Originally Posted by Nordstern
Neg repping not enough? Gotta go for the direct insults now? It's cool, I understand you're not equipped to deal with opposing viewpoints in an adult manner.
Also, check the unemployment rate. Once again your party line reasoning is flawed.
If you really are that useless that you don't have any income (join the fucking Marines, wasteoid), you are probably suckling on the fed's tit anyway, and your health care will be subsidized. This oh so damaging tax is there to catch the selfish assholes who can get insurance, but won't, thereby sponging off the rest of us. In short, fuck them. Tax them harder I say.Thanks. You're still not getting it. I'll try again.Fantastic argument. You should go practice law as a Supreme Court Justice. I've heard there will be position of Chief Justice opening soon.If you make no income and have no tax liability, you're not taxed for being single.There is a direct tax on me for not getting hitched and a tax break if I do.
1. You have no job. You are single. You owe nothing.
2. You have no job. Government now writes a law that requires you to buy a product or get taxed. Now what?
I fully realize the health care law's fine is 2.5% of your income. That's not the point. The point is that the ruling allows future laws the power to tax you for any reason.
Edit: Neg rep more haters.
meh
If you have no job, and are not getting government help, and you are this way for long enough to worry about paying the tax, you have far, far worse things to worry about, IE you have no fucking home or food.
world of tanks derp gun world of tanks derp gun world of tanks derp gun
Tanks name = BS87
Every other game = Kegger McManus
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stor...ealth-law.aspx
I don't have health insurance. Under the law, will I have to buy it and what happens if I don’t?
Right now, you are not required to have health insurance. But beginning in 2014, most people will have to have it or pay a fine. For individuals, the penalty would start at $95 a year, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016.
For families the penalty would be $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater by 2016 and beyond. The requirement to have coverage can be waived for several reasons, including financial hardship or religious beliefs.
Millions of additional people will qualify for Medicaid or federal subsidies to buy insurance under the law.I want health insurance but I can’t afford it. What will I do?
Depending on your income, you might be eligible for Medicaid. Currently, in most states nonelderly adults without minor children don't qualify for Medicaid. But beginning in 2014, the federal government is offering to pay the cost of an expansion in the programs so that anyone with an income at or lower than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, (which based on current guidelines would be $14,856 for an individual or $30,656 for a family of four) will be eligible for Medicaid The Supreme Court said that states cannot be forced to make that change.What if I make too much money for Medicaid but still can't afford to buy insurance?
You might be eligible for government subsidies to help you pay for private insurance sold in the state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014. Exchanges will sell insurance plans to individuals and small businesses.
These premium subsidies will be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,856 to $44,680 for individuals and $30,656 to $92,200 for a family of four (based on current poverty guidelines).
If none of this applies to a person with no job and no income, they're probably a fugitive or they're one of those anti-government types who refuse to pay taxes and have a loaded firearm in every corner of their house.
What is the 2.5% of the income for someone who has no job?
Done.
I checked the unemployment rate. I also just checked my last two paychecks, which came within the past month. So my point stands.
Also, which party do I belong to?
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
Not that I want to seem like I'm defending Nicho, but it's $695, or 2.5. I assume whichever is greater. So to answer your question, it may not be 2.5 x 0. It's 695 flat. Except that you qualify to have it waived due to financial difficulty. I guess.What is the 2.5% of the income for someone who has no job?
Done.
No you're just under the retarded impression that there is no accounting for income in the tax law, mostly because you're a retarded mental gimp who doesn't know shit from sugar. There you go direct insults without a neg rep. Enjoy.
Also, check the unemployment rate. Once again your party line reasoning is flawed.
edit: for the claim that the unemployment rate shows that most people are in fact unemployed, it would have to show at least 50% wouldn't it? Or has most translated to a significantly lower percentage of the majority? Just wondering, because words can be hard.
Last edited by Tellenta; July 1 2012 at 03:57:52 AM.
Isn't his point less about this particular policy and more a slippery slope argument about the danger of giving government this power?
Not that I subscribe to that argument.
This is one power I don't really mind giving the government more influence over. The increase of privatization of health care is a fine example of how providers have no problems with the concept of "fuck off and die (broke)". Hell I had a neighbor that retired at 35 because he inherited a health insurance company from his father, ran it for 5ish years and was paid enough that he never had to worry about money again ever, he had something like 100 to 300 million in the bank. While its cool for him I guess, he was a nice guy after all. It kind of paints an ugly picture of what exactly the health insurance industry really focuses on and there is a select few things that I'm just fine with the government stepping in and laying down the law and shitting on the private citizens desire for a quick easy buck at the expense of others. Health care is one of them. Whether or not the Republicans, Tea Party republicans, Libertarians and gullible idiots will manage to fuck it up so people can continue to bilk the American people in this way we shall see. They're pretty damn good at convincing people that things that are good for the people is actually terrible, they've managed to convince poor people that social security is bad when they are the people that will benefit from it the most so I'm quite worried about the future of health care.
Oh, and FMAR, next time you get sand in your vag and want to infract someone for a personal insult, check the last two pages here.
Almost tempted to neg-rep for this temper tantrum. Time to read the last few pages of sperge I guess.
Oh, and FMAR, next time you get sand in your vag and want to infract someone for a personal insult, check the last two pages here.
The problem is that the "slippery slope" "argument" has as much validity as "arguments" that there are monsters under the bed and Santa Claus is real. How can you have a reasonable discussion with people who were conditioned for decades into an irrational belief into "Big Government" boogieman?
RATHER DEAD THAN REDThe problem is that the "slippery slope" "argument" has as much validity as "arguments" that there are monsters under the bed and Santa Claus is real. How can you have a reasonable discussion with people who were conditioned for decades into an irrational belief into "Big Government" boogieman?
RATHER DEAD THAN REDThe problem is that the "slippery slope" "argument" has as much validity as "arguments" that there are monsters under the bed and Santa Claus is real. How can you have a reasonable discussion with people who were conditioned for decades into an irrational belief into "Big Government" boogieman?
I don't think I've ever seen a post from you where you weren't nailing yourself to a cross.
Oh, and FMAR, next time you get sand in your vag and want to infract someone for a personal insult, check the last two pages here.
Interesting, heard an interview about the judges.
The reasoning went like this: the problem is that the court is so polarised. You know how the judges will vote before the case is brought before the court. By voting infavour of the law while putting in objections Roberts is trying to keep the reputation of the court intact.
Could the american fhc-population find that plausible?
:TpTlk:
Coming soon(tm).
<3 Entrox.
This was put forward by Fareed Zakaria on Realtime with Bill Maher this week as well (not sure if its the interview you are referring to). If its true I find it a scary way to run a court.
Nope this one was done by the swedish radio.
:TpTlk:
Coming soon(tm).
<3 Entrox.
Link to video? I'm a big fan of Fareed and somewhat of Bill Maher (even though Maher's a colossal asshole).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks