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='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.

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]
I think our disagreement is what you and I define as acceptable. The government has the right to levy a tax on your income and your property. So if you don't pay your taxes on time, you get fined. Ok. If I park at a meter which is clearly marked as not free then I can get fined. Ok. There is a law that says you must perform jury duty, if you don't you can get fined. Ok. If I have children and neglect them, I can be penalized in some form. Ok.

Now the government can't tax or penalize me if I don't have a job, ie. no income. If I don't park in front of a parking meter, they won't fine me for not doing so. If no one selects me for jury duty, then they can't fine me for not volunteering. If I live in an apartment or with a friend, I don't get a property tax levied on me. Can't pay child support if I don't have any kids. Notice how inaction or the absence of said issue does not penalize me with a fine. Or even, if I don't own a car, they won't penalize or fine me for not having car insurance.

However, the absence of health insurance immediately provokes a fine from the government. Its purpose is to coerce you into buying a product from a corporation. Put another way, there's a law in place that forces you to go into a store and buy a xbox (because it's been proven to cure depression) and if you don't you'll be levied a fine of a $1 a day for every day you don't own a xbox. So this is not an issue of inaction but an indirect method of coercion.

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.

I'm generally a fiscal conservative, and my problem with obamacare was that it doesn't seem like an intelligent solution to the problem. Having a public option with a tax deduction claimable for people/businesses who provide healthcare for themselves seems like a much better solution than this. I also don't see why the whole bill needed to be a single bill. There are many things that are unrelated to insurance/paying for healthcare that will advance our health care quality across the board, but I don't see why so much had to be in a single bill other than it being a political ploy to push through controversial legislation by attaching it to non-controversial stuff.

I just dislike in general how the bill was handled. It really highlighted all of my dis-satisfactions with America's representation.

Now the government can't tax or penalize me if I don't have a job, ie. no income. If I don't park in front of a parking meter, they won't fine me for not doing so. If no one selects me for jury duty, then they can't fine me for not volunteering. If I live in an apartment or with a friend, I don't get a property tax levied on me. Can't pay child support if I don't have any kids. Notice how inaction or the absence of said issue does not penalize me with a fine. Or even, if I don't own a car, they won't penalize or fine me for not having car insurance.

However, the absence of health insurance immediately provokes a fine from the government. Its purpose is to coerce you into buying a product from a corporation. Put another way, there's a law in place that forces you to go into a store and buy a xbox (because it's been proven to cure depression) and if you don't you'll be levied a fine of a $1 a day for every day you don't own a xbox. So this is not an issue of inaction but an indirect method of coercion

I've not been keeping up with this new US law or how it works -- some of the commentary I have seen has been hard to follow rationally, because people are using terms like "fine" and stuff, when they mean "tax", etc... There's too much emotional language used in US coverage of it for me...

In the above quote though, it sounds to me much more like the first set of examples than the 2nd (xbox) example... If you don't work, you don't get taxed -- it's that simple.
Taxes are used to run the government, who runs the public services, like healthcare. Therefore, it makes sense for healthcare to make up part of your tax bill.

However, some people choose to NOT use public services, for whatever reason, and it's these people who go and support corportate healthcare instead of public healthcare. These people are already paying a corporation to do the government's job for them, and don't want to be double-billed by the government -- so the government has nicely excluded these people from paying taxes towards this particular public service.

That's the way it works in Australia anyway -- you can pay some private corporation to cover your health, or you can instead pay a bit more tax and still have your health covered by the public system instead. Either way, you pay about the same amount, and get about the same care.

IMHO, everyone should pay for the public system (regardless of whether you also pay a private fee or not), to provide 100% coverage for everyone in the country. The issue here isn't that you're being "fined" for not buying a prodcut -- it's that the government is condoning the undermining of public services by private corporations. In effect, they're giving you a discount off of your tax bill if you have bought a private service (and giving up some of their responsibility to run the public health service).

Wouldn't it be worth losing a few hundred dollars of income per year each (i.e. everyone paying tax), to provide a public service and remove the health-care induced stresses (and pains, and diseases, and deaths) of 300 million people? It really isn't right that you guys pay far, far, far more for healthcare than any other nation in the world, but are still competing against Slovenia on the WHO charts... It'd be much cheaper and higher quality if you just cared about other people. How come this isn't the issue? Has any of the debate focused on lowering the cost and increasing the quality and coverage to compare to other western nations?

[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1340934326' post='4953804']
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.

I'm generally a fiscal conservative, and my problem with obamacare was that it doesn't seem like an intelligent solution to the problem. Having a public option with a tax deduction claimable for people/businesses who provide healthcare for themselves seems like a much better solution than this. I also don't see why the whole bill needed to be a single bill. There are many things that are unrelated to insurance/paying for healthcare that will advance our health care quality across the board, but I don't see why so much had to be in a single bill other than it being a political ploy to push through controversial legislation by attaching it to non-controversial stuff.

I just dislike in general how the bill was handled. It really highlighted all of my dis-satisfactions with America's representation.
[/quote]
Well originally, IIRC, Obamacare was as you described. And at that time, I was all for it. But then the Republicans decided to scream, "Socialism! Death Panels!" and we ended up with this version of Obamacare. Which is oddly enough is based on the Republican version of healthcare. Oh the irony.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1340936609' post='4953812']
Now the government can't tax or penalize me if I don't have a job, ie. no income. If I don't park in front of a parking meter, they won't fine me for not doing so. If no one selects me for jury duty, then they can't fine me for not volunteering. If I live in an apartment or with a friend, I don't get a property tax levied on me. Can't pay child support if I don't have any kids. Notice how inaction or the absence of said issue does not penalize me with a fine. Or even, if I don't own a car, they won't penalize or fine me for not having car insurance.

However, the absence of health insurance immediately provokes a fine from the government. Its purpose is to coerce you into buying a product from a corporation. Put another way, there's a law in place that forces you to go into a store and buy a xbox (because it's been proven to cure depression) and if you don't you'll be levied a fine of a $1 a day for every day you don't own a xbox. So this is not an issue of inaction but an indirect method of coercion

I've not been keeping up with this new US law or how it works -- some of the commentary I have seen has been hard to follow rationally, because people are using terms like "fine" and stuff, when they mean "tax", etc... There's too much emotional language used in US coverage of it for me...

In the above quote though, it sounds to me much more like the first set of examples than the 2nd (xbox) example... If you don't work, you don't get taxed -- it's that simple.
Taxes are used to run the government, who runs the public services, like healthcare. Therefore, it makes sense for healthcare to make up part of your tax bill.[/quote]
If the government was the one providing the healthcare I'd agree with you. Though admittedly, I had a hard time understanding the sentence in bold. I'm not sure what exactly you were referring to.

If the government was the one providing the healthcare I'd agree with you. Though admittedly, I had a hard time understanding the sentence in bold. I'm not sure what exactly you were referring to.

Doesn't the government run the healthcare system? Regulating doctors, hospitals, etc? Don't Tax dollars go towards your local doctor's income or keeping hospitals staffed and running?

If so, it's just like any other public infrastructure tax, like ensuring the country has roads, schools and sewers... If you shit in a bucket, don't get educated, and don't drive, you still get taxed for these things -- healthcare should be the same, where whether you use the public system or not, your tax still makes sure it exists in good working order.
The fact that people who don't use the service (i.e. who use private health insurance) can get out of paying the tax is something out of the ordinary! You should all be paying it -- imagine if you could opt-out of paying taxes towards all other branches of government that you don't like... They'd have no income left!

If not, then... wow. What does your tax go towards, besides the military and bureaucracy?

If not, then... wow. What does your tax go towards, besides the military and bureaucracy?

I'd be slightly concerned with the problem of a shortage of doctors. Combine this with the countries poor education system and its a mess.

Sorry to drop in, many of this stuff is way beyond my head due to my poor English.

About paying for something I don't use: this is how societies work.

In Hungary, an appendectomy costs more than the average monthly salary. And in Hungary, more people live below this average than above. So if you are an average joe with no healthcare insurance, you either die or get homeless (and die after getting homeless with a different trouble). Even I, an average entrant mechanical engineer could pretty much fuck myself for several months if I broke my arm, if we didn't have this system.

Instead, everyone pays a small tax like thing (which isn't called tax), so that everyone can have healthcare service. The tax depends on the salary (a percentage is automatically taken), or if someone is unemployed, he can pay a small whatever money monthly (it's small even in Hungary).

Okay, maybe this shouldn't be forced, and should be voluntary, but Average Joe is so fucking dump unfortunately, that he wouldn't give a shit about it.


The "I only pay for what I use" thing may work in some countries, but not everything is America.

cut

The problem is that the 'tax' doesn't get you healthcare. You are taxed for not having healthcare, but don't receive any healthcare for the taxes you are forced to pay for not having it.

To use your example, if you have no healthcare and you get appendicitis, you would have had to pay taxes for not having healthcare, then you would get your appendix removed (US healthcare is required to give emergency service to anybody. It was this way before Obamacare.), then you would get a ridiculous bill for the operation probably resulting in bankruptcy.