Guv forces u 2 buy Insurance

[Excaliber]

So, if Obama's Health Plan includes a provision to FORCE you to buy insurance and imposes a penalty if you don't; is that a tax?

George Stephanopoulos, a fellow for whom I have great respect, say's it is. The President was visibly taken aback at the idea. Essentially saying the Webster dictionary definition of "tax" does not apply in this instance.

Merriam-Webster's dictionary: 'Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'

What say you?

[*13*]

If it isn't they will find a way to tax it!

[Dan40]

obummer can't call it a tax since he PROMISED to not raise taxes! [except on Republicans]

Does it matter if it is called a tax, a fine, a duty, a tariff, a premium, a toll, or a fee. If the Government REQUIRES its citizens to pay it, it IS a tax. And by any other name, it still smells.

[map]

And that's a surprise coming from Chairman BHO he's only getting started!

[Scott S]

Where anywhere in the Constitution is government given the authority to force citizens to purchase anything from a private entity?

Scott S

[Excaliber]

Scott, you mean like car insurance?

[LURK]

You are not required to have a car, however.

[Apex Rider]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Scott, you mean like car insurance?

That is to cover the other party,NOT yourself.

[Excaliber]

Good point Lurk! But counter point, by far the majority of people have at least one car and going without is not a reasonable option. Most of those without a car are also without a job.

Now health insurance covering YOU or the OTHER GUY? I can understand the issue as covering the other guy as easily as I can I see insurance covering the other guy. The young folks, healthy for the most part, need to pay into the system by getting coverage BEFORE they really need it. If everyone does it the cost sharing and risk is a better spread.

I can see Stephanopoulos's point, can't say I agree with it 100%, but it's an interesting take.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Scott, you mean like car insurance?

Not a comparison at all. Auto insurance is a requirement of a driver's license and an auto license. Neither the DL nor the license tag is REQUIRED if one chooses NOT to drive or own a car. That IS the case for thousands living in New York City. Perhaps also true in Chicago. No doubt there are millions of people that live in the USA that do not drive and have no desire to drive or own a car. On this board, we might consider that completely STRANGE. On some other boards, owning any kind of a replicar would be considered completely strange.

The health insurance REQUIREMENT means every man woman and child, regardless of their desire or CHOICE. NOT the place for a Representative Government to be.

[Excaliber]

It simply won't be affordable unless ALL people are taxed, er, I mean required in some manner to enroll. Could be a requirement for an employer, at the very least.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

So, if Obama's Health Plan includes a provision to FORCE you to buy insurance and imposes a penalty if you don't; is that a tax?

If the money doesn't go to the government, I would say it's not a tax, but instead a mandate/requirement.

[Jamo]

If a blow job ain't sex, then the penalty obviously isn't a tax.

[Maricopa]

Gotta hand it to 'Snuffy', he did a damn good job in that interview.

[BeanCounter]

I could see national health care if they went about it appropriately. Set a community rate for a healthy lifestyle. If you smoke there's a 30% surcharge, if your fat then it's a 40% surcharge, smoke and fat it's 50%. If you live in California where earnings are high there is a surcharge for that. After all we don't want to subsidize well off people's health care on the backs of the poor in Arkansas and Mississippi. They're human too and have a right to health care without subsidizing the upper class. I could think of dozens of other equalizing factors also without even getting into genetic testing.

[FWB]

Originally Posted by Jamo

If a blow job ain't sex, then the penalty obviously isn't a tax.

my feelings exactly, the first post caused me to relive the statement.........

" it depends what the definition of is, is..."

[Joe Wicked]

Originally Posted by BeanCounter

I could see national health care if they went about it appropriately. Set a community rate for a healthy lifestyle. If you smoke there's a 30% surcharge, if your fat then it's a 40% surcharge, smoke and fat it's 50%. If you live in California where earnings are high there is a surcharge for that. After all we don't want to subsidize well off people's health care on the backs of the poor in Arkansas and Mississippi. They're human too and have a right to health care without subsidizing the upper class. I could think of dozens of other equalizing factors also without even getting into genetic testing.

I have gone off on this before but here I go again. This "Fat" tax is pure BS. Not all people choose to be fat, but there is no distinction when people talk about it. There are multiple medical and hereditary conditions that cause people to gain weight. My wife has a Thyroid disorder. When her Thyroid quit working properly, she went from 125-135 lbs size 7 to 260 size 22 in about 3 months. She did not even realize anything was wrong and everyone just assumed since she stayed home she was a fat lazy housewife. Once you open the door to that, you open the flood gate. Since African Americans are more prone to Cycle Cell Anemia, should they have a higher premium? Why not require cholesterol testing for everyone and charge those with higher cholesterol a higher premium, they obviously eat nothing but greasy hamburgers (This is the exact same line of thought, only thinking about 1 possible cause and lumping everyone into that). What about conditions like diabetes, it runs in families, so if one family has it, they pay more? If you are going to require higher costs for issues that COULD be attributed to a medical condition, how do you distinguish what conditions are chargeable for? Where is the line drawn? Congress will test that line everytime something does not fall into the budgets. Funny how their yearly raises fall into the budgets every time.

[bomelia]

Ernie, why are you asking this? Certainly you knew that "new" taxes were coming to pay for this, right? They will of course use all kinds of flowery language to avoid the "T" word. Good Snuffy for calling him on it.

Mike

[cobra bill]

OK I'm calling it a tax, one that I will be pissed if I have to pay, we should not be forced to pay anything to any corporation, it's as offensive to me as having the government paying for abortions is for the Christians. it should be a single payer system, or at the very least, have a government option, after all it's the middle man we are talking about here, insurance companies take 30% off the top, as opposed to governments 3% and the government doesn't have pre existing conditions, and life time limits, and cherry pick the healthy people and refuse the rest. We are the only modernized country that allows profits to be made in healthcare. Sometimes, capitalism is not always best, would you want the police to only protect you if you could afford to pay them every month? Or what about the fire department? Can't pay! Let it burn!

[Excaliber]

I don't know if I could say it's a "tax" straight up and down, a mandate maybe, I guess it comes down to what side of the fence your standing on.

...or your definition of "is".