YUP, it looks like we are going to have a lot of fellons, running around and a lot of seniors wiith out any coverage or place to go and get help.

Maybe this is the way the O will try to decrease the huge debt he created for all of us........but jail?????   and a HUGE fine????   WTF???  And he thinks/and Pelosi thinks.......this will help our country???  BS!      Wonder when they will start wearing their crowns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, do you guys get this hot over state mandates that you carry insurance on your cars?  How about if you don't pay the FICA and Social Security taxes on your federal taxes?  Or hadn't you noticed that we ALREADY have criminal sanctions for not paying taxes?  What's so special about an insurance related tax that we shouldn't make it enforceable by imposing sanctions on those who flout the law? 

I would view ANYTHING coming from the Republicans on what these bills do or do not provide for with a great deal of skepticism.  For the past few days I've had C-Span on nearly nonstop and have listened to Republican congress-critters LYING about what's in the bills, many of them describing "death panels" which they d**n well know don't exist and otherwise making claims which have been thoroughly debunked many times over the past few months.  They've simply decided to keep lying about the legislation, apparently buying into the idea that if they keep repeating the lies enough everyone will believe them.  Just this morning I listened to a Republican congressman, in violation of the rules of debate on the floor of the House, scream "I object, I object" over and over every time a member of the Democratic Women's caucus got up to talk in support of the bill.  No one was doing that to the Republicans because they respect the process.  Nowadays, though, the Republicans are SO afraid that someone might point out their deliberate campaign of lies they'll shout down anyone who opposes them and not even let them be heard.  What a bunch of wussies.

Read the statement carefully.  What it REALLY says is that there are fines for failing to obey the mandate of the law.  The jail aspect only kicks in where there is a willful refusal to pay a mandated tax.  Big freakin' deal!  There are already all sorts of sanctions for failing to obey various mandates.  Just the other day I got a surprise in the mail in the form of a ticket because my son failed to obtain a county decal for the car he drives in violation of local tax laws.  Arghhh, my freedoms are threatened!!!  Puhllease

As a self-employed individual I already pay 15.5% of my gross for social security and medicare related taxes.  If the gubmint wants another 2.5% paid toward basic insurance for me which would guarantee at least a minimal level of care then I'm all for it.  My current insurance payments are taking substantially more than 2.5% of my gross and I'm sick of it.  There have been times when my yearly insurance premiums approach 10 or 12% of my income ON TOP of the 15.5% I already pay Uncle Sam, meaning that over 25% of my income is gone BEFORE I start paying my mortgage, food, transportation, clothing, etc., etc.  Two point five looks like a bargain to me.

Last edited by MarineAuntie (2009-11-07 15:13:58)

State insurance mandates for vehicles are perfectly okay.  The states regualte who can and cannot drive on their roads.  Driving is a priviledge, not a right.

The federal government has no authority to mandate people to purchase ANYTHING.

Oh, and the Ponzi scheme called Social Insecurity isn't Constitutional either.

The Crawfish wrote:

State insurance mandates for vehicles are perfectly okay.  The states regualte who can and cannot drive on their roads.  Driving is a priviledge, not a right.

The federal government has no authority to mandate people to purchase ANYTHING.

Oh, and the Ponzi scheme called Social Insecurity isn't Constitutional either.

No kidding?  Well, you might complain, but the fact is that neither you nor anyone else is going to turn down your social security check, and even people who spend their time denouncing the gubmint are happy to sign up for and receive Medicare, usually complaining not because they have it, but because they feel it doesn't do enough for them.  And let's face it, if it weren't for Medicare all the people on it would be completely SOL for medical insurance under our present system.  No private insurance company would insure some 66 year old with diabetes and a bum heart without a government mandate like Medicare. 

So go on complaining about the evil federal gubmint.  Tell us about how you don't want a gubmint takeover of healthcare while you're enjoying your veterans administration benefits.  Be a tea partier.  Come on over to DC and get on our federally subsidized transportation system - the Metro - and go to the Capitol building where your safety will be assured by the federally organized and paid Capitol Police, and if you have a heart attack or other medical emergency as several people did during Michelle "Batty" Bachmann's bizarre rally against health care reform the other day you can count on the federally subsidized first responders to show up with their ambulances to transport you to one of our wonderful local federally subsidized public hospitals.  And, if you happen to be a tea partier WITHOUT any health insurance you can count on the bankruptcy laws to allow you to take your medically related bankruptcy so the rest of us can pay for your care through our taxes and our increased health care premiums. 

A civilized country should recognize that access to basic health care is not a privilege but a right, one as important as any other right we possess.  We have the technology and the capability to save human lives and ease human suffering.  We know that it's a moral imperative to help those who are sick or hurt, yet we claim that the only way to fulfill that moral imperative is privately and voluntarily rather than through a recognition that doing so as a matter of public policy actually enhances the well-being of us all and promotes a strong middle class which in turn is what drives the engine of our economic prosperity.  We KNOW that the way our system is presently set up we are living on a giant craps table, and a single roll of the dice is what determines whether we and our families may be reduced to poverty and homelessness because of an unexpected illness or injury.  Why are we gambling with the welfare of our citizenry?  It's only sensible to have health care access for all because ALL of us are going to need it sooner or later.  We can choose whether we drive or not.  We cannot choose whether we are going to be ill or injured or not.  If it happens it happens, and sooner or later it comes to us all.

Last edited by MarineAuntie (2009-11-08 05:58:29)

The term "teabagger" is quite vulgar and offensive.  It has no place in this forum.

As for Social Security...I want it ended now.  I even put forth this plan last year (it would probably cost must less than the unConstitutional Pelosiobamacare plan):

End Social InSecurity Fairly: There is absolutely no reason for the government to be running a Ponzi scheme as a mandatory governmental retirement program. A 1% return on that kind of investment is horrid. The people of America should be in charge of their own money. They can do better for themselves. Our plan would end this fiasco, but in a way that is fair to all who have put in their money over the years. Anybody who is currently receiving benefits would have the choice of staying in the program or getting the remainder of what they paid in to the system returned to them. In Year One, American citizens who are aged 57 and above would receive refunds for every penny they have ever put in, with interest from the time it got put in. Year Two would see refunds for folks 49 and up. Year Three would have citizens 40 and above investing their own money. Year Four has the 30 and older citizens rejoicing. Year Five has all remaining citizens getting their money back. These ages could be adjusted after more studies to make the impact on our budget even across the years. Note that non-citizens don’t get anything. Oh well, that’s another bonus for being a real American.

The Crawfish wrote:

The term "teabagger" is quite vulgar and offensive.  It has no place in this forum.

As for Social Security...I want it ended now.  I even put forth this plan last year (it would probably cost must less than the unConstitutional Pelosiobamacare plan):

End Social InSecurity Fairly: There is absolutely no reason for the government to be running a Ponzi scheme as a mandatory governmental retirement program. A 1% return on that kind of investment is horrid. The people of America should be in charge of their own money. They can do better for themselves. Our plan would end this fiasco, but in a way that is fair to all who have put in their money over the years. Anybody who is currently receiving benefits would have the choice of staying in the program or getting the remainder of what they paid in to the system returned to them. In Year One, American citizens who are aged 57 and above would receive refunds for every penny they have ever put in, with interest from the time it got put in. Year Two would see refunds for folks 49 and up. Year Three would have citizens 40 and above investing their own money. Year Four has the 30 and older citizens rejoicing. Year Five has all remaining citizens getting their money back. These ages could be adjusted after more studies to make the impact on our budget even across the years. Note that non-citizens don’t get anything. Oh well, that’s another bonus for being a real American.

Not trying to offend. I'll amend to tea partier if that's more acceptable. 

As for your suggestion on investing one's social security, this is exactly the same proposal Bush tried to foist upon us and thank God he did not succeed. If he had, then the collapse of the stock market would also have been the collapse of Social Security.  The whole idea behind Social Security is to have something guaranteed, a method of staving off absolute penury.  Unfortunately, the payments often are not enough to keep people out of poverty, but at least they're something.  The whole purpose is to keep people from being subject to the vagaries of the stock market.  We already have a system in place for people to see to their own retirement in the form of IRAs, 401Ks, 403bs, and TSPs and there's nothing stopping them from investing in those on top of their Social Security.  Yet look how many of those instruments pegged to investment in the stock market lost their value.  Many people lost more than half of what they had in their 401Ks.  I have friends who lost over $100,000 on what they thought were safe investments.  As for the suggestion that non-citizens get nothing, this is ridiculous.  There are people who've been legally living and working in this country for decades who've paid into Social Security.  If they paid in and they're legal then they should not be robbed of their contributions.

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilisation.

-Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)

Where does the Constitution authorize a mandatory government-run retirement plan?  It doesn't authorize the government to run ANY investment plan at all!

The Crawfish wrote:

Where does the Constitution authorize a mandatory government-run retirement plan?  It doesn't authorize the government to run ANY investment plan at all!

We've had this discussion before, Crawfish, and so did the U.S. Supreme Court back when the legislation was passed in the 1930s.  They found it constitutional even though they struck down some of the other New Deal programs.  And it IS constitutional.  That much is obvious by reading the Preamble and also Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.  How about the 9th Amendment, which states:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"?  This tells us that other rights may be found which are not specifically set forth, which in turn means that we cannot read the Constitution in an exclusionary sense, but as potentially including other rights.  As technology and learning have advanced to enable us to treat and cure injuries and illness in a way undreamed of by our forefathers it is ridiculous to say that if a right to basic health care coverage was not enumerated in the Constitution they must have meant to exclude it.  It wasn't even within the realm of possibility in those days.

Since you so steadfastly assert that it's unconstitutional, please cite where in the Constitution it's forbidden.

Last edited by MarineAuntie (2009-11-08 12:48:38)

ranbro3030 wrote:

MA,

It's not that the T..Bag... term is offending anyone.  It is a term use to describe a certain disgusting sexual act.  That is why it is so strange that it has become a common term heard all over TV.

I'd forgotten about the bad connotations.  Not trying to upset people.

Had the GOP came on board with the fairtax this tax or health care would not even be an issue.

However, since it is, fine and penalties for not paying taxes have always been there. But on that note this is a bit steep.

Lets take an average family income in my area, say 35k (if even that) That's 885 dollars a year for full coverage including Dental and eyes. So compare 875 dollars a year for full coverage VS $875.00 for 1 Co-Payment or 1 months insurance Premium that may or may not ensure someone gets the treatment they need depending on if the Health Insurance companies are going to loose money on them or not.  Sounds pretty darn good to me. People would actually be able to go to the Dr without getting wiped out in medical bills. Which is one reason people voted for Obama in the first place -  Affordable Health Insurance.  The Republicans had their chance and they failed.

But it's still not to late, with the fairtax comes jobs, affordable health care and not to mention FAIR TAXES.