Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post

The government does not force you to get insurance.
We have a difference of opinion on that.


Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
Nor could the government impose a requirement that you buy insurance and, for example, impose a criminal penalty for failing to buy that insurance. The Supreme Court made that clear in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012), which I’ll refer to as the NFIB case. The Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare), however, does not say anywhere that citizens must buy insurance. All it does is say that persons who are not covered or do not have their dependents covered by a qualifying healthcare plan must pay a tax (what the ACA refers to as a penalty) on persons who are not covered (or whose dependents are not covered) in any month by a qualifying healthcare plan and who don’t meet one of the exceptions to the requirement.
Any time one person (or agency) gives an ultimatum to another...the matter of "imposition" takes on a little more complexity. I do not, as an American citizen, any longer have the right to decide whether I do or do not have insurance. The ultimatum is "Get insurance or we will take your money under a guise of law."


Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
The Supreme Court held in the NFIB case that while Congress could not directly require citizens to buy insurance, imposing a tax on citizens who are not covered by a qualifying healthcare plan is a valid exercise of the Congress’ power to tax under Article I, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
I question this as a valid exercise of Congress' power, hence the question. I do see it as strong-arming because the threat of monetary penalty is the only other option here.

And again I ask, what's next? This sets a dangerous precedent...in my opinion.


Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
While that may not seem like much of a difference, the key difference here is that you don’t have to buy the insurance.
No, I can pay their fines. And from what I have heard, those fines increase every year that I "freely decide" not to get insurance. Maybe you could debunk that notion?


Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
You aren’t forced to do it.
Saying they "aren't forcing you to get insurance" doesn't change the fact that only two options, by law, are available.

And what is interesting is that when this law went into effect, my insurance company made it clear the law would not allow them to offer the policy I had before, so we see the law dictating the product offered by private companies (if that term is acceptable for an insurance company).


Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
There is a tax consequence for not having the health insurance, but that’s a choice you get to make.
Could you give a parallel to something else that is similar?

What other tax consequences are there for not buying a particular product?


Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
If you don’t want the insurance and would rather pay the tax, you can do that.
And as an American citizen, if I don't want to do either...?

Now tell me again about my choices?

I use to have that right. I went for about 7 years without any kind of health insurance at all, and was finally able to afford a policy which was actually a good policy. When the law went into effect they couldn't offer it anymore. The policy they could replace it was just under double the policy, ahich took it out of what I felt I was able to afford.


Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
That’s no different than any of the many other tax decisions that people must make.

That particular tax provision is unpopular, but so are some other tax provisions, too.
Again, give me a parallel. What else does the government legally require of me where I do not have a choice.


Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
Though unpopular, it is constitutional and will remain until Congress repeals it.

Because it is law does not equate to "It is Constitutional."

Out of curiosity, after receiving a letter from the insurance company I had concerning signing up for a policy, I called and the quote for the least expensive policy was half again as expensive as the one I had. Please do not argue "Things go up in cost," that is not the issue. What is in view is the Government making it law that allows them to penalize people because they decide they cannot afford insurance, and refuse to become reliant on Government assistance.

As far as I am concerned this law was enacted to extort money from others to pay for the healthcare of people that do not mind Government assistance. That is the only way a policy can, in one day, increase in cost with no other factors involved but that law itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote Quoting llworking
View Post
In addition to the other response, I will also add that there WAS a suit filed, and it made its way to the USSC, and was ruled on by the USSC. No more suits can be brought, because the highest court in the land has already ruled on the issue.
That seems a little premature, lol.

I wonder how a case concerning the penalty for not getting insurance would go?

As far as the law itself goes, from what I understand there are still pending suits addressing the law itself, and it is just my hope that it will be revealed as unlawful action by the government, and that it will be thrown on the garbage heap where it belongs. When the government can decide to force people to buy any type of product and get away with it, and convince the public that this is okay, I have to wonder where that will lead.