No. Perhaps a tax on men who previously had an insurance policy that did not cover women. I don't know how small that pool is. I've had private health insurance for 27 years and it has always covered women. Not covering them is discrimination.
You should submit that you don't know what "constitutional" means.
Constitution is not there to tell a business how to behave, it only defines what the government is and what it is authorised to do.
A person murdering you, for example, is NOT unconstitutional, it's a criminal offence, but he didn't "violate your right to live", because between him and you, you never had anything resembling a concept of a 'right'.
A 'right' is a concept that only has meaning within the relationship between you (individual) and the collective (government).
A business that creates a particular product for a particular customer cannot do anything that is 'unconstitutional'. By the way, that business cannot do anything that is 'constitutional' either.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
The current CBO estimates are that 4 Million people will likely choose to pay the IRS rather than purchase insurance. The rationale for this is that the penalty/tax for not being insured is dependent on income. For low-income folks who work for an employer that does not provide health insurance***, it may be significantly cheaper to just pay the penalty/tax than to purchase the minimially qualifying insurance to be exempted from being penalized.
Fine. At least there will be some tax money to help pay for the ER-freeloaders.
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.
That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
Not necessarily. The "tax" is MUCH smaller than health insurance premiums, and it's not like you can't wait on getting health insurance until you really need it (that preexisting condition mandate comes in handy).
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.
Because without the law, it is NOT infinitesimally small. The tax clause is what makes people leave the group of uninsured. And if it doesn't work, at least there is some tax money to pay for those who freeload at ERs.
Ok, then exactly what is that "low enough" bracket? Health insurance is horribly expensive for anyone who doesn't get it through work, so I'm sure lots of lower-middle-class people truly can't afford it either.
The fact remains that it's wrong, and fascist, to have the government require people to buy something from a third party. If something is so important that everyone really should have it, then the answer is simple: the government should provide it directly, like it does for many other things (like veterans' health care).
It would be great if the government provided it. However, it was a massive slog to get THIS bill passed and it was endlessly challenged. No way would single-payer make it.
I just got an email from corporate HR stating that my cost for health insurance is going up over the next two years because of this ruling.
1. Government makes decision.
2. Money leaves my pocket.
How is this not a tax? We can nit pick the details about what level it comes out of, but a tax is a tax is a tax. Nothing's free!
Newsflash! We've been getting those emails for the last 20 FUCKING YEARS! It's only a tax if you're dumb enough not to get insurance.
Still not a tax "on all Americans" as you claim. Only those with no insurance or shitty insurance. If your provider does not include services for women, it is shitty.
Yet another reason to stop voting for any of these candidates in this 2-party system. Yea, if we vote Romney in, I'm sure he'll overturn this debacle. But at the same time he'll figure out other ways to funnel our tax dollars in to industries that him and his party supports. Burn it all down.
It will not be overturned. Any attempt will be filibustered like shit.
The whole problem with this is the insurance angle. This becomes a guaranteed income stream for private insurance companies. They have so many ways to hide their finances, people will pay ever higher costs for reduced care. There are a thousand studies saying health care costs will increase in the future, not including inflation. There are many ways the government could improve health care and reduce the cost of it, but this is not it. If the government was the insurance company that would be different, all they would have to do is add.5 % to the current medicare deduction. Simple. Let anyone that wants join a government health plan (with no existing condition clause). Simple.
It is NOT a guaranteed income stream. You CAN opt out and pay the IRS instead. There are also thousands of studies saying the reverse - follow the money.
You can't call something that the majority were against when it was passed a piece of "democratic legislation"... it's a travesty. Now as a Libertarian I am going to have to vote for Romney to be rid of this anti-democratic, anti-liberty bill.
You will never get rid of it. Any attempt will be filibustered like shit even if I have to go down there and feed the filibusterer myself.
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.
D'oh! You dodged the issue by calling what I said ridiculous, instead of calling the law ridiculous and putting politicians into the hot seat to defend or condemn the current partisan policies. That's just the kind of thing that.. [roll dice] *clatter*.. Obama would do!
No, what I call ridiculous is blaming the president for what a judge decided. The pres should not be held responsible for what the judge decided, unless it is OBVIOUS pandering to his OVERT policy. A judge should not be held to what the pres wants.
In regard to the useless "Republicrat" term - I'm sick of it. The parties are further and further apart every day. They may both be beholden to money, but their ideologies are polar opposite.
The do have some different ideologies, but there are still a great many [at least] two -sided issues where those two parties combine on one side while we the people are on the other. It is a particularly apropos term when discussing IP policy. Republicans and Democrats have moved as One on this. Corrupt IP law is currently part of the Republicrat behavior. Even if you hate the word, you gotta admit the previous sentence is highly accurate.
SOME ideologies? I'd characterize it as much more than some. And combining the party names into one is an oversimplification, at best.
The chance that Obama had ANYTHING to do with decision is infinitesimally small.
I know that, but you can say the same about a majority of important political issues; presidents aren't involved in most policy making. They do get some big important ones (e.g. "should we start a war today?") but they're mostly on the sidelines. The way to get reform is to make them have something to do with such decisions, even if indirectly (e.g. have them appoint decent cabinet secretaries, judges, etc). Holding top administrators (especially elected ones) accountable for their underlings' actions is a good idea.
Strongly disagree. A judge should NOT be an underling to the president. He is to strictly interpret the law regardless of what the pres wants.
When you do that, you give politicians a way to distinguish themselves from their rivals. And when you don't do that, you make it so that your opinion can be safely ignored. Seriously, have you heard Obama or Romney or Johnson say anything substantial about patents? Why would they, if you are not willing to frame it as the divisive political issue that it actually is?
I think there are so many more important issues that IP law is pretty far down on the list for 99% of the people, including me.
I want Romney to hear people talking about 15 year old legislation as "Obama's DMCA" so that maybe he'll spend a few million dollars of his warchest buying advertisements for DMCA is a Democrat conspiracy to put socialism in your DVD player. (He's gotta spend the money on something, why not something half-sane?) I want Obama to characterize patent case law radicalization as a Bush legacy, and maybe spend a few million dollars of his warchest advertising that Yes We Can persuade Congress to overrule those decisions, but only if we re-elect him instead of electing someone who would veto reform. I want Johnson to characterize the status quo as the unprincipled corruption that it is, and spend.. um.. twenty dollars on a month of hosting, for a podcast explaining that an actually ideological approach to law would be superior to highest-bidder policy making.
Therefore I declare that it's Obama's fault, until he comes out against it and makes it be Boener's fault (and by association, Romney's fault).
Maybe he (we) should, since it is, without a doubt, a political issue. The Republicrat party advocates, enacts, broadly interprets, and enforces some pretty weird IP policies, many of which are contrary to what a lot of people say they want. Wouldn't you vote for people running on the Broad Patents Are Bullshit party ticket?
Do you think there's any chance of the situation getting better, if people don't politicize it? I'd actually like politicians making IP reform one of their talking points, and for people who didn't try to repeal the current laws to have very visible mud on them.
My objection was that the OP's pointing out that the judge was an Obama appointee was a blatant attempt to blame the outcome on Obama (especially when posting anon). The chance that Obama had ANYTHING to do with decision is infinitesimally small. In regard to a party of "Broad Patents Are Bullshit," I'd have to know how they stand on so many more MUCH more important issues before I'd vote for them. In regard to the useless "Republicrat" term - I'm sick of it. The parties are further and further apart every day. They may both be beholden to money, but their ideologies are polar opposite. Just because you're fed up with both doesn't make them equivalent.
In spite of all of the posts implying that any volunteers must be "insane", I would be quite willing to go, for the reasons below. The important thing is that they are reasons, i.e. I am sane and have thought about them logically.
I am unlikely to live more than 5 to 10 years more even if I stay on earth, in fact reduced gravity might give me longer.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the launch of people isn't for 10 years.
There will be exactly zero law enforcement there. You can kill your fellow crew members in a most spectacular way and then eat their brains. All on national TV and nobody will be able to do anything about that.
And that, my friend, is why I want to go (assuming I can be the killer and not the killee).
So... how is life in Botswana? What? you mean to tell me that you live in a land whose culture descended from a Protestant ethic?
I have to admit that this is what I expected. For all the hate for the Christian faith that persons such as yourself espouse it certainly odd that youse guys never seem to want to leave.
As a matter of fact I bet I could not PAY you to live anywhere that did not spring from a Christian, Protestant tradition.
Enjoy your air conditioning!
Well, in most cases the "Christians" just successfully wiped out the non-Christian cultures. How's that for "love thy neighbor?"
Slashdot Mirror
So...just a tax on men.
No. Perhaps a tax on men who previously had an insurance policy that did not cover women. I don't know how small that pool is. I've had private health insurance for 27 years and it has always covered women. Not covering them is discrimination.
You should submit that you don't know what "constitutional" means.
Constitution is not there to tell a business how to behave, it only defines what the government is and what it is authorised to do.
A person murdering you, for example, is NOT unconstitutional, it's a criminal offence, but he didn't "violate your right to live", because between him and you, you never had anything resembling a concept of a 'right'.
A 'right' is a concept that only has meaning within the relationship between you (individual) and the collective (government).
A business that creates a particular product for a particular customer cannot do anything that is 'unconstitutional'. By the way, that business cannot do anything that is 'constitutional' either.
Okay, fine. Illegal, then. Happy, now?
What about insurers that want to be man-only? There are man-only and woman-only clubs throughout the US...
I submit that either is or should be unconstitutional.
Bullshit. The tax is only on those who refuse to get insurance. That will be an infinitisimally small number of Americans.
The current CBO estimates are that 4 Million people will likely choose to pay the IRS rather than purchase insurance. The rationale for this is that the penalty/tax for not being insured is dependent on income. For low-income folks who work for an employer that does not provide health insurance***, it may be significantly cheaper to just pay the penalty/tax than to purchase the minimially qualifying insurance to be exempted from being penalized.
Fine. At least there will be some tax money to help pay for the ER-freeloaders.
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.
Not necessarily. The "tax" is MUCH smaller than health insurance premiums, and it's not like you can't wait on getting health insurance until you really need it (that preexisting condition mandate comes in handy).
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.
...why did we need the law?
Because without the law, it is NOT infinitesimally small. The tax clause is what makes people leave the group of uninsured. And if it doesn't work, at least there is some tax money to pay for those who freeload at ERs.
Ok, then exactly what is that "low enough" bracket? Health insurance is horribly expensive for anyone who doesn't get it through work, so I'm sure lots of lower-middle-class people truly can't afford it either.
The fact remains that it's wrong, and fascist, to have the government require people to buy something from a third party. If something is so important that everyone really should have it, then the answer is simple: the government should provide it directly, like it does for many other things (like veterans' health care).
It would be great if the government provided it. However, it was a massive slog to get THIS bill passed and it was endlessly challenged. No way would single-payer make it.
I just got an email from corporate HR stating that my cost for health insurance is going up over the next two years because of this ruling. 1. Government makes decision. 2. Money leaves my pocket. How is this not a tax? We can nit pick the details about what level it comes out of, but a tax is a tax is a tax. Nothing's free!
Newsflash! We've been getting those emails for the last 20 FUCKING YEARS! It's only a tax if you're dumb enough not to get insurance.
Still not a tax "on all Americans" as you claim. Only those with no insurance or shitty insurance. If your provider does not include services for women, it is shitty.
+3000 insightful.
Yet another reason to stop voting for any of these candidates in this 2-party system. Yea, if we vote Romney in, I'm sure he'll overturn this debacle. But at the same time he'll figure out other ways to funnel our tax dollars in to industries that him and his party supports. Burn it all down.
It will not be overturned. Any attempt will be filibustered like shit.
The whole problem with this is the insurance angle. This becomes a guaranteed income stream for private insurance companies. They have so many ways to hide their finances, people will pay ever higher costs for reduced care. There are a thousand studies saying health care costs will increase in the future, not including inflation. There are many ways the government could improve health care and reduce the cost of it, but this is not it. If the government was the insurance company that would be different, all they would have to do is add .5 % to the current medicare deduction. Simple. Let anyone that wants join a government health plan (with no existing condition clause). Simple.
It is NOT a guaranteed income stream. You CAN opt out and pay the IRS instead. There are also thousands of studies saying the reverse - follow the money.
It seems like increasing the demand for health insurance will make the price of go up. Could someone please explain why that is wrong?
There is no shortage of insurance. It is not a commodity with limited supply.
You can't call something that the majority were against when it was passed a piece of "democratic legislation" ... it's a travesty. Now as a Libertarian I am going to have to vote for Romney to be rid of this anti-democratic, anti-liberty bill.
You will never get rid of it. Any attempt will be filibustered like shit even if I have to go down there and feed the filibusterer myself.
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.
D'oh! You dodged the issue by calling what I said ridiculous, instead of calling the law ridiculous and putting politicians into the hot seat to defend or condemn the current partisan policies. That's just the kind of thing that .. [roll dice] *clatter* .. Obama would do!
No, what I call ridiculous is blaming the president for what a judge decided. The pres should not be held responsible for what the judge decided, unless it is OBVIOUS pandering to his OVERT policy. A judge should not be held to what the pres wants.
The do have some different ideologies, but there are still a great many [at least] two -sided issues where those two parties combine on one side while we the people are on the other. It is a particularly apropos term when discussing IP policy. Republicans and Democrats have moved as One on this. Corrupt IP law is currently part of the Republicrat behavior. Even if you hate the word, you gotta admit the previous sentence is highly accurate.
SOME ideologies? I'd characterize it as much more than some. And combining the party names into one is an oversimplification, at best.
I know that, but you can say the same about a majority of important political issues; presidents aren't involved in most policy making. They do get some big important ones (e.g. "should we start a war today?") but they're mostly on the sidelines. The way to get reform is to make them have something to do with such decisions, even if indirectly (e.g. have them appoint decent cabinet secretaries, judges, etc). Holding top administrators (especially elected ones) accountable for their underlings' actions is a good idea.
Strongly disagree. A judge should NOT be an underling to the president. He is to strictly interpret the law regardless of what the pres wants.
When you do that, you give politicians a way to distinguish themselves from their rivals. And when you don't do that, you make it so that your opinion can be safely ignored. Seriously, have you heard Obama or Romney or Johnson say anything substantial about patents? Why would they, if you are not willing to frame it as the divisive political issue that it actually is?
I think there are so many more important issues that IP law is pretty far down on the list for 99% of the people, including me.
I want Romney to hear people talking about 15 year old legislation as "Obama's DMCA" so that maybe he'll spend a few million dollars of his warchest buying advertisements for DMCA is a Democrat conspiracy to put socialism in your DVD player. (He's gotta spend the money on something, why not something half-sane?) I want Obama to characterize patent case law radicalization as a Bush legacy, and maybe spend a few million dollars of his warchest advertising that Yes We Can persuade Congress to overrule those decisions, but only if we re-elect him instead of electing someone who would veto reform. I want Johnson to characterize the status quo as the unprincipled corruption that it is, and spend .. um .. twenty dollars on a month of hosting, for a podcast explaining that an actually ideological approach to law would be superior to highest-bidder policy making.
Therefore I declare that it's Obama's fault, until he comes out against it and makes it be Boener's fault (and by association, Romney's fault).
And I declare that ridiculous.
Maybe he (we) should, since it is, without a doubt, a political issue. The Republicrat party advocates, enacts, broadly interprets, and enforces some pretty weird IP policies, many of which are contrary to what a lot of people say they want. Wouldn't you vote for people running on the Broad Patents Are Bullshit party ticket?
Do you think there's any chance of the situation getting better, if people don't politicize it? I'd actually like politicians making IP reform one of their talking points, and for people who didn't try to repeal the current laws to have very visible mud on them.
My objection was that the OP's pointing out that the judge was an Obama appointee was a blatant attempt to blame the outcome on Obama (especially when posting anon). The chance that Obama had ANYTHING to do with decision is infinitesimally small. In regard to a party of "Broad Patents Are Bullshit," I'd have to know how they stand on so many more MUCH more important issues before I'd vote for them. In regard to the useless "Republicrat" term - I'm sick of it. The parties are further and further apart every day. They may both be beholden to money, but their ideologies are polar opposite. Just because you're fed up with both doesn't make them equivalent.
Lucy H. Koh is an Obama appointee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh
She became a US District Judge after been recommended by Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein
So fucking what? Why are you politicizing this?
In spite of all of the posts implying that any volunteers must be "insane", I would be quite willing to go, for the reasons below. The important thing is that they are reasons, i.e. I am sane and have thought about them logically. I am unlikely to live more than 5 to 10 years more even if I stay on earth, in fact reduced gravity might give me longer.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the launch of people isn't for 10 years.
There will be exactly zero law enforcement there. You can kill your fellow crew members in a most spectacular way and then eat their brains. All on national TV and nobody will be able to do anything about that.
And that, my friend, is why I want to go (assuming I can be the killer and not the killee).
Because by international treaties, the planets belongs to humanity, and are not subject to exploitation.
So go there and arrest them.
So... how is life in Botswana? What? you mean to tell me that you live in a land whose culture descended from a Protestant ethic?
I have to admit that this is what I expected. For all the hate for the Christian faith that persons such as yourself espouse it certainly odd that youse guys never seem to want to leave.
As a matter of fact I bet I could not PAY you to live anywhere that did not spring from a Christian, Protestant tradition.
Enjoy your air conditioning!
Well, in most cases the "Christians" just successfully wiped out the non-Christian cultures. How's that for "love thy neighbor?"
... the aspect ratio of my anus is definitely different than the iPad.
Cheers. :)
Yeah, don't go sticking any square pegs into that round hole.