Reply With QuoteExactly, they're like teenagers who threaten to move out because their parents say they have to take out the trash and mow the lawn.Originally Posted by OliverH
Gold Member
The least productive wouldn't leave because they couldn't possibly get elected in the states to which they would need to move. If Florida wants to leave the union, good luck to them. Without help from the feds, the place will be about half the size it is now after global warming kicks in anyway. I'm fine with you guys paying for your own 1200 miles of ten-foot dikes.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Platinum Member
Exactly, they're like teenagers who threaten to move out because their parents say they have to take out the trash and mow the lawn.
Gold Member
That's "incessant sneering and jeering" at all of congress, and any of the same who voted to exempt themselves from Obamacare... you project the partisanship onto what I've said, not me.
And as opinions go, it's a fine opinion... I have an opinion or two also.
No, it isn't, and if you don't that, then you have some catching up to do.
The bottom STILL won't have any skin in the game... but they will have more "free" health care that they freeload off of their fellow citizens (as becomes more apparent everyday, including a large portion of the middle class).
I've already indicated that I like some of the republican's solutions (with a few elements from Obamacare - kinda' skrews with your whole "partisanitis" mantra doesn't it?) but I won't recap the many, many idea's and proposals that the Republicans laid by the sill of the locked door that Harry Reid and Co. bolted themselves behind when they were creating this monstrosity, but perhaps you should review them. Try not to be put off by the fact that they are ideas that came from conservative republicans.
Ah, now we're now back up to 50 million!I Remember when it was "40 million that don't have health care". Remember when it was pointed out that AT LEAST 10-15 million of those being counted in that figure were illegals and the Administration changed the number to 30 million? Remember when it was pointed out that of that 30 million being counted, a whole lot of them didn't have health care insurance because they CHOSE NOT to have health care insurance?.... Yea, 3-6% of the people who don't have, WANT, but can't afford health care insurance is about right. And as I say, I'd like to see something done FOR that tiny minority that doesn't skrew up what the VAST majority of others already have (once Obamacare is gone, maybe we can focus on that).
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Gold Member
California is going to support the HUGE new number of Medicaid participants that slither out of Obamacare? You have GOT to be kidding. News Flash; California is broke.
You do realize that once a state agrees to that money, that the state is on the hook and eventually becomes responsible for it right? That the Fed doesn't pay 100% of the additional Medicaid funds forever right?
From Kaiser (bold mine);
Congress would "scale back the federal share"????While politics is a factor, states have legitimate budget concerns, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. Many state officials are already struggling to pay for the entitlement program, which typically is the largest or second largest state expense. Their future share may sound small, but it represents billions in new spending that could require cutbacks of other more popular programs, such as education or transportation, or else raising taxes. “Downstream there is exposure for uncontrollable costs,” he said.
The Congressional Budget Office projected that states would pay approximately $73 billion, or 7 percent of the cost of the Medicaid expansion between 2014 and 2022, while the federal government pays $931 billion, or 93 percent.
Salo and others also dispute the notion the program is “free” in the early years, saying that startup costs and the likelihood that millions of people currently eligible for Medicaid, but not enrolled, will come forward as a result of publicity about the expansion, is sure to drive up states’ expenses.
For those people, states will receive their traditional federal funding match, averaging 57 percent. Officials are also worried that a future, deficit-focused Congress will scale back the federal share, leaving states on the hook for a much greater share of the entitlement program.Please say it ain't so!!!! Never gonna' happen right?
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Gold Member
Right. Your posts are filled with "botox" jibes and similar sneers aimed at specific Republicans. Nope, no partisanship in any of your stuff, no sirree....
I suppose it's too much trouble to bore me with specifics. I hope you're not pinning too many hopes on stuff like "Let insurance companies operate across state lines" proposals. The simple news flash is this: Providing coverage for those who don't have it and can't afford it is going to require (a) government intervention and (b) cost a certain amount of public money, and that means taxes of some kind. This is anathema to the current Republican party.
Providing coverage to people without healthcare can't be fixed through free-market approaches, because in the end, the free market has no mechanism for providing goods and services to people who lack the ability to pay, especially where resources are limited but the demand for them is not. Relying on market mechanisms to do something it wasn't designed to do isn't going to work. No country has managed to provide universal healthcare absent government programs or mandates or regulations, and the US can't do it, either. While we live in a capitalist economy, to expand capitalist values to all aspects of society is incompatible with the values of a humane society. Such considerations already mess up the theoretical but unachievable free market in health care. The 80-year-old zillionaire doesn't get to hop to the front of the line for the kidney transplant simply because he can outbid everybody else. Nor do we allow people to sell their organs. And so on. Any idea why the conservatives and libertarians aren't all over such travesties?
As expected, I could count on you to find a way to make millions of people disappear. Those are the numbers that are generally quoted. I'm not an expert and don't even play one on the internet, but would allow as to how maybe they're somewhat high. Even if they overstate the problem by a substantial 50%, that still leaves 10% of the country without coverage, which isn't insignificant. I doubt the problem is as small as 3-6%, however. I'd say your contrarian analysis of this is probably about as authoritative and disinterested as your analysis of why the climate experts are all wrong and global warming is just a big fat con job on the part of liberals who want to steal our freedom and take away our guns.Ah, now we're now back up to 50 million!
Last edited by OliverH; 07-06-2012 at 05:41 PM.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
You are evading my question. "Continuing to pay federal taxes to support health care" is participating. What are you going to do if they refuse to participate?
Gold Member
I don't mean to be evasive, or even deliberately dense. I don't get it. Are you talking about the states or the individual citizens thereof? I thought individuals paid taxes. To the extent that the federal contribution to participating states comes out of general revenues, I'm not sure what the individuals are going to do about it. Refuse to pay their taxes? Or only the percentage they think is going to fund Obamacare for other states? Or what? This sounds rather like another dark populist scenario that you love to hint at, by which the poor downtrodden citizens arise and do something radical. "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." Okay, fine. So what form does such refusal take? Do the oppressed masses of Fairfax and environs form a big caravan of Lexus SUVs and head down to the local federal building where they set it alight with Molotov cocktails while passing around a nicely chilled Sauvignon Blanc to celebrate?
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
Individuals pay taxes; but state governments are established by them to secure their rights. What are you going to do if a significant number of states do not permit the federal government to collect taxes/penalties for health care? I'm not talking about individuals; I'm talking about a body of the citizens as represented by the states in which they live, united as a body in saying "ENOUGH!".
What are you going to do about it? You seem pretty certain that "FedGov has spoken; all will eventually obey". What if things just don't meet your vision?
Gold Member
And you of course are a vision of beaconed light for your glowing representations of Republicans and conservatism.
Botox... Pelosi. That's it.
Yes, surprise, I'm not a supporter of progressives or the Democrat's new Plantation, so sue me (but I do support some Obamacare initiatives and don't have a problem saying it... You?).
You mean the President and party that is STILL saying 'the penalty isn't an Obama tax' even though the SCOTUS says it IS a tax? You've mistook your parties again. Wasn't it Obama who said repeatedly that it was NOT a tax? (<--- Now I AM sneering and jeering).
And I knew that I could count on you to find a way to impregnate those numbers of millions and see them multiplied.I'm not making them disappear, I'm just using honest figures. Quaint idea huh?
Quoted wrongly, yes.
"Maybe"? "Somewhat"? Now you are moving in the right direction.
"Health care, health care, Obamacare, millions and millions" [hmmmm... not working... losing... nobody's buyin' it...]..... "BUT YEA... WELL LET'S TALK ABOUT GLOBULL WARMING THEN!.... OR MAYBE F&F AND GUN CONTROL!!!!!"
Classic. (can't make this stuff up
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
SuperMod - Go get the butter
Some of you are making other members the topic of conversation again. Infractions are next.
Kershaw Mafia - Johnny Fontane
Gold Member
You might find this PDF of value on this point (bold mine);
Conclusion;
While the collection process for the tax penalty
has many similarities to the collection process for
existing federal tax liabilities, there are also significant
differences. The restrictions placed on the IRS’s
ability to collect the tax penalty make it unlikely the
IRS can effectively enforce the individual mandate.
The only major collection tool that remains unaffected
is the offset, which, by its nature, applies only
if the taxpayer happens to overpay her federal
income tax obligations or is entitled to a net refund
in a given year. Thus, many taxpayers who neglect
or refuse to pay the tax penalty could structure their
affairs in such a way as to avoid being subject to
legal consequences of any sort for years to come, if
ever. For those taxpayers, the individual mandate
may not actually be mandatory after all.
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Gold Member
As one of the guilty, my apologies Morrow... nary another such peep of that sort from me .
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Gold Member
I don't see exactly how that comes about, is all, or how the states stand between (for instance) the feds and an employer or payroll company who is federally mandated to withhold income taxes from paychecks. A revolt by individual states in the way you describe seems not only unlikely, but infeasible. I think there are a lot of people who would fervently hope for such an outcome, but IMO this springs from what I consider a fantasy that the loose political organization of the 18th century is adequate and workable for a modern industrial state, and a kind of states' revolt would somehow bring back a golden past that (a) never was and (b) couldn't work under modern conditions anyway.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
Whatevs. I don't claim to be non-partisan. I do claim not to pepper my posts with snide personal insults toward politicians I disagree with. That's all.
Ah. The "new plantation" again. Sorry, I will pass on what I find to be a hyperpartisan meme. I think such rhetoric forecloses thought right from the start.
Forgive me if I also sit out this particular dance. For me, it's without meaningful content and appears useful mostly as tools by which partisans beat each other up. (And lest you think I'm being overly partisan, the similar arguments on the same semantic quibble from the other side are equally useless. And I would include the cheap shot that Rupert Murdoch had his minions at the WSJ take at poor old Mitt Romney the other day.) Tax, penalty, whatever. I wish the spinmeisters would just build a bridge and get over it, but as long as they have people willing to scream their slogans at high volume, chances of that are about zilch. Meaningful dialogue about actual issues seems impossible in election years, at least for the broader public consumption. It's almost exclusively about scoring points. ("A hit, a very palpable hit!")You mean the President and party that is STILL saying 'the penalty isn't an Obama tax' even though the SCOTUS says it IS a tax? You've mistook your parties again. Wasn't it Obama who said repeatedly that it was NOT a tax? (<--- Now I AM sneering and jeering
Such modest qualifiers and an admission that one's understanding is less than 100% positive would do wonders for the credibility of many others. Nothing says "I don't know jack but I'm damned if I'll admit it" more than absolute certainty, especially when brayed at high decibel level and larded heavily with abuse.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
Nope... ain't gonna' do it. Wouldn't be prudent...
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Gold Member
OK, I understand that you would not do it and that you don't think it's feasible.....which I suppose would answer my question if that's what I had asked. However, that is not what I asked. I asked the simple question, what would you do if that scenario occurred?
Registered User
I was wondering about that. I did not file taxes till I had a part time job even though I might have made interest on savings (very little) I could be wrong but it was my understanding that if you had no income you did not need to file taxes.
If this law fined you for not having insurance then made you have to go file taxes saying you made nothing and claim the exemption to get the fine/tax waived then I would claim the individual mandate unconstitutional because you now have to work to prove you are not suspect of evading the taxes.
I will admit that I do not know fully how the tax is applied or how the exemption is applied so it could very well be that the tax is applied in such a way that I described so as to make it unconstitutional.
TRITON: The way I explained above is how I would consider it to be unconstitutional. If they first fine you and make you prove you did not make enough money then I agree, but if they first look at your income, then see that you don't have insurance (or vice versa) and then apply the tax well then I do not see it as unconstitutional because you are not forced to prove your innocence.
Gold Member
I'm really not trying to avoid a response, but I could use a little help with the setup. If I have some notion of the actual configuration of events, then it's easier to imagine a federal response. The problem is that I just don't see how it comes to pass in the first place.
As I understand what you're asking, it's something like, What would happen if the people of a state, supported/empowered by their state authorities who are carrying out their will, decided not to pay their federal taxes? So what's the situation? Is it one of those things like George Wallace standing at the schoolhouse door, or what? Does the governor go on TV and say--well, what? But what concrete actions are we talking about here? What are the mechanics? Are all the IRS agents arrested in the night or run out of town on a rail? What if half the people of the state thought it was a bad idea and thought that they ought to pay their taxes? (Or is part of the scenario that the overwhelming majority of the population is behind the program?) Is the state enforcing the "don't pay your federal tax" edict, assuming it's an edict? What exactly is the federal government facing?
And, not that this is part of your setup, I do wonder how it got to this pass? If the anger is this widespread and general, wouldn't the more obvious solution be to do what people normally do--namely, to vote the bastids out? And if it's not widespread and general, I guess the small minority would find that just getting new representatives for themselves isn't effective in providing any relief, because presumably the rest of the elected government is against them and totally unwilling to compromise or address their grievances. And I wonder what has happened with these one or two particular places to make them such outliers. And if it's only a few, with the rest of the nation more or less going along with some program that (for whatever reason) the angry outliers find so odious and intolerable that it calls for such extreme action, I really don't see that it would end well for the rebels.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Gold Member
In my "travels" to find out more about the State's refusal to start the Insurance Exchanges and refusal of the Medicaid Expansion, I ran across some information about how the Feds will try to collect this "tax" and determine who does, and who does not have insurance (I'll try to find it).
IIRC, it essentially said that everyone will file a tax return. The new Form 1040 for example will have some new lines added to it to ask if you have purchased insurance and will tell you if you owe the tax or if you will receive a subsidy to buy insurance. IE. - 'If you answered No (I don't have insurance) in box XX and your taxable income is below XXXX, you will receive XXXX to subsidize your healthcare costs' - or - 'If you answered No (I don't have insurance) in box XX and your taxable income is ABOVE XXXX, you will be taxed XXXX for not having insurance.'
There were a number of scenarios given to show how the 1040 (other tax forms) would be presenting new questions so that individuals would "self-identify" their health care insurance status, income as it relates to the requirement for insurance, and the "tax" that would be required to pay if need be, or the amount of the subsidy they would recieve in order to purchase the insurance.
The information also discussed the fact that Insurance companies will be REQUIRED to provide the Govt. with customer lists so that cross-checking of returns can be accomplished (people who say they DO have insurance when they don't).
Bottom line; Everyone will be required to file tax returns (even those who haven't previously) because it is the mechanism to determine who has/doesn't have insurance and is either taxed or given the subsidy to buy insurance.
It was recommended that those who don't have insurance, don't want insurance, and don't intend to pay the tax NOT lie on their tax form (say that they do have insurance when they really don't), because then the IRS can get you for filing a false return.
Instead, just don't add the "tax" levied against you at the form's line where it is supposed to go. In other words, where the form says "Do you have health insurance?" say "NO", and at the next line where it says "If you answered 'no' and your income is above XXXX, enter the "tax" penalty of $95 in box XX", just don't add that $95 dollar amount in that box. THAT tax isn't income tax and it doesn't look like the IRS has any way to prosecute you if you refuse to buy insurance OR pay the tax.
Forgive me if I've been inaccurate in the above... my memory isn't what it used to be
Last edited by timcsaw; 07-07-2012 at 08:56 AM. Reason: formatting
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Gold Member
We've been played...
I wonder if their pants are on fire?
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks