I predicted on this very board that Obama would raise that false equivalence...

Post #409,878 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 9:49:24 AM 5/6/16 11:57:04 AM Reply	I predicted on this very board that Obama would raise that false equivalence... several months before he said it, I predicted that he would claim being forced to purchase "health insurance" from a private entity is just like being forced to purchase "car insurance" from a private entity. That is absurd on its face. I am NOT required to purchase automobile insurance. I can avoid it by opting for public transportation, or living close enough to work so that I can bicycle or walk (which I did for a number of years). Avoiding the purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can NOT do if I wish to continue breathing. Edit: Thanks for pointing out the error, Rand. Edited by mmoffitt May 6, 2016, 11:57:04 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #409,882 by rcareaga 5/6/16 10:02:25 AM 5/6/16 10:02:25 AM Reply	speaking of inanity Being forced to purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can NOT do if I wish to continue breathing. Read that carefully. I think you probably meant to craft that sentence differently. But let's assume that what you aimed to convey was: "Refusing to purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can NOT do if I wish to continue breathing." Is that a fair re-statement of your intended meaning? Because I must have missed the statutory language in the ACA that calls for capital punishment of the non-compliant. There is a penalty at tax-time, which you and, I daresay, many other good burghers in the Hoosier State may bitterly resent, but there is no blood-debt to be paid. So either you have been grotesquely misinformed as to the provisions of the Act or you are exaggerating so preposterously for effect that imputations of inanity to others must hereafter fall rather implausibly from your lips. cordially,
Post #409,891 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 11:58:24 AM 5/6/16 11:58:24 AM Reply	Show me the equivalent Federal Penalty for not buying a car. And, thank you for pointing out my mangling of my point. ;0)
Post #409,896 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:16:27 PM 5/6/16 12:16:27 PM Reply	Roberts addressed this in 2012 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal- ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay- ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un- lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur- ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40. Congress has the power to tax. End of story. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,898 by boxley 5/6/16 12:19:03 PM 5/6/16 12:19:03 PM Reply	but they swore it was not a tax on the american people? So the tax is on top of current medicare tax but still no benefit offered? Whats up with that? payola to lobbyists always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #409,901 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:25:48 PM 5/6/16 12:25:48 PM Reply	Man, you're agreeing with some interesting folks these days. Roberts? Really?
Post #409,904 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:33:04 PM 5/6/16 12:33:04 PM Reply	Recognizing reality is a helpful way to get through life. ;-) Of course Roberts is a monster, but the law is the law. Or do you think that Congress doesn't have the power to tax now? :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,906 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:38:23 PM 5/6/16 12:39:04 PM Reply	Heh. I think a "tax" you pay ONLY when you don't do something is a fine. ;0) Edit: temporary brain freeze today. Edited by mmoffitt May 6, 2016, 12:39:04 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #409,886 by Another Scott 5/6/16 10:47:08 AM 5/6/16 10:47:08 AM Reply	Nobody's "forced to purchase health insurance". If you don't want to buy it, then pay the fine. If you can't afford it (under the rules), then you don't have to buy it. Quit making stuff up. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,892 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:09:31 PM 5/6/16 12:09:31 PM Reply	Ah. I see. A federal fine is no injury at all. That is not the worst part of that Give-A-Way to big insurance companies that is the ACA. The worst part is that it is now federal law that a very small subset of the US population is entitled to profit from others healthcare whilst doing absolutely nothing to deliver that healthcare. It is the law. If you get sick and need medical care, the law of the land says, "Shove some money into the pocket of a person who is going to do nothing for you." That's the worst part. Private Health insurance companies have by federal law become the exclusive means of receiving healthcare in this banana republic. Even if you can pay for your healthcare yourself, if you don't add directly to Wall Street pockets, the federal government will slap you with a fine for not directly supporting the federal government's Wall Street masters.
Post #409,899 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:21:51 PM 5/6/16 12:21:51 PM Reply	It used to be a federal law... written into every contract with the government, that if the item purchased had a "jewelled movement" (like old-timey mechanical watches) then those "jewels" had to be purchased from a very specific particular company in South Dakota (IIRC). The Republic survived. There are compelling benefits to having the population covered by health insurance, as you know. The penalty is an encouragement for those able to to get coverage. Your railing against the health care and insurance industry isn't going to change the reality of the fact that those are the systems we have and there weren't (and still aren't) the votes to make the system more single-payer-like and even more universal) no matter how much you (and I) might wish that to be the case. Voting against Hillary isn't going to change that situation for the better. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,902 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:27:37 PM 5/6/16 12:27:37 PM Reply	I'm not voting against her, I'm voting for someone committed to universal healthcare.
Post #409,903 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:31:06 PM 5/6/16 12:31:06 PM Reply	That's fine in the primary. Vote the party in the general...
Post #409,905 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:36:05 PM 5/6/16 12:36:19 PM Reply	Here's your sign. :0) Edited by mmoffitt May 6, 2016, 12:36:19 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #409,908 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:44:42 PM 5/6/16 12:44:42 PM Reply	I don't have a problem with that. Do you think real change is easy? ;-p Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,912 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 1:37:32 PM 5/6/16 1:37:32 PM Reply	No. But it's not as unpossible as you've suggested either. ;-)
Post #409,916 by Another Scott 5/6/16 1:46:43 PM 5/6/16 1:46:43 PM Reply	I think we've been through this before. History tells us, on multiple occasions, that the PPACA was the most that could get through the Congress of the time. Bernie gave it a good shot, but he showed that there aren't enough votes for him to start his Revolution™. At some point, one has to recognize that votes matter, and if you don't have the votes to get what you want, then you work to get as much as you can that gets you toward the end you desire. Compromise, half-a-loaf, etc., is a good result. Sure, it's not "impossible", but reality keeps getting in the way. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,929 by rcareaga 5/7/16 2:30:34 PM 5/7/16 2:30:34 PM Reply	I suspect this thread will wind down ...with no one having persuaded the other side. Cheers back to Scott, who has been patient, and to mmoffitt as well, whose tenacity in the defense of his obsessions has something admirable about it even when his arguments become preposterous, and whose tone, while occasionally strident, has never exceeded the boundaries of civil discourse. Mind you, we're a pub brawl here compared to the gentlemen's club over at Crooked Timber, but I like the tone overall. I do wish that ol' CRC would drop by more frequently to lob a grenade. I fear that fatherhood has dulled his edge. cordially,
Post #409,930 by Another Scott 5/7/16 2:58:33 PM 5/7/16 2:58:33 PM Reply	We do well here. I miss many of our old compatriots. :-( I've learned a lot from you folks and greatly appreciate that. Balloon-Juice is fun, but there's a lot of noise and lots of people just post snark. Snark is great, but ... The trolling would be too much there without cleek's pie filter. Let's keep it up! :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,932 by mmoffitt 5/7/16 6:30:56 PM 5/7/16 6:30:56 PM Reply	Hats off to you both. I know I've strayed from being civil on occasion, and for that I do apologize. I appreciate greatly being able to cross swords with the two of you because, despite my legion of posts indicating otherwise, I actually do value your opinions and very much look forward to reading your retorts.
Post #409,934 by rcareaga 5/7/16 6:42:03 PM 5/7/16 6:42:03 PM Reply	obviously I haven't read all your posts ...but I don't recall your ever going (cough!) off the reservation, and as I've observed before, you win points for keeping it together even when you, a lone man, are parrying a dozen swordthrusts at once from a group of us on this or that point(!) of politics or culture. cordially,
Post #409,935 by mmoffitt 5/7/16 6:43:47 PM 5/7/16 6:43:47 PM Reply	Thank you. Awfully kind of you.
Post #409,939 by Another Scott 5/7/16 9:03:15 PM 5/7/16 9:03:15 PM Reply	Well said.

Welcome to IWETHEY!