O-Trap;1214256 wrote:Fair enough. I find it odd that such a lengthy document, and a new one at that, will provide for less time spent, but if you honestly think that to be the case, it is indeed your own business to run as you see fit.



Apparently not, but that is a basic contingency to the new policy, no? In order for some to exercise their right to healthcare, the rights of others to what they've earned is inhibited.

It's the idea of swinging a fist at my nose. Apparently, the Supreme Court has decided that your right to swing your fist at my face supersedes my right to not get hit in the nose. I'll survive, of course, just as most people in this country will, but don't expect me to not be upset or feel as though my rights have been infringed.

Con_Alma;1214306 wrote:There must be plenty of people. Wasn't that the whole point of putting this legislation in?

stlouiedipalma;1214320 wrote:Yes, there are plenty. My question dealt with those of you on this site who complain about a tax they won't have to pay.

stlouiedipalma;1214329 wrote:You make a good point, Con. I guess it's like "sin taxes". I don't use the products which are taxed, so I don't pay it. I can still be upset about the tax in the first place, but my sense of "personal responsibility" says I shouldn't complain about what is essentially a user tax.

QuakerOats;1214077 wrote:I'm not "dude". And apparently you are not listening, nor watching, as every year more and more of your liberties and freedoms are being taken, or eroded, on an incremental basis, sometimes not discernable (but in this instance, quite easily recognizable), but nevertheless falling by the wayside. When you have been around as long as some of us, it is easier to see and understand perhaps, but if you think this latest power grab by the radical left is not important enough to fight for its reversal, then that is too bad. Good luck.

fan_from_texas;1214112 wrote:^^^This.

The government already encourages some behaviors and discourages others based on its taxing power. That's nothing new. Whether it's a good idea or not is a policy question, not really a legal question.

I don't have strong feelings on the opinion, as I didn't care much either way about ObamaCare. But this opinion, by itself, does not mean the sky is falling. If anything, I read it as opening up doors for Commerce Clause challenges against numerous other laws--sort of a "lose the battle, win the war" type of decision. It'll take awhile for the full impact to shake out.

fan_from_texas;1214196 wrote:Leading libertarian scholar weighs in:

WebFire;1214388 wrote:One thing I am confused about after seeing people on the internet and Facebook discuss it...if a person chooses to not get healthcare and pays the "tax", they are still uninsured, correct? Or do they pay the tax to be covered under some plan?

tk421;1214415 wrote:the tax is if you don't have insurance/get insurance under one of these exchanges, I understand. I'd imagine a lot of people who already can afford health insurance but don't have it for whatever reason will just pay the tax. It will be a lot cheaper than a 5,000+ plan. So, this bill isn't going to do a whole lot for those people who can afford insurance and don't have it. The people who can't afford insurance are the big winners here, the government already pays everything for them anyway, I guess insurance doesn't make any difference.

ptown_trojans_1;1214404 wrote:...
Interesting, and I saw the decision by Roberts in the light that hey, you voted for the Congress, they made this law under the tax realm, and that is the nature of the beast of the Congress.

...

WebFire;1214418 wrote:But paying the tax doesn't gain them any government paid coverage, right? After reading the link I posted, I say no. But in discussion, people talk as though that is the case.

tk421;1214445 wrote:3

No, paying the tax doesn't get anyone coverage. Not everyone needs or wants coverage, though. I know there is this idea that everyone on the planet consumes some kind of healthcare during their lives, but that's just not true. Plenty of people go there whole lives without nothing except regular checkups, and those can be paid for out of pocket.

tk421;1214445 wrote:3

No, paying the tax doesn't get anyone coverage. Not everyone needs or wants coverage, though. I know there is this idea that everyone on the planet consumes some kind of healthcare during their lives, but that's just not true. Plenty of people go there whole lives without nothing except regular checkups, and those can be paid for out of pocket.

Con_Alma;1214468 wrote:For not contributing premiums/cash flow to the costs of paying for others' benefits the government penalizes you with a "tax".

WebFire;1214498 wrote:But if only premium payers are covered, who are the "others" that we are paying for. I don't see how it's different than now other than the mandate.

BoatShoes;1214200 wrote:Jhay,

1. Insurance companies will not fail because healthy people are required to be in the risk pool. Your scenario only happens if the mandate is struck down.

BoatShoes;1214234 wrote:In the long run I think this is a win for conservatives.

1. A healthcare law that is socialist only in imaginationland is upheld as a tax that doesn't expand federal power beyond what it already was.

2. Commerce clause is limited

3. States are given more power

4. Conservatives get a market based health reform while destroying liberal political capital

jhay78;1214627 wrote:Unless enough people decide that paying the fine is cheaper and makes more sense than paying insurance premiums and participating in the risk pool.

WebFire;1214664 wrote:But they can do that now for free and they don't. So I don't think this will happen.

WebFire;1214664 wrote:But they can do that now for free and they don't. So I don't think this will happen.