Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
What will be the outcome of Supreme Court and Obamacare or ACA?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="brett636" data-source="post: 957653" data-attributes="member: 249"><p>I'm certain you are familiar with the only two guarantees in life, and those are death and taxes. The penalties are you referring too are penalties assessed for not taking action regarding an obligation to pay taxes to the government. I would argue the government has too much power in this arena, but none the less they do have the power to assess penalties and interest in the event that you are not paying the taxes you owe. I don't believe anyone is arguing the government can not assess penalties for current obligations to the government like paying taxes. Again the difference here is the government is assessing a penalty for not contracting for services with a private company for their services. The best analogy I can come up with is when you are doing your taxes you can get them completed however you want, whether its with a tax preparation firm, CPA, software, or doing it on your own with pen and paper forms. If the same logic were to apply the government would charge you more in taxes for NOT using their endorsed tax preparation firms which is an overstep of the commerce clause by forcing someone into commerce that they otherwise may not want or need. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My employer doesn't interject into my healthcare decisions, and neither does the insurance company. Sure the insurance company can refuse to pay for something, but that doesn't mean I can't pay for it and go after the insurance company later if I feel I have been wronged. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, this is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example the federal government is using tax money it recieves to pay for someone else's lack of insurance, and that is considered constitutional because the government recieves tax revenues and uses that money for things like what you just mentioned. Just like it would make a stronger constitutional argument for the government to begin a new tax and use that money to pay for the uninsured healthcare or to start a single payer healthcare plan. Its completely different for the government to just say you must have health insurance to the individual because at that point they can say you must buy a burial plot, or you must buy certain foods at the grocery store or restaurant. Its one thing for the government to take your money in the form of taxes and spend it in ways you may or may not agree with. Its completely another for the government to begin dictating how you are to spend the dollars they "allowed" you to keep.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="brett636, post: 957653, member: 249"] I'm certain you are familiar with the only two guarantees in life, and those are death and taxes. The penalties are you referring too are penalties assessed for not taking action regarding an obligation to pay taxes to the government. I would argue the government has too much power in this arena, but none the less they do have the power to assess penalties and interest in the event that you are not paying the taxes you owe. I don't believe anyone is arguing the government can not assess penalties for current obligations to the government like paying taxes. Again the difference here is the government is assessing a penalty for not contracting for services with a private company for their services. The best analogy I can come up with is when you are doing your taxes you can get them completed however you want, whether its with a tax preparation firm, CPA, software, or doing it on your own with pen and paper forms. If the same logic were to apply the government would charge you more in taxes for NOT using their endorsed tax preparation firms which is an overstep of the commerce clause by forcing someone into commerce that they otherwise may not want or need. My employer doesn't interject into my healthcare decisions, and neither does the insurance company. Sure the insurance company can refuse to pay for something, but that doesn't mean I can't pay for it and go after the insurance company later if I feel I have been wronged. Again, this is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example the federal government is using tax money it recieves to pay for someone else's lack of insurance, and that is considered constitutional because the government recieves tax revenues and uses that money for things like what you just mentioned. Just like it would make a stronger constitutional argument for the government to begin a new tax and use that money to pay for the uninsured healthcare or to start a single payer healthcare plan. Its completely different for the government to just say you must have health insurance to the individual because at that point they can say you must buy a burial plot, or you must buy certain foods at the grocery store or restaurant. Its one thing for the government to take your money in the form of taxes and spend it in ways you may or may not agree with. Its completely another for the government to begin dictating how you are to spend the dollars they "allowed" you to keep. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
What will be the outcome of Supreme Court and Obamacare or ACA?
Top