43 replies to this topic

[MikeyG]

This basically handed the election to Romney and the senate to the Republicans... Bad day for the Dems... 2010 part two in four months...

[diogenes227]

This basically handed the election to Romney and the senate to the Republicans...

Bad day for the Dems...

2010 part two in four months...

Mitt "I was for it until I was against it" Romney? You think so? Politicians from Massachusetts who flip-flop like that don't exactly have a record of winning.

[spielchekr]

Let me cut to the chase. This tax (or so it is presented) completely bypasses the US Treasury. And yet, collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. is a duty reserved for the U.S. Treasury. Until just now, that is. Illegal, illegal, illegal!!!

[i]But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

If I understand correctly, those "(who) choose to go without health insurance" will be required to pay monies to the US Treasury via the IRS, and that is what CJ John Roberts is calling "taxes". I suspect that Roberts realizes that exposing this as yet another tax increase will make the whole concept even more onerous to the electorate....

Let's not kid ourselves that paying an insurance company to avoid a tax is not a tax itself. If this was penalized by something called a fine, I would think otherwise. Involving the IRS at any point makes it a tax, regardless of routing around the Treasury. Government is simply assuming the role of debt collector for taxes not directly paid to an insurance carrier. Congress has the power to tax commerce under something appropriately called the Commerce Clause. When someone does not buy, there is no commerce (exchange of goods or commodities). Waiting until commerce does not occur, then taxing that non-occurance, is not commerce. Anticipating that commerce may/can/will occur in the future is what insurance is all about. As I see it, constitutional-abiding government is to be concerned about insurance only in the sense of maintaining national defense (invasion insurance), as this was specified in the constitution.

[MikeyG]

This basically handed the election to Romney and the senate to the Republicans...

Bad day for the Dems...

2010 part two in four months...

Mitt "I was for it until I was against it" Romney? You think so? Politicians from Massachusetts who flip-flop like that don't exactly have a record of winning.

I do, just looking at the polling of the popularity of the law...

And looking at the 2010 results with the law as the central focus of that election...

These are just facts, just like trading you want to take the emotions out of it...

[draggen33]

This basically handed the election to Romney and the senate to the Republicans...

Bad day for the Dems...

2010 part two in four months...

we shall see!!

[Rogerdodger]

Millions of Mexicans just got free health care, paid for by my kids who will be taxed into poverty.

I want my EBT!

How's Greece doing?
Stockton?
Stockton bankruptcy: Will other cities follow?

"Socialism always works great...until you run out of other people's money."


The real answer lies here: Free Market Competition http://bidonhealth.com/

Edited by Rogerdodger, 28 June 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

UK Death Panels kill 130,000 yearly But it's free.

[Sentient Being]

And France is lining itself up for bailouts because it can't support it's system. I've been focused mainly on the UK health care system and it's terrible. The horror stories are endless. Friends in the UK have also concurred.

Greece was broke before it joined the UK, 40%+ on the government payrolls. Yes, socialism did break Greece but it took decades to run out of other people's money and admit it has to be redone. And so on and so forth.

No we do not have a free enterprise system we have Medicare and that's a huge portion of our health care system taken over by the government and so badly set up it's set to become the entire US budget in the future and is on it's way to bankruptcy....or so said President Obama when he once indicated he was interested in helping it. But lately he's used it as a piggy bank and hastened it's collapse.

Some of us ARE paying attention to the details.

Uh, last I checked it still was. Until this law. There is no law that requires employers to provide health care. There is a ton of regulation, but it's an insurance industry, what would you expect? And the regulation fails because - wait for it - the FREE MARKET doesn't work for health care. If your insurance company tries to bilk you on their policy for your home that was burnt down, it's pretty cut and dry, and still fairly cut & dry for more complex insurance issues - because the outcomes and risks are, to a large extent, predictable. We know how many hurricanes we'll get on average, how many houses will burn down a year. But medical conditions and treatment are a lot, lot less cut & dry, particularly because we tend to ascribe a different set of values to human life than we do to property.

As for how Europe's doing - it sucks. But the cause wasn't socialism. The cause was the real estate bubble in Spain, and the idiotic policy to create a common currency without a common fiscal policy. As far as I know, their health care systems are all doing just fine and well-funded. The Europeans, about 50 years ago, decided to trade growth for social stability and higher quality of life for the middle and lower classes. Growth gets killed by taxes and business regulations, but the vast majority of people are quite content because they have a higher standard of living than they did before, and arguably higher than most Americans. But don't even get me started on how hard it is to be an entrepreneur in France - I used to argue with my French friends about it all the time. Arguably, any person in the U.S. earning less than $75,000 a year would be better off living in Europe. They would get free health care, free education, and better unemployment benefits. Americans like you have a different value system that's all. Thus far, our political history shows that we prefer the "chance" of riches and severe boom/bust cycles rather than a moderately good lifestyle with systemic unemployment problems and slow growth.

Here's an article on much hated France's health care system.

And you can look up any statistics you like...life expectancy, access to health care, education (though how you define quality is tricky), purchasing power...Where they totally lose is in your chance of being a billionaire. Not bloody likely. But it never really was, was it?

[salsabob]

Let me cut to the chase. This tax (or so it is presented) completely bypasses the US Treasury. And yet, collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. is a duty reserved for the U.S. Treasury. Until just now, that is. Illegal, illegal, illegal!!!

[i]But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

If I understand correctly, those "(who) choose to go without health insurance" will be required to pay monies to the US Treasury via the IRS, and that is what CJ John Roberts is calling "taxes". I suspect that Roberts realizes that exposing this as yet another tax increase will make the whole concept even more onerous to the electorate....

Let's not kid ourselves that paying an insurance company to avoid a tax is not a tax itself. If this was penalized by something called a fine, I would think otherwise. Involving the IRS at any point makes it a tax, regardless of routing around the Treasury. Government is simply assuming the role of debt collector for taxes not directly paid to an insurance carrier. Congress has the power to tax commerce under something appropriately called the Commerce Clause. When someone does not buy, there is no commerce (exchange of goods or commodities). Waiting until commerce does not occur, then taxing that non-occurance, is not commerce. Anticipating that commerce may/can/will occur in the future is what insurance is all about. As I see it, constitutional-abiding government is to be concerned about insurance only in the sense of maintaining national defense (invasion insurance), as this was specified in the constitution.

This has nothing to do with anyone paying an insurance company for insurance. Those people, the vast majority, are paying for a service called insurance. The difference for them is now that service is much more standardized and transparent - usually a good thing regardless of ideology. Moreover, several million people get that insurance for much less than before because they are being subsidized which may or may not increase the federal deficit which is meaningless (I know, I know, 99.9% of people don't believe that but that's at the heart of why I've taken so much money from so many people in the markets )

What we are left with is the people who do not get the service called insurance. That's what the mandate, Commerce Clause, Congressional power to tax, and Roberts key decision pertains to. In that regard, what IYB said is correct.

This is not rocket science --- at least once you put aside the ideological blinders.

By the way, those death panels are now coming for your freedom fries and they will make you eat French fries again! Dirty pinko commies!

[sluzbenik1]

The lack of growth is the big problem...I think they can keep some of their welfare states, but they need to do simple things in France like keep the retirement age at 65, which will be fought hand & fist, but the French aren't stupid, I think, and will eventually face reality...You're conflating issues, but the one thing the Euro crisis is doing is forcing them to start to look more closely at their deficits.

As for dissatisfaction with the NHS in Britain, which is arguably worse than France or Sweden's, this article begs to differ:

http://www.telegraph...ory-voters.html