I cry F'ing BS!!!!
#1
10-01-2009, 07:40 PM
I cry F'ing BS!!!!
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM11...document2.html
Go Obama!!!.. Just Go....please....now.....
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM11...document2.html
Go Obama!!!.. Just Go....please....now.....
#2
10-01-2009, 08:12 PM
wait... so if you can't afford health insurance, you have to pay (up to) $1900?
So, lately I've been thinking of building a floating island in international waters, and establishing my own country. We'll only have fun jobs that don't require much work, and being that the country wont have any money, the US will just give us money.
Theres a possibility that we base our business around piracy though. One twist, we're gonna hijack pirate ships, and demand ransom from the pirates for their pirate buddies safe return.
Island will have a sweet heli pad, and we'll put some pingpong and foosball tables on it when we're not using it for choppers (we don't hav a chopper yet... waiting on donations from the US).
So, lately I've been thinking of building a floating island in international waters, and establishing my own country. We'll only have fun jobs that don't require much work, and being that the country wont have any money, the US will just give us money.
Theres a possibility that we base our business around piracy though. One twist, we're gonna hijack pirate ships, and demand ransom from the pirates for their pirate buddies safe return.
Island will have a sweet heli pad, and we'll put some pingpong and foosball tables on it when we're not using it for choppers (we don't hav a chopper yet... waiting on donations from the US).
#6
10-02-2009, 11:45 AM
For me, this is an interesting topic. Ive been waiting for someone to comment on it. The constitutionality of a health insurance mandate is a serious question.
Obama (who studied constitutional law for many years) described the document as a "charter of negative liberties." Which he explains as,
"[it] Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf"
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/2...ialist-spirit/
So in his view, the constitution does not limit the government from interfering in your life on your behalf, against your will. He thinks that the government is required to "help" you even if you dont want their "help." This is the origin of the Nanny State that liberals are often accussed of fostering.
Supporters of a health insurance mandate often make comparisons to auto insurance. Fortunatley, this is a weak argument when properly analyzed. For instance, states genarlly require individuals to buy auto insurance. The Fed govnt has never required individuals to purchase anything. A few states only require that an individual prove that they have enough assets to compensate for any claims. Most states only require liability insurance. This type of coverage protects other people from yourself. It does not require that your own car is covered. Health insurance mandate is the opposite of liability insurance because it protects you from yourself and others. If you dont have health insurance, you are taking the risk. There is no danger to another individuals property.
There is also the philisophical and ethical dilemma. Auto insurance is required to drive you car (a type of guided missle) on public roads. Health insurance would be required for you to live. Whether you live in the woods by yourself or are a parkour pro, you would have to have the same minimum coverage. Health insurance is much more intrusive because it says that as long as you are breathing, you must purchase some type of policy.
So the auto insurance analogy is mostly BS.
Of course there are other arguments for the mandate, and I would be interested to here someone make them. For instance, if you dont have insurance and you get in an accident and are unable to cover the costs, the rest of society will have to pay. In that case, you could apply for insurance after that fact and claim that you have a "preexisting condition" which they must treat.
This could eventually reach the Supreme court and become a landmark case.
Obama (who studied constitutional law for many years) described the document as a "charter of negative liberties." Which he explains as,
"[it] Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf"
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/2...ialist-spirit/
So in his view, the constitution does not limit the government from interfering in your life on your behalf, against your will. He thinks that the government is required to "help" you even if you dont want their "help." This is the origin of the Nanny State that liberals are often accussed of fostering.
Supporters of a health insurance mandate often make comparisons to auto insurance. Fortunatley, this is a weak argument when properly analyzed. For instance, states genarlly require individuals to buy auto insurance. The Fed govnt has never required individuals to purchase anything. A few states only require that an individual prove that they have enough assets to compensate for any claims. Most states only require liability insurance. This type of coverage protects other people from yourself. It does not require that your own car is covered. Health insurance mandate is the opposite of liability insurance because it protects you from yourself and others. If you dont have health insurance, you are taking the risk. There is no danger to another individuals property.
There is also the philisophical and ethical dilemma. Auto insurance is required to drive you car (a type of guided missle) on public roads. Health insurance would be required for you to live. Whether you live in the woods by yourself or are a parkour pro, you would have to have the same minimum coverage. Health insurance is much more intrusive because it says that as long as you are breathing, you must purchase some type of policy.
So the auto insurance analogy is mostly BS.
Of course there are other arguments for the mandate, and I would be interested to here someone make them. For instance, if you dont have insurance and you get in an accident and are unable to cover the costs, the rest of society will have to pay. In that case, you could apply for insurance after that fact and claim that you have a "preexisting condition" which they must treat.
This could eventually reach the Supreme court and become a landmark case.
#7
10-02-2009, 02:50 PM
"Of course there are other arguments for the mandate, and I would be interested to here someone make them."
I'd love to argue the other side with you, but I can't think of any good reason to make it mandatory. There are already county hospitals (in CA) that have to treat the uninsured, so we're already paying for it. I'm sure it's less that $1900/yr. Is this what Obama meant by "deficit neutral" and "no new taxes"?
I'd love to argue the other side with you, but I can't think of any good reason to make it mandatory. There are already county hospitals (in CA) that have to treat the uninsured, so we're already paying for it. I'm sure it's less that $1900/yr. Is this what Obama meant by "deficit neutral" and "no new taxes"?