has access to health care.
 
2012-03-24 01:26:01 PM  

Edsel: Don't worry, this will only kick the can down the road to 2015, where President Etch-a-Sketch will be in the strange position of arguing that the law is unconstitutional even though he once championed its precepts.


2015 will be way too late to stop it. The healthcare industry will be screaming bloody murder if they have to spend money to undo everything they've invested in to meet the deadlines.

Plus, try telling people on preventative programs or with kids in college and babies born with heart murmurs that the government's messing with their Obamacare.
 
2012-03-24 01:26:01 PM  
So is there any chance that the mandate gets struck down, but not the rest of the law, so that the insurance companies get raked over the coals for a few months while Congress comes up with a patch?

Because I would find that lulz-worthy.
 
2012-03-24 01:26:41 PM  

GilRuiz1: Next thing you know, Congress will be requiring us to go to the gym, drive American-made cars, or even-gasp!-eat broccoli


There was a time when I would have laughed that off as impossible hyperbole. That was before they outlawed trans-fats, made it illegal to smoke in your own car, outlawed fast food restaurants, and so forth.

The world of Demolition Man is slowly coming true. I might have to join the burger-eating outlaws in the underground.


Why do you hate state's rights?
 
2012-03-24 01:26:42 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Does anyone else here think this whole thing boils down to Kennedy?

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia will say it's unconstitutional.
Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan will say it's constitutional.
Kennedy????

Also, is anyone else disturbed that the average person, who's paid any attention to SCOTUS decisions, can make a call like this and be spot most of the time, even though most of us have absolutely no legal training and have probably never even read the document these decisions supposedly interpret?


didn't come across correctly the first time
 
2012-03-24 01:27:11 PM  

jeffdo1: I can not purchase medical insurance on my own, I am a type 1 diabetic.


Well, eventually insurance companies will not be able to deny you for pre-existing conditions thanks to Obamacare.
 
2012-03-24 01:27:46 PM  

GilRuiz1: Next thing you know, Congress will be requiring us to go to the gym, drive American-made cars, or even-gasp!-eat broccoli


There was a time when I would have laughed that off as impossible hyperbole. That was before they outlawed trans-fats, made it illegal to smoke in your own car, outlawed fast food restaurants, and so forth.

The world of Demolition Man is slowly coming true. I might have to join the burger-eating outlaws in the underground.


Just remember...

i775.photobucket.com

"Do you see any cows?"
 
2012-03-24 01:27:57 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Does anyone else here think this whole thing boils down to Kennedy?

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia will say it's unconstitutional.


Thomas won't say shiat.
 
2012-03-24 01:29:06 PM  

GAT_00: AirForceVet: GAT_00: Scalia and company don't care. They'll vote to kill the whole thing no matter what the law says.

I'm surprised you didn't list Thomas first. He's been in the GOP pocket since confirmation.

Scalia is the one who actually takes bribes though.


You know, somehow Thomas pisses me off more. I think it's because he's so goddamn blatant about it.
 
2012-03-24 01:30:01 PM  

Skyrmion: So is there any chance that the mandate gets struck down, but not the rest of the law, so that the insurance companies get raked over the coals for a few months while Congress comes up with a patch?

Because I would find that lulz-worthy.


Yes.

That's when all the billionaires would have to do their hard work of picking up the yacht sat-phone and telling their broker to sell their personal shares.

And it's when our 401K pools and the like will start buying them, mysteriously.
 
2012-03-24 01:30:57 PM  
Like Roe v Wade even if the SCOTUS says that Obamacare is constitutional, the whiny assholes in our society will still biatch about forever.
 
2012-03-24 01:31:27 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Does anyone else here think this whole thing boils down to Kennedy?

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia say it's unconstitutional.
Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan say it's constitutional.
Kennedy????

Also, is anyone else disturbed that the average person, who's paid any attention to SCOTUS decisions, can make a call like this and be spot most of the time, even though most of us have absolutely no legal training and have probably never even read the document these decisions supposedly interpret?


Jeffrey Toobin says there's a chance it will be upheld 8-1.
 
2012-03-24 01:31:33 PM  

Pincy: Christ, can we just move to UHC and be done with it. It's inevitable anyway. The current system is totally inadequate and Obamacare is just a bandaid. Please, let's join the rest of the civilized world and actually make sure everyone has access to health care.


That's teh soshulizm!!!!

/totally agree with you
//the USA should be embarrassed about our health care system
 
2012-03-24 01:32:45 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Anyway, Obamacare. You need health insurance. If you're not willing to let the sick die in the street, and not willing to pool the entire country into the same risk pool via single-payer, this is what you're stuck with. Either pick one or the other, or stop whining you get a shiatty amalgam.


The "shiatty almalgam" was what was proposed by the Republicans back in 1993 to oppose "HillaryCare", which would have given us single payer. If Bill had taken the lead it might have went through, but at the time, Hillary was trying to advance her own political career. There wasn't as much hyperpartisanship back then, mainly because we hadn't had a Democrat President in 12 years and the economy was already starting to take off as a result of the technology companies.
 
2012-03-24 01:34:03 PM  
FTFA:

"...the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare..."

Among really farking stupid people, yes, that's what it is called.
 
2012-03-24 01:37:33 PM  

turbidum: GAT_00: AirForceVet: GAT_00: Scalia and company don't care. They'll vote to kill the whole thing no matter what the law says.

I'm surprised you didn't list Thomas first. He's been in the GOP pocket since confirmation.

Scalia is the one who actually takes bribes though.

You know, somehow Thomas pisses me off more. I think it's because he's so goddamn blatant about it.


So which one is more dishonest? The one who doesn't hide that he's biased and knows his ruling before he even hears the case, or the one who openly takes bribes?
 
2012-03-24 01:38:18 PM  

mat catastrophe: Among really farking stupid people, yes, that's what it is called.


I heard someone refer to it as Obongocare, the other day. The black people in the room were not particularly amused.
 
2012-03-24 01:41:03 PM  

mat catastrophe: FTFA:

"...the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare..."

Among really farking stupid people, yes, that's what it is called.


No no, we're taking back "Obamacare" now.

Obamacare 4 life.
 
2012-03-24 01:43:48 PM  

NewportBarGuy: mat catastrophe: Among really farking stupid people, yes, that's what it is called.

I heard someone refer to it as Obongocare, the other day. The black people in the room were not particularly amused.


lh3.ggpht.com
 
2012-03-24 01:45:59 PM  

mat catastrophe: FTFA:

"...the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare..."

Among really farking stupid people, yes, that's what it is called.


so, you saying you are stupid?
 
2012-03-24 01:46:01 PM  

NewportBarGuy: mat catastrophe: Among really farking stupid people, yes, that's what it is called.

I heard someone refer to it as Obongocare, the other day. The black people in the room were not particularly amused.


The only time I've heard the nice, white Christian lady in our front office swear at somebody was when one of our outside sales guys made a similar comment.

He somehow forgot that she's married to an even nicer black Christian man.

(She really is nice. She calls me a 'Heathen', LOL.)
 
2012-03-24 01:46:55 PM  

NewportBarGuy: mat catastrophe: Among really farking stupid people, yes, that's what it is called.

I heard someone refer to it as Obongocare, the other day. The black people in the room were not particularly amused.


...and the one-eared rabbits were livid.
 
2012-03-24 01:47:09 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Does anyone else here think this whole thing boils down to Kennedy?

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia say it's unconstitutional.
Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan say it's constitutional.
Kennedy????

Also, is anyone else disturbed that the average person, who's paid any attention to SCOTUS decisions, can make a call like this and be spot most of the time, even though most of us have absolutely no legal training and have probably never even read the document these decisions supposedly interpret?


They're only really predictable on certain issues. A lot of the time it's hard to tell in advance how any given judge will vote. So yes, Scalia will likely cast the douche vote on the famous cases, but he isn't always a total dick. In fact, Scalia is one of the most stalwart advocates for an expansive reading of the 4th Amendment. He also writes great administrative opinions (and some bad ones). At any rate, the court is usually hard to predict so precisely in many circumstances. Here is a fantasy SCOTUS game, even (new window).
 
2012-03-24 01:47:20 PM  

FlashHarry: puffy999: everyone without insurance will be put into the Medicare program.

they should have done it this way anyway. simply remove the "over 65" part of the law. the infrastructure is already there.


Could that have been the plan, or a backup plan, all along?
 
2012-03-24 01:49:15 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Don't Troll Me Bro!: Does anyone else here think this whole thing boils down to Kennedy?

Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia will say it's unconstitutional.
Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan will say it's constitutional.
Kennedy????

Also, is anyone else disturbed that the average person, who's paid any attention to SCOTUS decisions, can make a call like this and be spot most of the time, even though most of us have absolutely no legal training and have probably never even read the document these decisions supposedly interpret?

didn't come across correctly the first time


Link fail.
Here is the fantasy SCOTUS (new window)
 
2012-03-24 01:49:52 PM  

Jesus Farking Christ: FlashHarry: puffy999: everyone without insurance will be put into the Medicare program.

they should have done it this way anyway. simply remove the "over 65" part of the law. the infrastructure is already there.

Could that have been the plan, or a backup plan, all along?


"Don't you see, Scully? THEY can only distribute the alien DNA if they get a centralized health system in all population centers. They've been working on this since before Roswell, Scully"
 
2012-03-24 01:50:31 PM  
I'm kind of torn on the health care reform mandate. I don't agree that the government has the power to force people to pay for health care. At the same time, I realize that the only way to make this program work is if everybody is contributing and not being a freeloader. The alternative to forcing people to pay would be to refuse medical care to anybody who doesn't have coverage. Not some medical care, all medical care. If you get in a car accident and don't have coverage, fark you, lay there by the side of the road and die.
 
2012-03-24 01:53:17 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: ...and the one-eared rabbits were livid.


What a livid Rabbi may look like...

towleroad.typepad.com

/couldn't find one with one ear
 
2012-03-24 01:55:01 PM  

9beers: The alternative to forcing people to pay would be to refuse medical care to anybody who doesn't have coverage. Not some medical care, all medical care. If you get in a car accident and don't have coverage, fark you, lay there by the side of the road and die.


And coincidentally, this is the system the GOP is fighting for.

Whatever happened to "Compassionate Conservatism"?
 
2012-03-24 01:55:12 PM  

Wyalt Derp: NewportBarGuy: Why do we need health care? We have NyQuil and DayQuil.

And for everything else, you can just go the emergency room!


Or Walgreens if it is a pap smear you need Link (new window)
 
2012-03-24 01:57:19 PM  

AirForceVet: GAT_00: Scalia and company don't care. They'll vote to kill the whole thing no matter what the law says.

I'm surprised you didn't list Thomas first. He's been in the GOP pocket since confirmation.


Listing Thomas before Scalia is like listing Robin before Batman.
 
2012-03-24 01:58:29 PM  

sdd2000: Wyalt Derp: NewportBarGuy: Why do we need health care? We have NyQuil and DayQuil.

And for everything else, you can just go the emergency room!

Or Walgreens if it is a pap smear you need Link (new window)


And I found some expired Neosporin in the Kroger dumpster.
 
2012-03-24 01:58:54 PM  

Skyrmion: Ah, that makes sense. I was wondering about that, since "just pay it first" isn't exactly going to work if an error were to cause you to be overtaxed by a completely ridiculous amount.


I don't think it's necessary to have paid the tax per se, but at minimum you have to have been charged the tax, and either paid it, or pursued by the IRS for nonpayment.
 
2012-03-24 01:59:47 PM  

9beers: I'm kind of torn on the health care reform mandate. I don't agree that the government has the power to force people to pay for health care. At the same time, I realize that the only way to make this program work is if everybody is contributing and not being a freeloader. The alternative to forcing people to pay would be to refuse medical care to anybody who doesn't have coverage. Not some medical care, all medical care. If you get in a car accident and don't have coverage, fark you, lay there by the side of the road and die.


I'm not sure if the main problem is the lack of participation by the general population as much as it is the lack of fairness by the insurance companies. After all, if they can deny coverage to anyone deemed "unprofitable", if they can drop coverage any time they cease making a profit, and if they can retroactively cancel coverage due to an unrelated "pre-existing condition", then how does ANYONE receive health care?

If health insurance companies used actuarial tables to figure their profit/loss and rates on ALL members of a particular group, even those with "pre-existing conditions", their costs of providing service would still be lower than they are currently. See: ANY OTHER FARKIN' COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. The problem is that they make a bigger profit by focusing on the healthier members. Why in the world should this be profitable? I like profit just as much as the next guy, but why does EVERYTHING, specifically treating sick people, have to involve a profit?

That, and health care providers in this country, specifically drug companies, tend to focus more on providing treatments for diseases rather than cures.
 
2012-03-24 02:02:49 PM  

LoneWolf343: FlashHarry: so if you don't have insurance, you don't get a tax break. i don't have kids, so i don't get that tax break either. i don't really see the difference here.

Wait, now insurance qualifies you for a tax break? I understood there was a penalty for not having insurance, but if you are right...it's not even technically a mandate anymore. I would now have nothing to complain about.


It's not "now" this is what it always was but the FauxNewsSpinMachine made sure you thought otherwise...
 
2012-03-24 02:02:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Whatever happened to "Compassionate Conservatism"?


images3.wikia.nocookie.net

It's right there with the Creation Scientists, Global Warming Denying Climatologists, and the Female Orgasm.
 
2012-03-24 02:03:13 PM  

ox45tallboy: I'm not sure if the main problem is the lack of participation by the general population as much as it is the lack of fairness by the insurance companies. After all, if they can deny coverage to anyone deemed "unprofitable", if they can drop coverage any time they cease making a profit, and if they can retroactively cancel coverage due to an unrelated "pre-existing condition", then how does ANYONE receive health care?


Part of the reform is to eliminate exclusions for pre-existing conditions, isn't it?
 
2012-03-24 02:04:32 PM  
Congress and the President deliberately chose to pass the mandate as a punitive penalty, not a tax. The political will was not there to make it a tax, and doing so would violate the President's own pledge re: tax increases. Congress has a power to tax, but SCOTUS has ruled already that a punitive fine can't be defended as an exercise of the taxing power, particularly when the advocates of the legislation, and more importantly the text of the law itself, deny that it is a tax. If Congress is to levy a tax, it must do so and be held accountable for doing so. They can't call it not-a-tax in order to get it passed and then say to the courts "this is a tax, fark off."
 
2012-03-24 02:05:12 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: NewportBarGuy: mat catastrophe: Among really farking stupid people, yes, that's what it is called.

I heard someone refer to it as Obongocare, the other day. The black people in the room were not particularly amused.

...and the one-eared rabbits were livid.


turkeysandwich.files.wordpress.com

/Getting a real kick, hot, etc.
 
2012-03-24 02:05:25 PM  

9beers: ox45tallboy: I'm not sure if the main problem is the lack of participation by the general population as much as it is the lack of fairness by the insurance companies. After all, if they can deny coverage to anyone deemed "unprofitable", if they can drop coverage any time they cease making a profit, and if they can retroactively cancel coverage due to an unrelated "pre-existing condition", then how does ANYONE receive health care?

Part of the reform is to eliminate exclusions for pre-existing conditions, isn't it?


Absolutely. I was referring to pre-Obamacare way of doing things. Insurance companies are all in favor of this, however; the personal mandate means that all the insurance companies are on the same footing when it comes to covering potentially unprofitable customers.
 
2012-03-24 02:05:25 PM  

9beers: ox45tallboy: I'm not sure if the main problem is the lack of participation by the general population as much as it is the lack of fairness by the insurance companies. After all, if they can deny coverage to anyone deemed "unprofitable", if they can drop coverage any time they cease making a profit, and if they can retroactively cancel coverage due to an unrelated "pre-existing condition", then how does ANYONE receive health care?

Part of the reform is to eliminate exclusions for pre-existing conditions, isn't it?


Yes.
 
2012-03-24 02:07:43 PM  

ox45tallboy: Mrtraveler01: Whatever happened to "Compassionate Conservatism"?

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 300x300]

It's right there with the Creation Scientists, Global Warming Denying Climatologists, and the Female Orgasm.


Honest politician as well? Death panels?
 
2012-03-24 02:09:12 PM  

ox45tallboy: Lenny_da_Hog: ...and the one-eared rabbits were livid.

What a livid Rabbi may look like...

[towleroad.typepad.com image 480x325]

/couldn't find one with one ear


What a rabid Levite may look like...
www.fromoldbooks.org
 
2012-03-24 02:09:50 PM  

Churchill2004: Congress and the President deliberately chose to pass the mandate as a punitive penalty, not a tax. The political will was not there to make it a tax, and doing so would violate the President's own pledge re: tax increases. Congress has a power to tax, but SCOTUS has ruled already that a punitive fine can't be defended as an exercise of the taxing power, particularly when the advocates of the legislation, and more importantly the text of the law itself, deny that it is a tax. If Congress is to levy a tax, it must do so and be held accountable for doing so. They can't call it not-a-tax in order to get it passed and then say to the courts "this is a tax, fark off."


I don't think the Obama administration has made any public comments about how exactly they plan to "defend" the law. It's all (at this point) speculation by talking heads.

userserve-ak.last.fm

Essentially, what we're doing here, but they're getting paid to do it. And they're not as entertaining.
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report