So one of the contentions raised with one aspect of the healthcare law was the mandate, now technically a tax, that requires someone to purchase health insurance or be penalized with a tax. I can not participate, by forgoing buying health insurance, however, I will be paying more taxes. This has been posited on the right as an unprecedented move by the government which has never been done.
Isn’t it really just a matter of semantics though? In reality this is how the tax code has been working for decades, merely under the guise of deductions. If I am married, have children, own a home, etc. I can deduct a greater amount of taxes that are paid in taxes. In reality, however, what is really happening is that I am being forced to get married, have children, buy a house, or pay the penalty of not participating in those endevours by paying a tax.
What am I missing here, and why do I not hear anyone else talking about this? By the way I am against the entire bill, and believe it doesn’t even begin to address the real and issues with the healthcare system in general.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
So one of the contentions raised with one aspect of the healthcare law was the mandate, now technically a tax, that requires someone to purchase health insurance or be penalized with a tax. I can not participate, by forgoing buying health insurance, however, I will be paying more taxes. This has been posited on the right as an unprecedented move by the government which has never been done.
Isn’t it really just a matter of semantics though? In reality this is how the tax code has been working for decades, merely under the guise of deductions. If I am married, have children, own a home, etc. I can deduct a greater amount of taxes that are paid in taxes. In reality, however, what is really happening is that I am being forced to get married, have children, buy a house, or pay the penalty of not participating in those endevours by paying a tax.
What am I missing here, and why do I not hear anyone else talking about this? By the way I am against the entire bill, and believe it doesn’t even begin to address the real and issues with the healthcare system in general. [/quote]
Well, “the right” likes their subsidies.
If you expect any kind of consistency in their “small government” stance, forget it.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
What am I missing here, and why do I not hear anyone else talking about this? By the way I am against the entire bill, and believe it doesn’t even begin to address the real and issues with the healthcare system in general. [/quote]
Your not missing anything, people just like to make a bigger deal out of everything than it really is. It is just another form of taxes, which is the reason it was deemed constitutional in the first place. Of course people are going to complain when taxes go up, nothing new here.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
Isn’t it really just a matter of semantics though?[/quote]
No, not even close.
No, just no.
You are not, outside of Obama care taxed for inaction. You are not.
Not even close. You aren’t being forced into shit. The government gives incentives.
Giving someone a break for doing things that better society =/= giving people an either/or option of “do this or pay a fine in the form of tax”.
Do you see the difference?
You aren’t paying any penalties for not getting married or buying a house. The standard deduction exists.
A more sophisticated understanding of the IRC. That isn’t an insult, trust me.
Because the left won’t admit that the government is now forcing them to give their money to the same people they were Occupy-ing against six months ago.
And the right knows they will get more votes from playing on the “Obama raised taxes” line than the “holy shit, look the blues take away your freedom too” line.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
What am I missing here, and why do I not hear anyone else talking about this? By the way I am against the entire bill, and believe it doesn’t even begin to address the real and issues with the healthcare system in general. [/quote]
Your not missing anything, people just like to make a bigger deal out of everything than it really is. It is just another form of taxes, which is the reason it was deemed constitutional in the first place. Of course people are going to complain when taxes go up, nothing new here.[/quote]
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
What am I missing here, and why do I not hear anyone else talking about this? By the way I am against the entire bill, and believe it doesn’t even begin to address the real and issues with the healthcare system in general. [/quote]
Your not missing anything, people just like to make a bigger deal out of everything than it really is. It is just another form of taxes, which is the reason it was deemed constitutional in the first place. Of course people are going to complain when taxes go up, nothing new here.[/quote]
You would have a point if people simply would get a tax deduction when it comes to their federal taxes if they bought health insurance.
No, as your homework, count the ways how and why this comes not even close.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious when some one goes to the emergency room and does not pay the bill ,who do you think pays the bill ?[/quote]
This is at least the 12th time I have explained this to people, and you will likely ignore it as well.
This isn’t a healthcare issue. This is an issue about the government controlling where you spend your disposable income in the private sector. They are telling you where to spend your money.
I don’t give a fuck how altruistic the cause, they are still dictating where your money goes. That is wrong, and on all levels un-American.
Also, everyone I know that is upset about this (personal anecdote I know) already has insurance and won’t be getting rid of it any time soon. So, think critically. Why, if we already spend this money would we be upset?
And third, look at Mass health Insurance costs over the last 6 years. Now extrapolate that over the entire nation. You think it sucks paying for what you are paying for in your above example?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious when some one goes to the emergency room and does not pay the bill ,who do you think pays the bill ?[/quote]
This is at least the 12th time I have explained this to people, and you will likely ignore it as well.
This isn’t a healthcare issue. This is an issue about the government controlling where you spend your disposable income in the private sector. They are telling you where to spend your money.
I don’t give a fuck how altruistic the cause, they are still dictating where your money goes. That is wrong, and on all levels un-American.
Also, everyone I know that is upset about this (personal anecdote I know) already has insurance and won’t be getting rid of it any time soon. So, think critically. Why, if we already spend this money would we be upset?
And third, look at Mass health Insurance costs over the last 6 years. Now extrapolate that over the entire nation. You think it sucks paying for what you are paying for in your above example?
Just wait…[/quote]
I think you miss my point . If some one does not pay their bill at the emergency room . They pass that cost on to those of us and Insurance companies (HIGHER PREMIUMS) that do . Which is already taxing us
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious when some one goes to the emergency room and does not pay the bill ,who do you think pays the bill ?[/quote]
This is at least the 12th time I have explained this to people, and you will likely ignore it as well.
This isn’t a healthcare issue. This is an issue about the government controlling where you spend your disposable income in the private sector. They are telling you where to spend your money.
I don’t give a fuck how altruistic the cause, they are still dictating where your money goes. That is wrong, and on all levels un-American.
Also, everyone I know that is upset about this (personal anecdote I know) already has insurance and won’t be getting rid of it any time soon. So, think critically. Why, if we already spend this money would we be upset?
And third, look at Mass health Insurance costs over the last 6 years. Now extrapolate that over the entire nation. You think it sucks paying for what you are paying for in your above example?
Just wait…[/quote]
I think you miss my point . If some one does not pay their bill at the emergency room . They pass that cost on to those of us and Insurance companies (HIGHER PREMIUMS) that do . Which is already taxing us
[/quote]
It is the Federal government that forces them to provide service to those that can’t pay in the first place. 2 Wrongs =/= right
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious when some one goes to the emergency room and does not pay the bill ,who do you think pays the bill ?[/quote]
This is at least the 12th time I have explained this to people, and you will likely ignore it as well.
This isn’t a healthcare issue. This is an issue about the government controlling where you spend your disposable income in the private sector. They are telling you where to spend your money.
I don’t give a fuck how altruistic the cause, they are still dictating where your money goes. That is wrong, and on all levels un-American.
Also, everyone I know that is upset about this (personal anecdote I know) already has insurance and won’t be getting rid of it any time soon. So, think critically. Why, if we already spend this money would we be upset?
And third, look at Mass health Insurance costs over the last 6 years. Now extrapolate that over the entire nation. You think it sucks paying for what you are paying for in your above example?
Just wait…[/quote]
I think you miss my point . If some one does not pay their bill at the emergency room . They pass that cost on to those of us and Insurance companies (HIGHER PREMIUMS) that do . Which is already taxing us
[/quote]
It is the Federal government that forces them to provide service to those that can’t pay in the first place. 2 Wrongs =/= right[/quote]
So you think we should not treat emergencies before payment ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious when some one goes to the emergency room and does not pay the bill ,who do you think pays the bill ?[/quote]
This is at least the 12th time I have explained this to people, and you will likely ignore it as well.
This isn’t a healthcare issue. This is an issue about the government controlling where you spend your disposable income in the private sector. They are telling you where to spend your money.
I don’t give a fuck how altruistic the cause, they are still dictating where your money goes. That is wrong, and on all levels un-American.
Also, everyone I know that is upset about this (personal anecdote I know) already has insurance and won’t be getting rid of it any time soon. So, think critically. Why, if we already spend this money would we be upset?
And third, look at Mass health Insurance costs over the last 6 years. Now extrapolate that over the entire nation. You think it sucks paying for what you are paying for in your above example?
Just wait…[/quote]
I think you miss my point . If some one does not pay their bill at the emergency room . They pass that cost on to those of us and Insurance companies (HIGHER PREMIUMS) that do . Which is already taxing us
[/quote]
It is the Federal government that forces them to provide service to those that can’t pay in the first place. 2 Wrongs =/= right[/quote]
So you think we should not treat emergencies before payment ?
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what I think. I’m not the one providing the services. Neither are you, so the word “We” doesn’t apply.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have paid all my bills so I can speak for myself that I HAVE paid for other people’s services[/quote]
No you haven’t, you chose to pay for your services at an inflated rate. You didn’t participate at all in the transaction between the provider and his other customers, paying or otherwise.
The price was inflated due to the loss that occurred to the medical provider/hospital providing the service. The medical provider could have chosen not to provide the service and take a loss if he wasn’t forced to do so by the federal government. The providers who did choose not to take a loss would be able to provide their services to their paying customers at a lower price increasing the number of customers able to pay at that non-inflated price.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have paid all my bills so I can speak for myself that I HAVE paid for other people’s services[/quote]
No you haven’t, you chose to pay for your services at an inflated rate. You didn’t participate at all in the transaction between the provider and his other customers, paying or otherwise.
The price was inflated due to the loss that occurred to the medical provider/hospital providing the service. The medical provider could have chosen not to provide the service and take a loss if he wasn’t forced to do so by the federal government. The providers who did choose not to take a loss would be able to provide their services to their paying customers at a lower price increasing the number of customers able to pay at that non-inflated price.
[/quote]
How is the medical provider going to know who will and will not pay their bill ?
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
Isn’t it really just a matter of semantics though?[/quote]
No, not even close.
No, just no.
You are not, outside of Obama care taxed for inaction. You are not.
Not even close. You aren’t being forced into shit. The government gives incentives.
Giving someone a break for doing things that better society =/= giving people an either/or option of “do this or pay a fine in the form of tax”.
Do you see the difference?
You aren’t paying any penalties for not getting married or buying a house. The standard deduction exists.
You have not explained how it is different. Again, I
A more sophisticated understanding of the IRC. That isn’t an insult, trust me.
Because the left won’t admit that the government is now forcing them to give their money to the same people they were Occupy-ing against six months ago.
And the right knows they will get more votes from playing on the “Obama raised taxes” line than the “holy shit, look the blues take away your freedom too” line.
[/quote]
Thanks for proving my point. It’s just semantics. You call it an incentive, and say I am not being forced into anything. Right, I am not being forced to buy healthcare either. I simply pay more in taxes if I wish to not have it, and less if I do. Same with a house or running a green business. I can choose not to do those things, i just get penalized with a greater tax bill. How is that any different without all the progressive bullshit mumbojumbo? It is not. You ( not you speficially but people like you) and the rest of the sheeple call it an incentive and deduction, dress it up with pretty flowers and pose it n the positive, when it is really no different. My point is why the crying and foot stomping now, when the entire progressive tax code laden with behavior modifying deductions has been bending you over for the past 70 + years? By the way, I worked tirelessly getting a new house for the mid terms and informing people of the BS going on. I Regulary send letters to my congressmen, so I have a leg to stand on. I am not crying over spilled milk after the fact. You and the rest have been fooled if you think it is any different.
[quote]mathew260 wrote:
What am I missing here, and why do I not hear anyone else talking about this? By the way I am against the entire bill, and believe it doesn’t even begin to address the real and issues with the healthcare system in general. [/quote]
Your not missing anything, people just like to make a bigger deal out of everything than it really is. It is just another form of taxes, which is the reason it was deemed constitutional in the first place. Of course people are going to complain when taxes go up, nothing new here.[/quote]
You would have a point if people simply would get a tax deduction when it comes to their federal taxes if they bought health insurance.
No, as your homework, count the ways how and why this comes not even close.
[/quote]
Lol. People are such foos! This is how and why we have gotten to where we are. It’s like calling war a strategic contingency operation. War bad, strategic contingency operation, well now that’s ok. Don’ t you see the shell game?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have paid all my bills so I can speak for myself that I HAVE paid for other people’s services[/quote]
No you haven’t, you chose to pay for your services at an inflated rate. You didn’t participate at all in the transaction between the provider and his other customers, paying or otherwise.
The price was inflated due to the loss that occurred to the medical provider/hospital providing the service. The medical provider could have chosen not to provide the service and take a loss if he wasn’t forced to do so by the federal government. The providers who did choose not to take a loss would be able to provide their services to their paying customers at a lower price increasing the number of customers able to pay at that non-inflated price.
[/quote]
How is the medical provider going to know who will and will not pay their bill ?[/quote]
The same way they did before the federal mandate.
They make their best judgement and don’t provide service if the chance of loss out-ways their fee. Some ways to mitigate risk would be to secure a guarantee of payment from the persons bringing them in or billing the patient directly based on their ID.
Let me clarify that I am specifically talking about this aspect of the bill. If anyone knows anything, they know Obama and Nancy Pelosi didn’t stay up after their 8 hours and scribble thousands of pages to get guud healthcare for the merican peeples. It is, along with just about everything the US government has been doing since the Woodrow administration, an affront to the constitution.
Also, if this is the straw that breaks the camels back, then by all means. It is however just the straw in a soaking wet bale of hay.