Congress actually had requirements to purchase health insurance dating all the way back to the 1700s. This is not even a new thing. At all.

Congress has also legislated inaction in the past. Farmers were forbidden from growing too much of a crop, that they did not even intend to sell. The Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional because it could still impact commerce. The commerce clause has been interpreted very, very broadly in the past.

Edit:
As for it being a conditional tax... most taxes are conditional. If I don't buy a boat, no luxury tax paid. This is the same principal but applied to inaction. Which is something Congress has regulated in the past. None of this is new.

It's just sad that Kennedy and Scalia are so baldly partisan that they both pretend it is. Had Romney taken the Republican nomination in 2008 and become president, we would have ended up with this exact same law. As Obamacare is pretty much Romneycare verbatim at a national level. This likely never would have been challenged and if it had been, it would have been a 7-2 decision with Alito and Thomas objecting to the concept of insurance in the first place.

Allow me to call it now. Romney will repeal Obamacare only to have the states opt into Romneycare. The difference that nationwide healthcare would be enforced on the state level instead of the federal level. But nothing really will change, for the most part. Either way, individual mandate sucks.

And LMAO at people saying they'll move to Canada because of Obamacare. ROFL. (not you guys, other internet peoples)

Should've just done single payer + public option right out of the gate. Sigh.

I'm hoping the politicians start pushing for a single payer system now that this is over with. It sounds like both sides want something better and more permanent.

Edit:
As for it being a conditional tax... most taxes are conditional. If I don't buy a boat, no luxury tax paid. This is the same principal but applied to inaction. Which is something Congress has regulated in the past. None of this is new.

This tax is far more coercive than conditional. Taking your example. If I don't buy a boat, I don't pay a tax. That's very different than if I don't buy a boat, then I pay a tax. A tax for not having a boat. So basically, you might as well go to a store and buy a boat, you're gonna get charged either way. That, IMO, is abusive and the government should not use taxes in that manner.

And LMAO at people saying they'll move to Canada because of Obamacare. ROFL. (not you guys, other internet peoples)

What's laughable about that? Under "Obamacare" you pay a penalty for not buying into private insurance. Said penalty doesn't provide you with any coverage. In Canada, you pay your taxes and you are covered. I bet many people would prefer Canada's system over the US system.

Now may be the perfect time to fight for single payer. Republicans may even vote for it, because they couldn't very well say "It's worse than Obamacare"(because nothing can be worse than anything Obama does for the Tea Party).

[quote name='BladeOfWraith' timestamp='1340911348' post='4953742']
Edit:
As for it being a conditional tax... most taxes are conditional. If I don't buy a boat, no luxury tax paid. This is the same principal but applied to inaction. Which is something Congress has regulated in the past. None of this is new.

This tax is far more coercive than conditional. Taking your example. If I don't buy a boat, I don't pay a tax. That's very different than if I don't buy a boat, then I pay a tax. A tax for not having a boat. So basically, you might as well go to a store and buy a boat, you're gonna get charged either way. That, IMO, is abusive and the government should not use taxes in that manner.
[/quote]There are already examples of inaction that result in penalties. If I don't pay my taxes on time, I pay a fine. If I park and don't fill the meter, I pay a fine. If I get jury duty and don't bother showing up, I can be fined and even jailed. If I don't pay my child support(even if I'm unemployed) I can be fined and jailed. If I don't pay my property taxes, I can lose my house. If I don't bother feeding my baby and it dies, I can be executed. There is a huge list of penalties for inaction.

You seem to object to the powers of taxation or the commerce clause. That's fine, but we need a constitutional amendment to change these powers. Congress has always had these powers and has used them for centuries, whether or not you realize it.

As I said, inaction in commerce has been regulated by congress in the past. This was not a new precedent.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1340915880' post='4953756']
And LMAO at people saying they'll move to Canada because of Obamacare. ROFL. (not you guys, other internet peoples)

What's laughable about that? Under "Obamacare" you pay a penalty for not buying into private insurance. Said penalty doesn't provide you with any coverage. In Canada, you pay your taxes and you are covered. I bet many people would prefer Canada's system over the US system.
[/quote]
Absolutely. But alot of those people, were against "Obamacare" in its original and current forms. That's why I'm LMAOing and ROFLing.

What does this have to do with video games? haha but ya its rediculuse and retarded.

Repubs often talk about the horror of socialism.. that they don't like the idea of having to pay for other people's services. I'm surprised repubs wouldn't chomp at the bit to force all those people who are getting free healthcare already (because not being able to afford care doesn't mean you can't get it) to contribute into the system since those very same people are forcing everyone with existing healthcare plans to pay $1000+ more in premiums on average. The tax is compulsory.. you don't get to not pay it unless you get a healthcare plan. If you can't afford healthcare you get a tax credit anyway.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1340919459' post='4953764']
[quote name='BladeOfWraith' timestamp='1340911348' post='4953742']
Edit:
As for it being a conditional tax... most taxes are conditional. If I don't buy a boat, no luxury tax paid. This is the same principal but applied to inaction. Which is something Congress has regulated in the past. None of this is new.

This tax is far more coercive than conditional. Taking your example. If I don't buy a boat, I don't pay a tax. That's very different than if I don't buy a boat, then I pay a tax. A tax for not having a boat. So basically, you might as well go to a store and buy a boat, you're gonna get charged either way. That, IMO, is abusive and the government should not use taxes in that manner.
[/quote]There are already examples of inaction that result in penalties. If I don't pay my taxes on time, I pay a fine. If I park and don't fill the meter, I pay a fine. If I get jury duty and don't bother showing up, I can be fined and even jailed. If I don't pay my child support(even if I'm unemployed) I can be fined and jailed. If I don't pay my property taxes, I can lose my house. If I don't bother feeding my baby and it dies, I can be executed. There is a huge list of penalties for inaction.
[/quote]
Yes, but they're called fines, not taxes. (emphasis mine) Following this logic, you would be fined for not buying healthcare, not taxed for it. There is a distinct difference between a fine and tax.

What does this have to do with video games? haha but ya its rediculuse and retarded.

Welcome to the Lounge! Politics come up quite frequently, and the Lounge is a great place for it.




It is interesting that we don't look at the two parts that were repealed. Those were more interesting in terms of side-effects.

Basically by preventing the state hand-holding for medicaid and medicare, they ensure their faster [s]demise[/s] overhaul of the programs. They are already struggling under their budgets and burdened by bureaucracy. Adding the extra burdens without additional funding is a serious blow.

The net effect is that today's big three social programs (medicaid, medicare, and social security) must be re-evaluated even more urgently. Congress-critters are still going to run it to the brink not caring who or what topples over the edge beforehand, but the brink is now coming more quickly. The faster they are forced to act, the better.