Health Care Poll - Where Do You Stand?

Do you support health care reform or oppose it?

  • Total voters
    57
K

Keenly

Guest
Cloud City said:
What a load of shit!!!! Its not in there. Nobody is going to jail and nobody will have to change anything if they don't want to.
Click to expand...
once again, your wrong


ill post it for you since your blind


. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
– - – - – - – - – -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
– - – - – - – - – -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]




so, ill say it again

just because you refuse to see it, does not mean its not there
 
K

Keenly

Guest
Cloud City said:
That is the penalty for not paying taxes. Don't wanna pay taxes? Pack your bags and move to Mexico.
Click to expand...
FYI the income tax is unconstitutional (not apportioned)


also, the 16th amendmant was never fully ratified by congress


the income tax on america is extortion


but i give you a challenge, show me the law that states that the average american must pay taxes on their wages and their labor


the supreme court couldnt do it, and neither can you, because no said law exists


your going to post your little dunce smiley but its true


many an IRS agent have been discharged and forced to resign for simply questioning the law that doesnt exist



anyway, off you go, go find us this law that doesnt exist


so, if the INCOME tax is extortion


how is this new tax coming not extortion?


oh, right, there is 1,000+ pages that make it ok for them to take money from us

that makes it all ok
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Cloud City said:
That is the penalty for not paying taxes. Don't wanna pay taxes? Pack your bags and move to Mexico.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is the point. That's the entire debate. Whether we want to add this new tax to the list of taxes we already pay. Like Keenly said, totally unconstitutional. Pay or go to jail or pay or pay these fines... That's freedom? What kind of choice is that? I'm kind of surprised that kind of proposal didn't come from the GOP given the options resemble the lovely options you get in religion...
 
I

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Congress get the power to "regulate" interstate commurse.
The supreme court has upheld this power for a long time at least since 1942.
Even though it is the incorrect interpritation of the law.
It is the Law.
There is nothing Congress can't do.
NOTHING!

The congress uses the interstate commurse clause to criminalize weed.
They use it to tell farmers what to grow.
They use it to licence and fine all manner of buisness.
They us it to foist regulations on every consevable industry.

All totally against original intent of the constitution.
As Regulate didn't mean regulate in the modern term.
To Regulate ment to keep regular so we would maintain free trade between the states.

So Congress does have this power.
Just in the most ASS way possible.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
ilkhan said:
Congress get the power to "regulate" interstate commurse.
The supreme court has upheld this power for a long time at least since 1942.
Even though it is the incorrect interpritation of the law.
It is the Law.
There is nothing Congress can't do.
NOTHING!

The congress uses the interstate commurse clause to criminalize weed.
They use it to tell farmers what to grow.
They use it to licence and fine all manner of buisness.
They us it to foist regulations on every consevable industry.

All totally against original intent of the constitution.
As Regulate didn't mean regulate in the modern term.
To Regulate ment to keep regular so we would maintain free trade between the states.

So Congress does have this power.
Just in the most ASS way possible.
Click to expand...

Would you mind digging up the actual law so I can take a look at it? I'd do it myself but it's almost 4am and FUCK THAT right now! lol

I'm interested in how they can enforce a misinterpretation of a law..
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Here's an honest question for those who favor "health care" .

Do you support fining / imprisoning those who politely refuse to
participate in this program?
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Rob Roy said:
Here's an honest question for those who favor "health care" .

Do you support fining / imprisoning those who politely refuse to
participate in this program?
Click to expand...
100% no. That is the one thing that I believe supercedes the need for every American to be covered. If it came down to providing health care by taxing the people, and if those people who don't support paying for other peoples health coverage choose not to pay the tax (that will be automatically taken out of checks, which would lead to some kind of revolt most likely), and the government came in and fined them more or imprisoned them, I'd be totally against that. Nothing is more important than freedom, that includes your health.
 
fitch303

fitch303

Well-Known Member
If our society wouldn't be filled with fatass people who don't take care of themselves I wouldn't have a problem with universal healthcare. Reality is this country is loaded with people who have no interest in living healthy lifestyles then turn around and want everyone else to pick up the bill. Most of the major health problems in this country are related to lifestyle and not genetics, I refuse to pay for them.
 
lopezri

lopezri

Well-Known Member
fitch303 said:
If our society wouldn't be filled with fatass people who don't take care of themselves I wouldn't have a problem with universal healthcare. Reality is this country is loaded with people who have no interest in living healthy lifestyles then turn around and want everyone else to pick up the bill. Most of the major health problems in this country are related to lifestyle and not genetics, I refuse to pay for them.
Click to expand...
We are definitely getting an obeseity problem here in the U.S. Have you seen how many fat kids there are around here lately? Gee, I think P.E. and Health courses need to be implemented from K-University as a requirement and testing for proficiency on it. Too many people just don't care about how healthy they are and/or just don't understand what is good and what is bad. Why are dieticians not employed in the schools to teach proper nutrition, etc.? And P.E. should not just be a teacher who is just having the students play whatever sport happens to be in season at the time. They need to be accountable for their jobs through student testing, just like all teachers should be.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
I agree that personal responsibility for ones health is important, But there are many factors tha are involved, not the least of which is income or lack of. Health care should not be bought and sold on the market. It should be a right, not a priveledge. The answer to all the problems is Single payer. I also would let all that want, keep their insurance. A tax on the wealthiest 10% would pay for everyone, yup, that's what I'm talkin about.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
I agree that personal responsibility for ones health is important, But there are many factors tha are involved, not the least of which is income or lack of. Health care should not be bought and sold on the market. It should be a right, not a priveledge. The answer to all the problems is Single payer. I also would let all that want, keep their insurance. A tax on the wealthiest 10% would pay for everyone, yup, that's what I'm talkin about.
Click to expand...
Hello, Med-'O'Mao. Nice to see that you've awakened from your Kool-Aid induced coma long enough to grace the forum with your presents.

Single payer insurance is government run. The only way the government can get the money to pay for the citizen's health insurance, is to either extract it from another citizen by force, in order to bestow the "right" to health insurance upon another citizen. This entails violating the rights of one citizen in order to give to another. This, my friend, is theft. Theft is immoral.

The second way the government can get money to pay for the citizen's health insurance, is to print it. When government prints money, it devalues the money that is already in the system. This robs the savings of all Americans through the hidden tax of inflation. Robbery is immoral.

Now, can you come up with a non-criminal way of paying for insurance other than the private market?
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
jeffchr said:
the uk system is single payer and nothing at all like anything that will pass in the US.
Click to expand...
The trend will always be towards nationalization and nothing short of a government collapse will spare us from it. Socialized medicine is coming, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Stressing about it will only be harder on your health, which is something you will need to keep once medicine becomes socialized.
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
Keenly said:
FYI the income tax is unconstitutional (not apportioned)


also, the 16th amendmant was never fully ratified by congress


the income tax on america is extortion


but i give you a challenge, show me the law that states that the average american must pay taxes on their wages and their labor


the supreme court couldnt do it, and neither can you, because no said law exists


your going to post your little dunce smiley but its true


many an IRS agent have been discharged and forced to resign for simply questioning the law that doesnt exist



anyway, off you go, go find us this law that doesnt exist


so, if the INCOME tax is extortion


how is this new tax coming not extortion?


oh, right, there is 1,000+ pages that make it ok for them to take money from us

that makes it all ok
Click to expand...
Keenly, it's up to you if you want to continue debating Cloud City, but I'm telling you, save yourself the misery! I think a brick wall would bring more value to a debate because you might be able to actually hear a faint echo of logic. Cloud City is not interested in debating you on first principles, only rehashing arguments proven to be false. The dunce hat is his best argument, I'm telling you!
 
lopezri

lopezri

Well-Known Member
I've always heard that the American population is waaaaaaayyyy more charitable than any other group of people on the planet. I've also heard that IF the Americans didn't have HUGE tax deduction from their paychecks they would give a lot more to charitable causes. D

If this is the case, doesn't it make sense to get rid of the tax system all together and rely upon charity to cover the costs of government programs? Also, wouldn't this put the power of the United States back into the hands of the people as opposed to the politicians?
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
lopezri said:
I've always heard that the American population is waaaaaaayyyy more charitable than any other group of people on the planet. I've also heard that IF the Americans didn't have HUGE tax deduction from their paychecks they would give a lot more to charitable causes. D

If this is the case, doesn't it make sense to get rid of the tax system all together and rely upon charity to cover the costs of government programs? Also, wouldn't this put the power of the United States back into the hands of the people as opposed to the politicians?
Click to expand...
If private charity is more efficient than public welfare through taxation, maybe we should question whether or not government programs are necessary at all? Perhaps this extends to everything the government does.

Though, the argument from efficiency isn't completely necessary when we can prove that the social contract is immoral to begin with.
 
lopezri

lopezri

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
If private charity is more efficient than public welfare through taxation, maybe we should question whether or not government programs are necessary at all? Perhaps this extends to everything the government does.

Though, the argument from efficiency isn't completely necessary when we can prove that the social contract is immoral to begin with.
Click to expand...
So, can you re-word this so it's a little easier to read? I can't tell if you agree with my post or disagree. I never said anything about efficiency in my post. What are you talking about?
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
The claim that the states never ratified the 16th ammendment is a false one. Listed below are the facts.


According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[23]
  1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
  2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
  3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
  4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
  5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
  6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
  7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
  8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
  9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
  10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
  11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
  12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
  13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
  14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
  15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
  16. California (January 31, 1911)
  17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
  18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
  19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
  20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
  21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
  22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
  23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
  24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
  25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
  26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
  27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
  28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
  29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
  30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
  31. New York (July 12, 1911)
  32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
  33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
  34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
  35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
  36. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:

37. New Mexico (February 3, 1913) 38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913) 39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913) 40. Vermont (February 19, 1913) 41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913) 42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911 The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
  1. Connecticut
  2. Rhode Island
  3. Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:
  1. Pennsylvania
  2. Virginia
  3. Florida
Have a nice day, and be sure to pay your taxes.
 
dgittings

dgittings

Active Member
Opposed, our government doesn't seem to have a very good track record with with the programs that they get their hands on. Medicare, medicade and social security are all basically huge ponzi schemes that will implode in the near future. Why does anyone think that our government will do better this time? Medical costs are insanely expensive and not getting any cheaper. But IMO I think that reform and cutting corruption and other changes would be a better direction to turn right now. Spending more money shouldn't be an option when you have non!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top