Balta1701

Is it also worth pointing out that there is no enforcement mechanism in the PPACA? If you don't pay the tax penalty, the IRS can't dock your pay, it can't put you in jail, it has no means of collecting that payment either.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:38 AM) To the point where it is very similar to the death panels argument, just in reverse. Someone please tell me how it is different other than just saying "I said so!"

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) Incorrect. But you can keep going. You're right, you haven't responded to my point other than to call it a simplification, but you haven't given a single statement about why the comparison is incorrect or why the government can't do this other than to repeat that somehow the government is forcing you to buy insurance when the government itself projects that 15 million people will not buy insurance.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) The government configured the tax code to ease the burden on people buying health insurance, etc...an incentive to help offset the other costs incurred for "taking part". Correct.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) I edited my post. It's not the same, even if it's meant to achieve the same goal. Bold: This is a vast oversimplification of the tax code and why they set it up that way. It's meant to ease the burden because of the extra amount of income that person will be spending on other various taxes, etc. You're *federal* income tax rate is slightly lower to offset the MASSIVE tax you have coming from local/state. Second Bold: Again, you don't HAVE to buy a home. Replying to edits: Again, you do not have to buy health insurance. Please re-read that before you say again that you do. The original projections said 15 million or so people would not do so. Second, your federal income tax rate is slightly lower to offset the massive fee you have coming from an insurance company, just as it is slightly lower to partially offset the massive fee you have coming from a private bank which is charging you interest.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) I edited my post. It's not the same, even if it's mean to achieve the same goal. You're right, it isn't the same in 2 ways, which I already pointed out. 1. THe language does not use the term "tax", it just structures it as a tax increase. 2. They were done in the same bill, as opposed to passing a different bill for the tax increase and for the tax credit. I'm waiting for you to tell me the other difference. Every one you've said so far is just a slogan. The government is not "Forcing" or "Requiring" or "Threatening" you or whatever if you don't purchase insurance, and it is legally mandating the purchase using the exact same mechanism by which it offers every other tax credit on the books. If the government passed 2 bills, one of which included an $800 tax increase on every American, and then immediately passed a second bill offering an $800 tax credit for purchase of qualifying private insurance, that would be the individual mandate in the affordable care act.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) That's not what they're arguing is unconstitutional. What's unconstitutional is the government telling you that you HAVE to buy something for said credit...or else! If you want to impose a new tax...impose it. Not the same as doing what they're doing here. Yes, it fundamentally is the exact same thing. The only difference is the language. That is literally the only difference, it is not spelled out as a "Tax". The government has every right to do every single step of this bill, and thus the government has every right to do so together. If the government were to pass an $800 tax increase on everyone in the country, and then offer an $800 tax credit for purchasing a mortgage, that would be the exact same structure as this bill in a legal sense, and that is effectively exactly what the current system has: I pay a higher federal income tax rate because I cannot claim a certain deduction. If the government then changed that terminology from "tax credit" to "Mandate" it could do so without altering the law at all. The law right now could be changed to call the mortgage interest tax deduction a "Homebuying mandate" and the law would be exactly the same as what is on the books right now.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:17 AM) No. Not even close. You're right, I should have added the clause "Federal income taxes".

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:16 AM) You're forcing me to answer a framed/loaded question, but it's not a yes or no question as you're attempting to pose it as. As Brad Pitt told Matt Damon in Ocean's Eleven, "It's slightly more complicated than that..." No, you don't pay a lower tax rate. You're tax rate is the same. You simply get a deduction...which is no where near the same as getting a lower tax rate. Yes, my interest is a *partial* deduction, but it's more complicated than a simple "yes" coupled with a tax deduction. I pay 3,800$ a year on my property tax...a tax you have to pay at ALL. Then in that case, does the government have the right to raise income taxes? Thus making you correct, that passing the bill would increase the tax rate. Because either the government has no right to raise everyone's income tax, or the government has no right to give a tax credit. If 2 things are constitutional, then doing them together in the same bill cannot make them suddenly unconstitutional.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) Again, you ignore the reality in an attempt to make a point. You're right, you don't HAVE to buy insurance...but if you don't you get taxed/penalized. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. You don't get taxed/penalized for not buying a Volt, a H/E furnace or a house. Yes or no question. If I had a mortgage right now, would I pay a lower tax rate? Am I paying more in taxes than I would if I were paying interest on a privately purchased mortgage?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:59 AM) So this still comes back to a drafting issue, not a legitimate Constitutional argument. They could have chosen to raise everyone's taxes and offered health insurance credits instead. The end result would have been identical. But now it's some egregious assault on liberty and freedom and the Constitution. And in fact, that is the exact structure of the law. The only difference is that it is not written involving the word tax. It is a tax with a matching credit for purchasing insurance, but it was written using the word "Mandate" instead of the word tax.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) You're entire bolded section makes zero sense. You aren't paying ANY higher amount of tax for not taking part in purchasing a volt or a house...because you don't "have" to buy either. That's how easily they'd knock down your argument if you attempted it in court, by the way. Does the government have the right to raise taxes?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) You are purposefully ignoring the difference between choice to buy and forced to buy in every last one of the examples you listed above, which skirts around the entire conversation. You don't HAVE to buy a Chevy Volt, a house, a high efficiency furnace, or A/C unit for the tax credit(s)/incentives offered for such purchases. It's a choice coupled with an incentive to "take part". What they did with this was remove the choice...you must buy said product from private business, or you get penalized for not. These examples you cited are nothing close to the same thing. No, they did not. You do not have to buy health insurance under the mandate. You flat out do not. They have not removed the choice in any sense. You do not go to jail, you can still pass go if you fail to purchase health insurance. You simply have to pay an $800 or so tax if you choose to do not, assuming you do not have other income levels. You have every right to choose not to purchase a product that will cost a family of 4 on average $20k this year and pay the tax penalty, just like I have every right to choose not to purchase a mortgage and pay several hundred dollars in higher taxes for the exact same reason. I am paying higher taxes than a person with a privately purchased mortgage who has the exact same income as me and otherwise has the exact same other purchases. That is the exact same issue.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) All it takes is one anonymous leak, though. If I were a doctor in PA, I'd be requesting that information from every company while looking up the mailing addresses of the editors of every major newspaper in the state. I mean, I can research the stuff on my own too...but the idea that a doctor can't tell their own patient information that they research...Ugh.

Really, this is how we want this country to run?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) But they didn't call it a tax!!!! Therefore unconstitutional! Scalia tipped his hand by relying on tea party talking points. And negotiating points that didn't even make it into the final bill. The sad thing is, I think what I just wrote is a pretty simple case to make, but it wasn't made by the lawyer arguing for the bill. When Scalia asked if there was any economic purchase the government couldn't regulate, the appropriate response should be that the court has yet to establish any standard to that effect, where the government has no right to offer a tax credit in exchange for purchasing a certain product, and in fact the court has said that the government can do the opposite, heavily regulate and outright ban certain products even if they're produced with no interest in selling them (the Scalia-written Raich decision).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) That is like $26 million in Iowa money. They're paying him in corn?!?!

Chris Perez came back yesterday and threw 5 pitches, but Derek Lowe left with back Spasms and rotation candidate David Huff strained a hamstring (Indians). Carl Pavano is reportedly facing an extortion plot.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) They're going to strike down a constitutional goal with constitutional means because of drafting language. Really, that's not "Why". That might be an excuse, and it's a convenient way for people writing about the bill to pretend it is something otherwise. All the "Mandate" should be in a legal sense is a tax increase combined with a tax credit for purchasing a product that meets a certain standard, both of which are fully constitutional. The real reason, and we all know it, is that there were 5 Republican appointees and 4 Democratic appointees.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 07:26 PM) plenty of 'free' government stuff does not require you to purchase insurance. they are paid for with taxes. you can't force people to buy corporate products IMO. we will see if the wise supreme court justices agree with me. Of course, we've been over this many times, but hey, it's morning, and I'm up for a rant so I'll repeat myself. The government is not forcing you to buy a corporate product. The government is raising your taxes and offering you an equivalent tax credit if you purchase a corporate product. Effectively, the government is saying you will pay a higher tax rate if you choose not to purchase that product. You will not go to jail if you fail to purchase health insurance. The government of course does this all the bloody time. For example, I am currently not a homeowner. I do not have a mortgage, and thus i am not paying interest on that mortgage. If I were to purchase a mortgage, it would be originally a corporate product. Thus, I am paying a tax penalty for failing to purchase a corporate product. In the exact same way that you're saying the government is "Forcing" me to buy health insurance, it is "forcing" me to buy a mortgage. You have every right to not purchase either of these products, but if you choose not to do so, you pay a higher tax rate. I would love to purchase a Chevy Volt, but I have not done so. Thus, I have not cashed in the tax credit for purchasing a Chevy Volt. By the exact same standard, I am being "Forced" to buy a chevy volt; the government has a tax credit that kicks in if I buy a corporate product. BS doesn't eat meat, thus he's being inactive in terms of cashing in on all the subsidies that go to meat production. I have not given significant funds to charitiy this year, and thus I have failed to cash in on the enormous tax credits for giving to charities. I have not had a business lunch this year. I have not made energy efficiency upgrades to a home that I own this year. The "Mandate" is a mandate in the exact same sense that any of these are "mandates", you pay a higher tax rate if you aren't economically active by giving your money to that private group. It is different in a few ways: 1. The increased tax rate and the tax credit are in the same bill and are the same amount 2. It is not called a "Tax", it is called a "Mandate", because the word "Tax" is hard to get through Congress and the word "Mandate" actually produces a stronger reaction in people making them more likely to make the purchase. 3. It was passed by Democrats, and Democrats are evil. The final majority opinion is likely to have Scalia-written BS about "Economic inactivity" in it. Personally, I would love to challenge the mortgage interest deduction on the same standard. The only ways it differs from the "Mandate" in the PPACA are those 3 points. Of course, the real reason why it would be unconstitutional is #3, but hey, that's the world we live in.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 11:36 PM) Hiring Ozzie was a great move too. But getting anything for Ozzie Guillen, who is really not a good manager, when the Sox had quite clearly given up on him (and him on the Sox) and were willing to pay him to sit on a couch all season was fantastic. If even one of those guys does anything meaningful in the big leagues, or is traded for Jeff Keppinger or something and Jeff Keppinger gets a base hit that wins a game, then it is an incredible move. Jose Contreras for Esteban Loaiza meets pretty much every standard you just wrote. And he won games!

I'll also add TJS for Chris Sale. There, I said it.

What's better, 200 innings with an ERA of 5-ish from Richard in the 5th starter spot, or 100 dominant innings from Sale followed by 100 innings pitched by someone else?

So, randy Wells, guy who in 2009 put up a 3.05 ERA, in 2010 put up a 4.26 ERA, winds up at Iowa. That's gotta sting.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:51 PM) Sale would have been the 2nd or 3rd pick in the draft if money wasn't a concern And injury worries.