Mandate Upheld

Touma said:

No, it seems that a something is a lie only when you feel like it is a lie.

Click to expand...

Pommer said:

Right. Not to derail the thread but if George Zimmerman had said it, it would as gospel to our less speedy friend.

Click to expand...

Let's look at it:

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Oops! Turns out it is a lie after all

Touma said:

And he is right, is he not? If you buy health insurance you will have to pay NO additional tax. The choice is up to you. DO you want to buy insurance or pay a tax? No one can make that choice but you.

Click to expand...

If you don't buy it, will you be taxed? If so, then Obama lied as long as your income is under $250K

Touma said:

And he is right, is he not? If you buy health insurance you will have to pay NO additional tax. The choice is up to you. DO you want to buy insurance or pay a tax? No one can make that choice but you.

Click to expand...

That seems a bit disingenuous on your part, Touma.

It's thousands of dollars more for many families ... a direct contradiction with Obama's statement. Just FACT.

Touma said:

And a rebate to help cover it.

Click to expand...

What?

NightHawkeye said:

That seems a bit disingenuous on your part, Touma.

It's thousands of dollars more for many families ... a direct contradiction with Obama's statement. Just FACT.

Click to expand...

I'm understanding the decision to mean that the actual purchase of healthcare insurance is a tax itself.

NightHawkeye said:

What?

Click to expand...

I've heard that anyone under a certain income level gets a tax break to help cover the cost of the insurance. I heard that the income level is $80,000

Touma said:

If you are under 250,000 and buy insurance you will also be getting a rebate to help out.

Click to expand...

Unless it covers the full cost, it's still a lie. Moreover, some under the $250,000 level will not get a rebate.

MachZer0 said:

I'm understanding the decision to mean that the actual purchase of healthcare insurance is a tax itself.

Click to expand...

Your understanding is not correct, although you are free to misunderstand as much as you like.

Taxes go to the government not to private companies.

If Romney plays this right, Obama is doomed as far as reelection goes.

Alexb said:

Your understanding is not correct, although you are free to misunderstand as much as you like.

Taxes go to the government not to private companies.

Click to expand...

They used to anyway. We'll see how this plays out as the legal experts study the decision.

Blayz said:

Your world maybe. Since this is the first mention of it being a tax on this forum, it makes it a goalpost shuffle. It's OK though mate, I understand you are in pain.

Click to expand...

Erm... your world doesn't exists outside of the forums?

Ok.

For those whose world apparently exists only on these forums:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643816/#post60114220

1. whether this is a penalty or a tax (Constitutionally the Federal Government can only tax, but if this is a tax then according to the Anti-Injunction Act comes into play--the court cannot act until the injury when a person is has to pay the fine.)

Click to expand...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643816/#post60114615

Yeah, right. Obama first told us that it was not a tax--it was a penalty. (He promised not to tax anyone making less than 250,000 then 200,000 then 170,000--oh I don't know what he calls the middle class now.) Then when he realized that the Constitution only gives permission for the federal government to tax, he told the courts it was a tax. (Really enjoyed that one Supreme noting that it's argued to be a tax, and then the next day a penalty--and asked "which is it?" )

Click to expand...

I guess she was busy moving the goal posts months before huh?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7633708-5/#post59830789

They are not forced to pay for insurance; they could choose to pay the penalty instead.

Click to expand...

She supports Obamacare.. wonder why she's moving the goalposts?

And in Feburary too! I wonder what she knows that you don't?

Sneaky SNEAKY!


http://www.christianforums.com/t7657144-2/#post60535318

Beginning in 2014, the federal government will impose new fines on citizens and legal residents who do not obtain government-approved insurance. Those without insurance will pay a tax that is the greater of a flat fee, or a percentage of family income. The flat fee will be phased in over several years. In 2014, the penalty will be $95 per adult in an uninsured household, increasing to $325 in 2015, then to $695 in 2016, after which it will increase annually in line with consumer inflation.

Click to expand...

Gosh another post from months ago! HOWARETHEYDOINGTHAT?!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7657144-2/#post60536954

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

Click to expand...

There's what word again! I thought it was a TAX?! What do these people from months ago know that people whose world is only CF don't?!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643451-7/#post60121312

Yesterday was about whether the Supreme court could decide the case or not (whether or not the penalty is a tax.)

Click to expand...

From MARCH?! How are they doing this?! This has to be a moving of the goal posts from the past!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7646037-2/#post60174368

(who actually caught the Solicitor General in a lie--repeatedly calling a penalty a tax) and mustn't forget Justice Ginsberg (and her unfortunate admission)?

Click to expand...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7452330/#post54369571

andate requiring purchase of Obamacare-approved health insurance or payment of a penalty fine. As Fox News has pointed out, for instance, the Amish are excused from the mandate:

Click to expand...

From 2010! How are they going back in time and moving the goalposts?!


http://www.christianforums.com/t7507883-8/#post55969119

Medicare is being cut and the government is arguing in court that the penalty we will all have to pay if we don't have this insurance is really a tax, plus we have all that Stimulus money to pay for (I think our children will be taxed this time.)

Click to expand...

Another 2010 post.... Has anyone seen the Doctor?



http://www.christianforums.com/t7414366/#post53392433

8 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

Click to expand...

A blue police box maybe?


Come on someone must have seen something? Apparently there's a time traveler out there going back int time and altering posts going back atleast to 2009 talking about how this penalty is a tax!

This isn't possible!!!!!!

Oh wait.. it's completely possibly because someone has no idea of the actual arguments that were going on behind the Obamacare case in the first place.

Touma said:

Actually what the 5-4 upholding said was that it was permissible for the government to tax you for not buying health insurance. You don't HAVE to buy it, but you will be taxed if you don't.

Click to expand...

Oh, so I don't HAVE to pay my taxes? Whew!

MachZer0 said:

If Romney plays this right, Obama is doomed as far as reelection goes.

Click to expand...

It goes both ways, Obama's supporters will see this as a pretty major victory. I'm not sure how much of an actual effect it will have, since I would wager most people had their opinions on it before the ruling anyways.

Not to mention Romney's bill was nearly identical.

S.ilvio said:

Ensured equal access to Healthcare for Americans across the country?

Amen brother...

Click to expand...

That's not what this does.

The brave new world of forced commmerce.

MachZer0 said:

They used to anyway. We'll see how this plays out as the legal experts study the decision.

Click to expand...

Like the Supreme Court legal experts?