General Discussion

zipplewrath

(16,698 posts)

15. It is "unprecidented"

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:36 PM

Mar 2012

Alternately I don't think it is unconstitutional. For all of their pretzel logic, in the end one is basically getting a deduction for having a health insurance policy. It's a fairly "flat" tax, which makes it fairly regressive. The whole plan is regressive in that fashion, including a "cadillac tax" on policies that don't take into account the income or wealth of the person who has the policy. This thing is regressive in numberous additional ways because it is MOST burdensome on the LOWEST income brackets.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Regarding the analogy that the individual mandate is like forcing everyone to buy food. [View all] Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 OP

I guess to some Politicalboi Mar 2012 #1

I know the costs are different but the concept is the same Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #2

If the health insurance industry takes over the supermarket chains we're really fucked! Better Believe It Mar 2012 #3

Holler at me when we are paying taxes for our healthcare TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #4

We already were before the ACA jeff47 Mar 2012 #8

Someone really smart once said zipplewrath Mar 2012 #5

I know that someone on DU said that Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #6

Everyone DOESN'T pay taxes zipplewrath Mar 2012 #7

The penalty to not get insurance is limited to 2.5% of one's income and there are subsidies for Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #11

It is "unprecidented" zipplewrath Mar 2012 #15

How about we cut out that for-profit middleman? enlightenment Mar 2012 #9

That's a separate issue. I support single payer health care at the state level Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #12

Uh, no it is not separate. Other countries use a mandate, not one of them allows profit Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #21

The subject of my post is the govenment compelling people to buy a good or service they might not Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #22

Because the Congress needs bribe/lobby money and they're not near as likely to get so much if Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #32

Just so people get it.... Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #13

Unfortunately that guy is long gone from the political scene... n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2012 #14

I miss that guy zipplewrath Mar 2012 #16

You never know who'll show up during an election campaign. n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2012 #17

Reunion concert zipplewrath Mar 2012 #19

If you don't have the money for the house, the government gives it to you treestar Mar 2012 #34

Would you support mandated food insurance instead of food stamps? girl gone mad Mar 2012 #10

food stamps are a form of mandated food insurance. People pay for them with their tax dollars Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #18

One is a contract with the government and one is with a private, extremely rich, corporation joeglow3 Mar 2012 #26

You can walk into an er, receive care (very expensive care), and then not pay for it Native Mar 2012 #20

funny story about that hfojvt Mar 2012 #35

You're talking about a different situation. Native Mar 2012 #37

Also too, if you don't buy food for your kids you get your kids taken away from you. applegrove Mar 2012 #23

Not true SATIRical Mar 2012 #24

Bad analogy SATIRical Mar 2012 #25

Some don't pay income tax but they pay other taxes Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #31

But some people do know people who own a cow SATIRical Mar 2012 #36

Taxes aren't the same thing as forced private purchases. Romulox Mar 2012 #27

The only difference is that the money goes directly to the insurance companies Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #28

There isn't as much difference as you might think Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #29

How does this intersect with the Third Amendment analysis? AngryAmish Mar 2012 #30

I'm sorry. I'm not a legal expert. Tony_FLADEM Mar 2012 #33

Regarding the analogy that buying something from a private company hughee99 Mar 2012 #38