Toobin: Individual Mandate Looks Like It Will Be Struck Down

well it was sorta jarbled in with about 10 other points

the bolded was the key part, and what I tried to capture in my summary....

unless your point is a carrot is only a carrot when compared to a stick.....which is sort or deep....

 

How is this choosing to pay more in taxes (as you stated)? It looks to me like choosing to buy health insurance would lessen your taxes (based on the health insurance credit discussed by Heritage).
At any rate, the choice is up to you (as opposed by Obama Care where you are fined if you don't do their will).
If you don't want health care, under the Heritage model, you incur no penalty. How does this baffle you?

 

which is identical to obamacare. you buy insurance and lessen your taxes based on avoiding the penalty. its a distinction without distinction....and you know it.

the choise is up to you, you can pay more in taxes, or you can buy insurance....its 100% your choice...and the choices are the same as with heritage.

 

no penalty, you just pay more in taxes than the guy WITH insurance....just like with obamacare

 

There would be no increase in taxes under the Heritage model. Your taxes would remain the same if you choose not to buy health insurance. If you choose not to buy insurance under Obama Care, you are fined.

 

You don't pay one cent more relative to your own taxes...period!

Have an adult explain this difference to you.

 

I've wondered how a Constitutional scholar could make decisions like he does.

I guess that shows how far removed academics are from reality, I don't know.

 

so now its only a penalty relative to what you used to pay in taxes?

what a laughable distinction. its a tax cut for the insured.....so you can pay more in taxes or you can get insurance.

where is that carrot again?

 

lmao so basically youre ok with paying more in taxes for not having insurance....so long as its not more than youre paying in taxes currently?

so he could give a tax cut and the mandate would be ok as long as it was less than the tax cut??

 

There is no penalty at all. Only a reward or tax incentive. Have you ever heard of an incentive before?
And yeah, everything is relative for the payer of taxes to what he pays himself! How shocking!

Once more, there is no tax increase!! Why not stop spreading that lie?

 

I get....its ok to have a MANDATE to buy insurance, one where you pay more than those who dont buy insurance...

so long as you get a tax cut first.

 

There is no mandate. One may choose to buy health insurance thanks in part to a tax credit, but that is purely a choice the consumer makes. No one is mandated.

If I point out the obvious long enough, you may one day concede I'm right.

 

Nancy, Can you repeat that??

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uk99L8oqQ"]Q: Obamacare mandate constitutional? PelosI: "Are you serious?" - YouTube[/ame]​

 

lets ask Nancy Pelosi...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uk99L8oqQ"]Q: Obamacare mandate constitutional? PelosI: "Are you serious?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

so you can pay less in taxes, or you can buy insurance. how is that mandate difference than the obamacare mandate other than the fact that the uninsured dont get a tax cut first?

 

apparently a mandate, isnt a mandate, if it accompanies a tax cut

 

Not really...

365 x 3 = 1095

Which is only 5 less than 1100.

 

I'm amazed who poorly the Solicitor General prepared for these oral arguments. Of course the Justices were going to ask about limits. They asked the same thing during the oral arguments for Citizens United and were told the same thing; no real effective limits, but we wouldn't do that.

We know how that case went.

 

They did. Medicaid expansion is part of Obamacare.

 

Or especially if it is not mandated.

 

Thanks for your forfeit.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0kbC0hQHRg"]Apocalypse Now - Redux End Theme (The End by The Doors) - YouTube[/ame]

 

That's what I think, too. It's been like a comedy of errors from the beginning. Scalia's comments about the size of the bill were priceless. What group of business executives... or even lawyers... would be so arrogant to expect anybody to read thru such a monster?

There's a logical reason for following a well-planned timetable for major changes. I guess they don't teach that in law school or they wouldn't have come up with such a behemoth document that nobody's willing to read!!

Not a clue.

 

A tax cut would be the rolling back of a mandated government taking (taxation) of YOUR $$$$$. Have you forgotten just whose money it is?

 

No they are going to rule whether the law is Constitutional or not.

BTW how many have signed up for the pre-existing coverage provision. The administration tauted there would be 350,000 the first year.