|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 30 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote:
Here's a good explanation of why Roberts's decision that Obamacare is a tax is odd:
I don't think it was odd based on the second day's arguments.
|
On June 30 2012 04:09 BluePanther wrote:
It's a fine, but it's collected as a tax (by the IRS). It's semantics to say it's a tax and not a fine -- either way you're paying the government money because you didn't do what they told you to do.
Nobody questions that the government could tax the people and then provide the healthcare. But this precedent opens up a new method for the federal government to exercise control over individuals that hasn't previously existed in the united states.
Basically, the government can now control anything it wants (financially, not jail time) if it just assesses the penalty/fine for not doing what they want as a "tax" collected by tax collectors instead of being directly paid to the government (like a normal fine).
It's just lawyers being lawyers, and this just creates a loophole and isn't sound judicial or constitutional (limited government) policy. That's why I don't think they were "right".
(for clarification, I specialize in government/constitutional law)
Yes, legally it's correct, but it flies in the face of common sense (that it's a financial penalty).
For example:
It is unconstitutional to say "You must buy 10 pounds of brocolli a year."
It is constitutional to say "You must pay $10,000 in taxes if you do not purchase 10 pounds of brocolli a year."
It's a federal power loophole.
You are incorrect in assuming "no jail time". There are several "tax crimes" that are criminal and upon conviction are punishable by "jail time". Have a look at the 7200 series in Title 26. That is where tax evasion and other tax crimes reside. Since this 'penalty' has been deemed a 'tax' by the SCOTUS, tread carefully in these waters.
|
I am strictly for nationalised health care (and therefore think Obamacare does not go far enough), but this raises a lot of points...
Could the US government 'tax' citizens for not having an active gym membership?
|
On June 30 2012 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:09 BluePanther wrote:
It's a fine, but it's collected as a tax (by the IRS). It's semantics to say it's a tax and not a fine -- either way you're paying the government money because you didn't do what they told you to do.
Nobody questions that the government could tax the people and then provide the healthcare. But this precedent opens up a new method for the federal government to exercise control over individuals that hasn't previously existed in the united states.
Basically, the government can now control anything it wants (financially, not jail time) if it just assesses the penalty/fine for not doing what they want as a "tax" collected by tax collectors instead of being directly paid to the government (like a normal fine).
It's just lawyers being lawyers, and this just creates a loophole and isn't sound judicial or constitutional (limited government) policy. That's why I don't think they were "right".
(for clarification, I specialize in government/constitutional law)
Yes, legally it's correct, but it flies in the face of common sense (that it's a financial penalty).
For example:
It is unconstitutional to say "You must buy 10 pounds of brocolli a year."
It is constitutional to say "You must pay $10,000 in taxes if you do not purchase 10 pounds of brocolli a year."
It's a federal power loophole.
You are incorrect in assuming "no jail time". There are several "tax crimes" that are criminal and upon conviction are punishable by "jail time". Have a look at the 7200 series in Title 26. That is where tax evasion and other tax crimes reside. Since this 'penalty' has been deemed a 'tax' by the SCOTUS, tread carefully in these waters. The act itself explicitly dictates that failing to pay the tax cannot result in criminality.
|
On June 30 2012 04:18 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:09 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 03:58 hzflank wrote:On June 30 2012 03:08 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 02:53 hzflank wrote:On June 30 2012 02:32 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 02:25 hzflank wrote:On June 30 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 02:03 BuddhaMonk wrote:On June 30 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
There's clearly a difference between 1) the federal government taxing people and using that tax money to fund government programs, and 2) the federal government using the tax power to force people to buy products from private companies. You may want to consider this point before posting further. Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary? The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right. Sorry, but you are not connecting the dots... There is no real difference between forcing a person to buy a product or taxing that person to generate money to buy the same product. ... and that is why he's saying SCOTUS was not right in their decision. Would you spell it out for me? I am under the impression that the federal government is allowed to instruct states on how to tax their citizens. They are allowed to tax, but the way the law is written, it's basically a fine in substance -- a penalty -- which SCOTUS said quite clearly is not allowable. So the court is allowing the government to do exactly the opposite of what it said the government couldn't do --- penalize someone for not following a mandate. It's circular logic imo. It's basically a fine? Did SCOTUS not just declare it a legal tax? And is SCOTUS not the absolute authority on US law? As I see it, it is as much basically a fine as it is a tax break for insured people. As a layperson, I often feel that semantics have too much sway over common sense (in law). I fully agree that common sense tells us that that you are correct, but legally it seems that you are incorrect. It's a fine, but it's collected as a tax (by the IRS). It's semantics to say it's a tax and not a fine -- either way you're paying the government money because you didn't do what they told you to do. Nobody questions that the government could tax the people and then provide the healthcare. But this precedent opens up a new method for the federal government to exercise control over individuals that hasn't previously existed in the united states. Basically, the government can now control anything it wants (financially, not jail time) if it just assesses the penalty/fine for not doing what they want as a "tax" collected by tax collectors instead of being directly paid to the government (like a normal fine). It's just lawyers being lawyers, and this just creates a loophole and isn't sound judicial or constitutional (limited government) policy. That's why I don't think they were "right". (for clarification, I specialize in government/constitutional law) Yes, legally it's correct, but it flies in the face of common sense (that it's a financial penalty). For example: It is unconstitutional to say "You must buy 10 pounds of brocolli a year." It is constitutional to say "You must pay $10,000 in taxes if you do not purchase 10 pounds of brocolli a year." It's a federal power loophole. This is really interesting, by the way Blue Panther what is your job/ current level of study?
I graduate from a pretty good law school in December. I have handled some constitutional appeals (with oversight, as the law requires), interned with an Art. III judge, and currently work for a GOP senate candidate. I'm by no means a 30 year expert, but my coursework has my constitutional knowledge at a level that is above the average attorney. In particular, I concentrate on constitutional government theory and practice.
|
On June 30 2012 04:26 hzflank wrote:
I am strictly for nationalised health care (and therefore think Obamacare does not go far enough), but this raises a lot of points...
Could the US government 'tax' citizens for not having an active gym membership?
absolutely, based on yesterday's ruling.
|
On June 30 2012 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:
You are incorrect in assuming "no jail time". There are several "tax crimes" that are criminal and upon conviction are punishable by "jail time". Have a look at the 7200 series in Title 26. That is where tax evasion and other tax crimes reside. Since this 'penalty' has been deemed a 'tax' by the SCOTUS, tread carefully in these waters.
That is actually a good point.
|
On June 30 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:18 sc4k wrote:On June 30 2012 04:09 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 03:58 hzflank wrote:On June 30 2012 03:08 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 02:53 hzflank wrote:On June 30 2012 02:32 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 02:25 hzflank wrote:On June 30 2012 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 02:03 BuddhaMonk wrote:
[quote]
Are you suggesting that public money for national security never finds its way into the pockets private companies? Or it's OK in your mind so long as the government is an intermediary? The latter. The feds can spend money for public welfare. That's not in dispute. However, forcing private individuals to engage in behavior (ie buy products from private companies) that they otherwise would not engage in by using the tax power is not right. Sorry, but you are not connecting the dots... There is no real difference between forcing a person to buy a product or taxing that person to generate money to buy the same product. ... and that is why he's saying SCOTUS was not right in their decision. Would you spell it out for me? I am under the impression that the federal government is allowed to instruct states on how to tax their citizens. They are allowed to tax, but the way the law is written, it's basically a fine in substance -- a penalty -- which SCOTUS said quite clearly is not allowable. So the court is allowing the government to do exactly the opposite of what it said the government couldn't do --- penalize someone for not following a mandate. It's circular logic imo. It's basically a fine? Did SCOTUS not just declare it a legal tax? And is SCOTUS not the absolute authority on US law? As I see it, it is as much basically a fine as it is a tax break for insured people. As a layperson, I often feel that semantics have too much sway over common sense (in law). I fully agree that common sense tells us that that you are correct, but legally it seems that you are incorrect. It's a fine, but it's collected as a tax (by the IRS). It's semantics to say it's a tax and not a fine -- either way you're paying the government money because you didn't do what they told you to do. Nobody questions that the government could tax the people and then provide the healthcare. But this precedent opens up a new method for the federal government to exercise control over individuals that hasn't previously existed in the united states. Basically, the government can now control anything it wants (financially, not jail time) if it just assesses the penalty/fine for not doing what they want as a "tax" collected by tax collectors instead of being directly paid to the government (like a normal fine). It's just lawyers being lawyers, and this just creates a loophole and isn't sound judicial or constitutional (limited government) policy. That's why I don't think they were "right". (for clarification, I specialize in government/constitutional law) Yes, legally it's correct, but it flies in the face of common sense (that it's a financial penalty). For example: It is unconstitutional to say "You must buy 10 pounds of brocolli a year." It is constitutional to say "You must pay $10,000 in taxes if you do not purchase 10 pounds of brocolli a year." It's a federal power loophole. This is really interesting, by the way Blue Panther what is your job/ current level of study? I graduate from a pretty good law school in December. I have handled some constitutional appeals (with oversight, as the law requires), interned with an Art. III judge, and currently work for a GOP senate candidate. I'm by no means a 30 year expert, but my coursework has my constitutional knowledge at a level that is above the average attorney. In particular, I concentrate on constitutional government theory and practice.
Anyone fresh out of law school is going to have a very good grasp of Constitutional law -- much better than most attorneys who probably haven't looked at Constitutional law since they were in law school.
|
Just to put some stats into this, around 8.0% of americans who can afford health insurance don't get it (2009 and 2010). They account for a total of 3% of the population. Thus these americans are the ones who will be "taxed" and not the entire middle class etc or whatever misinformation is out there. This is under the assumption that people who can afford health insurance have a household income of greater than 75k.
If you take a look at the 50k -75k+ bracket, it would be 6% of americans who will be "taxed". Not sure what kind of income qualifies you to be able to "afford" health insurance, but im pretty sure it would be over 75k+ bracket.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
Personally, I see it as small minority being penalized for free loading anyways for the greater good of the country.
|
On June 30 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 03:22 Kukaracha wrote:On June 30 2012 01:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:50 Kukaracha wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote:
We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person. You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?) Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border? Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money. I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Is it bad to force people not to kill other people? Should that decision be left at one's discretion? I know that this concept is foreign to some of you non-Americans who don't have a federalist system like we have in the US, but it's not the role of the federal government to exercise a general police power (ie the power to do things like forbidding the killing of others). That job is left to state governments. Did the federal state not intervene in forcing equality between blacks and whites, for example? Sure, but there was specific federal, Constitutional authority to do so (14th Amendment).
But if the highest authority considered Obamacare to be within consitutional rights, then isn't it justified the same way?
|
On June 30 2012 04:32 biology]major wrote:Just to put some stats into this, around 8.0% of americans who can afford health insurance don't get it (2009 and 2010). They account for a total of 3% of the population. Thus these americans are the ones who will be "taxed" and not the entire middle class etc or whatever misinformation is out there. This is under the assumption that people who can afford health insurance have a household income of greater than 75k. If you take a look at the 50k -75k+ bracket, it would be 6% of americans who will be "taxed". Not sure what kind of income qualifies you to be able to "afford" health insurance, but im pretty sure it would be over 75k+ bracket. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf Personally, I see it as small minority being penalized for free loading anyways for the greater good of the country.
How on Earth do you figure someone would need $75k+ to afford health insurance?
|
On June 30 2012 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:32 biology]major wrote:Just to put some stats into this, around 8.0% of americans who can afford health insurance don't get it (2009 and 2010). They account for a total of 3% of the population. Thus these americans are the ones who will be "taxed" and not the entire middle class etc or whatever misinformation is out there. This is under the assumption that people who can afford health insurance have a household income of greater than 75k. If you take a look at the 50k -75k+ bracket, it would be 6% of americans who will be "taxed". Not sure what kind of income qualifies you to be able to "afford" health insurance, but im pretty sure it would be over 75k+ bracket. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf Personally, I see it as small minority being penalized for free loading anyways for the greater good of the country. How on Earth do you figure someone would need $75k+ to afford health insurance?
Household income, not individual income.
|
On June 30 2012 04:35 jpak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 30 2012 04:32 biology]major wrote:Just to put some stats into this, around 8.0% of americans who can afford health insurance don't get it (2009 and 2010). They account for a total of 3% of the population. Thus these americans are the ones who will be "taxed" and not the entire middle class etc or whatever misinformation is out there. This is under the assumption that people who can afford health insurance have a household income of greater than 75k. If you take a look at the 50k -75k+ bracket, it would be 6% of americans who will be "taxed". Not sure what kind of income qualifies you to be able to "afford" health insurance, but im pretty sure it would be over 75k+ bracket. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf Personally, I see it as small minority being penalized for free loading anyways for the greater good of the country. How on Earth do you figure someone would need $75k+ to afford health insurance? Household income, not individual income.
I understand that. I still don't get it. Most people already have insurance and most households are under $75K.
So... what am I missing?
|
On June 30 2012 04:28 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:26 hzflank wrote:
I am strictly for nationalised health care (and therefore think Obamacare does not go far enough), but this raises a lot of points...
Could the US government 'tax' citizens for not having an active gym membership? absolutely, based on yesterday's ruling.
'tax' it's all just how you word things. How is taxing someone different from a fee or a tax break one is positive reinforcement one is negative? How is a tax break not the same deal. If you're going for hysterical heresy you could just say not having children is taxed, after all you get tax breaks for some instances of that. Health insurance cost money and children cost money. Really my only issue on the legality of the health care act is if the role of a federal government is necessary over a state government. Some things are easy like water that passes though other states, air and criminals that cross state boarders that clearly shows a need for a federal law. With that i would say with how insurance companies work that yes a federal government intervention over a state law would be necessary.
|
On June 30 2012 04:28 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:26 hzflank wrote:
I am strictly for nationalised health care (and therefore think Obamacare does not go far enough), but this raises a lot of points...
Could the US government 'tax' citizens for not having an active gym membership? absolutely, based on yesterday's ruling.
What were the limits on congress tax powers before then? They could raise everyones taxes, then just give people rebates for having insurance and it would be essentially the same thing except it would be worse policy, they already could do that couldn't they?
We have all sorts of tax deductions that incentivize activity, this isn't really new stuff.
|
On June 30 2012 04:32 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 03:22 Kukaracha wrote:On June 30 2012 01:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 30 2012 01:50 Kukaracha wrote:On June 30 2012 01:48 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 01:30 rogzardo wrote:On June 30 2012 01:18 Malarkey817 wrote:On June 30 2012 00:54 rogzardo wrote:
We're all going to be taxed very slightly in order to give health care to tens of millions of Americans who can't afford it. If you can't be bothered to lose 1-2% of your income in order to benefit, greatly, millions of your fellow Americans, then you are an immoral person. You can't praise someone's morality for paying a tax, that's actually laughable. Am I a moral person because I pay the local mafia "protection money"? (of course taxes are legitimized, but does that make them moral?) Why not extend the healthcare benefits to our neighboring countries as well? I'm sure there are also a lot of suffering people in Mexico who cannot afford healthcare. Isn't it morally objectionable to ignore these people just because they were born south of the border? Yes, it is just as immoral to ignore your suffering countrymen as those living under another government, but the MORAL solution is NOT to pay for it with money taken under threat of violence from the government. The only moral solution is to help as many people as you can with voluntarily given money. I understand that you want to help everyone and fix the problem once and for all, but all this will do is help a portion of the people and create more problems. Helping 100 million+ Americans is a good place to start. You think its a bad idea to help a portion of low-income people, just because others will still be left without aid? Great plan. By that logic, we have no moral obligation to help anybody, ever! As you say, this will help a portion of the people. A large portion. The 'problems' created are taxing insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and individuals who make more tan 200k/year. I'm ok with that. I think you may have missed the part I emphasized with capital letters, so I'll just repeat it here. I think it's a great idea(moral) to help anyone and everyone who is in need of care. I think it's a bad idea(immoral) to coerce or actually force other people to pay for that care unwillingly. This leaves us with voluntary aid as our only moral solution. Is it bad to force people not to kill other people? Should that decision be left at one's discretion? I know that this concept is foreign to some of you non-Americans who don't have a federalist system like we have in the US, but it's not the role of the federal government to exercise a general police power (ie the power to do things like forbidding the killing of others). That job is left to state governments. Did the federal state not intervene in forcing equality between blacks and whites, for example? Sure, but there was specific federal, Constitutional authority to do so (14th Amendment). But if the highest authority considered Obamacare to be within consitutional rights, then isn't it justified the same way?
Well played.
|
On June 30 2012 04:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:35 jpak wrote:On June 30 2012 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 30 2012 04:32 biology]major wrote:Just to put some stats into this, around 8.0% of americans who can afford health insurance don't get it (2009 and 2010). They account for a total of 3% of the population. Thus these americans are the ones who will be "taxed" and not the entire middle class etc or whatever misinformation is out there. This is under the assumption that people who can afford health insurance have a household income of greater than 75k. If you take a look at the 50k -75k+ bracket, it would be 6% of americans who will be "taxed". Not sure what kind of income qualifies you to be able to "afford" health insurance, but im pretty sure it would be over 75k+ bracket. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf Personally, I see it as small minority being penalized for free loading anyways for the greater good of the country. How on Earth do you figure someone would need $75k+ to afford health insurance? Household income, not individual income. I understand that. I still don't get it. Most people already have insurance and most households are under $75K. So... what am I missing?
We are missing an official income benchmark which marks whether or not one family can "afford" health insurance.
|
On June 29 2012 22:22 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
Well they probably didn't have enough insurance! A huge factor to be considered, and is mentioned in that report, is that some bankruptcies were due in part not due to the medical costs, but the loss of income due to the hospitalization/medical issues. That's what really seems to get people. Also realize that statistic was taken in 2007 - it said it was either mainly due to loss of income or because they mortgaged their houses to pay the medical expenses. If you've done that, there is significant incentive to file bankruptcy after the housing crash during that year.
Of course, you could argue they shouldn't have to mortgage their houses in the first place. I was just commenting that's probably the reason for the abnormally high amount in 2007. The earliest estimates say the recession started at the very end of 2007 full blown crash got rolling in 2008, so that has little to do with this study. For the record I would, and will argue that medical bankruptcies should not be a thing. To those arguing about bureaucratic organizations being added to health care... what the hell do you call insurance companies? They nickel and dime their customers constantly. Forcing them to take on co-pays, get cheaper medications that may not be as effective, force pre-authorizations, only allow you to use certain health care providers, and generally provide unequal care. Sounds like we already have a health care system with a massive bureaucracy damaging our ability to receive the best health care, the only problem is it causes half of all bankruptcies in the country at the same time and we pay way more for it than other developed nations while the insurance companies refuse to help anyone who is sick and has no insurance (pre-existing conditions) until the government forced them. For people wondering what this means for people with pre-existing conditions, they are able to find insurance through a combination of government subsidization and the improved economies of scale from the mandate, 30 million people is a lot of new customers and most of them are healthy. The exchange pools help in terms of bargaining but the primary effect that makes it work is the subsidies and the mandate to make it finincially feasible for insurance companies who are now kind of regulated like utilities.
That's not nickeling and diming your customers whatsoever.
Copays are absolutely 100% necessary. This is something I think should be self-explanatory, but if you want me to go more into detail I can. Without things like copays insurance would not be able to function.
If by cheaper medications by any chance do you mean generic? I'm honestly not super familiar with the health care industry, but from what aware by law, the insurance companies are not allowed to substitute with something that would be less effective. They are able to try to cut costs, but cutting costs can not result in less effective treatment. If you think it's less effective anyways, that's highly subjective and sounds more like a problem with whoever rates the potency/approvals of the medications rather than an issue with an insurance company. And what happens when insurance companies cut costs? They can charge lower premiums to all their customers, as well as increase the rate of the specific insured by a smaller margin.
I don't understand why only using specific health care providers is an issue. They approve those that will give them deals, once again which results in lower premiums to the customers. For a lot of insurance companies, (and this is besides the fact it's NO insurance company anywhere in the U.S. is allowed to have excessive rates nor generate excessive profits), the excess profits are simply returned back to the policyholders.
Usually health care insurance allows you to get access to the best health care in the world, not some second rate stuff. U.S. health care, while lacking in many fundamental areas, in terms of service is considered top notch, is it not? Once again, I'm not the most knowledgeable on this specifically, but I've always been under this assumption.
Nickeling and diming... it's not unusual whatsoever for insurance companies to pay out significantly more than each premium dollar they take in as an aggregate amount. As a private companies, however, they are insanely efficient, and none of what you mentioned makes them any worse in terms of efficiency and wasting money.
|
|
|
On June 30 2012 04:48 jpak wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 04:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 30 2012 04:35 jpak wrote:On June 30 2012 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 30 2012 04:32 biology]major wrote:Just to put some stats into this, around 8.0% of americans who can afford health insurance don't get it (2009 and 2010). They account for a total of 3% of the population. Thus these americans are the ones who will be "taxed" and not the entire middle class etc or whatever misinformation is out there. This is under the assumption that people who can afford health insurance have a household income of greater than 75k. If you take a look at the 50k -75k+ bracket, it would be 6% of americans who will be "taxed". Not sure what kind of income qualifies you to be able to "afford" health insurance, but im pretty sure it would be over 75k+ bracket. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf Personally, I see it as small minority being penalized for free loading anyways for the greater good of the country. How on Earth do you figure someone would need $75k+ to afford health insurance? Household income, not individual income. I understand that. I still don't get it. Most people already have insurance and most households are under $75K. So... what am I missing? We are missing an official income benchmark which marks whether or not one family can "afford" health insurance.
yeah, its probably in one of the 2000 pages of the bill lol, but my point was a very small minority of the population will be negatively impacted by this law. The amount of people who benefit will vastly outnumber those penalized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
