Yeah, confusing, isn't it? The Obamateur said this wouldn't be a tax ... I guess he lied about that.
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
- Spam
- Offensive
- Threatening
- Off-topic
- Nonsense
- Spelling/Grammar
- Community Standards
- Offensive Username
It was always a tax. But much like the first President Bush and President Clinton if you call it something other than a tax, the stupid tax payers won't know its a tax.
Forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional but making people pay tax if they don't buy insurance is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to tax. This is evident in the current claim by the president that the mandate is not a tax.
When someone chooses to not buy health insurance, then uses emergency rooms for their medical services, and refuse to pay for those services for whatever reason, they have, in essence, "bought" those services with other people's money in the form of higher insurance premiums. All that is being done here is going to the source for payment rather than penalizing people who are trying to be responsible for their own actions.
Why should I pay higher premiums because some 20 year old, who believes he is indestructible, chooses not to have medical insurance while choosing to engage in risky behaviors--or even gets the flu through no fault of his own? While I don't appreciate having to pick up the medical tab for him, I also don't have the stomach for turning him away at the hospital door while he bleeds to death, nor do I want someone in poor health due to lack of insurance walking around spreading contagions.
2. If EMTALA is solving the problem, why change it? Why create a 500 billion dollar regressive tax on Americans? If it is NOT solving the problem, why create a solution that is so cumbersome?
3. If EMTALA is the problem, what is the problem? It's that people don't pay for services. Tax those who don't pay for their services. Problem solved.
2. People get the free cars, and states complain their costs for creating & maintaining highways now costs them 20% more, and auto dealers say autos get even costlier every year because of the free demand. Congress says tough. But the number of people who won't buy autos goes up every year, because they can get free ones.
3. Congress/Obama then creates a law that taxes everyone, except those who own an auto, so people can continue to get free autos. They prescribe what the auto must have, and don't care if people don't need what the auto has.
Is this an intelligent way to solve a problem??
If obamacare is in fact a tax then it is still unconstitutional. Article 1 section 8 says all bills for raising revenue (including taxes) shall originate in the House of reps, but the version of the bill that passed originated in the senate.
Resounding 'no' but not until after the general elections. So let's vote for those who will be most likely to keep their oath to uphold the US constitution.
And yes, the way courts work, the precedent of this case could most certainly extend in the future to whatever product the government chooses. All they have to do is call it a 'tax.'
