Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

10 Bumps

Admin finally admits the insurance mandate is a new tax

NYT article today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html

They have changed their stance because it gives them a loophole to avoid some of the pending lawsuits against it - if it's a tax instead of a fine, it can't be challenged until AFTER someone has it levied against them (meaning 2014). In the meantime, this could end up altering the interpretation of the commerce clause and screw up a LOT of standing practices that are actually good for consumers. Still think this thing was a good idea?

 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 4:31 PM on Jul. 18, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,172 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (21)
  • Just wait until the 20-somethings who are no longer covered under mommy and daddy's health care plan, yet rarely seek health insurance outside of their employee offered plans Or reject the plans offered as a waste of money) see that "tax" being taken out of their paychecks--they'll be like "what the heck?" I never get sick, and I don;t need no stinkin' health care plan!! LOL...I'm sure they'll be happy they voted for Obama!
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 6:20 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • LOL I've been against this ever since I first heard about it. I wish I could say I'm surprised by this, but I can't!
    nicolemstacy

    Answer by nicolemstacy at 4:37 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • *sigh* What a surprise. And what exactly happens if you don't pay your taxes? They put a lien on your house and confiscate your bank account. (I have a friend who had that happen, even AFTER he paid the IRS and received a letter stating he was paid in full.)
    mancosmomma

    Answer by mancosmomma at 5:47 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • It didn't take them long to fess up once the bill was passed to begin to let the "cat out of the bag" ever so slowly. This is just the first of many things to be "reworded" but it was their intention all the time. First, pre-existing conditions are covered but boy will the premiums cost you, then, fed. funding of abortion (weren't going to do that - no sir) now the penalty for not having insurance isn't a penalty at all - its a tax! No kidding!!!!!!!!! Wonder what is next.

    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 7:43 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • preach on, sista!
    dullscissors

    Answer by dullscissors at 5:03 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • If any government forces it's citizens to use their money for something they don't want or need or choose to have...I think it falls under the TAX category. teehee
    Never thought it was a good idea.
    jewjewbee

    Answer by jewjewbee at 5:34 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • Do they think this is new news?
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 5:35 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • Exactly Jesse, it's going to keep changing. I think they love the "Oops we might have fudged this a little". Just like the "you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge."

    So is this what Pelosi meant by "We have to pass it to know what is in it" ? lol But you know it's all lies and fear mongering.
    Crissy1213

    Answer by Crissy1213 at 10:22 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • yeah, they'll screw you however they need to to get what they want.
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 10:41 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

  • I never thought it was a good idea.
    Iamgr8teful

    Answer by Iamgr8teful at 11:40 PM on Jul. 18, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN