Health Care to "control the people"

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut said:
Well, with this health care mandate to levy a fine on the uninsured is seen as a tax disguised as a "penalty" or a "fine" because as a tax it will raise substantial revenue. Furthermore, why would this penalty be seen as a tax? Well, people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.” Too bad Obama was dumb enough on not understanding that this penalty is a taxation when he said last year in September saying, “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” while talking with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
Click to expand...

Someone is certainly "dumb", but it isn't Obama.
 
jillio said:
Someone is certainly "dumb", but it isn't Obama.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% .......... obama wasn't being "dumb" when he said it wasn't a tax increase.

He was lying.........Again :)
 
TXgolfer said:
I agree 100% .......... obama wasn't being "dumb" when he said it wasn't a tax increase.

He was lying.........Again :)
Click to expand...

From your perspective. But then, your perspective is a bit biased now, isn't it?
 
Well he has said it is not a tax when it was to his benefit. And he said it is a tax when it was to his benefit. I don't think perspective has anything to do with it. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
Well he has said it is not a tax when it was to his benefit. And he said it is a tax when it was to his benefit. I don't think perspective has anything to do with it. :)
Click to expand...

Perspective has everything to do with it. It governs how you interpret the message.
 
TXgolfer said:
Well he has said it is not a tax when it was to his benefit. And he said it is a tax when it was to his benefit. I don't think perspective has anything to do with it. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah. Lie like a dog to get what you want. And people still defend him. As I recall one certain person defended by saying it wasn't a tax and now all of sudden switches it? My, my....how translucent. Not.
 
When the president does it, that means it is not a lie.*






* Statement may cease to be true on January 20 pending the outcome of the 2012 election.
 
darkdog said:
When the president does it, that means it is not a lie.*






* Statement may cease to be true on January 20 pending the outcome of the 2012 election.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Richard Nixon himself proved that philosophy. And according to a more recent prez, when a president does it, it isn't illigal.:lol:

Might want to put the crystal ball away. They are notorious for malfunction.
 
TXgolfer said:
Well he has said it is not a tax when it was to his benefit. And he said it is a tax when it was to his benefit. I don't think perspective has anything to do with it. :)
Click to expand...
Perspective aside, bottom line, will U.S. citizens be allowed to opt out of this health care plan? That is, will each citizen's payment to the system be voluntary (not a tax) or mandatory (a tax)?

I guess they might call it a "contribution" like they do for Social Security and Medicare. (Those aren't taxes either :rofl: )
 
Everyone always has a choice. Not making that choice because you don't want to face the consequences doesn't mean that the choice is not there.
 
jillio said:
Everyone always has a choice. Not making that choice because you don't want to face the consequences doesn't mean that the choice is not there.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the health care fee will be voluntary; that is, not a tax?
 
Still a choice.

In Canada, you can choose not to pay taxes-- you just have to live on the ocean, on a lake or on crown land to avoid paying taxes.

And work under the table...
 
souggy said:
Still a choice.

In Canada, you can choose not to pay taxes-- you just have to live on the ocean, on a lake or on crown land to avoid paying taxes.

And work under the table...
Click to expand...
No, it's not. If one has to leave the country or live outside the law to make a choice, it's only reasonable to say that choice has been taken away from that person by the law. For those of us who want to be law-abiding citizens and still live in the US, our choice is being taken away.
 
darkdog said:
No, it's not. If one has to leave the country or live outside the law to make a choice, it's only reasonable to say that choice has been taken away from that person by the law. For those of us who want to be law-abiding citizens and still live in the US, our choice is being taken away.
Click to expand...

So, basically, the choices are not an option because you don't want to deal with the consequences?

Okay.

I see a few people are not living up to the politics they spew.
 
souggy said:
So, basically, the choices are not an option because you don't want to deal with the consequences?

Okay.

I see a few people are not living up to the politics they spew.
Click to expand...
Frankly, your post is confusing. Exactly what politics have I "spewed" that I'm not living up to? I just happen to think people should have the legal option to not have to buy products from private companies they don't feel like buying without having fines thrust on them.
 
darkdog said:
No, it's not. If one has to leave the country or live outside the law to make a choice, it's only reasonable to say that choice has been taken away from that person by the law. For those of us who want to be law-abiding citizens and still live in the US, our choice is being taken away.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is still a choice. Just because you don't like the consequences of making that choice doesn't mean that the choice is not available to you. Refusing to exercise your choice does not mean that anything has been taken away from you. It simply means you have decided not to make a choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top