Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='camoor']I've seen gamefaqs posts with more substance.[/QUOTE]

Someones gotta disseminate the latest right wing trash.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']How do you give someone an exemption from something with no mandate?[/QUOTE]

A.) There is a mandate.
B.) The exemption is for employers who will either see increased costs due to the new requirements or federal penalties for not meeting them - not for individuals.
 
[quote name='dohdough']MA is exempt because it not only already has an insurance mandate, but universal/single-payer as well. Suck it republitards.[/QUOTE]

One down, 772 more to go...
 
Funny, aside from Massachusetts (which makes sense) all the other states have republican governors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) There is a mandate.
[/QUOTE]
I have to correct someone on this every day.
There is no enforcement mechanism, therefore there is no mandate. Sure there is a tax, but there is zero penalty for not paying the tax. I dont know how one can read the following excerpt from the bill and then maintain that there is a mandate:

“(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.— The Secretary shall not—(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’’
 
Lollarity from tivo's link:
Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.
Click to expand...
The "Cornhusker Kickback" was removed entirely from the bill. The "Louisiana Purchase" was a forward payment for Medicaid and was meant as a bridge because it's a dirt poor state run by dirt stupid people and poor people were going to have their insurance cut. Which is, you know, THE fuckING POINT OF THE BILL.

Kind of hard to take the rest seriously. Is the data good? I dunno, but starting with an actual lie and an out of context slam makes it a little difficult to believe the rest is good faith.

Thanks, Dr Mario Kart. Now we get to put up with Bob saying that he's read the bill.
 
Lollarity from tivo's link:
Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.
Click to expand...
The "Cornhusker Kickback" was removed entirely from the bill. The "Louisiana Purchase" was a forward payment for Medicaid and was meant as a bridge because it's a dirt poor state run by dirt stupid people and poor people were going to have their insurance cut. Which is, you know, THE fuckING POINT OF THE BILL.

Kind of hard to take the rest seriously. Is the data good? I dunno, but starting with an actual lie and an out of context slam makes it a little difficult to believe the rest is good faith.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']One down, 772 more to go...[/QUOTE]
WTF does this stupid shit mean.

[quote name='Clak']Funny, aside from Massachusetts (which makes sense) all the other states have republican governors.[/QUOTE]
We can thank Scott Brown and Mitt Romney for that one. Brown for the exemption push and Romney for the healthcare. Not that either one did anything to prevent insurance companies from raising rates for the last several years or making sure that our subsidized care was sufficiently covered.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I have to correct someone on this every day.
There is no enforcement mechanism, therefore there is no mandate. Sure there is a tax, but there is zero penalty for not paying the tax. I dont know how one can read the following excerpt from the bill and then maintain that there is a mandate:

“(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.— The Secretary shall not—(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’’[/QUOTE]
You are correct. "Mandate" is the wrong word to use. Not that I'd have a problem with and actual one.:D
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I have to correct someone on this every day.
There is no enforcement mechanism, therefore there is no mandate. Sure there is a tax, but there is zero penalty for not paying the tax. I dont know how one can read the following excerpt from the bill and then maintain that there is a mandate:

“(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.— The Secretary shall not—(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’’[/QUOTE]

Still a mandate.
Just because they're not going to increase the penalty over time doesn't mean the penalty isn't there.

And, of course, this doesn't address the fact that these penalties will be rolled into your income tax returns. So, what will happen, if I was going to be getting back $1,000 via overpaid income taxes, I'm now going to get nothing back ($695x2). And this is all assuming that the Federal Government doesn't do something shifty, like take the penalty out *before* accounting for taxes due. If they do that, then, suddenly, I'm $390 short paying my taxes. What happens when I don't pay that?

Anyone care to guess what happens when you start "cheating" the Federal Government on your income tax returns?

You get a position in the Obama administration...

[quote name='dohdough']WTF does this stupid shit mean.[/QUOTE]

It means you've explained one of the 773 exemptions.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']A Florida Federal judge has ruled requiring insurance unconstitutional. Apparently that puts the tally at 2-2 for/against in the lower courts so far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/01ruling.html?_r=1&hp[/QUOTE]
The hilarious part about the ruling is that it attacks the concession Obama made while trying to get Republicans to support the bill. A single payer system wouldn't have that problem.

The commerce clause is a tortured bitch. It's absurd to look at all the things that have been given a constitutionally clean bill of health via commerce clause then point at the health care bill as the line in the sand. Shit, Raich opened a 40lb box of rape all over commerce.
 
Plus, the more lower courts rule, the more cover the SCOTUS has to rule in one way or the other, or just defer to the lower courts.
 
I still believe that when it gets to the SCOTUS the only thing they'll throw out is the individual mandate.

That said, this part is pretty interesting. See if you can find similar language in other famous rulings:

This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the 'normal rule' that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.
Click to expand...
 
Not exactly relevant to this, but it was mentioned in that article and made me remember. Not many people seem to realize this, but AA is a religous organization at it's core. Part of the rehabilitation is basically accepting god can cure you. So if you're not religous, you don't really fit so to speak. Yet this is the organization so often associated with helping people recover.
 
The clause says there is no penalty for not paying the tax - not, there is no penalty unless we roll it into your taxes. Naturally, the particulars of how this part works will be sorted out in the first class action lawsuit, of which I will probably be in. I'll let you know how it turns out.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I still believe that when it gets to the SCOTUS the only thing they'll throw out is the individual mandate.[/QUOTE]

But there is no mandate!!!111...

Yeah, I suspect that'll be thrown out and the majority of it'll stay.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The clause says there is no penalty for not paying the tax - not, there is no penalty unless we roll it into your taxes. Naturally, the particulars of how this part works will be sorted out in the first class action lawsuit, of which I will probably be in. I'll let you know how it turns out.[/QUOTE]

It'll be interesting to see, but the way I foresee it happening, they don't have to say "unless we roll it into your taxes" - the bill itself already rolls it into the income tax filing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While I understand, on the whole, why this would be a bad idea, I wish there were some exceptions where cases could go straight to the Supreme Court and save us all the trouble.[/QUOTE]
That would make things really, really messy. We think of the Supreme Court like we do any other court but it's not. The first court to hear an issue decides on the facts. Every other court after that (appellate level) decides on whether the law was applied correctly. As it goes up, it gets distilled and the noise is separated from the real constitutional issue. So for the health bill, you've got competing lawsuits. The other judge said that you could sever the "individual mandate"* part (OMG THERES NO MANDATE THO) and the rest of the bill could stand. This Florida judge says that severability** does not apply and the entire bill must be struck down. They will be distilled on the way up and federal appeals judges will further add to the knowledge base before it hits the Supremes. The question of severability will likely be answered before it get to the SC so they don't have to worry about that (or maybe not, who knows).

*Really, you're stuck on mandate? Can we torture the English language any more plz?

**In contract law, most times you can remove a provision of a contract found to be illegal/unconstitutional but keep the remainder of the contract unless the contract/law specifically states the entire thing is null unless it remains whole OR unless it is decided by the courts that the contract/law cannot stand without said struck provision. Florida judge says it can't stand without it. Other judge says it can.

Also, Mr. Florida Judge Vinson decided to make his opinion extremely political which not only makes him look like a giant douche, but makes the likelihood of overturn higher. In his opinion on whether or not the provision is severable, he talks about the tea party, General Motors, and Obama's campaign rhetoric. That's bad business no matter what political angle you take.

Also, federal judges almost always defer to severability because it's obvious what the intent of the contract/law is. It's plain what the legislators wanted here. It's plain the precedent is to sever the unconstitutional part and allow the rest. Mr. Florida Judge Vinson decided he didn't like that.

"One of the reasons there was not was that there was a keen understanding in the process that courts generally have a deferential view of severability and try to make the rulings have the least impact," she said. "And that took the pressure off the severability clause."

That was the thinking at the time from plenty of experts. Two months ago, Washington and Lee University law professor Timothy Jost told Brian Beutler—one of the first reporters to notice the severability slip-up—that it was unlikely that a lower court would void the entire health care bill if it voided the mandate, because "the normal rule is that partial invalidation is the required course." Today, his optimism left tattered on Judge Vinson's carpet, Jost intimated that the Senate had made a mess of things.
Click to expand...
Stupid ass liberals expecting judges to judge. And then there's the whole judicial activism thing that I don't hear a fucking mouse fart out of the conservatives on.
But perhaps the clearest indicator of bias in the decisions against the Affordable Care Act is the gist of the decisions themselves. For generations, conservatives have championed “judicial restraint.” If judicial restraint means anything, it means deferring to the Congress on matters of policy preference--like, for example, whether it’s better to run a national health insurance system with a system of regulated private insurance (which is what people will get with the Affordable Care Act) rather than via a single-payer, government-run plan (which is what the elderly already get with Medicare). But if these these decisions by Judges Vinson and Hudson carry the day--and, please remember, two federal judges have already ruled the other way--they would effectively take that discretion away from the Congress.
Click to expand...
The Democrats made a mistake in not including a severability clause in the law. Sure, they fucked up. But it's fucking ridiculous that that's what's getting traction here.

The real issue:
The bottom line of much of it is that the fate of the legislation is now, as it was last week, in the hands of Anthony Kennedy.

That's likely to be true. But the fact that the Supreme Court will still have the ultimate word on this does not mean nothing changed yesterday. Vinson's ruling, which was much more extreme and sweeping than previous rulings, opened up the right side of the debate. So now there are two possible questions the Supreme Court must decide on. The first is the basic legitimacy of the legislation. Many Court-watchers expect that the question will be decided on a 5-4 split, with Kennedy proving the deciding vote. If five justices -- or more -- say the law is constitutional, their work is done. But if five or more say the individual mandate is not constitutional, then a second question emerges: Is the mandate severable, as Judge Hudson thought it was? If the Court says it is, then the vast bulk of the legislation remains intact, and the only real question is whether congressional Republicans are open to crafting some sort of replacement to the provision if it proves needed in 2015 or 2016 or 2017. If the Court says it's not, and voids the entirety of President Obama's most important legislative achievement, that's a decision with much more far-reaching consequences.

Most Court-watchers I've spoken to think it very unlikely that Vinson's ruling will stand. The bigger danger, they say, is that Vinson's ruling will make Hudson's ruling seem more modest and appealing. But there's a good chance that whatever the decision is, it will come in 2012, while Barack Obama is campaigning for president and his supporters are at their most activated. In that environment, an adverse ruling could radicalize liberals toward the Court in much the way that Roe radicalized conservatives. This case puts the Supreme Court more firmly at the center of a major and polarizing political issue than they've been in recent memory. The long-term consequences of an aggressive ruling in that context will also be weighing on Kennedy and his colleagues as they grope their way to a decision.
Click to expand...
All hail King Anthony Kennedy.

Oh, and naturally the conservatives on the court will have to do fucking backflips and overturn their own goddamn precedent to vote with Judge Vinson. Anyone want to take a bet on whether or not they will?
"Among those who have joined in rejecting the century-old, long-defunct decisions on which Judge Roger Vinson's decision rests, are Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts. They will have to twist their prior decisions and statements into pretzels in order to rule the individual mandate or other ACA provisions unconstitutional."
Click to expand...
 
Mitt Romney must be happy with the healthcare bill as it stands. He sure was proud of Romneycare:

ROMNEY: We have found that we can get everybody insured without breaking the bank and without a public option…Massachusetts is a model for getting everybody insured in a way that doesn’t break the bank, doesn’t put the government in the driver’s seat and allows people to own their own insurance policies and not to have to worry about losing coverage. That’s what Massachusetts did.”
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKw9CyXSjB0

Wrong thread, but still, stay classy.
 
Imma just keep dumping on this thread and to make matters worse, I'm going to quote myself.
[quote name='speedracer']The commerce clause is a tortured bitch. It's absurd to look at all the things that have been given a constitutionally clean bill of health via commerce clause then point at the health care bill as the line in the sand. Shit, Raich opened a 40lb box of rape all over commerce.[/QUOTE]
Thankfully, someone with less of a potty mouth decided to expand on what I was talking about yesterday. Remember, an appeals judge's job is not to decide what is constitutional per se. Their job is to apply existing case law. That's their entire job description.
Judge Vinson is just a District Court judge. And if you pair Justice Thomas’s dissent in Raich with Judge Vinson’s opinion today, you realize the problem: Judge Vinson is reasoning that existing law must be a particular way because he thinks it should be that way as a matter of first principles, not because the relevant Supreme Court doctrine actually points that way. Remember that in Raich, the fact that the majority opinion gave the federal government the power to “regulate virtually anything” was a reason for Justice Thomas to dissent. In Judge Vinson’s opinion, however, the fact that the government’s theory gave the federal government the power to “regulate virtually anything” was a reason it had to be inconsistent with precedent.

Obviously, I’m not arguing that Judge Vinson was bound by Justice Thomas’s dissent. Rather, my point is that Judge Vinson should not have used a first principle to trump existing Supreme Court caselaw when that principle may not be consistent with existing caselaw. Either Justice Thomas is wrong or Judge Vinson is wrong, and Judge Vinson was not making a persuasive legal argument when he followed the first principle instead of the cases. Because Judge Vinson is bound by Supreme Court precedent, I would think he should have applied the cases.
Click to expand...
I can't wait to see Scalia squirm out of this opinion, taken from Raich:
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even . . . activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
Click to expand...
Again, Scalia's opinion on Raich:
"Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court [Rehnquist] nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated."
Click to expand...
o rly?

From a Justice Kennedy opinion:
"Congress can regulate on the assumption that we have a single market and a unified purpose to build a stable national economy."
Click to expand...
Can't wait.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Republiconetarians still have zero ideas for achieving universal healthcare coverage.[/QUOTE]

Because they mostly don't believe in the idea and view health insurance as a privilege rather than a right. So they're not trying to come up with any ideas.

Their goal isn't health care for the poor, but keeping taxes down for their constituents who are mostly well off and have good insurance. Sure, there are the poor, social conservatives, but they donate little and thus have little impact on policy--so they just end up stupidly voting for the party who's agenda least benefits them practically.
 
everyone has a right to live to 90 years old and it is up to the government to guarantee this right and make sure no one is making record profits off our decisions. Also, the american people deserve social security payments when they reach age 62 to maintain their living wage lifestyles after they stop working or their welfare paychecks if they couldn't work. We also have the right to pay only what I think is a reasonable price for healthcare and other expenses. Furthermore, people who make more money should pay their equal share but its up to the american people to decide what that is. This is all called democracy. Open the borders and grant amnesty and we can vote on it.

P.S. fuck Sarah Palin, Beck, O'Reilly and all the other hypocritical conservatives I don't know. They just want to trample on our freedom and are in with big oil, insurance companies, and big corporations.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Largest waiver revealed... who gets it? You might be surprised... if you haven't been paying attention at all...[/QUOTE]
It's a one year waiver given to an organization who provides coverage over and above the coverage required by the bill. What part of that is unfair?

Or more directly, what exactly is your problem with the waiver? I know, stupid question.
[quote name='tivo']everyone has a right to live to 90 years old and it is up to the government to guarantee this right and make sure no one is making record profits off our decisions. Also, the american people deserve social security payments when they reach age 62 to maintain their living wage lifestyles after they stop working or their welfare paychecks if they couldn't work. We also have the right to pay only what I think is a reasonable price for healthcare and other expenses. Furthermore, people who make more money should pay their equal share but its up to the american people to decide what that is. This is all called democracy. Open the borders and grant amnesty and we can vote on it.

P.S. fuck Sarah Palin, Beck, O'Reilly and all the other hypocritical conservatives I don't know. They just want to trample on our freedom and are in with big oil, insurance companies, and big corporations.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for contributing. You've escalated the conversation with rational insight. Well done.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's a one year waiver given to an organization who provides coverage over and above the coverage required by the bill. What part of that is unfair?[/quote]

Dumb question - why do they need a waiver if their coverage is better than what's required?

[quote name='speedracer']Or more directly, what exactly is your problem with the waiver? I know, stupid question.[/QUOTE]

Government officials picking and choosing who the rules apply to and who they don't apply to? And that list just happens to align so well with the list of donors? Yeah, I see no problems here...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Dumb question - why do they need a waiver if their coverage is better than what's required?[/quote]
They said right there in the story you linked. Jesus dude. Pretend at least, ok?
Government officials picking and choosing who the rules apply to and who they don't apply to? And that list just happens to align so well with the list of donors? Yeah, I see no problems here...
Click to expand...
Given the answer to the question about why they would need it (helpfully answered by your link already), what exactly is your problem with the ONE year waiver?
 
[quote name='speedracer']They said right there in the story you linked. Jesus dude. Pretend at least, ok?[/quote]

I'd like to read your twist on it. The article makes it pretty clear - these union members have higher-than-normal caps on their evil "Cadillac" health care plans everyone rallied against - and now they're getting special exemptions for it.

Given the answer to the question about why they would need it (helpfully answered by your link already), what exactly is your problem with the ONE year waiver?
Click to expand...

Gee, what's the problem with giving special benefits to your political donors? Anyone? Anyone?
 
We generally think of the "bottom" as bad, by definition. It is a race to corporate freedom, which of course is bad.

I could for a government credit card option, sure. We should've taken all that money we gave away to the banks and just formed a series of state owned banks like the one in North Dakota.

However, your analogue is incorrect, since Obamacare doesnt cover everyone, and there is no government administered option involved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob'] I'd like to read your twist on it. The article makes it pretty clear - these union members have higher-than-normal caps on their evil "Cadillac" health care plans everyone rallied against - and now they're getting special exemptions for it.[/QUOTE]

During the campaign McCain was in favor of taxing Cadillac health care plans. Obama realized this would hit people like CEO's, but disproportionately punish union workers. He argued that a lot of these Cadillac plans that unions had were negotiated in exchange for concessions on salary in collective bargaining.

"John McCain calls these plans "Cadillac plans," Obama said in Virginia in the Fall of 2008.
"Now in some cases, it may be that a corporate CEO is getting too good a deal. But what if you're a line worker making a good American car like the Cadillac? What if you're one of the steelworkers who are working right here in Newport News, and you've given up wage increases in exchange for a better health care?"
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='IRHari']During the campaign McCain was in favor of taxing Cadillac health care plans. Obama realized this would hit people like CEO's, but disproportionately punish union workers. He argued that a lot of these Cadillac plans that unions had were negotiated in exchange for concessions on salary in collective bargaining.[/QUOTE]

"disproportionately punish"? I didn't think this was about punishment. Glad to see our government is about punishing citizens who haven't been convicted of breaking a single law.

But more to your point, what about anyone (CEO or otherwise) who isn't lucky enough to get one of these awesome waivers and also negotiated lower wages in exchange for a "Cadillac" health care plan? Screw 'em, they should have been Union members?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']We generally think of the "bottom" as bad, by definition. [/quote]

Politicians always use words or phrasing to push their agendas. E.g. "stimulus package" which didn't stimulate. "Affirmative Action" where the adj. doesn't mean anything. The redundant "social justice" where justice does not exist except in social realms. All the politically correct crap. And even the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (instead of a more generic name). This last one implies that patients aren't currently protected and are actually being severely hurt. Also, it calls it "affordable" when medical costs aren't going to change. I'm surprised it doesn't also have a bit on improving the quality of healthcare.


It is a race to corporate freedom, which of course is bad.
Click to expand...

Of course? When liberals don't know something they pretend its obvious. They then call the argument to simplistic or some other BS. Of course, it shows how liberals don't have brains.

I could for a government credit card option, sure. We should've taken all that money we gave away to the banks and just formed a series of state owned banks like the one in North Dakota.
Click to expand...

Bring this up in the keynes thread. I don't know if you mean you want an expansion of the fed with smaller branches in states, or central banks in each state competing with the fed, or something else. The BND doesn't seem to do much.

However, your analogue is incorrect, since Obamacare doesnt cover everyone, and there is no government administered option involved.
Click to expand...

What problem does it solve if it doesn't cover everyone? What govt. admin. option are you talking about?

The whole point of the credit card thing is how dumb some of these previous comments have been about high interest rates and usury laws. Again, dumb liberals actually hurt the poor when they're trying to help them but they are too dumb to realize it. Because of these interest rates caps which are intended to help the poor, banks will not lend money to these high risk individuals. As a result, the poor people go to check-into-cash or similar places with HIGHER interest rates to get cash advances, loans, etc. Some liberals want to close these places down at which point, the poor will then go to pawn shops and mob/gang/booky groups to get cash advances with EVEN HIGHER interest rates and ruthless ways of getting their money back.

[quote name='Msut77']http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/the_reality_of_our_health-care.html[/QUOTE]
Better:
http://plf.typepad.com/plf/2011/01/what-problem-exactly-does-obamacare-fix.html


We need to repeal the bill so you can find out what's wrong with it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two things any sensible person can do to raise up the conversation. Look, many liberals aren't happy with the ACA, so let's not act like we're not open to discussing its shortcomings.

But, in order to get a seat at the table and start to have a discussion, you actually have to come armed with a solution to the health care problem in the US. Pretending there is no problem, or offering only the idea that the ACA needs to be repealed (and nothing offered to replace it), or similarly, if your only proposal(s) to fix health care start and stop with tort reform and/or interstate insurance, well, then you're not prepared to really debate health care.

Also, anyone who calls it "Obamacare" is disqualified from the discussion. That's the immediate telltale sign of an ideologue who is concerned with political victory, and not with reforming health care.
 
[quote name='tivo']eventually socialism runs out of other's people's money. [/quote]

Actually, this is mathematically impossible. If A has $100 and has to give up $50 to B, who has $0, then B would have $50 and you can tax A AND B at an equal rate. Spread that among a billion people and you still don't have an issue with a lack of funds. Merchantillism is long disproven.
 
[quote name='Don Chubo'][quote name='tivo']
We need to repeal the bill so you can find out what's wrong with it[/QUOTE]

Now that's a slogan.[/QUOTE]

I've been working on the bumper sticker too....
obamacare.jpg
 
[quote name='dohdough']Actually, this is mathematically impossible. If A has $100 and has to give up $50 to B, who has $0, then B would have $50 and you can tax A AND B at an equal rate. Spread that among a billion people and you still don't have an issue with a lack of funds. Merchantillism is long disproven.[/QUOTE]

You aren't half bad for a troll. Hat tip to you, my friend.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am still waiting for someone to explain why its ok to spend more money to exclude people from a free market system.[/QUOTE]


Say a doctor leaves a glove in your chest during an operation. Do you have a second operation or do you let the glove fester inside you?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Actually, this is mathematically impossible. If A has $100 and has to give up $50 to B, who has $0, then B would have $50 and you can tax A AND B at an equal rate. Spread that among a billion people and you still don't have an issue with a lack of funds. Merchantillism is long disproven.[/QUOTE]

you talk about redistributing wealth like its Zeno's dichotomy paradox. What I'm saying is that for socialized policies, there isn't enough money, resources, time, etc. to go around. Either someone will eventually get the shaft or a common equality of sacrifice will be made.

talk about racing to the bottom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top