About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox's Pinkerton Outrageously Calls Health Care Mandate "The Biggest Tax Increase In The History Of The Universe"

June 30, 2012 3:45 pm ET

From the June 30 edition of Fox News' Fox News Watch:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Conservative Media Falsely Claim Individual Mandate Is A "Massive New Tax" On All Americans

Fox Vs. Fox On "Massive New Tax" That Only Affects A Small Number Of People

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by foole (June 30, 2012 3:54 pm ET)
      24  
      Well, that's a massively assinine overstatement, Pinky.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thaneb (June 30, 2012 5:28 pm ET)
        15  
        They're just playing on their confused audience. If you buy health insurance you're not "taxed". You're paying and directly getting something in return. If you don't you're assessed a fee (tax) because of your cost to others. These guys are pushing for freeloading. Their audience has never been for freeloading. Or so they've said.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Saturnalian (June 30, 2012 7:26 pm ET)
          6  
          Additionally, if you don't pay the "tax" you cannot be punished and they cannot enforce the "tax" fee request. It's written into the law. I think in some way the Democrats punked the Republicans on this. No one is mentioning this fact.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by thaneb (June 30, 2012 8:08 pm ET)
            4  
            You're right on the non-enforcement written into the law. I recall someone on these pages trying to get to enforcement by a scenario of not paying the penalty year-on-year (the penalties do aggregate, I believe) with eventual imprisonment for non-payment of the interest (or something like that).
            Not much of a pwn, going in at least--no Republican voted for the ACA. I'm sure that's something they'll always be proud of ;)
            Report Abuse
            • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 7:13 am ET)
              1  
              The penalties may aggregate but I don't think that it would ever lead to imprisonment because the law specifically exempts it from being considered a crime.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 7:13 am ET)
              3  
              The penalties may aggregate but I don't think that it would ever lead to imprisonment because the law specifically exempts it from being considered a crime.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by thaneb (July 01, 2012 9:06 am ET)
                1  
                At the time, I thought the argument a stretch, as well. The thing I didn't press on was that the argument was in support not of freedom, but rather for freeloaders on society given the requirements of EMTALA, etc.
                IMO this is something those pushing such arguments should be reminded of vigorously and repeatedly. The retort, "I don't need health insurance and will refuse emergency care" doesn't fly: Are they proposing to deny it to their daughters and sons?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Chameo (July 01, 2012 12:26 pm ET)
                  3  
                  And let's not forget that they may not have the option of refusing emergency care. If you're hit by a car and unconscious when the ambulance arrives, they don't sit there and wait for you to come to so they can find out if you'll consent to having your life saved.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 9:44 am ET)
            4 1
            Saturnalian:
            Additionally, if you don't pay the "tax" you cannot be punished and they cannot enforce the "tax" fee request. It's written into the law.

            Exactly right. In fact, this is recognized in the Supreme Court's majority opinion, as necessary to the Constitutional construction which justifies ACA as a "tax," not a "penalty":
            The same analysis [as a cited precedent- att] here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more. It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the "prohibitory" financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement. Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation-except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. The reasons the Court in Drexel Furniture held that what was called a "tax" there was a penalty support the conclusion that what is called a "penalty" here may be viewed as a tax.

            (My bolds- att)
            The problem is, in justifying ACA's impostion of a penalty on those who exclude themselves from the individual mandate as a "tax" rather than a "penalty," the Supremes have given a weapon to those, like Palin, who want to scream "massive new tax!" at the top of their lungs, disregarding the nuance that the label "tax" is only a legal, Constitutional construction, or framing. But is it actually, in Palin's simplistic terms, actually a new tax? Here's what the Court says:
            But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry... Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes, not just to raise more money, but to encourage people to quit smoking.

            So, not new. And:
            According to the plaintiffs, if the individual mandate imposes a tax, it is a direct tax, and it is unconstitutional because Congress made no effort to apportion it among the States... A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.

            So- for Constitutional reasons, not even a "tax," in the sense Palin wants to frame it for purely political reasons. Of course, that won't matter to Palin and her fellow simpletons- they'll go on screeching "massive new tax!" as their new meme to win in November, and 90% of the voters won't see or understand the difference. It's really sort of depressing.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 30, 2012 4:00 pm ET)
      14  
      The Troglodytes must be desperate; they're recycling their 90s Talking Points.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by marco21 (June 30, 2012 4:05 pm ET)
      17  
      I guess if your universe is around 4 to 5 million people-large, it would. Or on Fox's home planet of Shizforbrania.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (June 30, 2012 4:15 pm ET)
      10  
      Fox's Pinkerton Outrageously Calls Health Care Mandate "The Biggest Tax Increase In The History Of The Universe"


      Really? In that case, I can't WAIT for the debates.

      I'd love to hear how Mittch-A-Sketch pushed through "the biggest tax increase in the history of the universe" as Massachusetts governor . . .


      Report Abuse
    • Author by F.U.Corporatocracy (June 30, 2012 4:19 pm ET)
      9  
      A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away was the largest tax increase, to pay for the Clone Wars. These days we just put our wars on the credit card.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Adam West (June 30, 2012 4:23 pm ET)
        24
      Does anyone have numbers for how small or large this tax increase will be? Or do you all just disagree since this is coming from a Fox News correspondent?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by n'est-ce pas (June 30, 2012 4:55 pm ET)
        15  
        Less than 1% of Americans are estimated to be effected by the mandate's penalty, and it's peak amount is $2,500 or 2% a year, whichever is greatest. A 2% tax hike on 1% of Americans is SO NOT EVEN A BIG TAX HIKE LET ALONE THE BIGGEST IN THE UNIVERSE. So, yeah, we have numbers.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Adam West (June 30, 2012 5:09 pm ET)
            16
          %2 of the individuals income?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by thaneb (June 30, 2012 5:33 pm ET)
            12  
            Don't you get tired of continually being lied to by Fox commentators? Such would make most reconsider that source.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by MickD (June 30, 2012 8:07 pm ET)
            11  
            And unless you're the real Adam West, I'd like you to change that moniker, because of my admiration for the one and only Batman. And if you are the real AW, how ya doing? Love you, man.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 1:28 am ET)
              3 1
              West's Batman is the best Batman. :)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 11:01 am ET)
                1 1
                OT a little, but I kind of agree with this, in the sense that comics, and movies based on them, are not exactly supposed to be high art (as the Joker (Heath Ledger) says, "why so serious?")- they're camp. So, yeah, Adam West may not have been the best actor in the world, but he was probably the best camp-Batman.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 9:37 am ET)
              7
            How does this question receive 10 thumbs down, yet no answer?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (June 30, 2012 4:55 pm ET)
        11  
        "Does anyone have numbers for how small or large this tax increase will be? Or do you all just disagree since this is coming from a Fox News correspondent?" -- Batfink


        Right here.


        Report Abuse
        • Author by MidnightWriter (June 30, 2012 6:22 pm ET)
          10  
          Come now. You certainly don't expect Fox personalities to do any actual, objective research on a topic they're going to talk about.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (June 30, 2012 8:41 pm ET)
            9  
            Well, I notice Batfink hasn't responded since, so I'm guessing he's either reading the link I provided {yeah, right}, or scouring rightwing websites for a response . . .

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 9:42 am ET)
                6
              I actually read the link you provided. While it is compelling, the research is nothing more than projected numbers that were calculated in 2009 and 2010. I am not saying that the numbers are false, they are just dated and may not be accurate anymore.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (July 01, 2012 10:02 am ET)
                8  
                Oh yes, the old "old numbers" ploy. Now you can keep asking.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 10:11 am ET)
                    7
                  Are you arguing that old numbers don't matter?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 10:56 am ET)
                    9  
                    Only when you're trying to disregard them in an attempt to twist it into a new argument.

                    The law has not been rewritten. The flat peak amount and percentages remain the same. The tax penalty will effect only the few who do not qualify for exemptions, who cannot or will not enter into an insurance plan in the next couple of years, or those who, for some bizarre reason, choose to cancel their current health care coverage and refuse to enter into a new plan.

                    The existing figures provide proof. Any speculation on the "maybes" outside of that would require something of substance that goes well beyond the hyperbolic fear mongering the far right has been tossing against the wall since the Supreme Court's decision.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 11:03 am ET)
                    7  
                    Adam West:
                    Are you arguing that old numbers don't matter?

                    Might just be me, but that appears to be what you're arguing.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 11:16 am ET)
                      8  
                      You got to love it when the "So, what you're saying is . . . " trick boomerangs back and offers a loud "klunk" as it strikes our man of many faces' head.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by n'est-ce pas (July 01, 2012 3:27 pm ET)
                        7  
                        That's ALWAYS been tommy's favorite line, the strawman as implicatory restatement thing. It's never worked, but if not dealt with keeps one on their heels trying to re-explain simple points to a simpleton. That's why I tend to ignore follow ups from this poster, because they're always dishonest.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Quicksilver M.S (July 01, 2012 9:17 pm ET)
                          2  
                          I will Blame it on my aging brain . Which one of our Trolls picked up the nick Name of " Tommy "?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by n'est-ce pas (July 01, 2012 9:59 pm ET)
                            3  
                            tommy was this troll's first monicker, long about 5 or 6 years ago. Then it was right ON, right ON2, CenterRight, RaisedRight, southerngal, and probably several others. I think pongo is one of his sockpuppets. He(?) has a number of tells, and is generally unapologetic and open about his use of alternative identities for bolstering the illusion that he's not alone in his opinion.
                            Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (July 01, 2012 1:54 pm ET)
                4  
                There has been no change in the law since it was passed and signed into law in 2010. The numbers should be the same.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (July 01, 2012 2:52 pm ET)
                  4  
                  Indeed. But you have to admire the faux skepticism--concerned with accuracy of published calculations, but not so much with the hearsay statement by some guy on Fox who attributes the "in the universe" hyperbole to Krauthammer and Geo. F. Will.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (June 30, 2012 5:13 pm ET)
        10  
        Since it's coming from a FOX "News" Correspondent, we can safely assume that it's bullsh*t.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nixter (June 30, 2012 5:20 pm ET)
        7  
        A Fox News Correspondent? You mean cesspool managers who do nothing but stir caca all day 24/7.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by villabolo (June 30, 2012 5:46 pm ET)
        9  
        "Or do you all just disagree since this is coming from a Fox News correspondent?"

        Fox News has proven itself, throughout the years, of having neither integrity nor credibility.

        You can get a pygmy, from the forests of Africa, who knows nothing of our language or politics, and have him observe Fox News anchormen. He'll come out with the conclusion that they are a bunch of @$$h0les simply based on the tone of their voice and their body language.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 30, 2012 5:56 pm ET)
        9 1
        That is the thing. This isnt a tax increase unless you don't buy health insurance. It doesn't apply to everyone at all. It only applies to those who choose not to buy insurance.

        That being said, the enforcement aspect of this rule is almost non existent. In other words, if you don't buy insurance and you don't pay the tax, ie, the penalty, there is really no way for the government to get it from you.

        This isn't a tax increase at all.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by danielsangeo (June 30, 2012 6:48 pm ET)
          9  
          Yep. It's not a tax increase at all. It's not even a tax increase for those who choose noncompliance. It's a tax penalty. There are other tax penalties already on the books that aren't considered taxes...such as underpayment of taxes and they charge you a fee if you don't pay the required tax by the due date.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by danielsangeo (June 30, 2012 6:45 pm ET)
        7  
        It isn't a tax increase.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by liberalpropaganda (July 01, 2012 2:39 am ET)
            13
          If it isn't a tax increase, than it's unconstitutional.

          Did you read what Roberts wrote?
          Basically what he said was under the commerce clause, it is unconstitutional, but because congress has the power to tax, it is.....

          Report Abuse
          • Author by F.U.Corporatocracy (July 01, 2012 4:14 am ET)
            9  
            According to Faux, if it isn't income tax, you're not being taxed.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by datruthfarmer (July 01, 2012 6:14 am ET)
            8  
            It would seem that there is a difference between a tax and something permissible under congress' taxing authority.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 7:11 am ET)
            9  
            No, it's still constitutional but it isn't a tax increase. It's a tax penalty. If it were a "tax increase", it would be a tax that already exists that increases in cost to the payer (i.e., a tax for $100 becoming $115 would be a tax increase). Here, there wasn't a tax to begin with so the term "tax increase" does not apply.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 9:44 am ET)
                10
              Nonetheless it is an increase in the amount of money one needs to pay to the government. It is the concept that people are angry about, not the name.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mary59 (July 01, 2012 10:09 am ET)
                9  
                And, the way to avoid paying this tax is to have health insurance.

                BTW this is nothing new. Taxes are levied on gasoline to fund highways, on alcohol to pay for treatment, on cigarettes, etc. etc. etc.

                From the IRS: How taxes influence Behavior
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 10:16 am ET)
                    6
                  And, the way to avoid paying this tax is to have health insurance.

                  BTW this is nothing new. Taxes are levied on gasoline to fund highways, on alcohol to pay for treatment, on cigarettes, etc. etc. etc.

                  Those are two completely different things.

                  From the IRS: How taxes influence Behavior

                  Yeah that's not a biased article at all.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (July 01, 2012 10:46 am ET)
                    8  
                    Adam really. The IRS is biased about what? They made up things about why congress levies taxes?

                    I understand you are into continually finding angles, but you're being deliberately, acutely obtuse. And that's not complimentary.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:06 am ET)
                      1 7
                      The IRS is the U.S. government agency responsible for tax collection and tax law enforcement.
                      Taken directly from their website.

                      If you don't think an article by the IRS, telling you how taxes influence behavior, isn't biased, then this conversation is pointless. Their whole existence is based on people believing that taxes are necessary.

                      Also, you need to start asking more questions. I am starting to think you are extremely gullible.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:18 am ET)
                        7 1
                        The IRS doesn't invent taxes, Adam.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:24 am ET)
                          1 8
                          I know. But they need to convince the public that taxes are necessary.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:27 am ET)
                            6 1
                            Actually, the IRS is simply an enforcement mechanism. They enforce the law and collect taxes. They can promote the purposes of the individual tax laws and give the reasonings for those laws, but those reasonings are not invented by the IRS.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:32 am ET)
                              1 7
                              That doesn't make them unbiased when speaking about taxes.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:34 am ET)
                                7  
                                Explain what you mean. I don't understand what your problem is.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by foghornleghorn (July 01, 2012 12:13 pm ET)
                                  9  
                                  I understand what he means - it's unbridled hatred of government, conveniently missing the point that the government is us.

                                  Why does Adam West hate America so much?
                                  Report Abuse
                      • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 6:07 pm ET)
                        6  
                        "Taken directly from their website.

                        If you don't think an article by the IRS, telling you how taxes influence behavior, isn't biased, then this conversation is pointless. Their whole existence is based on people believing that taxes are necessary." -- Batfink



                        Seeing as the IRS is an agency set up to collect taxes, I'd imagine any article they produce on the subject of taxes and their collection would be biased -- toward the facts.

                        Y'know, kinda like how an article written by a medical doctor in a medical periodical may be biased towards nutrition, exercise, and preventative health.

                        "Also, you need to start asking more questions. I am starting to think you are extremely gullible." -- Batfink


                        I'm starting to think you need to be watered twice daily . . .

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Johaely (July 01, 2012 9:21 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Taxes ARE necessary. How do you think new roads, the military or even the cost of running government are paid? Charity?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Adendrools (July 01, 2012 10:00 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Adam'sNest wrote: Their whole existence is based on people believing that taxes are necessary


                        They are necessary!
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 10:57 am ET)
                    4  
                    To add to mary's comment on "Yeah that's not a biased article at all"- Adam, can you gainsay the facts in the IRS article? If not, just attacking the source is kind of an empty thing to do.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:04 am ET)
                    1  
                    Those are two completely different things.


                    How?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:09 am ET)
                      1 4
                      And, the way to avoid paying this tax is to have health insurance.

                      In this scenario the person pays a tax for not purchasing health insurance.

                      BTW this is nothing new. Taxes are levied on gasoline to fund highways, on alcohol to pay for treatment, on cigarettes, etc. etc. etc.

                      In this scenario a person pays a tax for purchasing gasoline.

                      The premises are completely different. The first you pay a tax because you don't want the service, the second you pay a tax because you do want the service.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:12 am ET)
                        3 1
                        Do you really believe that you are NOT participating in the health care market?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:23 am ET)
                          1 5
                          Personally I am. I have health insurance. However, some people may choose not to participate and that is their choice.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:28 am ET)
                            5 1
                            No. They cannot choose to not participate. That's the point. If you are alive, you are participating in the health care market.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:33 am ET)
                              1 7
                              Not true. If I seek healthcare I am participating in the healthcare market.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:34 am ET)
                                6 1
                                And how would one not "seek healthcare"?

                                Do you even know what "healthcare" is?
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:43 am ET)
                                  1 8
                                  Health care is when you go to some kind of expert that will help you with a health problem.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:48 am ET)
                                    6 1
                                    There's more to healthcare than that.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:53 am ET)
                                      1 6
                                      By healthcare, are you including health insurance?
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:54 am ET)
                                        6  
                                        Health insurance is a means of paying for health care. Health insurance companies do not provide health care.
                                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 11:40 am ET)
                        8  
                        Adam West:
                        The premises are completely different. The first you pay a tax because you don't want the service, the second you pay a tax because you do want the service.

                        That's fine, if you base your premise only on why the person pays the tax, and ignore the reason the tax is imposed (which is the problem with the libertarian ideology- it's purely and simplistically a self-centered, and selfish, approach to societal problems- all about the individual- and usually just comes across as "me, me, me!" no matter the cost to anybody else**). In the case of cigarettes, which you ignored, the tax is an imposition meant, in large part, to discourage smoking. Again, the Supreme Court in the majority opinion cited this as precedent.

                        In the case of ACA, the penalty is meant as an incentive to participate in a system that simply won't work without at least a great majority so participating. Thus the individual mandate- a system for affordable healthcare for as many folks as possible just won't work without as many folks as possible participating, and sometimes that means a measure of coercion. Hell, the system of taxation itself, as a means of supporting government and society, realistically depends on this amount of coercion, and is not a socialist ideal- it's a purely pragmatic approach. I get that you don't like this approach- then all I can suggest is, as someone said above, move to or start your own libertarian paradise. My guess would be that you would find that, without a framework to support your society that would depend to a certain degree on measures some individuals would find coercive, your society would pretty quickly crumble, from sheer lack of that support.

                        ** As witness your "I have health insurance. I am arguing for people who do not want to purchase it. I stated on a different thread that I am not against hospitals turning away people who don't have insurance and don't have the money to pay for it" below. Can you not see how much that sounds like "heck with you, jack, I got mine"?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:52 am ET)
                          1 6
                          In the case of ACA, the penalty is meant as an incentive to participate in a system that simply won't work without at least a great majority so participating.

                          We shouldn't need the government to keep a failing system on life support in hopes that it will change.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 12:02 pm ET)
                            6 1
                            What "failing system on life support in hopes that it will change" are you talking about?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 12:47 pm ET)
                              1 4
                              The failing healthcare system. Going into the past, the failing automobile system and failing banking system.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 12:54 pm ET)
                                5 1
                                None of those systems are failing.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:05 pm ET)
                                  1 4
                                  But have they fixed their business model to make sure nothing like that will happen again? Sure, if you give a homeless guy a million dollars he won't be homeless for a couple of years. But has he discovered a way to make a living once that million dollars runs out.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 1:09 pm ET)
                                    5  
                                    The system isn't failing because the execs in some companies within that system gamed the company and the system.

                                    This is similar to saying that "guns are dangerous" because some people have used them in criminal acts.
                                    Report Abuse
                              • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 4:09 pm ET)
                                4  
                                Me:
                                In the case of ACA, the penalty is meant as an incentive to participate in a system that simply won't work without at least a great majority so participating.

                                Adam:
                                We shouldn't need the government to keep a failing system on life support in hopes that it will change.

                                Me:
                                What "failing system on life support in hopes that it will change" are you talking about?

                                Adam:
                                The failing healthcare system. Going into the past, the failing automobile system and failing banking system.

                                Then you completely missed the point I was making. Again. And "going into the past" is waaaay beside the point.
                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 12:10 pm ET)
                            6  
                            A grand sounding, but ultimately empty statement.

                            A great deal of what we depend upon to function in our day to day lives absolutely depends on government support through tax dollars. The Interstate highway system, municipal water and sewage systems, the railway system, air traffic control, the frickin military. Are you ready to make the argument that we should do without these things and so much more because their not self sufficient financially?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 12:45 pm ET)
                              1 6
                              Healthcare is in the private sector. Everything you named is public. I am not arguing to get rid of government. I am arguing for government to stay out of private affairs.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by mary59 (July 01, 2012 1:07 pm ET)
                                5 1
                                Health care isn't just in the private sector. Medicare and Medicaid, the VA and even private entities that rely on government payments, are a mix.

                                You aren't really very informed to have stated the above.

                                Now this is not a hypothetical example. My friend had a brain aneurysm 4 years ago. She had no health insurance because she couldn't afford it. But she had paid into Medicare/SS/Medicaid via taxes for many years.

                                She has been treated since then, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, on the charity funds of hospitals and the government (you, the taxpayer) She is completely disabled and can't remember if someone came to visit her 5 minutes before.

                                So no, healthcare isn't just a private affair.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:25 pm ET)
                                    4
                                  I am sorry to hear that. As much as we disagree in our views, I am actually a very nice person and don't wish harm on anybody.

                                  Health care isn't just in the private sector. Medicare and Medicaid, the VA and even private entities that rely on government payments, are a mix.
                                  This is where we disagree. I do not think the government needs to be involved with this.
                                  Report Abuse
                              • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 1:38 pm ET)
                                5  
                                I'd like the government to stay out of private affairs, too. Y'know, things like a woman's reproductive decisions, and being able to marry the person you love with no outside interference from a third party screaming that their holy text forbids it.

                                But the subject at hand deals with availability of services that, in some way or another, we all depend upon, and health care certainly falls smack dab into the middle of those things. Treatment options certainly are private matters between doctor and patient, but beyond that, a private, for profit industry it may be, but it is still one that exists to serve the public.

                                And given that this particular type of private sector industry has relied on tax payer dollars from Medicare and Medicade, tax payer dollars to fund EMT services, bonds, levies, and tax breaks to pay for new medical facilities and equipment, and federal research grants for the development of new medications and treatments, medical care has long been government subsidized and will continue to be -- for the benefit of us all.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:42 pm ET)
                                    5
                                  medical care has long been government subsidized and will continue to be
                                  I know it will be. But that doesn't mean I am going to agree with it and the forcing of people to purchase health insurance.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 1:56 pm ET)
                                    3  
                                    Then the magic question is, what's your alternative? Because without those government funds for health care you'd see a lot of those private businesses shut down. You'd see health care costs shoot up higher, and, of course, you'd see health insurance costs shoot up even higher than that.

                                    A vast majority of people in this nation have made it clear, regardless of political leanings, that they want health care that is affordable and accessible. Your Libertarian, "let the markets decide!" approach just isn't going to fly.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 2:15 pm ET)
                                        5
                                      Why do you assume that the cost would rise? I would argue that government intervention allows healthcare providers to keep their rates high. They know that once they start failing, because their cost is too high, the government will bail them out. At that point in time they can lower their rates for the time being to reestablish their clientele, then shoot the costs right back up.

                                      Society, the way it is ran now, is a never ending cycle of big corporations and big government scratching each other's backs.

                                      We need to bring the power back to us on an individual level instead of giving it all to the 535 "representatives".
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 3:16 pm ET)
                                        4  
                                        We can assume those cost would rise without those dollars that are so necessarily needed by the medical industry -- because they spend a boat load of money on lobbyist and campaign donations to make damn certain they get that money and more making the argument that costs will rise even higher if they don't receive it.

                                        Mind you, I'm not entirely happy with the changes. But I'm taking a different route that you. I have argued, and will continue to argue, that the best thing for us all is to take the profit motive out of the health care equation entirely and run with a more efficient, of greater service to the public, type of universal health care system that every other industrialized nation on this planet has adopted.
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 3:57 pm ET)
                                        6  
                                        Adam West:
                                        We need to bring the power back to us on an individual level instead of giving it all to the 535 "representatives".

                                        Again, a grand-sounding sentiment, the kind that libertarianism depends on, but... what practical, concrete ways do you propose to accomplish this? The system we have now, of a representative democracy within a republican (that's little "r," not big "R") framework, with the mechanism of the vote to determine that representation, is not perfect; but it contains within it, by means of that vote, the means of perfectibility, if never perfection. Libertarianism pretends to begin as an already-perfect system, but contains within its ideology of "individuals-over-society" no means for perfectibility, no way to fix itself should it falter- only the seeds of failure, from sheer lack of the support that defines society. To assert that individual rights are all-important, and trump every societal consideration, is to assert the exact opposite of what society depends on- in fact, what society is.
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 6:11 pm ET)
                                        3  
                                        We need to bring the power back to us on an individual level instead of giving it all to the 535 "representatives". -- Batfink


                                        You're right -- all 310 million + US citizens need to have a voice in society.

                                        Oh wait, we do -- it's called a VOTE. Besides, 310 million people would make for a mighty close fit in the House and Senate Chambers . . .

                                        Report Abuse
                              • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 2:25 pm ET)
                                4  
                                If you take a deeper look at the examples I've provided you'll discover an intermixing of private and public sector activities.

                                The military is the best example. There is no Department of Construction of Military Supplies. Private businesses funded by public tax dollars build the ships, the air crafts, the rifles, the boots, the uniforms, the MRE's, and so much more. And you'll find more than a few Fortune 500 companies on the list of those suppliers.

                                I can only imagine the screams you'd hear from many a stockholder if you'd argue for a complete, "keep the government out of it!" approach.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 2:36 pm ET)
                                    4
                                  This is exactly why I am not for government intervention. It kills competition. By subsidizing these Private business with public tax dollars, the government is making sure that those are the only business that can manufacture weapons.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 3:19 pm ET)
                                    6  
                                    Kills competition? Those companies have to bid on those contracts.

                                    Unless, of course, you've got a friendly ex-CEO serving as Vice President.
                                    Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Chameo (July 01, 2012 4:04 pm ET)
                                    6  
                                    There's a big difference between defense contractors and the subsidies for private citizens to buy health insurance from private companies. You and I don't get to decide which aircraft company gets the contract to build planes for the Air Force. With the health insurance subsidies, the only role the government plays is laying out the minimum standards of coverage for policies -- any company that meets those minimum standards can get listed. From there on, individuals decide which insurer gets paid for their insurance.

                                    In fact, as I keep noting, people who can't get health insurance through their employer or another group will actually usually have MORE choice than those who are stuck with employer-provided insurance.
                                    Report Abuse
              • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 10:20 am ET)
                6  
                The reason people are angry about the concept is because they don't understand it. And Palin and her kind going around deliberately misrepresenting the concept is, what? "Lying" is the word that comes to mind. An informed electorate can make good political and social decisions; an electorate purposely (and purposefully) misled by strawmen and outright lies can only be counted on to make the decisions the liars want them to make.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 10:25 am ET)
                    5
                  The concept is pretty simple. Buy health insurance or pay a tax. What if I don't want to do either?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mary59 (July 01, 2012 10:49 am ET)
                    7 2
                    Don't worry. You will not find any severe penalty, you'll probably find a loophole written into the law, and if all else fails, you can always leave the country and find a libertarian paradise, such as Somalia.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 10:56 am ET)
                      1 6
                      How about you move to socialist Finland and leave the US to people who want to keep it the way it was meant to be. Free.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by magnolialover (July 01, 2012 10:59 am ET)
                        8 1
                        Hyperbole much?

                        How is your freedom being impinged again?

                        Oh, right, it's not.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:10 am ET)
                          1 6
                          I no longer have a choice as to whether or not I want health insurance.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:12 am ET)
                            7 1
                            Yes, you do.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:21 am ET)
                              1 7
                              If I am forced to buy a product or else pay a "tax". I no longer have a choice. I am forced to participate in the market.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:30 am ET)
                                5 1
                                Yes, you do. If you didn't have a choice on whether you want health insurance, then you'd be arrested if you didn't purchase health insurance.

                                As we have been TRYING to tell you, you will not be arrested, ever, for not purchasing health insurance, so you DO have a choice as to whether you want health insurance or not.

                                You are already participating in the market just because you're a living human being. You can pay for it either with a tax penalty or with health insurance.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:35 am ET)
                                  1 5
                                  Have you ever heard of tax evasion. People get arrested for it all the time. I know, I know, someone that all of you find credible promised that nothing would happen. So go ahead and put all of your eggs in one basket.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:44 am ET)
                                    5  
                                    I have heard of tax evasion and it does not apply here.

                                    Look, read the law. Pull up the PDF on that page. Find the section on enforcement. It's page 336 of the PDF:

                                    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.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:45 am ET)
                                      2  
                                      Whoops. Here's the link to the law and the accompanying PDF.
                                      Report Abuse
                                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 12:33 pm ET)
                                      1 4
                                      Timely is the key word. What happens when the failure to pay is no longer timely. Is that going to make a difference?

                                      While you may think I am nitpicking, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 12:43 pm ET)
                                        2  
                                        What happens when the failure to pay is no longer timely.


                                        "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 prosecuation or penalty with respect to such failure."
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 12:48 pm ET)
                                          1 2
                                          The word timely insinuates that the fine will be paid at some time. What happens when the person doesn't pay for 5 years.
                                          Report Abuse
                                  • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 11:58 am ET)
                                    3 1
                                    Tax evasion is a choice. An illegal one, of course. If you commit that crime you're subject to a penalty.

                                    And now if you do not qualify for an exemption, and you make the decision to go without health care insurance, you may well be subjected to a tax penalty.

                                    As has already been pointed out, as a living, breathing American citizen, you're already a part of the American health care system. Odds say that sometime in your life you'll have some kind of an accident that will require medical attention. As a man, if you live long enough, it's just about a sure thing that you'll develop prostrate cancer.

                                    The right, as well we know, loves to make loud arguments about personal responsibility. That's part of the reason they came up with the individual mandate idea, and the penalties for attempting to avoid it, in the first place. They understood that bad things happen to nearly everyone's health, and their argument was everyone should have to shoulder some of the finical burden -- y'know, to make things fair.
                                    Report Abuse
                          • Author by highlyunlikely (July 01, 2012 4:39 pm ET)
                            3  
                            for some reason that lack of choice does not evoke much sympathy in me.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by highlyunlikely (July 01, 2012 4:41 pm ET)
                        2  
                        That's exactly backward, of course. The grumblers are going to be in the position of opting out by moving, not the proponents of the verdict.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 10:49 am ET)
                    4  
                    I agree that the concept is simple- it's the way Palin and her ilk frame it that make it something for people to be angry about. These people are framing it as a massive new tax, which, quite simply, it is not. As for your question- "What if I don't want to do either?"- see above. If you don't want to pay the "tax," apparently nothing will happen. But you will then be a burden on the rest of us, when you, as inevitably will happen if you're human like the rest of us, need healthcare and have no insurance to cover it, spreading the cost for yours to everybody else. It may be free for you, which may be all that counts for you- but somebody's gotta pay. This is called "personal responsibility"- a concept I've always understood conservatives to embrace.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 10:55 am ET)
                      1 5
                      I have health insurance. I am arguing for people who do not want to purchase it. I stated on a different thread that I am not against hospitals turning away people who don't have insurance and don't have the money to pay for it.

                      Also, from what I heard, the tax becomes more and more expensive every time a person neglects to pay it. If this is true the government will have no problem sending a few IRS agents to your house, along with some police officers, to arrest you.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by magnolialover (July 01, 2012 10:56 am ET)
                        4  
                        Also, from what I heard, the tax becomes more and more expensive every time a person neglects to pay it. If this is true the government will have no problem sending a few IRS agents to your house, along with some police officers, to arrest you.

                        You still don't understand it. Yeah, it will get more expensive, because say you don't have insurance for 5 years, each year, a new penalty is assessed.

                        And no, no cops or agents are coming to your house, because the enforcement of the tax penalty has no enforcement aspects.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by magnolialover (July 01, 2012 11:02 am ET)
                        2  
                        Why would you not want to have health insurance (especially in the cases of the ACA where it can be and will be available and affordable for all)?

                        Isn't that shirking your personal responsibility? Yes, yes it is, because if you don't have insurance, you are placing the burden of your health care should you get sick onto the rest of the community and or country. And I thought you guys didn't like that sort of thing.

                        That being said, you can opt out and not buy insurance. There is a penalty because of that, as has been explained to you, over and over again, and there is also literally no enforcement mechanism for the penalty, so if you don't want to pay it, nothing is going to happen to you.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:13 am ET)
                            6
                          Isn't that shirking your personal responsibility? Yes, yes it is, because if you don't have insurance, you are placing the burden of your health care should you get sick onto the rest of the community and or country. And I thought you guys didn't like that sort of thing.
                          I have explained over and over that I am not against hospitals turning people away.

                          Also, if the fines become large enough, you really don't think the government will come after you.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by MidnightWriter (July 01, 2012 12:32 pm ET)
                            5  
                            "I have explained over and over that I am not against hospitals turning people away."

                            Well, as things have stood, even before the health care changes, they can't do that. And that's a damn good thing.

                            You want to go full free market with the entire health care system? Then you'd best have a good back up plan in case the health care facilities in your area cannot seal a deal with the health insurance provider in your area. "Gee, it's a shame about those chest pains, Mr. West, but, darn it, we just haven't been able to negotiate a new contract with your health insurance company. Drive about 90 minutes south of here. Oh, you want an ambulance? What's the limit on your Visa?"
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:03 am ET)
                        2  
                        Also, from what I heard


                        From whom?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:12 am ET)
                            5
                          I can't remember where. Which is why I followed it with "if that is true."
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:13 am ET)
                            3  
                            How's about, instead of "from what I heard" or "if that is true", you actually read the law?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:18 am ET)
                              1 4
                              Because whether or not the fines grow larger, or just compound, doesn't matter. The fact is at some point the government will be knocking at your door, asking for their money.

                              By the way, did you read all 2,400 pages?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:20 am ET)
                                6  
                                I have read the pages with regards to enforcement. There will never be a point where there will be a government agent knocking at your door, asking for their money, unless the law is changed. If the law is changed, then you have a right to complain about it.

                                Right now, you're scared of a fictitious boogeyman.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 6:31 pm ET)
                                  2 1
                                  "Right now, you're scared of a fictitious boogeyman."


                                  Wingnuts: not happy unless they're scared of something. Or angry at something. Or both.

                                  Report Abuse
                            • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 6:32 pm ET)
                              1 1
                              "How's about, instead of "from what I heard" or "if that is true", you actually read the law?"


                              LOL, daniel -- you actually expect a wingnut to read something longer than a bumper sticker? ;P


                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 6:26 pm ET)
                          1  
                          "Also, from what I heard" -- Batfink




                          "From whom?"



                          From "some people" {as in, "some people say" -- aka, Fox's favorite "source"}


                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:08 pm ET)
                            1  
                            From "some people" {as in, "some people say" -- aka, Fox's favorite "source"}


                            It is amazing, isn't it, how "from what I heard" but "can't remember where" has much more credibility than the actual law and the United States Supreme Court?
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 11:14 am ET)
                        3 1
                        Adam West:
                        Also, from what I heard, the tax becomes more and more expensive every time a person neglects to pay it. If this is true the government will have no problem sending a few IRS agents to your house, along with some police officers, to arrest you.

                        "From what I heard" may be the problem here. As for the "IRS arresting you"- what is with you folks? Have you got some kind of selective-reading switch in your brains that allows you to read only the parts of a comment that you either want to, or feel you can, argue against? Did you miss the part where I said, "If you don't want to pay the "tax," apparently nothing will happen."? If you read comments further up the page, I even posted one with a quote from the Supreme Court's majority opinion that showed this. Argue what is being said, not what you want to hear.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:20 am ET)
                          1 5
                          "If you don't want to pay the "tax," apparently nothing will happen."?
                          Yes I have read that, along with the six other people who have said it. However, you don't sound to sure about it.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:25 am ET)
                            3 1
                            So, what would it take to convince you, if multiple people, including the United States Supreme Court, saying it?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:37 am ET)
                              1 5
                              No. What will prove it is when the first person goes years without paying the tax penalty and nothing happens. I don't care what politicians and judges have to say. Judges and most politicians started as lawyers. Lawyers get paid to lie.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:47 am ET)
                                3  
                                And since the law states that there's a waiver of criminal penalties for not paying the tax penalty?
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by magnolialover (July 01, 2012 11:48 am ET)
                                4 1
                                As the law is written, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CHARGES OR ENFORCEMENT!

                                It's, the law. Period.

                                The Government is NOT coming after you. It's NOT the same as tax evasion. Please stop being ignorant on purpose.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 6:34 pm ET)
                                2  
                                "Lawyers get paid to lie." -- Batfink


                                Doing so in court on the record, or in a deposition, is called perjury.

                                Lawyers don't get paid for that. They wouldn't remain lawyers for very long . . .

                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 11:58 am ET)
                            3  
                            Adam West: "However, you don't sound to sure about it."
                            There's that selective-reading thing kicking in, again. My very next sentence referred you to the Supreme Court opinion which seems pretty sure about it. Again, quit arguing with what you want to believe is being said or done (or what you think may happen), and address the actual facts.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 12:13 pm ET)
                            3  
                            Adam West- "Yes I have read that, along with the six other people who have said it."
                            The difference between what you're saying and what I, and "six other people," have said, is that we can cite the law as written. All you can cite is your imagination and your fear that it may happen (that the IRS will arrest those who owe this tax). You've been told, over and over, that this simply isn't true, or the law. You're not even arguing in circles- that would at least imply motion in your thought process- you're just standing still in one spot, going "nuh-UH!"
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 12:36 pm ET)
                              1 4
                              I responded to the law above. The law says a person to that fails to pay the fine in a timely manner is not subject to criminal prosecution. Timely is a very important word. If someone goes years without paying the fine, the failure is no longer timely.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 12:37 pm ET)
                                1 4
                                By including the word timely. They are assuming that the fine will be paid at some point.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 12:46 pm ET)
                                  4 1
                                  Nope. The "failure" is the timely payment. If you don't make the timely payment ("failure to timely pay"), you will not be subject to criminal prosecution. In other words, even if "someone goes years without paying the fine", you are still failing to make the timely payment.

                                  I suggest getting an adult to help you with this more advanced form of English.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 12:49 pm ET)
                                    1 4
                                    If you owe me money and I say you don't have to pay me in a timely manner. That is completely different than me saying you don't have to pay me.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 12:53 pm ET)
                                      3 1
                                      If you never pay me, you have not paid me in a timely manner.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:02 pm ET)
                                        1 3
                                        But a payment is required in order to classify it as timely or untimely, otherwise the payment never existed.

                                        In order to go in to work late, you have to show up to work. If I skip work for the day I was never late since I never showed up.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 1:05 pm ET)
                                          3 1
                                          Not the same thing. A timely payment is something that is paid within the expected timeframe. If a payment is not made within the expected timeframe, there is no timely payment and you have failed to make a timely payment.

                                          In your "show up for work" analogy, by skipping work, you have "failed to timely punch in".
                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:13 pm ET)
                                            1 3
                                            I understand the definition of timely. My point is that in order to make a timely or untimely payment there needs to be an actual payment.

                                            If you never pay me, you have not paid me in a timely manner
                                            if you never pay me in a timely manner, doesn't mean you never pay me.

                                            Show me where in that law it says that if you never pay the tax nothing will happen.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:15 pm ET)
                                              1 3
                                              In your "show up for work" analogy, by skipping work, you have "failed to timely punch in".

                                              If you fail to timely punch in, does not mean you have failed to show up to work.
                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 1:17 pm ET)
                                                3 1
                                                But not showing up for work means that you failed to timely punch in. Because you were not there to punch in within the time expected. You failed to timely punch in.

                                                Look, I'm done trying to educate you on basic English.
                                                Report Abuse
                                            • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 1:15 pm ET)
                                              2 1
                                              No. There's only two options:

                                              1. Timely pay
                                              2. Failure to timely pay

                                              If you pay late, that's the latter. If you never pay, that's the latter.

                                              Show me where in that law it says that if you never pay the tax nothing will happen.


                                              I have quoted the law twice.
                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:32 pm ET)
                                                1 3
                                                Woah you seriously struggle.

                                                IF you pay me late, THEN you paid me in an untimely manner. If you never pay me, the manner of the payment never exists. There is no manner of payment without a payment.
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 1:34 pm ET)
                                                  2 1
                                                  No, you failed to timely pay me if you never pay me. You can only timely pay if you actually pay within the expected timeframe. Otherwise, you have failed to timely pay.

                                                  Now, if you're struggling with this, take it up with the English language.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:39 pm ET)
                                                    1 3
                                                    You need to stop fixating on the word timely, and make yourself familiar with the word manner.
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 1:41 pm ET)
                                                      3 1
                                                      I need to stop fixating on the letter of the law?

                                                      Gee, okay George.
                                                      Report Abuse
                                                      • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:50 pm ET)
                                                        1 3
                                                        Do you understand that the word timely describes the manner of the payment?
                                                        Report Abuse
                                                        • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 1:55 pm ET)
                                                          3  
                                                          Yes.
                                                          Report Abuse
                                                          • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 1:57 pm ET)
                                                            1 2
                                                            Do you understand that a payment is required in order to describe its manner?
                                                            Report Abuse
                                                            • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 2:00 pm ET)
                                                              2 1
                                                              For a payment to be considered timely, a payment has to be made, yes.
                                                              Report Abuse
                                                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 2:01 pm ET)
                                                                2 1
                                                                Rather, for a payment to be considered timely, a payment has to be made within the expected timeframe.
                                                                Report Abuse
                                                                • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 2:18 pm ET)
                                                                  1 2
                                                                  And how do you consider a payment to be untimely?
                                                                  Report Abuse
                                                                  • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 2:20 pm ET)
                                                                    1 1
                                                                    If a payment is made outside the expected timeframe, it is an untimely payment.
                                                                    Report Abuse
                                                                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 2:21 pm ET)
                                                                      1 2
                                                                      So you agree that there needs to be some sort of payment?
                                                                      Report Abuse
                                                                      • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 2:21 pm ET)
                                                                        2  
                                                                        To be considered an untimely payment, yes.
                                                                        Report Abuse
                                                                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 2:29 pm ET)
                                                                          1 2
                                                                          How do you classify a payment that never happened?
                                                                          Report Abuse
                                                                          • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 2:32 pm ET)
                                                                            2 1
                                                                            Failing to make a payment.
                                                                            Report Abuse
                                                                            • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 2:42 pm ET)
                                                                              1 2
                                                                              Exactly. Now where in the law does it state the consequences for failing to make a payment. If they didn't care about a payment at all the law would have read "the failure to make a payment." Instead they put a time on it, saying that you can pay outside of this time frame but you still have to pay.
                                                                              Report Abuse
                                                                              • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 2:47 pm ET)
                                                                                2 1
                                                                                You still have to pay but if you don't pay, there will be no criminal prosecutions. They are expecting a timely payment. If you don't do that (either paying late or not at all), however, you won't be criminally charged.
                                                                                Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 4:22 pm ET)
                                                      3  
                                                      Adam West:
                                                      You need to stop fixating on the word timely...

                                                      And who's fixating on that word?
                                                      Adam West, about 3 and 1/2 hours ago:
                                                      Timely is a very important word. If someone goes years without paying the fine, the failure is no longer timely.

                                                      and
                                                      By including the word timely. They are assuming that the fine will be paid at some point.

                                                      Until it blew up in your face, Adam, it was your fixation to begin with.
                                                      Report Abuse
                        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 2:20 pm ET)
                          1 2
                          And this, folks, is a prime example of why libertarianism is a Utopian fantasy and has no place in civilized society.

                          Selfishness and greed.
                          Can you please elaborate?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by highlyunlikely (July 01, 2012 4:36 pm ET)
                            5  
                            Like polling the jury (when it rules against you) this is stalling for time.
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by Johaely (July 01, 2012 9:35 pm ET)
                            1  
                            I've already explained before: Libertarianism exists in a void. It puts an unrealistic amount of power and priority on the individual, completely ignorant of the consequences of said individual's action.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by bintx (July 01, 2012 2:01 pm ET)
                        4 1
                        And this, folks, is a prime example of why libertarianism is a Utopian fantasy and has no place in civilized society.

                        Selfishness and greed.

                        Oh, and one of the weaknesses of the law is the lack of serious enforcement provisions. No IRS agents or police will be showing up at your home. If you don't pay your tax liability, though, the IRS could slap a lien on your assets, though. Same as it has always been.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by magnolialover (July 01, 2012 10:55 am ET)
                    3  
                    The concept is simple. What people are yelling about is that this is a tax increase for EVERYONE!

                    It's not.

                    If you don't want to have health insurance, you still don't have to have it. You'll be assessed a tax penalty, which if you don't want to pay will have no criminal consequences.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by gmccpa (July 01, 2012 11:01 am ET)
                    5  
                    The answer is you cannot. Likewise, a person cannot be refused medical care...especially emergency medical care. One would think that in a civilized society, we would agree that this is proper. Not to let someone die because they cannot afford care.

                    Then, do you not think it is prudent...and fair..that individuals now do the responsible thing and financially contribute to the cost of this care. While you can say "I don't want to do either'...it is not within your power to say "I will never recieve medical care". And if you are a parent..there is NO WAY you would not accept medical care should your child be in need.

                    So the ACA..or Obamacare..merely levels the playing field and assures that everyone participates in some way. Contrary to those that believe "what if i dont want to"...we are living in a society, and sometimes we must do whats best for all.

                    In fact, that is the premise of how we acquire health insurance to begin with. Do you think its a mere coincidence that health insurance is virtually the only product you can purchase through..or by your employer..with pre tax dollars? At some point this was public policy to make insurance accessable to all.

                    As an aside, it seems to me the people complaining the most about the mandate already have insurance. I dont know this to be a fact...so I wont state it as one. But definitely amongst the people I speak to personally. Most people I know that have been unable to get insurance...mainly the self employed..are very happy about this being upheld.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 11:39 am ET)
                      1 3
                      I can't say I disagree with you. I would be overly joyed if everyone was able to afford healthcare. However that is not the world we live in, and Government won't solve that problem.

                      I want to peel the problem back a few layers and blame for profit colleges that put these doctors in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, requiring them to charge such a high rate for their services.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 11:47 am ET)
                        2 1
                        There is more work to be done but it's a start.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by gmccpa (July 01, 2012 12:02 pm ET)
                        5  
                        I can't say I disagree with you. I would be overly joyed if everyone was able to afford healthcare


                        The premise (actual name) of the bill is to make healthcare affordable to everyone. You said above that you have health insurance. Likely, its an employee plan - in direct participation with the government. ie Federal tax break of some kind.

                        And you are arguing for the people who dont have health insurance? I've been self employed for 25 years...and although I've have health insurance, my current plan stinks, previously I've been dropped for no reason, and have had to jump thru hoops, (ie, 'hiring' my spouse just to 'make' a group)..all just to keep insured. So, please, stop doing us any favors. Really.

                        This is all nonsense from people who have insurance, arguing to keep some sort of status quo that makes it difficult for another set of people to get insurance.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by gmccpa (July 01, 2012 12:15 pm ET)
                          3  
                          BTW, I would think that many of the 'haves' such as you AW, will tone down your so called 'support' come August when the rebate checks are issued.

                          You dont hear much about this on FOX when they discuss the bill. And I'm sure they will somehow spin the rebate issue when it comes up. Obviously, they wont even report about it until absolutely necessary.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (July 01, 2012 12:18 pm ET)
                          6 1
                          Adam West appears to be a Randian nutjob, therefore his opinions on health care deserve to be mocked.
                          Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (July 01, 2012 1:52 pm ET)
                3 1
                No one has to pay anything to the government if they have insurance. Further, that money that is being paid to "the government" is to help cover uninsured care of people who choose (yes, choose) to refuse to get insurance. In other words, they have to pay for their own gamble.

                BTW, I want to know with this conservative program which was proposed by The Heritage Foundation and was signed into law in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, whose current incarnation is that of a super conservative, became a liberal, leftist, socialist program? What changed?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Chameo (July 01, 2012 3:55 pm ET)
                  2  
                  A Democratic president adopted it. Oh, and it picked up a bunch of provisions to make it less costly to the average individual taxpayer and put the cost on those who profit most from people who use their health insurance and includes a few cost-saving measures that limit the percentage of profit insurance companies can put into their pockets.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (July 01, 2012 1:58 pm ET)
            3 1
            And? It's not a tax increase. If you have insurance, you don't pay anything at all. If you don't have insurance, but you purchase insurance, no tax. If you can afford to purchase insurance, but make a concerted decision not to purchase it, you'll be fined. Pretty simple. It's your choice. You can either be personally responsible for your healthcare or you can pay a fine so that the rest of us will not have to cover your expenses when you get sick and have to go to the ER and can't afford to pay the bill.

            I believe that phony conservatives like you are always trashing the "freeloaders" who are living off the taxpayer's dime. If you don't purchase insurance and decide to gamble, I don't want to have to pay for your healthcare. If I'm paying for mine, you should be paying for yours.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 5:58 pm ET)
            2  
            "If it isn't a tax increase, than it's unconstitutional." -- neoconbs



            Paying a fee/penalty is unconstitutional?

            OK -- you should use that excuse the next time you go to traffic court after getting a parking ticket/moving violation, and see how it works out for you . . .

            Report Abuse
      • Author by highlyunlikely (July 01, 2012 1:25 am ET)
        6 1
        his specialty is picking fights.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 9:46 am ET)
          1 8
          And yours is making dumb comments.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Adam West (July 01, 2012 9:46 am ET)
          1 8
          And yours is making dumb comments.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (July 01, 2012 1:49 pm ET)
            3 1
            I've seen you make several on this thread and another thread.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highlyunlikely (July 01, 2012 4:34 pm ET)
            2  
            "But what about" is a concession I doubt AW wanted to make.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highlyunlikely (July 01, 2012 4:35 pm ET)
              3  
              Now watch for AW to reply "I never said 'what about.'" Not doing paraphrasing is another con favorite.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 7:25 pm ET)
            1  
            "And yours is making dumb comments." -- Batfink


            Says the one said, upthread:

            "How about you move to socialist Finland and leave the US to people who want to keep it the way it was meant to be. Free."


            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (July 01, 2012 1:49 pm ET)
        3  
        If you have insurance or purchase insurance, you don't have to pay a penalty at all. The penalty is necessary because if you can afford to purchase insurance and you refuse, when you show up at the ER at a later date with a very expensive medical bill that you can't pay because you rolled the dice and lost, there will be money to PAY for it from the penalties.

        It's all about personal responsibility, Adam West. I don't want to be personally responsible for your lack of personal responsibility. Without insurance, you'll be one of those "freeloaders" that folks like you always like to complain about.

        I have a friend who thinks that the insurance premiums are a "tax." Total stupidity.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (June 30, 2012 4:36 pm ET)
      6  
      ______________ the fox news bouncing head does the fox news bounce while reading one of Rodger's memos on air
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (June 30, 2012 4:38 pm ET)
        7  
        Bibble headed bleached blondes float....Fox news rubber ball talking heads bounce
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 30, 2012 5:33 pm ET)
      6  
      please allow me to translate

      we are doing the most asinine things to get pres Obama deelected.

      and this is coming from someone ( Pinkerton ) who will never have a necessity for health care. Remember how fast they found a new heart for Cheney ?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Saturnalian (June 30, 2012 7:30 pm ET)
        6  
        Cheney's "heart" was probably stolen from a transient after he sucked his blood and ate his kidney. Someone should put a stake through Cheney's "heart".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (June 30, 2012 5:54 pm ET)
      7  
      Again. Jerks. It is only a tax increase if you don't have insurance. For the vast majority of us, it is not a tax increase at all.

      Can the media PLEASE correct this rampant misinformation?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MidnightWriter (June 30, 2012 6:29 pm ET)
        7  
        Too many of the mainstreams seem to be fixated on the idea that something new has created out of the Supreme Court decision.

        It's the very same law that passed two years ago, but only now have they discovered a brand new, shiny object "hidden" within it.

        The profession of reporting is in a sad, sorry state.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grmce (June 30, 2012 10:53 pm ET)
          4  
          Surely somewhere in the media they can find a first year law student to point out the simple facts.

          What we have here is a sad confluence of ignorance, stupidity and self-serving bias.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by gmccpa (July 01, 2012 12:35 pm ET)
            3  
            Realistically, its in the mainstream media's interest to keep the Presidential race close. And Obama has been moving up recently..even Fox's own poll has him up 5 points. Rasmussen, the most conservative leaning of pollsters, has him up 2.

            So, this so call tax issued (the one no one even noticed) stirs up emotions and interest. None of the media has any self interest to debunk it.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by canaanxing9025 (June 30, 2012 6:25 pm ET)
      8  
      "The Biggest Tax Increase In The History Of The Universe."

      Well there you go, Fox News is populated by Space Aliens.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 30, 2012 6:36 pm ET)
        6  
        we found the UFO's
        Report Abuse
      • Author by What Happened to Gannon (June 30, 2012 10:43 pm ET)
        3  
        "He who controls the spice controls the universe."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jonjstrine42 (July 01, 2012 5:46 am ET)
          1  
          If you walk without rhythm, you won't attract the worm.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by jonjstrine42 (July 01, 2012 5:45 am ET)
        3  
        This could be a problem, as the total population of the Universe is zero. According to that wholly remarkable book, the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy:
        "It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

        So I guess they aren't going to get a lot of money from this supposedly "biggest tax increase in the history of the universe" after all.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by AB-001 (June 30, 2012 7:04 pm ET)
      6  
      Are you sure Pinkerton said this? it sounds more like something Napoleon Dynamite would say

      "It's like the biggest tax increase in the history of the universe! Gosh!"

      To which Kip would respond, "Napoleon, like anyone could ever know that."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by David2012 (June 30, 2012 7:57 pm ET)
      5  
      When they quote the polls about the percentage of Americans who oppose the Affordable Health Care Act, why don't they ever break it down to include those who oppose it because it is too conservative? I know lots of people, including yours truly, who think that health care should be a national entitlement, single payer, full stop, period, and oppose President Obama's plan for that reason. You literally never hear about us, anywhere, though.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (June 30, 2012 8:07 pm ET)
        2  
        "Ya cain't trust a Pinkerton man."..any old western B-movie cliche. Another slow Saturday at MM.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by grmce (June 30, 2012 11:18 pm ET)
          4  
          Allan Pinkerton was a Scottish Chartist, who upon emigrating to the U.S. became active in the abolitionist movement as a member of the "Underground Railroad". As such, it is a sad fact that in later life his energies were directed towards suppressing the emergence of labour unions in the U.S. and the Ten Years War in Cuba which was directed towards ending slavery and a providing for local autonomy - the complete antithesis of his Chartist and Abolitionist history.

          James Pinkerton is a pathetic dimwit who makes me cringe whenever I come across his "opinions". Putting him out in public to express what is on what passes for his mind reminds me of 19thC freak shows - Pinkerton is the Joseph Merrick of political commentary.

          Come to think of it, there is a P.T. Barnum element to FNC. Maybe we should term the Murdoch/Ailes partnership a Barnum and Bunkum.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Bongo Fury (June 30, 2012 11:43 pm ET)
            1  
            Thank you grmce. I was too lazy to post same. Two weeks of 100 degrees has made me logy. Pinkerton's methods of law and order were totally personal to the family's wealth.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (July 01, 2012 12:33 am ET)
        3  
        They also never report on the fact that a majority of Americans like the individual portions of the law, even republicans. I guess it's too much work for "news' outlets to do any meaningful research. I tweeted my local news station about it's lazy reporting methods on Thursday. When the SC upheld the ACA, my local station read verbatim a statement from that lying sack of s**t, Saxby Chambliss, without addressing any of the lies and misinformation in his statement. The response I received from the station was that it prides itself on its careful fact-checking, and that it provides 'both sides' an opportunity to be heard. It does nothing of the sort, so I sent another tweet letting them know how little fact-checking the station's reporters actually do. Both sides can present their views on an issue, but there are facts that can show which side is correct. Allowing republicans to come onto local news programs to lie, or reading republican politicians' lie-filled statements verbatim is not fact-checking. It's providing a free forum for dispensing misinformation that provides a political benefit to republicans.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (July 01, 2012 10:58 am ET)
          1  
          The Daily Show did a good segment on that the other day. They played Mitt's little repeal speech, and he kept talking about the things he wanted to do with healthcare law, which were the same exact things that Obama already did.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Chameo (July 01, 2012 12:45 pm ET)
          2  
          As usual, the polls show that most people want all the goodies but don't want to pay for them.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by DDRic (June 30, 2012 11:11 pm ET)
      4  
      You realize these are Leona Helmsleys' kids,don't you? Sigh,.....to the manor born,nobless oblige,and all that crap. Notice the Foxeys never talk about their haelth care plan? These are no-necks,one and all.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 6:53 pm ET)
           
        "You realize these are Leona Helmsleys' kids,don't you?"


        "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

        Little people put her azz in jail, too . . .



        Report Abuse
    • Author by PBVV (July 01, 2012 1:45 am ET)
      2  
      Oh, this bit-o-froth is coming from FOX Noise Circus?

      Welllll then, it is most probably not true.

      In case there is perhaps an iota of truth to anything they say about anything, at all, I will check two other credible and reliable sources before being willing to even maybe consider believing that there is an iota of truth to anything FOX says about anything, at all.

      Someday very very soon, FOX is going to float a news story so full of schit & so destructive, without even an iota of truth to it, and it will be so huge a serious fhuck-up that Papa Ailes and Rupert themselves will have to personally go on air, live, and apologize, with a real apology. With their own two lying, full of schit mouths.

      I can hardly wait. I hope that major fhuck-up happens during one of those rare times that I happen to be watching The Phucking Noise Circus ... Oh how sweet that would be!

      Yes, I hate them that much.
      I try to see it as some others do---as an entertaining channel full of childish fools who get paid a-whole-lotta money to lie and create drama, stress and chaos, but I just cannot.
      Every single day I see the horrible consequences of their lies--the destroyed lives, and it is not amusing.
      It is not entertaining.
      It is so very, very sad and heartbreaking to see.

      Allowing Murdoch to become a U.S. citizen in 1985 was one of the worst mistakes this Government ever made. I hope and pray that this administration metaphorically hangs News Corps sorry @sses from the highest yardarm possible with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act during President Obama's second term.

      Yes, I hate them that much.

      I am fully persuaded that without The Fhucking Noise Circus & FreakShow, The ReThugTeaCon Party would have crashed, burned & disintegrated before the 2000 and/or 2004 Election. It certainly would have during Dubya's second term, for sure.





      Report Abuse
    • Author by danielsangeo (July 01, 2012 12:11 pm ET)
      4  
      Politifact recently crunched the numbers on this claim.

      Their findings:
      As a percent of GDP
      Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04%
      Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2%
      Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13%
      Revenue and Expenditure Control act of 1968: 1.09%
      Excess Profits Tax of 1950: 0.97%
      Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: 0.8%
      Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: 0.5%
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: 0.5%
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990: 0.49%
      Affordable Care Act (top enforcement by 2019): 0.49%
      Report Abuse
      • Author by gmccpa (July 01, 2012 1:58 pm ET)
        2  
        Good article. Also, there has to be a component of Medicaid savings that is not being accounted for. Logically if more people are insured, there will be less Medicaid recipients.

        In any case, its really disgusting that this is framed as a 'tax' confrontation. Its like a form of NIMBY ism. Most of those complaining about the tax costs, as well as government interfence, are participants in an IRS approved group health plan (likely Section 125 cafeteria plan)...where they benefit from a specific tax break, as well as the ability to purchase health insurance through a group. All facilited through a joint cooperation of the Federal government and private insurance plans. No other product receives this special advantage. I wont even mention the Medicare folks.

        So, now its like...my tax break and government interence is 'fine' because it works for me...but yours is too costly. I'm actually at the point where my response to these selfish morons is to simply say shut the #@#@ up.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (July 01, 2012 7:30 pm ET)
      2  
      And now, for your viewing pleasure . . .

      Let's hear from someone who, just a few short years ago, not only supported the individual mandate, but was even in favor of a penalty for those who chose not to purchase health care insurance:

      "For those that have higher incomes, we expect them to have health insurance. And if they don’t, we’re going to withhold their tax refund or put in place other penalties to assure that everybody comes in the system."


      Report Abuse
      • Author by aturingtest (July 01, 2012 9:19 pm ET)
        2  
        mjh- thanks for that, that is...interesting, to say the least. I've been reading Romney's response to the SC upholding of the ACA, and wondering why he nowhere says anything explicitly about the individual mandate. Polls show that most Americans approve of most of the specific provisions of ACA, with that one exception- which you'd think would make it his primary criticism. Instead, most of his criticism is the usual litany of substance free (or just plain untrue) far-right talking points (job killer, raises taxes, adds to the deficit), and, of course, a strong dash of "Obama, therefore bad" ("Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that: that we return to the American people the privilege they've always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don't pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don't have a setting where jobs are lost.") with no suggestion as to how exactly his program would be any different. I suspect it wouldn't be any different- the only difference would be "not Obama."
        Of course, Romney's response here would probably be to say, "well, what works in Massachussets wouldn't necessarily be right for Mississippi"- which is just another talking point ("let the states decide"). I would ask him, "why exactly is that, Governor?" A mandate is a mandate, at whatever level of government, and if folks have an ideological objection to the idea, it won't matter what state they live in.
        Report Abuse

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube Reddit