Fart_Machine: How exactly is increasing the insurance pool going to drive insurance companies out of business?

The expansion includes all of those sick people they denied coverage to because they would be unprofitable to insure. Every other new policy they write is a money loser.

skullkrusher: there are two questions. A) did he pledge not to raise taxes (in the context of income and payroll taxes) on people earning less than $250k? Yes, he quite clearly did. Is this a tax increase that is paid to the IRS, based on your income, that you will be assessed if you earn less than $250k and don't currently have health insurance. Yes, it quite clearly is.

Weren't you about a year ago saying up and down this wasn't a tax?

skullkrusher: Corvus: Actually it is making them look partisan and idiotic to even independents, where Romney is doing the "When Obama did it, it was a tax, but not when I did the same thing!".

when Romney did it it was a tax too

Well why is he and the Republicans lying to the American people?

skullkrusher: Corvus: Actually it is making them look partisan and idiotic to even independents, where Romney is doing the "When Obama did it, it was a tax, but not when I did the same thing!".

when Romney did it it was a tax too

Not according to Romney and his handler.

El Morro: trey101: Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year.

If you don't want to pay the tax, just make sure you have health insurance.

/context and nuance, how the f*ck do they work?

the insurance is constitutional due to the taxation clause. the penalty for not having insurance is a tax, the government forcing you to buy insurance or face a penalty is a TAX as stated by Chief Justice Roberts. Too bad you cant farking read or comprehend.

skullkrusher: It matters because the dishonest mental gymnastics are amusing when it is far easier and honest to say "Yeah, he had to break this pledge to fix healthcare". The mandate is necessary for the plan to work. While flawed, the plan is better than what we had. It's just the partisan absurdity, jumping through hoops trying to pretend that the pledge was specific only to certain situations, plans or types of taxes while the President STILL maintains that the mandate is not a tax. Why? Because he knows it breaks the pledge he made.

It doesn't really matter in the sense of who is or isn't going to vote for the guy though. It's not like anyone is going to go "The president broke his tax pledge with the individual mandate aspect of PPACA? That's it, I'm voting for Mitt Romney!"

Both sides of this "tax" discussion seem like much ado about nothing to me.

skullkrusher: Epoch_Zero: skullkrusher: Corvus: Actually it is making them look partisan and idiotic to even independents, where Romney is doing the "When Obama did it, it was a tax, but not when I did the same thing!".

when Romney did it it was a tax too

Not according to Romney and his handler.

they're liars.

Well, yeah. Have fun supporting them and their positions.

Infernalist: trey101: READ MY LIPS... NO NEW TAXES! Bush Sr. when running for president. The Democrats pounced on the tax increases he was forced to make do to the economy. Now when the shoe is on the other foot (other party) it is no big deal because SCOTUS said it was a tax?. Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year. It turns out that, yes, Obama has been caught in a lie. Just like Bush Sr. had no intention of raising taxes, but this is what we have. The Dems need to accept that fact. He is going to have to raise taxes based upon his actions. And he was VERY adamant about NOT raising taxes on those making less than 250000, so much so that it was a selling point of his election, just like Bush Sr.

The tax is only on those who can afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it for some reason.

Also, 'taxes' are only an inherently evil thing to children and idiots. Adults recognize and accept that taxes are both necessary and even 'good' for maintaining a thriving civilized society.

So, yes. Obamacare has a provision ensuring that if you choose to forsake your financial responsibilities when it comes to your health, you WILL be taxed over it because we're done dealing with freeloaders and cheapskates.

read my above post... it goes something like this...

the insurance is constitutional due to the taxation clause. the penalty for not having insurance is a tax, the government forcing you to buy insurance or face a penalty is a TAX as stated by Chief Justice Roberts. Too bad you cant farking read or comprehend.

The Homer Tax: Pincy: Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is a dipshiat. If your employer doesn't offer health insurance benefits and you have pre-existing conditions that makes you uninsurable then you aren't a dipshiat, you are unlucky and a victim of the way we currently do health insurance in this country.

If my employer doesn't offer health insurance and I have pre-existing conditions that make me uninsurable, aren't I really, really pleased with with the ACA and could give a shiat about this new "tax?"

There you go, focusing on the parts that help people. Typical lib response.

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Actually it is making them look partisan and idiotic to even independents, where Romney is doing the "When Obama did it, it was a tax, but not when I did the same thing!".

when Romney did it it was a tax too

Well why is he and the Republicans lying to the American people?

because that's how he rolls?

So you were lying and wrong too when you said it wasn't an official tax?

trey101: the insurance is constitutional due to the taxation clause. the penalty for not having insurance is a tax, the government forcing you to buy insurance or face a penalty is a TAX as stated by Chief Justice Roberts. Too bad you cant farking read or comprehend.

Says the guy who missed the point in a spectacular fashion.

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: there are two questions. A) did he pledge not to raise taxes (in the context of income and payroll taxes) on people earning less than $250k? Yes, he quite clearly did. Is this a tax increase that is paid to the IRS, based on your income, that you will be assessed if you earn less than $250k and don't currently have health insurance. Yes, it quite clearly is.

Weren't you about a year ago saying up and down this wasn't a tax?

It wasn't. Until it was ruled that it was by SCOTUS. Remember all the "there's no practical distinction between a fine and a tax in this case?" There was a reason why it is not just a clearly constitutional tax hike with associated credit for having insurance. It is treated like a fine in the bill. SCOTUS ruled that it's actually a tax and permissible. The President still insists it is a fine. Why? Because he promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $250k.

So then Obama didN'T break his pledge because it wasn't a tax when he passed it.

Yes, I know that argument, I MADE IT! You made the argument that SCOTUS said was wrong. Now you are magically trying to say the people who said the same argument as you were liars and wrong while you were not.

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: Actually it is making them look partisan and idiotic to even independents, where Romney is doing the "When Obama did it, it was a tax, but not when I did the same thing!".

when Romney did it it was a tax too

Well why is he and the Republicans lying to the American people?

because that's how he rolls?

So you were lying and wrong too when you said it wasn't an official tax?

more lies... when did I say that Romney's taxes for his healthcare plan in MA wasn't an "official tax"?

No you said Obama's mandate wasn't constitutional because it wasn't worded like an official tax

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: there are two questions. A) did he pledge not to raise taxes (in the context of income and payroll taxes) on people earning less than $250k? Yes, he quite clearly did. Is this a tax increase that is paid to the IRS, based on your income, that you will be assessed if you earn less than $250k and don't currently have health insurance. Yes, it quite clearly is.

Weren't you about a year ago saying up and down this wasn't a tax?

It wasn't. Until it was ruled that it was by SCOTUS. Remember all the "there's no practical distinction between a fine and a tax in this case?" There was a reason why it is not just a clearly constitutional tax hike with associated credit for having insurance. It is treated like a fine in the bill. SCOTUS ruled that it's actually a tax and permissible. The President still insists it is a fine. Why? Because he promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $250k.

So wait, Obama's statements which you have repeatedly quoted from prior to the SC decision were lies because they didn't acknowledge it was a tax, but yours weren't ?



You are on fire in this thread Sparky!

trey101: Infernalist: trey101: READ MY LIPS... NO NEW TAXES! Bush Sr. when running for president. The Democrats pounced on the tax increases he was forced to make do to the economy. Now when the shoe is on the other foot (other party) it is no big deal because SCOTUS said it was a tax?. Does not matter... taxes are now going to be raised on those making less than 250000 per year. It turns out that, yes, Obama has been caught in a lie. Just like Bush Sr. had no intention of raising taxes, but this is what we have. The Dems need to accept that fact. He is going to have to raise taxes based upon his actions. And he was VERY adamant about NOT raising taxes on those making less than 250000, so much so that it was a selling point of his election, just like Bush Sr.

The tax is only on those who can afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it for some reason.

Also, 'taxes' are only an inherently evil thing to children and idiots. Adults recognize and accept that taxes are both necessary and even 'good' for maintaining a thriving civilized society.

So, yes. Obamacare has a provision ensuring that if you choose to forsake your financial responsibilities when it comes to your health, you WILL be taxed over it because we're done dealing with freeloaders and cheapskates.

read my above post... it goes something like this...

the insurance is constitutional due to the taxation clause. the penalty for not having insurance is a tax, the government forcing you to buy insurance or face a penalty is a TAX as stated by Chief Justice Roberts. Too bad you cant farking read or comprehend.

yes, it's a tax. I'm not arguing that point.

I think it's a good tax. It only applies to you if you lack health insurance and have the means to get it, but refuse to do so.

It's a self-imposed tax on people who shirk their responsibilities to themselves and to the rest of the nation.

So, what's 'your' point? Yes, it's a tax.

So what if it is? That doesn't make it an evil thing.

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: there are two questions. A) did he pledge not to raise taxes (in the context of income and payroll taxes) on people earning less than $250k? Yes, he quite clearly did. Is this a tax increase that is paid to the IRS, based on your income, that you will be assessed if you earn less than $250k and don't currently have health insurance. Yes, it quite clearly is.

Weren't you about a year ago saying up and down this wasn't a tax?

It wasn't. Until it was ruled that it was by SCOTUS. Remember all the "there's no practical distinction between a fine and a tax in this case?" There was a reason why it is not just a clearly constitutional tax hike with associated credit for having insurance. It is treated like a fine in the bill. SCOTUS ruled that it's actually a tax and permissible. The President still insists it is a fine. Why? Because he promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $250k.

So wait, Obama's statements which you have repeatedly quoted from prior to the SC decision were lies because they didn't acknowledge it was a tax, but yours weren't ?

[cache.ohinternet.com image 562x437]

You are on fire in this thread Sparky!

YES, that is exactly what he is saying. Him having the same opinion on what the mandate was as the Obama opinion (however the Obama administration also defended the law as being a tax) makes Obama a liar but not him.

skullkrusher: It was always meant to be a tax. Political reasons prevented the clearly constitutional wording, however.

Do you really want me to start breaking the old threads out where you were saying it wasn't an official tax?

I will.

Look, all skull is saying, and all he's been saying for the last 12 pages is that Obama didn't want to call it a tax because ooga booga taxes are evil ahh hide the children.

Political leader says political things for political reasons. News at 11.

Who cares if it's a tax? It makes sense.

Infernalist: Who cares if it's a tax? It makes sense.

Romney cares.

skullkrusher: well clearly if it were interpreted as a fine it wouldn't have been constitutional.

You want us to believe the Federal government can't level fines? Or create fines for mandates?

You know they have existed in US history. They even existed in one of the first congresses of the US.

Or are you trying to say "it would not have been RULED unconstitutional" and just not succeeding at communication again?

skullkrusher: well clearly if it were interpreted as a fine it wouldn't have been constitutional. I doubted the constitutionality of such a "fine". However, since SCOTUS has ruled that it was a tax, it is constitutional.

So how does that make Obama wrong and a liar, but not you when you both had the same position it was a fine not a tax?

Pincy: Infernalist: Who cares if it's a tax? It makes sense.

Romney cares.

If Romney wasn't a robot, that might be true. But his programming doesn't cover emotional and ethical subroutines.

Where wolf: Infernalist: Look, all skull is saying, and all he's been saying for the last 12 pages is that Obama didn't want to call it a tax because ooga booga taxes are evil ahh hide the children.

Political leader says political things for political reasons. News at 11.

Who cares if it's a tax? It makes sense.

Also, he didn't want to call it a tax because the Courts couldn't rule on it as a tax until *after* it was implemented. Calling it a penalty allows the courts to review it prior to implementation/taxation

Is that right? The court couldn't rule on its legitimacy if the penalty was worded as a 'tax' instead of a penalty? Why is that?

skullkrusher: He has always denied that it was a tax.

so did you.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: there are two questions. A) did he pledge not to raise taxes (in the context of income and payroll taxes) on people earning less than $250k? Yes, he quite clearly did. Is this a tax increase that is paid to the IRS, based on your income, that you will be assessed if you earn less than $250k and don't currently have health insurance. Yes, it quite clearly is.

Weren't you about a year ago saying up and down this wasn't a tax?

It wasn't. Until it was ruled that it was by SCOTUS. Remember all the "there's no practical distinction between a fine and a tax in this case?" There was a reason why it is not just a clearly constitutional tax hike with associated credit for having insurance. It is treated like a fine in the bill. SCOTUS ruled that it's actually a tax and permissible. The President still insists it is a fine. Why? Because he promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $250k.

So wait, Obama's statements which you have repeatedly quoted from prior to the SC decision were lies because they didn't acknowledge it was a tax, but yours weren't ?

[cache.ohinternet.com image 562x437]

You are on fire in this thread Sparky!

He has always denied that it was a tax. The bill is even worded as if it weren't. Why would that be done when it would be clearly constitutional just to raise a tax and give people a credit for that tax for having insurance? He still denies it is a tax even though the reason it passed muster is because SCOTUS says it is a tax. Whether he admits to breaking his promise or not doesn't really matter to whether he broke his promise, now does it?

You poor, mendacious bastard. You don't honestly believe that the wording on the penalty was such so that it wouldn't be an tax increase, do you? That if you call something something else, it becomes that other thing?

So then you were lying when you said it wasn't a tax prior to the ruling. Got it. You called it something else and then it became other thing, therefore you are a dishonest, lying, prevaricator just like that bastard 0bama.

It's a tax. A tax bill that did not originate in the House. That's how farked up this thing was from the beginning.

This abortion of a thread is still going? Blech...and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the people who thought it was a tax still do and the people who don't think it is a tax have not been convinced otherwise.

Tax people: I have insurance, I make less than 250k, how much more, specifically, will my taxes be as a result of this? Not my tanning bed fees, or increased fees for medical devices...my taxes, the amount I have to pay to the IRS every year. How much is that going up?

Not a Tax People: if I lose my job and/or my insurance, won't I be paying more in taxes than I would without the ACA? Yeah, only if I don't get insurance I know...but until I do my taxes went up didn't they?

Anyone: my uninsured relatives with pre-existing conditions or that don't qualify for Medicaid will presumably get health insurance and have access to health care under the ACA in 2014. What is Romney offering as his plan for my relatives? Specifically, not "repeal and replace" or fix the system, or greatest health care system in the world...does Romney have a specific plan that he is offering in place of this to make me think he should get my vote?

/back to your regularly scheduled trolling

A duck walks into a bar and quacks to the bartender "Do you have duck food"?

The bartender says "No, we don't," and the duck walks out of the bar.

Next day, the same duck comes in and quacks "Do you have duck food?"

The bartender, impatiently, says "No, of course not. I told you that yesterday!"

Third day, the duck walks in, quacks "Do you have Duck food?".

Exasperated, the bartender says "No! for the last time NO. WE DO NOT HAVE DUCK FOOD! This is a bar, not a duck farm! If you come in here one more time, I'm going to slap a individual mandate on your ass and force you to buy health insurance!"

Next day the duck walks in and quacks "Is it a tax?".

Is skullcrusher still sericously arguing that when President Obama said he wouldn't raise income taxes on those below $250,000 in income with his stimulus legislation, and in fact said he would lower taxes on that group with that proposal. He was actually promising he would never raise taxes on those individuals in any way at any time?

Aldon: Is skullcrusher still sericously arguing that when President Obama said he wouldn't raise income taxes on those below $250,000 in income with his stimulus legislation, and in fact said he would lower taxes on that group with that proposal. He was actually promising he would never raise taxes on those individuals in any way at any time?

No, dumby. Obama said that the ACA bill would not raise taxes. Apparently the SCOTUS thinks it did raise taxes. Obama on the other hand thinks the SCOTUS should have declared the ACA unconstitutional.