Posted on 12/11/2013 10:10:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
This is a fine albeit taxing argument.
Embarrassment I think he’s ashamed .
Is GWB still an admirer or Roberts, the way Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., was of John Paul Stevens?
Note the comment stating that Roberts hasn't broken any American laws, even if the adoptions thesis is valid. Only Irish laws. But of course it risks very bad publicity for Roberts.
This has been on FR, I know.
I wasn’t aware about the same tax on the “first” amount of money. What a friggen scam.
Frankly he should be, I hope you’re right. Anything substantial other than a guess?
now come on you know by now that my guesses ARE substantial!!!
(LOL - its a hunch)
:-)
That's the rub. Finding that catastrophic insurance is easier said than done--it doesn't meet the new minimum standards. Second, the cash market is not well-developed--even if you find the catastrophic insurance, you could wind up paying vastly inflated prices unless you have the energy to bargain.
Remember, the insurance companies have "negotiated" discounts from the walk-in rate. "Negotiated" is in quotes, because a more accurate description of the club pricing deal is that they have colluded, with the government's approval, to set rates against an inflated non-insured list price. To fight for the real, non-list price can be difficult when you are ill, and don't have time to search for a reasonable deal.
BAZINGA!!
+1
I must disagree. A tax is meant to raise revenue. A fine is meant to change behavior. So the Obamacare penalty is a fine.
You’re confusing purpose and effect. Roberts need not read minds to determine the purpose of the Obamacare fines; the president was quite adamant in declaring their purpose was not to raise revenue, but to punish a failure to act.
Contrarily, to believe that the purpose of the income tax is to punish people who earn large amounts of income, then you must presume that the government does not want to raise income, since if people complied with what you perceive the wishes of government to be, no-one would pay taxes.
We routinely impose taxes to change behavior. High "Sin taxes" which we've used for over a hundred years on things like alcohol and cigarettes are an excellent example.
I was lucky that my mostly catastrophic only policy was grandfathered in .and it’s low cost, low paperwork .very high deductible .but with the premium savings, it more than works out for us. But you’re right, finding one now is very hard to do .and yet, it’s the only long term solution.
People have to get back to what “insurance” is - or we’ll never solve this.
Wonder what Roberts sees when he looks in his mirror? All the Americans who will die because of his ruling?
Amerika won't last that long.
Roberts and his infamy will be covered in the same dust as the rest of us, along with the bleached bones of civilization's greatest attempt at individual liberty.
But purpose isn't often legally operational. When it comes to law, we instead check what a thing does or how it behaves to see what it is.
If you read any collection of statutes you'll see they're full of definitions and tests.
Now whatever the purpose of the fine in Obamacare is, it still passes the test (unfortunately) for a tax on income.
I think we missed the boat by not having a State file suit on the part of Obamacare which allows HHS to set standards for all health insurance policies sold in the US. Regulation of Insurance has been recognized as a State responsibility, protected by the 10th Amendment, for over 200 years.
In fact, I believe a State could pass a law rejecting HHS guidance, and returning insurance regulation back to the State.
Hell, it has worked for Marijuana, why not health insurance?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.