Hey, dumbass. Are you aware that fully half of the deficit is due to the Bush-era tax cuts? You know, those ones that were put in place when Republicans claimed that deficits didn't matter? The ones that turned a budget surplus into a deficit? Yeah, those. The endless money we spend on foreign wars accounts for another 1/4 of the deficit. Spending stimulates the economy, not austerity.
So how does "satisfy[ing] priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate." turn into "seizure of private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications"?
Wait until the next Congress pass an 'inactivity' tax for
1. not joining the Army
2. not seeing your proctologists for your annual checkup
3. not owning a gun
4. not buying an *exploding* electric car
5. not buying a thingamajig.
Dumb-ass slippery-slopt argument. People need health insurance. People get healthcare. People can't pay at emergency rooms. This will save us money.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
In other words, they just legislated from the bench. The fact is that this is/was *not* allowed per the Constitution. The federal government does not have the ability to do what it pleases. It's powers are enumerated from the Constitution and anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is granted to the states per the 10th Amendment. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. There is nothing from stopping the government forcing you to purchase any product and/or service that they desire.
No, they did not "legislate from the bench." They UPHELD a law that was passed by the legislature. "Legislating from the bench" is a phrase used solely by poor losers.
Then kindly show me where the Constitution allows this or show me a precedent where it has been allowed.
Like I said, I don't need to. SCOTUS just did that today.
- aah, beautiful, if that's what passes for an argument from your point of view then I understand why you can't grasp simple things.
It's not an argument; it's an assessment of YOU. And it is equally valid as your claim of superior knowledge of US Constitution, Economics and my ability to grasp. Just because someone disagrees, it doesn't mean they don't understand. Of course your mental capacity (or lack thereof) makes it impossible for you to understand THAT.
As I said, you are within your rights to stop participating in this discussion. I am much more knowledgeable on US laws and Constitution than you will ever be, clearly. As to economics - you can't even start understanding the basics of it, you don't have the mental capacity.
And as I said, that is YOUR FUCKING OPINION. And you are FUCKING WRONG. And you can stop participating, too. Making sweeping statements as to your knowledge means nothing, dimwit, fuckwad, narrow-brain, right-wing, racist, dickless, dips hit.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
In other words, they just legislated from the bench. The fact is that this is/was *not* allowed per the Constitution. The federal government does not have the ability to do what it pleases. It's powers are enumerated from the Constitution and anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is granted to the states per the 10th Amendment. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. There is nothing from stopping the government forcing you to purchase any product and/or service that they desire.
No, they did not "legislate from the bench." They UPHELD a law that was passed by the legislature. "Legislating from the bench" is a phrase used solely by poor losers.
Just because I am not in USA right now, doesn't mean that I cannot speak about these matters, besides, clearly I am much more knowledgeable on these issues than you ever were (and probably ever will be).
You do not understand what Constitution is, you don't understand what is constitutional, what is not, you do not understand what Constitution applies to, you do not understand basic economics, you don't understand unintended consequences, you do not know history. But you are of-course within your right not to continue this discussion.
All your stupid-ass irrelevant opinion. Who the fuck cares what you think of OUR laws and OUR constitution. You are no expert on OUR constitution. Just because I disagree with your stupid-ass right-wing assessment of unintended consequences does not mean I don't understand basic economics, dumbshit.
First, my claim of infinitesimal was how many would opt to pay the tax instead of get insurance. Since that is in the future, not the present, there is no measurement of that and hence I did not use it to describe 60M americans (wherever the hell you got that number). Second, I was responding to someone who said it was a tax on all Americans, hence the comparison.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
The reason your argument is ridiculous is that people who don't buy insurance are a burden on everyone else because they must be treated at hospitals. People who try to be freeloaders will be taxed for their actions. If by not owning a gun, I cost others money, then yes a tax might be appropriate. Otherwise, no.
Owning a gun allows people to defend them selves better, the people that don't own a gun are freeloading because they expect the police to take care of all their protection so people not owning a gun are freeloading on the system. I realize that this is a huge pile of BS and it doesn't matter to my argument the supreme court ruled that the government can tax people who choose not to buy a product. It does not matter that forcing people to buy it benefits society the bottom line is the supreme court ruled the government can tax people who refuse to buy a product. If you have a problem with the government mandating gun ownership you should have a problem with the government mandating health insurance.
No. You have no business telling me what I should have a problem with. Fact: people who don't have insurance cost everyone a lot of money. Police are required whether people have guns or not (and one could argue that gun ownership requires more police). Perhaps a lunatic would enact mandatory gun ownership, but I don't see that happening.
Where in the ruling did they say the power to tax people that don't buy a good can only be used if it's for the greater good of the people. Plain and simple the government has the power to tax you if you don't buy something, it doesn't matter what it is. Insurance is simply a good just like a gun or a statue of the president and the Federal government has the power to tax you if you don't buy it. I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant as you and ignore the precedence that this sets but I can't.
They've been effectively taxing us for not doing things forever (by tax breaks for people who do it) - marriage, mortgage, children.
Well, now that I called the bet, you want to change the terms of it? Right. There isn't enough people paying taxes right now for this to work. Half of all people don't pay taxes, what makes you think they will pay the government "tax" on health insurance?
I never said I wanted to bet on any terms. I'm saying YOU'RE the one rolling the dice with your own finances. As to your "Half of all people don't pay taxes" - utter bullshit.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
20% of Americans is NOT "an infinitisimally small number", dick.
I admitted no such thing, dumbass. Equal opportunity laws do not increase minority unemployment no matter how much Faux Noise you watch.
- of-course you did, you specifically admitted that this is not a rights violation, you said - "it should be illegal then", but you admitted that company doesn't violate any rights of anybody by offering a product to a specific set of people, say to men only.
Now, I don't watch 'Faux Noise", or whatever, you Americans, enjoy on your TVs there, but "equal opportunity" acts exactly as a barrier to entry for those very people, who are supposedly gaining from such laws.
I wouldn't hire anybody who is protected by government as a group, so I would be limited to young white men only in USA, but this carries with itself another risk - being sued for discrimination for NOT hiring, exactly the same thing as this ACA here with a mandate, being fined for NOT buying something.
So I wouldn't do business in USA anymore, though I actually did do before I moved it to Asia.
You deliberately misquote me. I said "I submit it either is or should be unconstitutional," which I then changed unconstitutional to illegal because you lectured me on the word "constitutional" and if you're not in the US then quit trying to tell me what is and is not constitutional, AKA FUCK OFF!
When gov't passes a law that says: you have no right to discriminate against your customers on your own property and you don't have the right to free association, then it's NOT any addition of any rights, it's a destruction of rights and it's one of the reasons doing business in USA is so expensive that nobody wants to - litigation based on gov't entitlement/obligation laws.
Oh, that wouldn't happen to you because you're a white male.
- it should bother the minorities much more, that after the misnamed civil rights act their situation only worsened, as they used to have much lower unemployment before that law passed. A law like that... what would it do to those, who get this entitlement for a lawsuit... I wonder, do the employers modify their behaviour and decide NOT to hire minorities because firing them would be a LITIGATION CAUSING EVENT?
Yeah, people don't modify their behaviour based on laws... wait, they do. People, who otherwise wouldn't ever in their lives think about their employees in terms of 'white or black', 'men or women', once the government passes a law that says that one of these choices comes with an increased risk of a lawsuit... Well, lets put it this way. Prior to 1964 unemployment among young blacks (ages 16 to 25) was lower than in the white population in the same age group, it was under 15%.
Today it's over 50%.
I admitted no such thing, dumbass. Equal opportunity laws do not increase minority unemployment no matter how much Faux Noise you watch.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
No, not happy. Why would you want to make certain types of products illegal exactly? What is your thinking pattern?
Here is a privately created company, with private savings, private investment, it doesn't TOUCH YOU, it produces a product and markets it to a certain group of people, whoever they are, and they are able to provide the best product for that group of people at the lowest prices.
Here comes you and here you says: you can't give these people this great product they want to buy, because it violates my ability to be a prick.
No, it violates my sense of fairness. Do you think that if an insurer was for "Whites Only" that it would be okay? How would you feel if insurance companies wouldn't cover you because of your skin color or sex. Oh, that wouldn't happen to you because you're a white male. Great for you.
Wanna bet? I'm willing to put money on your assumption. Here now. Why buy insurance to get the same coverage after paying a smaller fine? THAT is the whole point of Obama Care. Everyone gets Medical Care whether they have insurance or not. I'm choosing "not" when the mandate goes into effect. I'll pay the damn fine, and anyone doing anything different is a fool (and paying for my medical care)
Fine. Play roulette with your finances and hope you don't need major medical help that will ruin your finances. At least your tax money will help pay for all you jokers.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
The reason your argument is ridiculous is that people who don't buy insurance are a burden on everyone else because they must be treated at hospitals. People who try to be freeloaders will be taxed for their actions. If by not owning a gun, I cost others money, then yes a tax might be appropriate. Otherwise, no.
Owning a gun allows people to defend them selves better, the people that don't own a gun are freeloading because they expect the police to take care of all their protection so people not owning a gun are freeloading on the system. I realize that this is a huge pile of BS and it doesn't matter to my argument the supreme court ruled that the government can tax people who choose not to buy a product. It does not matter that forcing people to buy it benefits society the bottom line is the supreme court ruled the government can tax people who refuse to buy a product. If you have a problem with the government mandating gun ownership you should have a problem with the government mandating health insurance.
No. You have no business telling me what I should have a problem with. Fact: people who don't have insurance cost everyone a lot of money. Police are required whether people have guns or not (and one could argue that gun ownership requires more police). Perhaps a lunatic would enact mandatory gun ownership, but I don't see that happening.
Okay, so maybe some jerkwads will game the system. At least the tax income will come in handy to pay for the freeloaders at the ER. Also, the tax could be increased.
My daughter has a friend who can't afford health insurance, and isn't poor enough for Medicaid. She pretty much has no choice but to game the system, and may have a tough time paying the penalty even if she games the system.
Well, maybe with more people in the insurance pool, she will be able to afford it. And if she's younger than 26, she can be on her parents' policy now.
Further, it should be noted that the tax income isn't actually dedicated to "paying for the freeloaders at the ER". There's absolutely NOTHING in the law providing for payments to hospitals/doctors to pay for such things.
I never said there was. But money is fungible. More tax revenue will mean some of the cost of sponging will be offset.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, dumbass. Are you aware that fully half of the deficit is due to the Bush-era tax cuts? You know, those ones that were put in place when Republicans claimed that deficits didn't matter? The ones that turned a budget surplus into a deficit? Yeah, those. The endless money we spend on foreign wars accounts for another 1/4 of the deficit. Spending stimulates the economy, not austerity.
-1, pulled this statement directly out of your ass.
+5, Funny as hell
It seems that your first project should have been to develop a bug tracker.
So how does "satisfy[ing] priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate." turn into "seizure of private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications"?
By listening to Fox News.
False dichotomy is false. Stop playing this like it is my team vs their team. There is one team there. You don't get a say, you don't get to play.
Not a false dichotomy. It is a TRUE dichotomy. There are only two (real) choices on the ballet every four years.
They've been effectively taxing us for not doing things forever (by tax breaks for people who do it) - marriage, mortgage, children.
So then you agree that the federal government has the power to this for guns, statues of the president, cars, anything they choose.
The federal government has the power to do whatever it legislates unless the supreme court says otherwise.
Wait until the next Congress pass an 'inactivity' tax for
1. not joining the Army 2. not seeing your proctologists for your annual checkup 3. not owning a gun 4. not buying an *exploding* electric car 5. not buying a thingamajig.
Dumb-ass slippery-slopt argument. People need health insurance. People get healthcare. People can't pay at emergency rooms. This will save us money.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
In other words, they just legislated from the bench. The fact is that this is/was *not* allowed per the Constitution. The federal government does not have the ability to do what it pleases. It's powers are enumerated from the Constitution and anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is granted to the states per the 10th Amendment. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. There is nothing from stopping the government forcing you to purchase any product and/or service that they desire.
No, they did not "legislate from the bench." They UPHELD a law that was passed by the legislature. "Legislating from the bench" is a phrase used solely by poor losers.
Then kindly show me where the Constitution allows this or show me a precedent where it has been allowed.
Like I said, I don't need to. SCOTUS just did that today.
Like I bother believing right-wing propaganda.
dimwit, fuckwad, narrow-brain, right-wing, racist, dickless, dips hit.
- aah, beautiful, if that's what passes for an argument from your point of view then I understand why you can't grasp simple things.
It's not an argument; it's an assessment of YOU. And it is equally valid as your claim of superior knowledge of US Constitution, Economics and my ability to grasp. Just because someone disagrees, it doesn't mean they don't understand. Of course your mental capacity (or lack thereof) makes it impossible for you to understand THAT.
As I said, you are within your rights to stop participating in this discussion. I am much more knowledgeable on US laws and Constitution than you will ever be, clearly. As to economics - you can't even start understanding the basics of it, you don't have the mental capacity.
And as I said, that is YOUR FUCKING OPINION. And you are FUCKING WRONG. And you can stop participating, too. Making sweeping statements as to your knowledge means nothing, dimwit, fuckwad, narrow-brain, right-wing, racist, dickless, dips hit.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
In other words, they just legislated from the bench. The fact is that this is/was *not* allowed per the Constitution. The federal government does not have the ability to do what it pleases. It's powers are enumerated from the Constitution and anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is granted to the states per the 10th Amendment. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. There is nothing from stopping the government forcing you to purchase any product and/or service that they desire.
No, they did not "legislate from the bench." They UPHELD a law that was passed by the legislature. "Legislating from the bench" is a phrase used solely by poor losers.
Just because I am not in USA right now, doesn't mean that I cannot speak about these matters, besides, clearly I am much more knowledgeable on these issues than you ever were (and probably ever will be).
You do not understand what Constitution is, you don't understand what is constitutional, what is not, you do not understand what Constitution applies to, you do not understand basic economics, you don't understand unintended consequences, you do not know history. But you are of-course within your right not to continue this discussion.
All your stupid-ass irrelevant opinion. Who the fuck cares what you think of OUR laws and OUR constitution. You are no expert on OUR constitution. Just because I disagree with your stupid-ass right-wing assessment of unintended consequences does not mean I don't understand basic economics, dumbshit.
First, my claim of infinitesimal was how many would opt to pay the tax instead of get insurance. Since that is in the future, not the present, there is no measurement of that and hence I did not use it to describe 60M americans (wherever the hell you got that number). Second, I was responding to someone who said it was a tax on all Americans, hence the comparison.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
The reason your argument is ridiculous is that people who don't buy insurance are a burden on everyone else because they must be treated at hospitals. People who try to be freeloaders will be taxed for their actions. If by not owning a gun, I cost others money, then yes a tax might be appropriate. Otherwise, no.
Owning a gun allows people to defend them selves better, the people that don't own a gun are freeloading because they expect the police to take care of all their protection so people not owning a gun are freeloading on the system. I realize that this is a huge pile of BS and it doesn't matter to my argument the supreme court ruled that the government can tax people who choose not to buy a product. It does not matter that forcing people to buy it benefits society the bottom line is the supreme court ruled the government can tax people who refuse to buy a product. If you have a problem with the government mandating gun ownership you should have a problem with the government mandating health insurance.
No. You have no business telling me what I should have a problem with. Fact: people who don't have insurance cost everyone a lot of money. Police are required whether people have guns or not (and one could argue that gun ownership requires more police). Perhaps a lunatic would enact mandatory gun ownership, but I don't see that happening.
Where in the ruling did they say the power to tax people that don't buy a good can only be used if it's for the greater good of the people. Plain and simple the government has the power to tax you if you don't buy something, it doesn't matter what it is. Insurance is simply a good just like a gun or a statue of the president and the Federal government has the power to tax you if you don't buy it. I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant as you and ignore the precedence that this sets but I can't.
They've been effectively taxing us for not doing things forever (by tax breaks for people who do it) - marriage, mortgage, children.
Well, now that I called the bet, you want to change the terms of it? Right. There isn't enough people paying taxes right now for this to work. Half of all people don't pay taxes, what makes you think they will pay the government "tax" on health insurance?
I never said I wanted to bet on any terms. I'm saying YOU'RE the one rolling the dice with your own finances. As to your "Half of all people don't pay taxes" - utter bullshit.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
20% of Americans is NOT "an infinitisimally small number", dick.
It is also not "All Americans," dickless.
I admitted no such thing, dumbass. Equal opportunity laws do not increase minority unemployment no matter how much Faux Noise you watch.
- of-course you did, you specifically admitted that this is not a rights violation, you said - "it should be illegal then", but you admitted that company doesn't violate any rights of anybody by offering a product to a specific set of people, say to men only.
Now, I don't watch 'Faux Noise", or whatever, you Americans, enjoy on your TVs there, but "equal opportunity" acts exactly as a barrier to entry for those very people, who are supposedly gaining from such laws.
I wouldn't hire anybody who is protected by government as a group, so I would be limited to young white men only in USA, but this carries with itself another risk - being sued for discrimination for NOT hiring, exactly the same thing as this ACA here with a mandate, being fined for NOT buying something.
So I wouldn't do business in USA anymore, though I actually did do before I moved it to Asia.
You deliberately misquote me. I said "I submit it either is or should be unconstitutional," which I then changed unconstitutional to illegal because you lectured me on the word "constitutional" and if you're not in the US then quit trying to tell me what is and is not constitutional, AKA FUCK OFF!
Do you think that if an insurer was for "Whites Only" that it would be okay?
- of-course it is OK.
It is a private business, it doesn't VIOLATE ANY RIGHT OF YOURS, you have already admitted that much, your memory can't be that short.
When gov't passes a law that says: you have no right to discriminate against your customers on your own property and you don't have the right to free association, then it's NOT any addition of any rights, it's a destruction of rights and it's one of the reasons doing business in USA is so expensive that nobody wants to - litigation based on gov't entitlement/obligation laws.
Oh, that wouldn't happen to you because you're a white male.
- it should bother the minorities much more, that after the misnamed civil rights act their situation only worsened, as they used to have much lower unemployment before that law passed. A law like that... what would it do to those, who get this entitlement for a lawsuit... I wonder, do the employers modify their behaviour and decide NOT to hire minorities because firing them would be a LITIGATION CAUSING EVENT?
Yeah, people don't modify their behaviour based on laws... wait, they do. People, who otherwise wouldn't ever in their lives think about their employees in terms of 'white or black', 'men or women', once the government passes a law that says that one of these choices comes with an increased risk of a lawsuit... Well, lets put it this way. Prior to 1964 unemployment among young blacks (ages 16 to 25) was lower than in the white population in the same age group, it was under 15%.
Today it's over 50%.
I admitted no such thing, dumbass. Equal opportunity laws do not increase minority unemployment no matter how much Faux Noise you watch.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So you have no problem with people being taxed simply for being alive? Can you please show me where in the Constitution that this is allowed? Can you give me examples of other similar taxes?
The tax is to help pay for the current freeloaders and to help bring costs down overall (larger risk pool). And I don't need to show you where in the constitution that is allowed. The Supreme Court of the United States of America just did it for me.
No, not happy. Why would you want to make certain types of products illegal exactly? What is your thinking pattern?
Here is a privately created company, with private savings, private investment, it doesn't TOUCH YOU, it produces a product and markets it to a certain group of people, whoever they are, and they are able to provide the best product for that group of people at the lowest prices.
Here comes you and here you says: you can't give these people this great product they want to buy, because it violates my ability to be a prick.
No, it violates my sense of fairness. Do you think that if an insurer was for "Whites Only" that it would be okay? How would you feel if insurance companies wouldn't cover you because of your skin color or sex. Oh, that wouldn't happen to you because you're a white male. Great for you.
Wanna bet? I'm willing to put money on your assumption. Here now. Why buy insurance to get the same coverage after paying a smaller fine? THAT is the whole point of Obama Care. Everyone gets Medical Care whether they have insurance or not. I'm choosing "not" when the mandate goes into effect. I'll pay the damn fine, and anyone doing anything different is a fool (and paying for my medical care)
Fine. Play roulette with your finances and hope you don't need major medical help that will ruin your finances. At least your tax money will help pay for all you jokers.
First, Obama and the Dems sold this as not a tax. So they lied. Obama is now responsible for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of over a trillion dollars.
Second, it's a tax on you. Not what you earn, not where you live, not what you own, but you.
So they got their technical win. Doesn't make it right though.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
So it is ok for the government to force people to buy things because they are in the minority? Should the government be allowed to force everyone to buy a gun and those that choose not to will be taxed, with the new ruling the only thing stopping that is congress and the president. The government now has the power to "tax" anyone who doesn't buy what they want them to buy cars, guns, cereal, statues of political leaders, anything. Am I the only one who thinks that is seriously fucked up?
The reason your argument is ridiculous is that people who don't buy insurance are a burden on everyone else because they must be treated at hospitals. People who try to be freeloaders will be taxed for their actions. If by not owning a gun, I cost others money, then yes a tax might be appropriate. Otherwise, no.
Owning a gun allows people to defend them selves better, the people that don't own a gun are freeloading because they expect the police to take care of all their protection so people not owning a gun are freeloading on the system. I realize that this is a huge pile of BS and it doesn't matter to my argument the supreme court ruled that the government can tax people who choose not to buy a product. It does not matter that forcing people to buy it benefits society the bottom line is the supreme court ruled the government can tax people who refuse to buy a product. If you have a problem with the government mandating gun ownership you should have a problem with the government mandating health insurance.
No. You have no business telling me what I should have a problem with. Fact: people who don't have insurance cost everyone a lot of money. Police are required whether people have guns or not (and one could argue that gun ownership requires more police). Perhaps a lunatic would enact mandatory gun ownership, but I don't see that happening.
My daughter has a friend who can't afford health insurance, and isn't poor enough for Medicaid. She pretty much has no choice but to game the system, and may have a tough time paying the penalty even if she games the system.
Well, maybe with more people in the insurance pool, she will be able to afford it. And if she's younger than 26, she can be on her parents' policy now.
Further, it should be noted that the tax income isn't actually dedicated to "paying for the freeloaders at the ER". There's absolutely NOTHING in the law providing for payments to hospitals/doctors to pay for such things.
I never said there was. But money is fungible. More tax revenue will mean some of the cost of sponging will be offset.
And finally, it WILL be increased.
Good.