predictions, please

What will happen to the PPACA?


  • Total voters
    28

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
No, PPACA defines the punishment for not buying health insurance as a fine. You were probably to busy drooling on your shoes when our esteemed president was explaining PPACA before it was passed but he said, "this is not a new tax". Get that? NOT. A. TAX...
rofl, last resort, argue semantics. You're a riot...
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Let the scotus argue the semantics...
SCOTUS will decide this on commerce clause grounds unless they can find some way weasel out of that and decide the case on some narrower grounds. What is worrisome is that prior precedent (Wickard, Raisch) probably gives them cause to rule the individual mandate IS constitutional.

Bad decisions make for bad law. We would all be much better off if Wickard had not been decided the way it was. Thomas is the only justice on SCOTUS that has the balls to say he will disregard prior bad decisions and instead to the plain reading of the constitution. The other justices will, I think, decide that the individual mandate is simply a bridge too far because it renders the commerce clause moot and expands federal power to everything. You might like "free healthcare", but you won't like the completely unrestrained federal government that will be unleashed by the final destruction of the commerce clause.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
SCOTUS will decide this on commerce clause grounds unless they can find some way weasel out of that and decide the case on some narrower grounds. What is worrisome is that prior precedent (Wickard, Raisch) probably gives them cause to rule the individual mandate IS constitutional.

Bad decisions make for bad law. We would all be much better off if Wickard had not been decided the way it was. Thomas is the only justice on SCOTUS that has the balls to say he will disregard prior bad decisions and instead to the plain reading of the constitution. The other justices will, I think, decide that the individual mandate is simply a bridge too far because it renders the commerce clause moot and expands federal power to everything. You might like "free healthcare", but you won't like the completely unrestrained federal government that will be unleashed by the final destruction of the commerce clause.
Yeah they might go and give poor people medical care.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
If the law means nothing then the state can do anything it wants, and they have guns and prison cells and waterboards. Enjoy your free health care under those conditions.
It would be more cost effective, and more oppressive to simply inflict poverty upon people like myself if the government ever decided to be tyrannical. This scenario that you depict is a fairy tale. If the law "means nothing" then ppaca would already be law. Quit crying. riot.
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
It would be more cost effective, and more oppressive to simply inflict poverty upon people like myself if the government ever decided to be tyrannical. This scenario that you depict is a fairy tale. If the law "means nothing" then ppaca would already be law. Quit crying. riot.
People like you inflict poverty upon yourselves.

Fuck the law, more free stuff!
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Oh, please. This idiotic name calling is ridiculous. If you are going to insult me at least take the time to come up with your own stuff.
he didn't call you a name, he mentioned your title.

the tax/fine carries no civil or criminal penalties. no jail, no levies, no garnishment.

go cry now.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
No, if you don't want to buy it pay a tax. So uninformed.
That would be a penalty, not a tax. If you have to change the definition of words, your argument is false. Not to say SCOTUS won't decide your way, they changed the definition of "public use" to enable government agents to seize private property to resell it to developers, not public use at all.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
That would be a penalty, not a tax. If you have to change the definition of words, your argument is false. Not to say SCOTUS won't decide your way, they changed the definition of "public use" to enable government agents to seize private property to resell it to developers, not public use at all.
Do you have insurance? If so, I recommend discontinuing it, paying the tax, and if you get sick, get insurance, they won't be able to turn you down for already being sick. Cry more.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Do you have insurance? If so, I recommend discontinuing it, paying the tax, and if you get sick, get insurance, they won't be able to turn you down for already being sick. Cry more.
I already have government paid for health insurance connected to my job. It's not a tax, it's a penalty. I wonder what happens to the medical bills you run up before you get the insurance.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
my paystubs say "medicare tax" on them, not "medicare penalty".

usually, stuff that goes on my 1040s, like the mandate may if left standing, is what i consider to be a tax.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
my paystubs say "medicare tax" on them, not "medicare penalty". usually, stuff that goes on my 1040s, like the mandate may if left standing, is what i consider to be a tax.
Medicare is a totally different subject, apples to oranges. What you "consider" is just an opinion. If it's conditional on whether you bought health insurance, it's a penalty. They take child support out of your taxes, but that's not a tax, either.
 
Top