quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The constitution does not require us to pay taxes to the IRS, but we do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

My thoughts are that it is not allowed if we followed the constitution.

Unless we clean up the HFCS out of the food supply- anything we do on this is mute.

I'm not sure I see the connection between High Fructose Corn Syrup in the food supply, and whether forcing the public to buy health insurance from corporations is constitutional.

Our health model is selling as many pills as the highest prices possible.     Not on actually curing and being healthy.

HFCS is only one component of this flawed model.  Such leads to obese people and diabetis.

Look at the public now compared to the 80s.  That is HFSC.

And to those who think that is confined to USA.  Not anymore it isnt- watch as they too become obese.

My point is the FDA=- is the food and DRUG industry.

The model is to maximize the dollars brought in- starting with pharmaceuticals.... and on down the line.  A healthy food supply would mean less sick people.   The more sick people the better for our current model.

Also look at how the food pyramid replaces the 4 food groups.  The gorcery store pretty much tells the story.  They do sell healthy food but it is like 3%.

quote:

Title 26 covers the Internal Revenue Code. The Code itself is a collection of laws that were passed by Congress and bits and amendments were passed through the years. When people talk about AMT reform, they’re talking about passing amendments to adjust who gets affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

IM gainfully employed... full time... no benefits.

The 16th Admendment, according to some, was never properly ratified, therefore not valid. But even some who believe that it wasnt properly ratified do believe taxes are legal because of the Internal Revenue Code

quote:

Title 26 covers the Internal Revenue Code. The Code itself is a collection of laws that were passed by Congress and bits and amendments were passed through the years. When people talk about AMT reform, they’re talking about passing amendments to adjust who gets affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax.

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/what-law-requires-us-to-pay-taxes.html

quote:

This is effectively a tax on the poor and uninsured. That's vile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

IM gainfully employed... full time... no benefits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The 16th Admendment, according to some, was never properly ratified, therefore not valid. But even some who believe that it wasnt properly ratified do believe taxes are legal because of the Internal Revenue Code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You're ignoring the assistance for those who cannot afford it, as well as the catastrophic economic consequences for them if they become seriously ill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
The "unconstitutional" objection has nothing to do with Constitutional concerns--it's about not wanting health care reform at all (not to mention the long needed regulatory changes).

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

IM gainfully employed... full time... no benefits.

Fair enough - let me ask you then - would you prefer the option to buy government provided or backed health insurance, or would you rather be forced to buy government provided or backed health insurance and fined if you do not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Lets remember why this reform began.

1) Bankruptcy from high medical bills due to underinsurance or lack of insurance

2) Lack of preventative care

3) Higher costs of both medical care and insurance premiums for those who do have insurance because of those who do not.

In order to bring these in line ( and these are just the basics) everyone has to be insured. Else, higher costs to those who are insured because of the uninsured wont end. Bankruptcy due to medical costs will still occur. And waiting till you are sick to buy in wont help, nor will it be allowed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

How would they fine an unemployed individual?

Many who rail against this bill know little of what actually it contains.

below 133% of poverty level... you cant afford it. the bill recognizes that... any proven hardships are exempted from the penalty, and you are subsidized... these are also many people who have access to that insurance now through medicaid, medicare.

133 - 400% poverty level... subsidized.

above that, you can afford it, according to the language of this bill. again, hardships can occur and you can apply for the exceptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuirkyAnne

While I don't argue that purchasing it if you can afford it is a good thing, I don't think it can be considered constitutional.  The other problem is that whole, "If they can afford it," bit.  There are people who, no matter how desperately they want and beg for coverage, are REFUSED reasonably priced coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and even family medical history.  Also, what about people like myself?

I've worked for a famous restaurant chain for three years and have been able to get health coverage through my employer during that whole time and yet I refuse to because the coverage is not worth it.  I'm a healthy person for the most part, but if I ever did become seriously ill or required major surgery, I would be better off having no coverage and having to rely on a hospital social worker to help cover my costs than the nearly useless "coverage" offered by my job.  BTW, this actually happened to one of my co-workers.  She wound up with a medical debt of over $20,000 even with our insurance and the social worker told her point blank that if she hadn't had insurance, the aid system through the hospital would have left her with a debt of around $8,000 or so.

If the bill passes and we're forced to cover ourselves, they're going to have to pass more laws forcing insurance providers to make coverage available and costs adjusted for income and I just don't see that happening.

Anne