Obama Care

[saden1]

Looks like Reagan had insurgents in his mist. WARNING, complex material discussed.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Looks like Reagan had insurgents in his mist. WARNING, complex material discussed.

This guy publically mentioned he voted for Obama. Fried also believes the gov't has the right to tax people based on behavior that costs society as a whole.

I guess Reagan was a true leader and wasn't afraid to appoint qualified people who didn't necessarily toe the "party line" 100%.

Anywho, looks like the President needs to abide by the Federal judges decsion, or appeal to the SC.....good luck with that.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This guy publicly mentioned he voted for Obama. Fried also believes the gov't has the right to tax people based on behavior that costs society as a whole.

I guess Reagan was a true leader and wasn't afraid to appoint qualified people who didn't necessarily toe the "party line" 100%.

Anywho, looks like the President needs to abide by the Federal judges decision, or appeal to the SC.....good luck with that.

The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all. You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama and stating the obvious when it comes to the constitutionality of excise taxes. Remember, if it isn't unconstitutional when challenged it is constitutional until the next successful challenge.

The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.

The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all. You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama and stating the obvious when it comes to the constitutionality of excise taxes. Remember, if it isn't unconstitutional when challenged it is constitutional until the next successful challenge.

The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.

The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.

I said back not sure if was this thread or another how all we need to do is look at the failing reform and syrocketing cost to health care in Mass. to see what the Obama plan will do,

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all.

Philosopically, debatable. Practically, yes. However the difference here is a person is forced to purchased heath care. If I don't want to pay a tax on cig, beer, gas, etc. I can chose not to buy them.

You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama

Again, very much up for debate

The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.

At the end of the day I think we'll see a 5-4 ruling against Obamacare.

The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.

I wouldn't say none, but he's sure dug himself a good sized hole.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Philosopically, debatable. Practically, yes. However the difference here is a person is forced to purchased heath care. If I don't want to pay a tax on cig, beer, gas, etc. I can chose not to buy them.

Again, very much up for debate

At the end of the day I think we'll see a 5-4 ruling against Obamacare.

I wouldn't say none, but he's sure dug himself a good sized hole.

People who own a home get a tax break at the end of the year. You can choose not to buy a home in which case you won't get a tax break..or should I say get renter taxed. You are free to choose. The fee is a tax and waver of the fee is a tax break...it is all a matter of semantics and antics.