and yet you respond, yet you respond... gotta wonder about a guy so 'above it all' who keeps wasting his time Ricter offered one-liners, thats an education? My god (even though I don't believe in god) is that stupid. I questioned the one-liner liberal cliches, as any thinking person should. I expect nothing from you, you have demonstrated that you are all about trite ad hominems, as I said move along.... If the proof is so obvious then Ricter should pony up, are that much of a fucking automaton that you don't require proof for your beliefs? let me be clear, I do not give a shit what you think you and I are. If you have something of substance then say it, beyond that you are just trolling.
Geez Mav88 with your law degree and many years of study in constitional law you're thinking way over our heads. And you're a macro economics expert too aren't you?
a mandate is not the same as a tax incentive, false analogy and I simply asked the question why gov't should be involved in any such endeavor and why do you pretend that it isn't my money in the first pace incorrect, again legal mandate on a choice is not the same as say a sin tax where I have an actual choice. Roberts is logically inconsistent when he says it is exactly like a gas tax what makes ACA bad is the fact that it has moved the line of govenment control further, and further limits the freedoms of the constitution. Roberts himself said in justifying this if that is not a clear indicator that is is no ordinary 'tax' then you have missed the boat
Ricter's assertion: Ricter's "Proof" Brass: This reminds me of the debates I used to have with theists and reinforces my observation that liberalism is religion. Notice the level of evidence needed to 'prove' something. It's all about feelings, and that's about it. There are a billion muslims, that must mean they are right about muhammed? Well no, that is argumentum ad populum.... the strange belief that liberal gov't is always right in spite of decades of evidence to the contrary, then come the ad hominem attacks if you challenge their religion, and they call it 'progressive' http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article238.html
All you're doing is bitching and moaning and crying for attention. You're not making an intellectual argument, you're not qualified to argue this only give an opinion which you've done with sereral hundred words now and I'm sure there will be several hundred more before you're winded. My sarcasm helps your thread.
Simply choosing not to have health insurance IS doing something, so they are taxing you on your healthcare insurance avoidance. CAPISH?
and everyones qualifications here are? This is an internet forum dumbass, if you don't like my arguments then so what? It's amusing that people like you tell me these things yet can't refute such 'amateur' arguments, and you never seem inhibited from offering your opinions. I'm telling you, it's religion
You'll have less problem with this if you think of it in reverse. Think of the tax being there to begin with, and government giving you a credit against your taxes for buying health insurance. this is exactly like all the other tax incentives that the government has used over the years to "encourage" you to do something they want you to do. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying it's really no different. Your last paragraph may not be quite right. It seems the plan is to subsidize those who can't actually afford to buy insurance. So these folks won't be "giving" money to the private health insurance companies. Instead it will be you, via your tax dollars, doing the giving on behalf of the unemployed and low income workers. None of this solves the problem that got us to this point, and that is that health care in the U.S. costs twice what it does in the next most expensive country, and up to eight times what it does in some other industrialized countries, and with worse outcomes. Health care delivery in the U.S. is a disaster! In the U.S., medical care is delivered by a government protected cartel --thoroughly capitalist by the way, but a very unsatisfactory form of capitalism, the worst kind, the kind without competition. Just as the parent who habitually bails out an errant child becomes an enabler who has good intentions but in the end only makes matters worse, most of our efforts to find a way to pay for too expensive medical care have, in the end, just enabled the health care industry to charge even more and engage in still more egregious excesses and inefficiencies. Obama care, while it does incorporate a few features aimed at reducing inefficiencies and introducing more competition in medicine, was stripped of its most effective cost control feature, the public option. As such it won't do much to bring overall costs down. It is not going to solve the health care cost problem in the U.S. There are two things slowly bleeding the U.S.A. to death, one is excessive military spending and the other is outrageous health care cost. Fix these and you'll have going a long way toward fixing what ails the U.S.A. (In all likelihood these things can't be fixed without changing the Constitution to allow elimination of big money's influence on politics and politicians.)
Why do you have no problem making up some inconsistent fallacy? Clearly the tax isn't simply 'there' as if it has some inevitable existance, lots of people find cheaper ways to take care of themselves. The magic of gov't: see Liberals 4:22