SCOTUS Strikes Down ObamaCare Individual Mandate

[PKendall317]

If you have a coherent rebuttal instead of injured dignity, feel free to speak up. But since you freely admit you have no interest in business, perhaps you should educate yourself before you open your mouth about things of which you obviously know nothing. Not too many people on this forum get away with spouting talking points without being called on it.

And just to beat up on you some more, feeling the way you do, why don't you dislike your dad for being so greedy that he doesn't provide health insurance for his employees? I mean, greed is why those nasty millionaires and billionaires don't pay their fair share, right?

My only problem with my Dad, who is by no means a millionaire, as far as work is concerned is that when he switches over from being "my Dad" to "Mr. Kendall" at work, is that he becomes a bit of a jerk. Just because he's my son doesn't mean I get treated better than the other employees. And I wouldn't call him greedy, but I would definately call him frugal.

And I don't care about being called out on my opinions, that's what happens in any debate, but don't insult me for them.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

My only problem with my Dad, who is by no means a millionaire, as far as work is concerned is that when he switches over from being "my Dad" to "Mr. Kendall" at work, is that he becomes a bit of a jerk. Just because he's my son doesn't mean I get treated better than the other employees. And I wouldn't call him greedy, but I would definately call him frugal.

And I don't care about being called out on my opinions, that's what happens in any debate, but don't insult me for them.

With as many posts as you have, I'm surprised you're a virgin at getting called names on this forum.

 

[ocsdor]

Here's an article defending Justice Roberts' decision, though I'm not sure I agree with his strategy.
Roberts health care opinion, Commerce Clause: The real reason the chief justice upheld Obamacare. - Slate Magazine

 

[PKendall317]

With as many posts as you have, I'm surprised you're a virgin at getting called names on this forum.

Sometimes I like to pretend I live in a world where I can have a civilized discussion without people resorting to insults and name calling.

 

[ocsdor]

Sometimes I like to pretend I live in a world where I can have a civilized discussion without people resorting to insults and name calling.

 

[PKendall317]

Congrats! Your years in college have enabled you to list a few wars. What it seems to have failed to teach is reading comprehension. Tons of posts here have showed how the wealthy pay high tax rates, but you continue to rail against the wealthy and how they don't pay their share. Instead of depending on higher education you should take it upon yourself to read the federalist papers and the constitution.

I actually did read the Federalist Papers when I was in high school, and did a paper on it but that was years ago and I couldn't accurately tell you what was in them. I've also read the Constitution and several of its amendments are frequently discussed in the classes that directly relate to my major.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Sometimes I like to pretend I live in a world where I can have a civilized discussion without people resorting to insults and name calling.

I don't think I called you any names, I just commented on an incredibly silly remark you made; actually I commented on several silly remarks you've made and on your delicate nature. Sorry your feelings are hurt.

 

[PKendall317]

I don't think I called you any names, I just commented on an incredibly silly remark you made; actually I commented on several silly remarks you've made and on your delicate nature. Sorry your feelings are hurt.

Oh I can take a good ribbing any day, I give and recieve those frequently. Anyone who knows me can sa that I don't have a "delicate nature." But when I'm having a discussion I don't like to be called "not very smart" because of something I said or believe.

 

[PKendall317]

And yes, in retrospect some of my comments were silly, I will at least give you that.

 

[ocsdor]

Here's the ruling in PDF.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[hooky]

Because they have the financial resources to do so. And again, I wouldn't exactly consider it a penalty. And I wouldn't have a problem with everyone regardless of income paying say 20% (hypothetically) on income tax, I could live with that. But I believe that once you start talking about millionaires and billionaires, that they should be taxed at a higher rate than people in the middle class.

How many times are you going to say they should be taxed at a higher rate before you finally get the fact that they are already taxed at a higher rate through your skull? We have a PROGRESSIVE income tax in this country.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350

2012 Federal Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates) - Forbes

You're going into your 4th year of college. You should have learned how to do research like this in Jr. High. Believe what you want, but the facts are otherwise.

 

[firehawk1]

After doing some reading about Roberts decision on this I "think" I am beginning to understand his stance on it.

None of us want judges legislating from the bench so didn't Roberts just take a stance stating, the legislative branch passed this law, we will NOT write/rewrite the law and since it IS law THIS is how it must be implemented? You cannot have a mandate, you must call it what it is, a tax. If it is in fact a tax/tax increase you (Congress) must base it on that AND if it isn't acceptable, YOU (Congress) must make the necessary changes.

Didn't one Justice in fact ask the government lawyer arguing for Obama "what do you want us to do, write the law for you"?

All that being said, I hope Obamacare is repealed, and I am disappointed it wasn't overturned but to me the majority decision is beginning to at least make some sense.

Am I totally wrong on my take on this?

 

[PKendall317]

How many times are you going to say they should be taxed at a higher rate before you finally get the fact that they are already taxed at a higher rate through your skull? We have a PROGRESSIVE income tax in this country.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf


2012 Federal Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates) - Forbes

You're going into your 4th year of college. You should have learned how to do research like this in Jr. High. Believe what you want, but the facts are otherwise.

I've already stated that I was unaware of current U.S. Tax Law. Also, I've done my fair share of research for papers in both my college and K-12 years and I can't wait till I never have to do that again! But the last time I took a class that related to anything that involving to taxes or economics was high school.

 

[Lex Concord]

Ideally, smart, qualified, and competent individuals (obviously not Congress) would make this decision.

Ah...waiting for the philosopher kings?

 

[rambone]

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I've already stated that I was unaware of current U.S. Tax Law. Also, I've done my fair share of research for papers in both my college and K-12 years and I can't wait till I never have to do that again! But the last time I took a class that related to anything that involving to taxes or economics was high school.

Once again, as gently as I know how: Please don't make the mistake of considering "education" the same thing as "intelligence". If you're going to go around making comments about the "rich not paying their fair share", at least do yourself the courtesy of knowing what you are talking about.

 

[PKendall317]

I hope Obamacare is repealed, and I am disappointed it wasn't overturned but to me the majority decision is beginning to at least make some sense.
QUOTE]

I expected at the very least and hope that the requirement that private citizens either buy health insurance or pay a penalty be repealed. Nobody should say that you have to buy this product or else pay a penalty.

 

[KG1]

After doing some reading about Roberts decision on this I "think" I am beginning to understand his stance on it.

None of us want judges legislating from the bench so didn't Roberts just take a stance stating, the legislative branch passed this law, we will NOT write/rewrite the law and since it IS law THIS is how it must be implemented? You cannot have a mandate, you must call it what it is, a tax. If it is in fact a tax/tax increase you (Congress) must base it on that AND if it isn't acceptable, YOU (Congress) must make the necessary changes.

Didn't one Justice in fact ask the government lawyer arguing for Obama "what do you want us to do, write the law for you"?

All that being said, I hope Obamacare is repealed, and I am disappointed it wasn't overturned but to me the majority decision is beginning to at least make some sense.

Am I totally wrong on my take on this?

Well, a lot of people, including myself saw the mandate as noting more than a tax from the get go so i'll have to say that it doesn't surprise me.

Obama and the crew pulled the wool over a great number of sheeple's eyes when he was trying to sell this whole debacle and claiming that it's not a tax.

IMO this decision only exposes it for what it truly is.

 

[PKendall317]

Ah...waiting for the philosopher kings?

Yeah, they're kind of like the Great Pumpkin. I wait for them every year but they never show up!

 

[mrortega]

I've been disgusted and depressed all day thinking about this tragedy. Roberts' reasoning makes me almost ill and scares me.

Let's apply this reasoning to other things. How about those who don't own a car having to pay a penalty (Opps! I mean "tax") because they aren't buying gas and paying road taxes. People who have autos are paying for road building and maintenance. To be fair then, those who don't contribute are costing those of us who do own vehicles more. They get the benefit (rides from family and friends) but don't help. How about non-hunters being taxed to help pay for conservation programs? Since they don't buy hunting licenses they aren't helping save the beaver.

This precedent could lead to same very freedom-squashing laws by a much more powerful federal government. I am very concerned.