The end of Obamacare?

Post Reply New Topic

Irony of ironies. I assure you, the problem here is not on my end. I am quite literate.


No, it does not. There is no public option. No health insurance means you pay out of pocket for any healthcare, which, given the high costs involved, typically means you simply won't get treatment unless you're already a millionaire.


Your link does not contradict me. You need to learn how to read.


Not even close.

The tax from massachusetts and the penalty that is collected as a tax in the federal health care plan are both used as a consequence for failing to meet the mandate to purchase insurance.

I understand the nomenclature issue with the federal case. Two judges have accepted it; two have not. The two that accepted it understand that the government is collecting the penalty as a tax.

The case referred to in Massachusetts is not about the federal interstate commerce law, this is why I agreed with you that this case does not validate the federal case.

It is widely understood as a political issue, not a legal issue, for Mitt Romney, and has been for a long time, if you need sources I can provide them to you.

You said the mandate was a tax in Massachusetts, Obamacare was a Penalty, and Romneycare was a tax. Your nomenclature is a little confusing here but I think I understand what you mean. Obamacare refers to the whole health care plan. Romneycare refers to that whole health care plan, and both plans have a mandate to purchase insurance. Massachusetts calls their consequence for failing to meet their mandate to purchase insurance a tax, while the mandate with the Federal healthcare plan calls their consequence to fail to purchase insurance a penalty that is collected as a tax.

Sure. http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm

That blog from earlier wasnt very specific about it's $2000. It depends on the income level.

Those family households with income below ~$30,000 in 2014 dollars will be able to join medicaid without getting insurance or paying any penalties.

And getting insurance will likely be far cheaper for many people as the insurance is subsidized. The fees for not having it (or not joining medicaid) are not subsidized. If someone really wanted to pay fees and get no services, they have that option but it's kind of crazy.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4146890/fox- ... calculator

This has some interesting information on tax money.

A lot of what I have been reading on this issue sounds like conventional and aberrant discussions between a group of neurotypicals who are preoccupied with unrealistic dreams of success and lack creative vision. Such a position might be more sound if we allowed ourselves to be led on a leash by such individuals, but I do believe that we could win them over given the right circumstances.

If you are not satisfied with something, then create something else. If you don't like the way something is, then come up with a solution. The only sound health care systems are market-based or government-run? Most socially-inspired people lack the skills to read between the lines (or the lies, for that matter), but that's understandable. They only know what they are told or read, and they lack the necessary effort and time to read a variety of sources. They sit around and read the newspaper, because it's right there on the store shelf. They tend to be much happier when in a social setting, arguing endlessly and needlessly about things presented to them from one-sided sources.

Most of us tend to over-analyze, and we can often see things that the socially-inspired can't. We have a strong desire for detail. So, it's time to put it to good use. Come up with a new health care plan that will enable care for all.

Well, considering history, we are talking about letting the camel's nose under the tent (reference means if you let a camel get it's nose under the edge of a tent, in short order the whole camel will force its way into the tent).

Even if you are 100% correct in what the state of the law is NOW, I'd not have an ounce of trust that the law would not be modified by someone to make it a punishable offense. The IRS can not only fine you, but impose insane penalties and interest rates. They can withhold refunds, seize bank accounts, and garnish wages...often without due process of law because the institutions holding your money are more afraid of the IRS than being held in the wrong by a judge for handing the money over upon demand.

If you trust what the law says today to mean you won't be ass-raped by the IRS later down the road, you have a very trusting and naive view of how government operates.

The law has already been modified to appease the voters; sure it could be modified again if the need arises, but it is a huge political issue, that politicians would have to agree to modify. I think the politicians have enough sense to know that most people aren't going to use a pencil fine enough to go to the trouble to use the IRS calculator and keep track of their wages and credits to modify the allowances on their W-4 form, to ensure they don't over pay. With the multiple tax credits available today many people end up with refunds; for those that don't pay, most of the money will be collected from refunds.

Also, I think, once people understand the good deal they are getting for insurance, most people will take the insurance rather than worry about a penalty. I understand that many people fear the IRS, often in an irrational way; just the fear in itself will probably be enough to motivate most people to pay the penalty, if they don't purchase insurance. As the reference that I provided stated, only a select few individuals will probably avoid the tax, and the IRS will more than likely just ignore them.

And, please don't take my word for any of this, I am simply repeating what was said in the article from the reliable source that I provided. They are correct in the interpretation of the law; not me. They didn't mention, in that article, the availability of an IRS calcultor to modify a W-4 to avoid getting a refund; but I provided a link directly from the IRS that explains how a person can do this. As long as a person complies with tax laws they have nothing to fear from the IRS.

Because of generous government tax breaks in the last thirty years almost fifty percent of Americans pay little to no federal income tax, yet many of these same people hate the control that government exerts over them and hate the IRS whose employees do the foot work involved in ensuring people get their tax credits and refunds.

People complain about Americans getting a free ride from social programs, when almost half of them are already getting a free ride from not having to pay federal income tax. Amazingly, many of the people that are doing the complaining about others getting free rides are already getting a huge one.

I made a good living and received massive tax breaks from the government in the last ten years. Much of my savings can be attributed to these tax breaks. Subsides for health insurance can also help people save or spend additional money in the economy. At least the government is trying to fund the subsidies. It was clear from the get go that my tax breaks were not funded. So which social program is more fiscally sound, the tax breaks of 2001 or the health care reform act of 2010?

Maybe so, but remember these historical facts.

1. The income tax was supposed to be (and was promised to be) a temporary measure only. I think it's gone well past being a temporary measure.

2. Through modifications of the tax code, the income tax has morphed from a simple proposal to a complex network of rules that even experts struggle to navigate.

3. Most every rule is interpreted by an entity who has a vested interest in one outcome over the other. The so-called "tax courts" hear cases where they have a vested interest in ruling against the petitioner and in favor of the IRS.

Do you question why people don't trust where this Obamacare provision is headed?

What is your source for this "fact?"