(05-26-2016 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:12 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  So you are telling me that you know more than Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court?

Looks like he agrees with me.

here fitbutt, I fixed it for you. And he doesnt agree with you, you disagree with him.

I like how the quote he posted directly calls it a tax yet he neglected to bold that particular part.

the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Thanks for proving my point.

Dude, it's a tax, it says it right in the quote you posted. If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck and the damn United States Supreme Court said it was a tax, it's a damn tax.

(05-26-2016 10:37 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:12 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Looks like he agrees with me.

here fitbutt, I fixed it for you. And he doesnt agree with you, you disagree with him.

I like how the quote he posted directly calls it a tax yet he neglected to bold that particular part.

the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Thanks for proving my point.

You couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

The ONLY way Roberts could justify the 'penalty' using the Constitution was to call it a TAX. The basis for the legality of the 'penalty' is that it is in fact a TAX.

But he doesnt' call it a tax.

He says it could be characterized as a tax.

(05-26-2016 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Fit....

HE doesn't call it a financial penalty. He says the ACA calls it one. Obama specifically did. That was the whole point. He says that it's okay because it's actually (fairly characterized as) a TAX, which is within the authority of government to levy... whether or not it is fair or wise... he does NOT agree that it is a penalty. If he did, there would be a discussion about government's authority to penalize (or authority to compel commerce)...

You get this, right? Congress can penalize people for not following laws, but those laws must be held to be Constitutional. They never ruled on that issue. They merely decided that what is called a 'penalty' is actually a tax, and that taxes to pay for the health and wellness of others (Medicare etc) are legal.

(05-26-2016 10:39 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:37 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:12 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

here fitbutt, I fixed it for you. And he doesnt agree with you, you disagree with him.

I like how the quote he posted directly calls it a tax yet he neglected to bold that particular part.

the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Thanks for proving my point.

You couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

The ONLY way Roberts could justify the 'penalty' using the Constitution was to call it a TAX. The basis for the legality of the 'penalty' is that it is in fact a TAX.

But he doesnt' call it a tax.

He says it could be characterized as a tax.

“The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty,” - Cheif Justice Roberts

(05-26-2016 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Fit....
You get this, right?

No he doesnt.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-26-2016 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Fit....

HE doesn't call it a financial penalty. He says the ACA calls it one. Obama specifically did. That was the whole point. He says that it's okay because it's actually (fairly characterized as) a TAX, which is within the authority of government to levy... whether or not it is fair or wise... he does NOT agree that it is a penalty. If he did, there would be a discussion about government's authority to penalize (or authority to compel commerce)...

You get this, right? Congress can penalize people for not following laws, but those laws must be held to be Constitutional. They never ruled on that issue. They merely decided that what is called a 'penalty' is actually a tax, and that taxes to pay for the health and wellness of others (Medicare etc) are legal.

I get that it is legal because of what Roberts said.

I was simply commenting on the exact quote where he says that "...could be characterized as a tax".

He never actually says it's a tax in that quote.

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

It would depend upon your age and financial status IMO. If you are young and without assets to amount to anything..It might be worth the gamble. Id say it is very bad advice for someone older getting closer to retirement age. One major medical event and long hospital stay could wipe our ass out with out insurance.

(05-26-2016 11:37 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Fit....

HE doesn't call it a financial penalty. He says the ACA calls it one. Obama specifically did. That was the whole point. He says that it's okay because it's actually (fairly characterized as) a TAX, which is within the authority of government to levy... whether or not it is fair or wise... he does NOT agree that it is a penalty. If he did, there would be a discussion about government's authority to penalize (or authority to compel commerce)...

You get this, right? Congress can penalize people for not following laws, but those laws must be held to be Constitutional. They never ruled on that issue. They merely decided that what is called a 'penalty' is actually a tax, and that taxes to pay for the health and wellness of others (Medicare etc) are legal.

I get that it is legal because of what Roberts said.

I was simply commenting on the exact quote where he says that "...could be characterized as a tax".

He never actually says it's a tax in that quote.

But he didn't say it "could" be characterized as a tax, rather that it "may reasonably" be characterized as a tax. Wording is important and by saying it "may reasonably" be characterized as a tax, he is in fact defining the mandate as a tax and therefore allowable. Had it been strictly interpreted as a penalty, we would be having an entirely different discussion.

Don't really matter what he said in that particular quote as overall it was declared a tax. Arguing semantics is silly.

(05-26-2016 11:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Don't really matter what he said in that particular quote as overall it was declared a tax. Arguing semantics is silly.

Perhaps but we are talking about a forum that argues grammar.

Roberts's whole argument depends upon it's being characterized as a tax. Otherwise, it can't be upheld under the taxing power. So regardless of hair splitting over the words, it's very clear that it had to be a tax for Roberts's reasoning to work.

(05-26-2016 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

Can't be denied at the next open enrollment. Any medical expenses incurred outside of that is on the uninsured.

I'm playing that game right now.

In a world where one pill can run 75,000 us (although it might be 50 bucks in Canada), that's a real risk if you have any assets

Man you are such a damned idiot