The Obamacare Penalty: Yes, It Can Be Avoided

[chainmailleman]

Tuah

chainmailleman

Tuah

chainmailleman

Tuah

chainmailleman

The question remains:

Why is it REQUIRED to have health insurance in the first place?

Because getting the opportunity to earn your keep in society means helping that society in return, in more ways than just your job.

Note, I think higher taxes on the rich would solve this problem for everyone.

What? I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding your reply. Having the opportunity to have the job (sounds like having a job is a privilege) requires working the job and paying for everyone else's upkeep out of my compensation for my labor?

Having a job is possible thanks to the infrastructure society provides. Sure that may not always be the case out in the distant country, but in civilization we all depend on each other whether we like it or not. We're all invested in each others' well-being.

Of course, this would be no problem at all if the distribution of wealth were not so ridiculous. Raising the minimum wage to the livable amount people deserve would make this a non-issue. Taxing those who are profiting on the working class's contributions to society would more than cover the costs of this insurance people are being forced to get.

Sadly the votes aren't there for a nicer bill, so we have to work with this capitalistic system.

So how does having to be required to carry health insurance have to do with depending on others? I agree with jobs being means of dependency on society, but I still don't understand why having to carry insurance is mandatory, job or not. The insurance company is not your neighbor, friend, or even a fellow citizen. It's a company. And the insurance policy is a promise. A promise that they will pay for your bills for you. So again, how does mandatory insurance benefit society?

Public healthcare is the benefit. But we can't have that. So we're pulling a MacGyver and constructing it by requiring participation and eliminating the inherent corruption.

It's hard to get public health care through private insurance companies......

[Tuah]

chainmailleman

Tuah

chainmailleman

Tuah

chainmailleman

What? I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding your reply. Having the opportunity to have the job (sounds like having a job is a privilege) requires working the job and paying for everyone else's upkeep out of my compensation for my labor?

Having a job is possible thanks to the infrastructure society provides. Sure that may not always be the case out in the distant country, but in civilization we all depend on each other whether we like it or not. We're all invested in each others' well-being.

Of course, this would be no problem at all if the distribution of wealth were not so ridiculous. Raising the minimum wage to the livable amount people deserve would make this a non-issue. Taxing those who are profiting on the working class's contributions to society would more than cover the costs of this insurance people are being forced to get.

Sadly the votes aren't there for a nicer bill, so we have to work with this capitalistic system.

So how does having to be required to carry health insurance have to do with depending on others? I agree with jobs being means of dependency on society, but I still don't understand why having to carry insurance is mandatory, job or not. The insurance company is not your neighbor, friend, or even a fellow citizen. It's a company. And the insurance policy is a promise. A promise that they will pay for your bills for you. So again, how does mandatory insurance benefit society?

Public healthcare is the benefit. But we can't have that. So we're pulling a MacGyver and constructing it by requiring participation and eliminating the inherent corruption.

It's hard to get public health care through private insurance companies......

Yep, but if that's the only thing that can pass, then so be it.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

chainmailleman

Tuah

chainmailleman

Tuah

chainmailleman

What? I'm sorry I'm having a hard time understanding your reply. Having the opportunity to have the job (sounds like having a job is a privilege) requires working the job and paying for everyone else's upkeep out of my compensation for my labor?

Having a job is possible thanks to the infrastructure society provides. Sure that may not always be the case out in the distant country, but in civilization we all depend on each other whether we like it or not. We're all invested in each others' well-being.

Of course, this would be no problem at all if the distribution of wealth were not so ridiculous. Raising the minimum wage to the livable amount people deserve would make this a non-issue. Taxing those who are profiting on the working class's contributions to society would more than cover the costs of this insurance people are being forced to get.

Sadly the votes aren't there for a nicer bill, so we have to work with this capitalistic system.

So how does having to be required to carry health insurance have to do with depending on others? I agree with jobs being means of dependency on society, but I still don't understand why having to carry insurance is mandatory, job or not. The insurance company is not your neighbor, friend, or even a fellow citizen. It's a company. And the insurance policy is a promise. A promise that they will pay for your bills for you. So again, how does mandatory insurance benefit society?

Public healthcare is the benefit. But we can't have that. So we're pulling a MacGyver and constructing it by requiring participation and eliminating the inherent corruption.

It's hard to get public health care through private insurance companies......

Just remember one thing. This entire health care bill belongs to one party, and one party only. The democrats. They knew, and were told repeatedly, that the republicans weren't going to vote for it. They even had to bribe their own party members to get enough people to vote for it.
It was a cluster ********, it is a cluster ********, and it will only become a worse cluster ******** as time goes on.

[Gustave Papillon]

Seriously, I believe this when he is impeach and the Washington clean house.

[Jinglybell]

Im going to have to stop my employer from holding out my taxes and pay them at the end of the year then. Insurance companies are going to use this forced-buy-in to gouge you mark my words. Remember when Bush blocked being able to buy prescription drugs from Mexico/Canada despite them being the same thing (they scare people into thinking they were unsafe despite being from the same companies) the prices for name-brand medications went though the roof because of the nice monopoly they got. He PROMISED they wouldn't go up at all and everyone immediately forgot about it.

Ive heard insurance is going to go up to like 300+ dollars a month in my state for minimum coverage w/high deductibles (I have no idea how accurate that is) I dont feel like spending what little extra I have a month on s**t insurance or paying a penalty for lay-abouts/under employed. I don't make all that much, but most of the social programs I don't qualify for since I make sooo much (AKA I have a full time job, but really make jack-s**t). I still can't get straight answers on if I qualify for a discount. Its doubtful though.

TLDR : Forcing people to buy insurance doesn't magically make them able to afford it.

[Mei tsuki7]

chainmailleman

Tuah

Giovanna_Deiderich

Affordable care act....pfft....we HAVE to get insurance. . .if they're going to make us get something, the least they can do is make it free with great benefits. Some of us can't afford insurance and probably won't have the money to afford it for a long long time.

I want to see them nag me to get something I can't afford.

It could be free if there were a socialist system, but nobody will vote for it. So essentially we have to craft one via the capitalistic system.

A single-payer system would also dramatically reduce costs (even if plans themselves are handled by companies), but again, nobody will vote for it because it cuts out of corporate pockets.

The question remains:

Why is it REQUIRED to have health insurance in the first place?

How about because some hospitals have to put aside 12% of their budget to pay for the uninsured? How about because the more people who apy in the less everyone has to pay individually? How about because there are a*****e parents who willfully choose not to get health insurance for their children? There are many reasons to require health insurance and a lot of them have to do with how the uninsured cost everyone a lot of money. It is more expensive for all of us for an uninsured person to go to the emergency room since there is a law that states everyone must be helped if in need. A hospital has to provide care for everyone. The uninsured then become a drain on all of us.

[Divine_Malevolence]

T3h Jinji

You don't. If the minimum amount is more than 8% of your total income, you are excused from having to get the insurance.

Exemptions from the payment
Under certain circumstances, you won’t have to make the individual responsibility payment. This is called an “exemption.”

You may qualify for an exemption if:

You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year
The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income
You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low (Learn about the filing limit.)
You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider
You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry
You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting the disposition of charges against you
You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.

Source: https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/

Sounds like something that needs to be in more than one place in the thread.

[Divine_Malevolence]

YahuShalum

The IRS has no law to collect income tax from you either. They still do though and will take you to court. You can ask for the law all day showing they can do that and they won't be able to show you it. But they usually win the case because the corrupt judge will instruct the jury wrongly.


Nice documentary on what the IRS does.

Not a law, but instead the constitution.

Taxation and spending clause.

[Azkeel]

Divine_Malevolence

YahuShalum

The IRS has no law to collect income tax from you either. They still do though and will take you to court. You can ask for the law all day showing they can do that and they won't be able to show you it. But they usually win the case because the corrupt judge will instruct the jury wrongly.


Nice documentary on what the IRS does.

Not a law, but instead the constitution.

Taxation and spending clause.

And it's up to the Supreme Court to rule on matters of the constitution. Pollock v. farmers.

[Divine_Malevolence]

YahuShalum

Divine_Malevolence

YahuShalum

The IRS has no law to collect income tax from you either. They still do though and will take you to court. You can ask for the law all day showing they can do that and they won't be able to show you it. But they usually win the case because the corrupt judge will instruct the jury wrongly.


Nice documentary on what the IRS does.

Not a law, but instead the constitution.

Taxation and spending clause.

And it's up to the Supreme Court to rule on matters of the constitution. Pollock v. farmers.

Says nothing about anything that isn't an interest, dividend, or rent.
And is replaced by the sixteenth amendment.
So there are two constitutional things saying you're wrong. Article one section eight, and the sixteenth amendment.
And the constitution doth take precedent over ancient cases.

[iHippie X]

This "Affordable" Care Act is a disaster.

[Azkeel]

Divine_Malevolence

YahuShalum

Divine_Malevolence

YahuShalum

The IRS has no law to collect income tax from you either. They still do though and will take you to court. You can ask for the law all day showing they can do that and they won't be able to show you it. But they usually win the case because the corrupt judge will instruct the jury wrongly.


Nice documentary on what the IRS does.

Not a law, but instead the constitution.

Taxation and spending clause.

And it's up to the Supreme Court to rule on matters of the constitution. Pollock v. farmers.

Says nothing about anything that isn't an interest, dividend, or rent.
And is replaced by the sixteenth amendment.
So there are two constitutional things saying you're wrong. Article one section eight, and the sixteenth amendment.
And the constitution doth take precedent over ancient cases.

The court has upheld the rulings even with the 16th amendment. The supreme court keeps that ruling if you read further. It's about income tax. You'll find a lot of evidence to find with a simple search that the court's ruling is upheld and that the constitutional tax amendments don't give right to a direct income tax. Are you actually fighting to prove we have a written income tax law, when there isn't and the courts ruled there isn't? The constitution gives power to congress to impose taxes, yes. But as the law is provided and the court cases, it shows we don't have an on the books income tax. Or are you able to find me the exact law that shows we have an income tax. EDIT: / the income make it compensation tax. Aka compensation for working. Let's use the proper words. There is no on the books tax for compensation for work. (As the call an income tax)

Court Cases on it.

[Divine_Malevolence]

YahuShalum

Are you actually fighting to prove we have a written income tax law, when there isn't and the courts ruled there isn't?

Constitution says yes.
"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income." It's pretty clear.
It's definitely constitutional.

You can ask all day for the law saying they can do it, and they won't show you a law.
They'll show you the constitution.

[Azkeel]

Divine_Malevolence

YahuShalum

Are you actually fighting to prove we have a written income tax law, when there isn't and the courts ruled there isn't?

Constitution says yes.
"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income." It's pretty clear.
It's definitely constitutional.

You can ask all day for the law saying they can do it, and they won't show you a law.
They'll show you the constitution.

Once again the court cases show it. Income defined vs compensation for work. They won't show you a law because there is no law. Congress will have to make laws specific towards compensation. Otherwise what you're suggesting is they can go ahead and tax you without creating the tax. You're also suggesting they can legally tax us at 100% without adding anything down on paper because they have the power to tax. They have the power to tax we're not fighting over that. They actually do have written laws on taxes that show what's taxed. They however, do not have a written law on compensation tax. Just because they have the power to tax doesn't mean it's within legality to tax without first creating the tax law. They are to make the laws for tax. (That's their power)

[Divine_Malevolence]

YahuShalum

Once again the court cases show it. Income defined vs compensation for work. They won't show you a law because there is no law. Congress will have to make laws specific towards compensation. Otherwise what you're suggesting is they can go ahead and tax you without creating the tax. You're also suggesting they can legally tax us at 100% without adding anything down on paper because they have the power to tax. They have the power to tax we're not fighting over that. They actually do have written laws on taxes that show what's taxed. They however, do not have a written law on compensation tax. Just because they have the power to tax doesn't mean it's within legality to tax without first creating the tax law. They are to make the laws for tax. (That's their power)

Hm?

Isn't it clearly written in the tax code?
Whereupon the very first entity in the table of contents is, in fact, income taxes?
And, bare with me, don't changes to the tax code go through congress before needing to be signed by the president? Along with any extension of said tax code changes also needing a similar process?

Seems pretty lawful, constitutionally backed, and written down.