General Discussion

dawg

(10,777 posts)

60. I do not give a flying fuck whether this 2.5% is called a tax, a penalty, or a turd payment.

Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:06 PM

Jun 2012

You don't have to buy insurance under the ACA. You could just pay the 2.5%

Why does it matter so much what we call it? Answer: this is the wedge the Supreme Court is going to use to overturn the legislation. Had it been called a tax in the original legislation, the opening would not be there for them to overturn.

But the bottom line is that it's a maximum of 2.5% of income. Are we not willing to pay even that much so sick children can get coverage?

We want the rich to pay more, but if we might have to pay a little then just fuck 'em all? Is that how it is?

I'm not calling Obama a liar. I think he was unwilling to call the contribution a tax because he knew the Republicans would run with "Obama is raising your taxes" 24-7. But that is proving to have been a mistake.

Ultimately, it's 2.5% - maximum. For most people not even that,

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No, the ACA doesn't "force" you to buy an insurance product from a private corporation. [View all] dawg Jun 2012 OP

Good Luck SoutherDem Jun 2012 #1

I know. dawg Jun 2012 #3

People will continue dying even if the bill is upheld TBMASE Jun 2012 #17

Yes. But fewer. dawg Jun 2012 #21

No, not fewer TBMASE Jun 2012 #40

Well, you've got me there. dawg Jun 2012 #47

Ah yes, another Dem embracing a Republican policy, MadHound Jun 2012 #2

I know my son won't be able to get insurance without that "Heritage" plan. dawg Jun 2012 #5

So because of your son, you are willing to consign the rest of us MadHound Jun 2012 #8

No, I'm willing to consign you to pay a fucking tax. dawg Jun 2012 #10

No, you are consigning me to pay an insurance premium, MadHound Jun 2012 #11

No. It's just a damn tax. 2.5% of your income at the maximum. dawg Jun 2012 #12

No, what I'm saying is that we need to work for real change, MadHound Jun 2012 #13

Look for the lack of a severability clause to come into play. dawg Jun 2012 #14

Also, the easiest path to single-payer is to build on the ACA framework. dawg Jun 2012 #15

Working off the framework of a Republican, corporate friendly law is the quickest way to UHC? MadHound Jun 2012 #16

It's so Republican that they universally oppose it. dawg Jun 2012 #18

Fast and Furious was a Republican program also eridani Jun 2012 #106

Republicans love ACA, as do the insurance cartels. That's why they want to kill it so bad! emulatorloo Jun 2012 #36

No. It is a penalty, not a tax. See #19 below. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #20

Ooooh. A 2.5% of your income "penalty". dawg Jun 2012 #24

Congress, not "We," decided that the penalty is a penalty. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #27

By "we" I mean the Democrats who wrote the legislation. dawg Jun 2012 #34

2.5% of income is a big hit for those barely getting by. Especially those out of school struggling Erose999 Jun 2012 #49

If you're not high income, you don't have to pay it. dawg Jun 2012 #50

No, it is not a "fucking tax," it is a fucking penalty. See #19 below. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #22

See #24 above. dawg Jun 2012 #25

No. This is not a matter of semantics. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #28

What is it then? dawg Jun 2012 #32

The difference between taxes and penalties was explained in detail by Judge Vinson in AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #38

Again, semantics - this time supplied by a conservative judge. dawg Jun 2012 #43

So if a person chooses to pay a penalty instead of complying with the law, it is not a penalty? AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #46

It's a maximum 2.5% of income. dawg Jun 2012 #48

There is no tax TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #65

I"m talking about the .... sigh .... "penalty". dawg Jun 2012 #66

As opposed to what realistic alternative in the here and now...? LanternWaste Jun 2012 #55

The alternative? dawg Jun 2012 #62

I personally don't give a shit if Republicans had the same idea a decade or 2 ago. phleshdef Jun 2012 #45

+1000 n/t Control-Z Jun 2012 #59

+2000 treestar Jun 2012 #92

The Heritage plan was a credit, not a fine. joshcryer Jun 2012 #71

i see you got the talking points down... dionysus Jun 2012 #101

No. See the archives and quit beating a dead horse. JVS Jun 2012 #4

Dead horse, huh? dawg Jun 2012 #6

Not really. It's not even in the hands of elected officials. JVS Jun 2012 #7

Was it ever? n/t dawg Jun 2012 #9

The law makes a distinction between taxes and penalties. The language in 26 USC 5000A AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #19

Word play. Look up "de facto". Zalatix Jun 2012 #107

Congress expressly called it a penalty in "26 USC 5000A." No word play is required or involved. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #109

Agreed. Word play is what people do when they DENY it's a penalty. Zalatix Jun 2012 #111

If you are looking for someone you can reason with here you can save your breath NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #23

I know. dawg Jun 2012 #29

DU is not representative of the real world NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #33

Obama himself said it is not a tax. DesMoinesDem Jun 2012 #26

And, of course, Obama is right. It is a penalty as reflected by 26 USC 5000A. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #30

And this make a difference to you how? dawg Jun 2012 #31

Penalties are imposed to punish people for their actions or their willful failure to act. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #35

So it makes you feel more naughtly then. dawg Jun 2012 #37

Judge Vinson explained in detail the difference between taxes and penalties in his 2010 opinion AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #41

It's 2.5% of income that *you* are not willing to pay. dawg Jun 2012 #44

If a Constitutional scholar such as President Obama says that it is not a tax, why should you AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #53

2.5%. I don't give a damn what you call it. dawg Jun 2012 #58

Excuse me, but you seem to be very intolerant of people calling it what Congress called it when they AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #75

How can I be intolerant when you just replied to my post titled ... dawg Jun 2012 #80

Maybe bigcat00 Jun 2012 #82

The government has always had the power to charge you money. dawg Jun 2012 #85

except bigcat00 Jun 2012 #93

So, you're income is nothing in this scenario? dawg Jun 2012 #100

Like it can force your uterus to carry fetuses? TBF Jun 2012 #90

hm.. bigcat00 Jun 2012 #94

hmm are you confused? TBF Jun 2012 #112

The act was passed by a publicly elected Congress, signed by a publicly elected President pinto Jun 2012 #91

Yes bigcat00 Jun 2012 #95

Do you feel government is part of the solution or part of the problem? That seems a standard divide, pinto Jun 2012 #97

I feel that bigcat00 Jun 2012 #98

I think the means effect the ends and the ends reflect the means. pinto Jun 2012 #102

So you're calling Obama a liar. DesMoinesDem Jun 2012 #51

Haha. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2012 #57

I do not give a flying fuck whether this 2.5% is called a tax, a penalty, or a turd payment. dawg Jun 2012 #60

I've, too, tried to explain this railsback Jun 2012 #39

People screamed louder here than at FreeRepublic Gman Jun 2012 #42

Give me a break. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2012 #52

No one is forcing you to buy a product. dawg Jun 2012 #61

TeaPubliKlans are the ones who demand we all buy insurance from the cartel. TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #67

I really doubt that. Folks like Max Baucus did more damage going against the Public Option. Selatius Jun 2012 #68

I'm not stealing your car. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2012 #54

Yes and the tax/penalty is virtually unenforceable, elleng Jun 2012 #56

Call your Congresscritter, they wrote it as a penalty not a tax TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #63

Oopsy! dawg Jun 2012 #64

Your entire argument is semantics and you're shouting people down for semantics TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #69

Only the penalty for murder is a helluva lot more than 2.5% of income. dawg Jun 2012 #70

I guess bigcat00 Jun 2012 #72

Either way, I'm not being forced to buy health insurance from a corporation. dawg Jun 2012 #73

But bigcat00 Jun 2012 #74

When you say it's "this" because they called it this ... dawg Jun 2012 #78

it matters bigcat00 Jun 2012 #81

So, lets just call it a tax and be done with it. dawg Jun 2012 #86

yes probably bigcat00 Jun 2012 #96

The enforcement mechanism of the mandate ... dawg Jun 2012 #99

based on your argument, bigcat00 Jun 2012 #76

I do, indeed, think of speed limits as being optional. dawg Jun 2012 #77

I didn't say it was the same other than in regard that both are penalties for non-compliance with TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #113

I just don't think there should be this subsidy to the insurance industry. David__77 Jun 2012 #79

I wish there was a public option. dawg Jun 2012 #83

A public auto insurance company would be awesome. BlueCaliDem Jun 2012 #84

The ACA also does nothing to guarantee you access to care dflprincess Jun 2012 #87

Yup, you're totally on point. nt Raine Jun 2012 #88

exactly ibegurpard Jun 2012 #104

x2 AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #110

K&R! FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #89

why should our tax dollars go to for-profit middlemen? ibegurpard Jun 2012 #103

The bigger question, for me, is.. sendero Jun 2012 #108

There is a moral difference between a tax and a penalty, or between a fee and a fine. BlueCheese Jun 2012 #105