Obama's health care mandate

[Soup forgot his password]

You cant opt out of social security, which is a pay-into-program. Is that unconstitutional? Same with taxes for public school, public fire departments, public roads, public transportation... You pay into a fuck ton that you necessarily use but thats all constitutional because we believe in commonwealth. All those asshats on fica or some other subsidized student program get that because someone is not only paying full price for their own classes, but is also paying taxes for everyone else's financial aid. In this case if you prefer private medical insurance you can opt out of the public option.

[CALIgula]

that commonwealth stuff sounds like socialism!

 

 

 

(sarcasm)

[Mr. Incognito]

You cant opt out of social security, which is a pay-into-program. Is that unconstitutional? Same with taxes for public school, public fire departments, public roads, public transportation... You pay into a fuck ton that you necessarily use but thats all constitutional because we believe in commonwealth. All those asshats on fica or some other subsidized student program get that because someone is not only paying full price for their own classes, but is also paying taxes for everyone else's financial aid. In this case if you prefer private medical insurance you can opt out of the public option.

 

 

yeah although certain religious groups like the Amish or Mennonites can opt out of social security and have for a while now, but many others believe it's unconstitutional including some of the authors of it in the first place haha. i just don't like the comparison of car insurance to health care.

 

 

i don't really like replying much in this thread because i feel like i've only scratched the surface of knowing about the new healthcare bill not to mention having much of an opinion on it, but when you say "if you prefer private medical insurance you can opt out of the public option" what exactly do you mean? i thought it would be a mandatory thing you had to buy into.

[Soup forgot his password]

In other words, if you don't like obamacare, you can buy healthcare from a regular private company. You just have to have health insurance. A lot of people receive healthcare through work and don't need to buy health insurance.

 

The reality is that health insurance through work is only good because there are laws that give "taxbreaks" to anyone with health insurance through work. And by "tax breaks" I mean they tax everybody else more to cover the difference. When a politician is talking about "tax breaks" they're essentially taxing everyone else and sending a check at tax time to people who qualify for "tax breaks."

 

 

Also look up the history of health insurance through work. It started in America back when there was a limit to how much factories could pay workers. Factories were disparately understaffed because nobody would take the low salaries, so they started offering other things like health and dental. It was created through bad government legislation and now look at where we are. Apart from it being subsidized, there is no reason why anyone would want the company writing your checks to also pick your doctor and what procedures you get to have.

[metalasfock]

yeah although certain religious groups like the Amish or Mennonites can opt out of social security and have for a while now, but many others believe it's unconstitutional including some of the authors of it in the first place haha. i just don't like the comparison of car insurance to health care.

 

 

i don't really like replying much in this thread because i feel like i've only scratched the surface of knowing about the new healthcare bill not to mention having much of an opinion on it, but when you say "if you prefer private medical insurance you can opt out of the public option" what exactly do you mean? i thought it would be a mandatory thing you had to buy into.

 

Im with you dude i don't know much about the bill so i was merely trying to understand it. However with your point on owning a car and all, not all people have a choice. There are families who need a car for a commute because they either have a real shitty public trans system or don't have one at all. Saying there are alternatives sounds pretty universal and i don't think you can say everyone can find an alternative. But i get your point completely.

However I also think that everyone needs health insurance at some point in their life. Whether you get cancer, or your wife is having pregnancy complications, etc.. I would venture to say needing health insurance of one sort or another is closer to a universal statement than people don't need to drive.

[Mr. Incognito]

yes you're right, i was mostly suggesting that people kinda assume the responsibility that goes along with driving and having a license by...well....having a license and car.

[McLovin]

[simon_kenton]

http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/wall-street-journal-examines-romney-emails-advocacy-for-individual-mandate-in-mass-healthcare-10315.html

 

 

he saidi hate obama care ... he does the same thing do lol

[McLovin]

 

[Soup forgot his password]

I like that video mclovin. Reminds me how secular the states/colonies were at the time when the constitution was written. America didnt think of itself as one culture, one neighborhood. The people of each state were supposed to have their own culture and govern themselves however they wanted. It was also before we had the industrial revolution and before we started thinking of the benefits that come with economies of scale. If everyone bought healthcare from the same source, everyone's rates would be much, much cheaper.

[CILONE/SK]

 

 

I guess Prof Foley is a unbiased source, especially considering that she wrote a book called "The Tea Party".

[McLovin]

^ Irrelevant

[CILONE/SK]

So, someone who is actively participating in organizations against the Health Care Act can be trusted not to be biased and to leave out relevant information such as Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

 

I do find what she said about the difference between the states and federal constitutions interesting. In effect she is saying the states have more power then the US as a whole. You can take that to another step and imply that the states are more corruptible, since they do not have to necessarily follow the US Constitution if the state constitution says differently, and they can be more easily influenced by corporate entities.

 

See, it is easy to play the same game as the tea party.

[McLovin]

More love to them for supporting the cause regardless of whatever secret agenda they might have. It brings people together that may have not otherwise been subjected to many of these views. Though i do understand what you mean "unwanted support & certain attention" But with things like this you cant pick and choose. Nor can you control what is or isn't said just as long as the ultimate purpose is achieved. Correct?

[CILONE/SK]

That just does not make sense as a reply to what I said.

 

Who are they bringing together? It seems they are separating people instead.

 

"unwanted support & certain attention", who the fuck said that??

 

What ultimate purpose, other then achieving a far right goal which would alienate every American who is not old, white and somewhat wealthy?

 

I think you are fucking with me, so negg'd you get.

[Realism]

More love to them for supporting the cause regardless of whatever secret agenda they might have. It brings people together that may have not otherwise been subjected to many of these views.

 

:rolleyes:

 

That's a horrible way to look at things.

 

"Bringing people together" doesn't mean a thing if the cause they support is negative, or if their secret agenda (and those tend to be secret for a reason) is detrimental, selfish or harmful.

[ohefdubs]

Pay your penalties .. Poor people it's not a tax

[UPS!]

Pretty sure the USSC ruling cemented an Obama victoyr come Novemeber

[ohefdubs]

/\ I hope ur wrong but I agree

[UPS!]

I mean, id like to say I hope im wrong but what is the alternative?

 

Im not a fan of Obama by any stretch, if you ask me he's basically been a Republican president

other than the very thing that this thread is about.

 

Im glad that more people will have healthcare, I agree with alot of the provisions of the healthcare bill,

but I can tell ya its not what people think it is and its not going to be all gum drops and free shots

for old poor black people.

 

This shit is ganna take a toll, its a shame we dont live in a perfect world.

[Soup forgot his password]

That is an astute question... Because as we all know the best decisions humanity has ever made were prefaced by one guy saying, "You got a better idea?"

 

Please explain the correlation between obama and the republican party or any other president elected to represent the right wing. Alternatively you can try explaining the differences between obana and previous democrat presidents.

[UPS!]

What is this a fucking exam for a Poli 109 class?

 

Saying ''do you have a better idea?'' can be the same thing as choosing the lesser of two evils.

Just because there isnt a viable alternative dosent mean that whats in place, or in this case going to be in place is correct.

 

As for Obama having similiarities to the former Republican administrations I dont think you have to look very far really to see what I mean, hell all you have to do is look at GWB.

 

Patriot act? Obama extended it.

 

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthly Obama is on a crusade against? Let em ride.

 

The wars that Obama wouldn't of voted for? Well you can say he shut down Iraq, but that wouldnt be true. If I remember correctly he actually attempted to furlong the war, but when that flopped he acted as if he was speeding up the ending that Bush had already brokered on his way out in 08. Afghanistan is still waging on, and although a time table might be on the table, the fact remains his first four years we remained at war.

 

Guantanamo? Still feeding terrorist cock-meat sandwhiches, and might I add was a selling point to his campaign.

 

Un-manned drone attacks? They have almost doubled under his administartion.

 

Big bailouts for failing industries that fucked up? Both Bush and Obama have given billions and billions out to this bone head fucking companies that shit the bed and then wanted to be saved, not saying it didnt absolutely have to be done, but again you can see the similiarities.

 

And thats just off the top of my head really, he also took quite a while to throw his support behind the gay marriage ''movement'' going on in the past four years, he's done de nada about gun control, which im happy about mostly, and I gauge things by my city, and my life around me.

 

In the past four years not alot has changed, and that to me means he was full of shit, or tried and failed.

 

Either way im not too happy about giving him another four years to meet and greet celebrities and chime in on shit he has no business about, but the thought of Romney in office makes my stomach turn.

 

So what is a fella to do in a 2/1 party system?

[Soup forgot his password]

I was curious what Poli 109 was and the only college I found to teach it was at BrookDale community college in Lincroft New Jersey. So to answer your question, no. This is not poli 109.

 

Healthcare Reform is the "lesser of two evils,".

Fun reading for the day on logical fallacies

"Excluded Middle: The excluded middle assumes that only one of two ridiculous extremes is possible, when in fact a much more moderate middle-of-the-road result is more likely and desirable. An example of an excluded middle would be an argument that either every possible creation story should be taught in schools, or none of them. These two possibilities sound frightening, and may persuade people to choose the lesser of two evils and allow religious creation stories to be taught alongside science. In fact, the much more reasonable excluded middle, which is to teach science in science classes and religion in religion classes, is not offered. The excluded middle is formally called reductio ad absurdum, reduction to the absurd. Bertrand Russell famously illustrated how an absurd premise can be fallaciously used to support an argument:

 

Starling says: "Given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope."

Bombo replies: "Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope."

 

Just keep in mind that if your opponent is presuming extremes that are absurd, he is excluding the less absurd middle. Don't fall for it."

 

 

I'll just go line-by-line for your suggested similarities between Obama and GWB:

 

• George Bush Jr. Was a moderate republican, not a republican and does not reflect the values of the republican party on the whole.
   
  
• How exactly is the patriot act republican?
   
  
• The groundwork of the patriot act was already laid by Bill Clinton's administration. Do you think he's a Republican too?
   
  
• The "Bush tax cuts" as the name suggests were made by George Bush Jr. not Obama. What's your point?
   
  
• "The wars that Obama wouldn't of voted for?" I don't know, you tell me. Then you tell me how you know. Then tell me what war was ever elected by votes. What wars has Obama started during his presidency? None. Then again Bush didnt start the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. All that bullshit goes back to the mid 1970's. Raegan, Bush1, Clinton, and Bush all subsequently had a role in it.
   
  
• Is your point that Obama supposedly condones Guantanamo or that politicians don't do everything they promise? And what parts of that are specifically Republican?
   
  
• What do unmanned drones have to do with republicans, democrats, or a correlation between Bush2 and Obama?
   
   
  
• It wasnt a corporate bailout. It was a government stimulus. It was a loan given to companies who didnt have the liquidity/access to funds they needed to get through the bursting of the housing bubble. The stimulus was aimed at places that would affect people's jobs, education, and infrastructure. It resulted in a calculable increase in GDP and overall wealth in this country. But again, what's that have to do with Bush, or the Republican Party?
   
   
  
• You think he's a republican because he "took a while" on the subject of gay marriage?
   
  
• What do you mean by "gun control" and, again, how does that tie into your statement that "Obama is basically a republican."
   
   
   
  
• "In the past four years not alot has changed," for you personally. Is this a logical argument? And again, how does this make Obama a republican?"
   
  
• How does "meet and greets with celebrities" quantify president Obama as a republican, or what I know you're trying to say, as a good president? Every president since the advent of the television hasn't just met with celebrities. They've BEEN celebrities. And the choices for canidates this year will ALSO be celebrities. You'll voting for who has he most stage presence on a fucking television, not the validity of their ideas. I'm guessing you don't even care about that as you've failed to understand the differences of even the democrat and republican ideologies, or why Obama chose not to close guantanamo, or how Bush tax cuts and The 2008 Economic Stimulus Bill differ in economic and political theory.
  

[UPS!]

I see what you did there, and im going to keep this simple.

 

Oh and Poli 109 was a class I took my freshmen year at a public univeristy here in VA.

So your internet research must suck, and if you were implying I go to CC you're sadly mistaken.

 

Ill break down, your breakdown.

 

And to clear things up I didnt articulate my point as I meant for it to, im not particularly saying what is/isnt Republican or Democratic values/politics, my real statement was that Obama hasnt been much diffrent than our last president, and operates how I believe a modern Republican would.

 

- Whether he was a moderate republican or not, dosent change the fact that he was in fact Republican. He was in office as we declared two wars, and increased defense spending which are both Republican in nature, not to say Dems dont declare war, but the point being GWB was the darling of the republican party, hence why they picked him to run and represent their party despite his own personal politics, so yes he did reflect the values of his party.

 

-Im not arguing which party this favors, my point was that Obama has extended this policy which Bush signed into place, whether or not groundwork was layed.

 

- My point to the Bush Tax cuts is simply, Obama keeps beating his chst talking about how the rich need to pay more and the tax burden should be on them, and then he just let tax cuts for the wealthy ride as his predecessor.

 

- What do you mean what war was ever elected by votes? Do you understand how our government works? There is this thing called congress that must put a C&C's declaration of war to a vote and it is up to the legislature to decide. Obama claims had he been in the senate during this time, he would not of voted for the wars. What war has Obama started? Libya ring a bell? And its not about what wars he started, he promised he'd bring a swift end to the current wars and I dont believe he did.

 

-My point on Gmo is the faggot said he'd close it down his first day of office, and it turned out to just be false promises, along with everything else he has promised, other than this healthcare bill which still isnt that great of an accomplishment, but its something.

 

- The correlation between the drones is this favors warfare, which favors Republican rhetoric of defense spending. Obama painted Bush as a war monger who allowed his administration to drop bombs on innocent villages...and then he ramps up the effort.

 

- As for the bailouts, again I agreed it had to be done. As for tying him to Bush, again he dogged Bush for bailing out ''Big Bankers'' blah blah blah, and then turns around and does the same.

 

- What do you think gun control means....

 

- As for being ''a logical argument'' why dont you step off your fucking snob box and think about it. Does it really matter if the television is telling you things are getting better if everywhere around you stores are closing down, people you know are still unemployed, friends from the military still arent receiving benefits or the care they need? Id say its a pretty sound argument, not everything has to be bravado and statistics. Personal experience is a huge part of all of this, politics is all about who gets what, when, and how. If youre not getting a piece of the pie, does it matter if they say its getting bigger?

 

And for your closing argument I agree with the first statement of presidents being celebrities and such, and thats why Obama won. he was the more attractive, hip cool black guy and that put him in office.

 

As for your second part you can shove your head back up your ass and forget to breathe.

If you were as god damn intelligent as you like to masquerade, you wouldnt be arguing with me on a graffitti forum, just dont get too ahead of yourself big guy.

[BullshitTantrum]

i don't care but if they made me get health insurance i would go to the fucking doctor immediately.

[Soup forgot his password]

And to clear things up I didnt articulate my point as I meant for it to, im not particularly saying what is/isnt Republican or Democratic values/politics, my real statement was that Obama hasnt been much diffrent than our last president, and operates how I believe a modern Republican would.

What do you mean you're not "saying what is or isnt republican or democratic values/politics?"And I didnt ask you "What similarities are there between Obama and Bush2" as George Bush is not representative of republicans. I asked you to "please explain the correlation between Obama and the republican party." I suggested that you compare Obama to republican and democratic presidents. You've so far made a hash of comparing him to one republican president. They both like football, does that make Obama a republican?

 

Whether he was a moderate republican or not, dosent change the fact that he was in fact Republican. He was in office as we declared two wars, and increased defense spending which are both Republican in nature, not to say Dems dont declare war, but the point being GWB was the darling of the republican party, hence why they picked him to run and represent their party despite his own personal politics, so yes he did reflect the values of his party.

His approval ratings were low across the board between democrats and republicans, so how are you claiming he was their darling? And how does this tie into your point?

 

Sidenote: CIA reports indicate insufficient funding for intelligence gathering in the middle east during the cold war's "politically unpopular years" of Bush1's and Clinton's Canidacy. Clinton cut a lot of funding for the CIA, which lead to a number of gaps in intelligence that allowed for Bin Laden to completely slip the radar until after 9/11. Bush was more willing to listen to Langley for advice. Not suggesting he was a good or bad president, but those are the cold hard facts.

 

m not arguing which party this favors, my point was that Obama has extended this policy which Bush signed into place, whether or not groundwork was layed.

And my question still remains: Does this support your claim, and if it does, how? You seem to be saying it doesn't.

 

 

My point to the Bush Tax cuts is simply, Obama keeps beating his chst talking about how the rich need to pay more and the tax burden should be on them, and then he just let tax cuts for the wealthy ride as his predecessor.

The bush tax cuts are completely different than the economic stimulus bill in 2008. Like COMPLETELY different in every way. They share absolutely no resemblance to one another and Obama has NOT supported any of Bush's tax cuts.

 

 

What do you mean what war was ever elected by votes? Do you understand how our government works? There is this thing called congress that must put a C&C's declaration of war to a vote and it is up to the legislature to decide. Obama claims had he been in the senate during this time, he would not of voted for the wars. What war has Obama started? Libya ring a bell? And its not about what wars he started, he promised he'd bring a swift end to the current wars and I dont believe he did.

 

Congress hasnt formally declared war since world war II. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq has gone on since the 70's.

 

My point on Gmo is the faggot said he'd close it down his first day of office, and it turned out to just be false promises, along with everything else he has promised, other than this healthcare bill which still isnt that great of an accomplishment, but its something.

When a politician goes back on a promise, how's that make him a republican?

 

 

The correlation between the drones is this favors warfare, which favors Republican rhetoric of defense spending. Obama painted Bush as a war monger who allowed his administration to drop bombs on innocent villages...and then he ramps up the effort.

How does an increase in the use of drones mean a president "favors" warfare? Was there no war before drones and now there is? Or how about just an increase in war? Was there even that? How do you even quantify a statement like this? You're trying to be clever in the way you twist things around but it doesn't change the fact that your point makes NO sense.

 

for the bailouts, again I agreed it had to be done. As for tying him to Bush, again he dogged Bush for bailing out ''Big Bankers'' blah blah blah, and then turns around and does the same.

You can't compare two totally different things. The bush tax cuts and the economic stimulus bill of 2008 are completely different things.

As for being ''a logical argument'' why dont you step off your fucking snob box and think about it. Does it really matter if the television is telling you things are getting better if everywhere around you stores are closing down, people you know are still unemployed, friends from the military still arent receiving benefits or the care they need? Id say its a pretty sound argument, not everything has to be bravado and statistics. Personal experience is a huge part of all of this, politics is all about who gets what, when, and how. If youre not getting a piece of the pie, does it matter if they say its getting bigger?

Was there a point or a serious question somewhere in there?

 

 

If you were as god damn intelligent as you like to masquerade, you wouldnt be arguing with me on a graffitti forum, just dont get too ahead of yourself big guy.

What do you mean "don't get ahead of yourself?" How long have you been on 12oz? If you've been here as long as I have you remember contributors like Dawood and Smart who were far more intelligent than me. They would probably make you angry for "smartening up" crossfire, except that they werent the exception to the rule, they were the rule, and everyone else had to get on their level before you could discuss things.

 

If your goal here is to dumb down Crossfire, keep it up.

[McLovin]

I like where this is going.. Obama a Republican.. hmm.. nope not feeling it. I can almost not call him a democrat either

[cuntflaps]

Q: How much will the “tax” penalty be for going without health insurance?

 

A: The minimum assessment will be $695 per person (but no more than $2,085 per family) in 2016, when fully phased in. The amount can be higher depending on income. But there are exemptions for low-income persons and others.

 

Refusal to Pay

 

The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).

 

The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.

 

So it may turn out that the IRS will be suing those who fail to pay the tax for double the amount. But so far, the IRS has not spelled out exactly how it will enforce the new penalty with the limited power the law gives it.

 

Who’s Exempt?

 

The law makes a number of exemptions for low-income persons and hardship cases.

 

“Individuals who cannot afford coverage”: If an employer offers coverage that would cost the employee more than 8 percent of his or her household income (for self-only coverage) that individual is exempt from the tax.

 

“Taxpayers with income below filing threshold”: Also exempt are those who earn too little to be required to file tax returns. For 2011 — as previously mentioned — those thresholds were $9,500 for a single person under age 65, and $19,000 for a married person filing jointly with a spouse, for example. The thresholds go up each year in line with inflation, so those cut-offs will be higher in 2014, when the tax first takes effect.

 

“Hardships”: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to exempt others that she or he determines to “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage.”

 

Other exemptions: Also exempt are members of Indian tribes, persons with only brief gaps in coverage, and members of certain religious groups currently exempt from Social Security taxes (which as we’ve previously reported are chiefly Anabaptist — that is, Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite).

 

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/

 

the IRS is an administrative agency, it is NOT an agency of the Department of Treasury in DC, the Internal Revenue Code is NOT statutory law, and the IRS has no legal authority whatsoever to enforce anything on anybody other than federal employees. If you read through the IRC, you will see that it is made up largely of deceptive, leading language, as well as carefully calculated omissions and out-and-out bluffs.

[McLovin]

I guess it is hard to tell the differences between a democrat and a republican these days

edit.. I was on a different page and was replying to a comment Cunt made.. but seriously It seems to be hard to tell a difference nowa days, both want to control us. its either "More Laws+More Government" or "Morality+More Religion" That is why I am voting libertarian this year.. even if it doesn't count sense it is a democrat&republican world. They have a monopoly over the system