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.
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 ;)
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?
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":
(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:
So, not new. And:
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.
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 . . .
Right here.
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.
Might just be me, but that appears to be what you're arguing.
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.
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.
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.....
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
Those are two completely different things.
Yeah that's not a biased article at all.
I understand you are into continually finding angles, but you're being deliberately, acutely obtuse. And that's not complimentary.
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.
Why does Adam West hate America so much?
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.
I'm starting to think you need to be watered twice daily . . .
They are necessary!
How?
In this scenario the person pays a tax for not purchasing health insurance.
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.
Do you even know what "healthcare" is?
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"?
We shouldn't need the government to keep a failing system on life support in hopes that it will change.
This is similar to saying that "guns are dangerous" because some people have used them in criminal acts.
Adam:
Me:
Adam:
Then you completely missed the point I was making. Again. And "going into the past" is waaaay beside the point.
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?
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.
This is where we disagree. I do not think the government needs to be involved with this.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
Unless, of course, you've got a friendly ex-CEO serving as Vice President.
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.
How is your freedom being impinged again?
Oh, right, it's not.
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.
Look, read the law. Pull up the PDF on that page. Find the section on enforcement. It's page 336 of the PDF:
While you may think I am nitpicking, these are the types of questions that need to be asked.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
Also, if the fines become large enough, you really don't think the government will come after you.
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?"
From whom?
By the way, did you read all 2,400 pages?
Right now, you're scared of a fictitious boogeyman.
Wingnuts: not happy unless they're scared of something. Or angry at something. Or both.
LOL, daniel -- you actually expect a wingnut to read something longer than a bumper sticker? ;P
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?
"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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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!"
I suggest getting an adult to help you with this more advanced form of English.
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.
In your "show up for work" analogy, by skipping work, you have "failed to timely punch in".
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.
If you fail to timely punch in, does not mean you have failed to show up to work.
Look, I'm done trying to educate you on basic English.
1. Timely pay
2. Failure to timely pay
If you pay late, that's the latter. If you never pay, that's the latter.
I have quoted the law twice.
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.
Now, if you're struggling with this, take it up with the English language.
Gee, okay George.
And who's fixating on that word?
Adam West, about 3 and 1/2 hours ago:
and
Until it blew up in your face, Adam, it was your fixation to begin with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 . . .
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."
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.
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 ?
Can the media PLEASE correct this rampant misinformation?
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.
What we have here is a sad confluence of ignorance, stupidity and self-serving bias.
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.
Well there you go, Fox News is populated by Space Aliens.
"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.
"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."
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.
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."
Little people put her azz in jail, too . . .
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.
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%
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.
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."
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.