Thread: Are you "Furious".

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't think that's how this 'tax' works. It's more like a tax on cigarettes - if you don't smoke you don't pay it.

Calculate the Tax Burden of New Federal Health Care Laws | Tax Foundation

Gotta love the viewpoints on both sides here. My two cents:

1) A Fast and Furious type situation seems to arise with every President. With Bush it was the stupid Weapons of Mass Destruction Lie, with Clinton you had whitegate, etc. Each party gets its opportunity to bash the other for perceived unjust use of power and or misrepresentation of involvement or responsibility. It's not really apples to apples with each President, but if you are going to get all fired up about Obama, I'd love to hear your defense to Bush's lies and a $400 billion a year war in Iraq. That's right, as a conservative, I have the brain power to admit Bush's conduct was indefensible regardless of ignorance or intentional misrepresentation. My point is, to label this a democrat or obama only situation is silly.

2) Any comparison between prohibition and this healthcare act is misguided, misplaced, and plain ignorant. I am not a fan of the healthcare act, but it is clearly a different beast than prohibition. The public's view of it, and in turn its repeal, turns on completely different arguments and rational. Using the prohibition example as an effort to make the healthcare act out to be as ridiculous as prohibition omits any nod to the obvious and objective truth: Our healthcare system needs help. Now, I agree this act is not necessarily the best way of solving the problem(s), but (unless you are a crazy tea party person) it is not nearly the outright ridiculousness of Prohibition.

Originally Posted by honedright

Calculate the Tax Burden of New Federal Health Care Laws | Tax Foundation

According to the calculator, I'll pay far less with the tax than what my employer currently pays for my family's health insurance!!!
This does seem like a moot exercise, since it doesn't really tell me what kind of services I should be expecting.

Obviously Prohibition and Affordable Health-care (at least the former is accurate) are two different beasts. The lefties are so pent up with fear and anger clouding their minds they often miss the point and end up jumping to wrong conclusions (Obama as President for instance).

Just because the two are dis-similar doesn't mean that they aren't subject to a similar solution, namely repeal.

Originally Posted by honedright

Obviously Prohibition and Affordable Health-care (at least the former is accurate) are two different beasts. The lefties are so pent up with fear and anger clouding their minds they often miss the point and end up jumping to wrong conclusions (Obama as President for instance).

Just because the two are dis-similar doesn't mean that they aren't subject to a similar solution, namely repeal.

I honestly don't know enough of about the ACA to make any conclusion yet.
Could you tell me in plain English why the ObamaCare is so bad?
(Is it the quality of healthcare that it will provide? The financial burden that imposes on the taxpayers? Some germane example to go along with your point would be necessary.)

Originally Posted by xuz

I honestly don't know enough of about the ACA to make any conclusion yet.
Could you tell me in plain English why the ObamaCare is so bad?
(Is it the quality of healthcare that it will provide? The financial burden that imposes on the taxpayers? Some germane example to go along with your point would be necessary.)

To begin with, "Obamacare" doesn't provide health-care. Only a licensed health-care provider can provide health-care. And for the last 100 years or so that has been the case. What ACA does is provide a means to pay for insurance. It forces everyone into the insurance pool. There are other ways to decrease insurance costs without forcing anyone.

Originally Posted by honedright

To begin with, "Obamacare" doesn't provide health-care. Only a licensed health-care provider can provide health-care. And for the last 100 years or so that has been the case. What ACA does is provide a means to pay for insurance. It forces everyone into the insurance pool. There are other ways to decrease insurance costs without forcing anyone.

Your statement is false as per current law. Read the Law | HealthCare.gov

‘‘(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section
shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and
except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected
in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter
B of chapter 68.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty
imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.

You can read the actual law in page 151.


Let me repeat, why do you think ObamaCare is so bad?
Please give me an answer that isn't false and is compelling.


For example, I would argue that
as per Sec. 1502, code (g), (listed above),
the IRS cannot enforce taxation of the health care system.
And there's something wrong with the idea that you can provide the very costly health care,
without the power to levy tax.

Originally Posted by honedright

Even staunch supporters of the Volstead Act (Prohibition) eventually supported it's repeal. It took 14 years for the American public to become fed up enough for Congress to act, but the 21st Amendment was finally passed. We'll see how long it takes for Americans to become fed up with another enormous tax burden to pay for something that they don't really want.

So far it's 47 years for medicare and 77 years for social security. I guess an honest man can live way longer without freedom than without alcohol.

And since we're making analogies here's a multiple choice question:

Glove relates to Hand the same way as
(A) Condom relates to Banana
(B) Whiskey relates to Bottle
(C) Cigar relates to Lewinsky
(D) Head relates to A$$

Originally Posted by HNSB

Nope. You're wrong.
I demand that if you quote me, you owe me a box of donuts.

You had to tell me you're a cop, so this is entrapment.

While I despise government hand outs, I don't see how we maintain the masses without social security and medicaid. We could kill all of that, but then you have a bolshevik revolution on your hands.

In order to be a tea party person I am convinced you really have to overlook centuries of history relating to the every day joe and said every day joe's ability to have a reasonable quality of living. Let's remember that pre-social security and welfare and all of this crap, people were living in even more dire poverty and children were working in factories. If you want to go back to that, join up with the tea party.