Posted on 12/14/2018 5:14:51 PM PST by springwater13
If it turns out that a lot of people really want this health care, then reinstating a penalty of $1 for those who don’t sign up could solve the tax or non-tax issue.
***********************************************************
True....a wonderful “solution” if you love Obamacare and want it to be eternal.
On the other hand, passing the “repeal and replace” legislation that John McCain killed with his thumb’s down vote would actually IMPROVE HEALTHCARE in America. And, for some of us, would have the added benefit of giving a massive finger to McCain’s dead, rotting thumb.
Are you sure? Can you point me to a legit url that says so?
I thought Congress only reduced Robert’s tax to 0%, which I and many believe the law would still be intact.
****************************************************
If someone reduces the share of my remaining lifespan to 0%, I’m dead. The Obamacare “tax” is dead and gone.
I think your right. They must have a picture of Roberts playing with a fat pig.
They dont care if Obama care goes bankrupt.
The next Marxist president will put more money into it, and just expand Medicaid.
The next Democrat elected will bankrupt the country, and half the country will cheer it on.
Didn’t Roberts declare some way or the other that it was a tax after Obama said it was not a tax and it being a tax was how Roberts justified it being passed and him voting for it, or something along those lines. He will not vote against what he said it was. Your are right about him going with the libs here.
it’s still a tax (especially in Roberts mind).
And yes you can have a 0% tax. Look it up.
it’s still a tax (especially in Roberts mind).
And yes you can have a 0% tax. Look it up.
**********************************************
Well, fortunately you weren’t the judge doing the legal/constitutional analysis & opinions. I’ll stay with the judge on this.
On Free Republic, it is fashionable to say bad things about Justice Roberts.
After all the prayer vigil and everything he defied the will of Free Republic and judged in favor of Obamacare because it was actually a tax.
Even though it is not stilla tax, the anti Roberts dogma still prevails.
I’m realizing how fortunate I am that in a six-month strike in 1960 — in which my father took part — my industry won excellent health care that has contributed not just to the health of the workers but to the health of the industry, which is in its sixth decade of growing profits. I was seven years old at the time and it was only decades later that my mother told me we that were down to our last pennies and that she was using all her imagination to keep us from knowing how close we were to the edge. Now three generations have benefited from the courage of my father and his co-workers and my mother and her friends. I know this might not be a popular post on this site, but many a strong conservative has worked beside my father and beside me.
So if this really is going to hurt millions of people desperate for health care, then they can reinstate a penalty of $1 so that it is again a tax.
Do you call yourself a Christian??? If you do then you should also call yourself a hypocrite. How do you think God feels about the Americans who have a chronic illness or disability?
I just lost my best friend to non-Hodgkins lymphoma after an arduous struggle to survive. She had worked a number of years as a dentist, then married and had 3 children, all of whom are preschool. She kept a good home for her family, and I have seen her cupboard which was full of nutritious food and very little sugar or other sweets. She ate plenty of fruits and vegetables, never smoked, and she loved God. Was she a Parasite? Without health care her husband and children would now be loosing their home.
One reason these plans are incredibly overpriced and inflated is that upper and top executives in drug and other medical service companies are paid many millions of dollars. Often $10 to $20 million plus. This is the one most cogent argument for a government run plan. Even the president only makes $400,000 and Congress under $200k.
How about a law that companies can only deduct salaries up to $1 or $2 million from their corporate business taxes, or 40 times the wages of their lowest level workers. This might result in lower dividends and more offshoring of jobs. Stockholders would raise hexx like they did when the discovered Goldman Sachs’ 3 top executives each earned over $60 million. They came close (43%) to voting a provision that there be a Stockholders Advisory on Executive Compensation. The next year, 2009, the CEO was only paid $25 million. Poor fellow ;-(
Interesting approach—rather than capping salaries, cap deductibility. Wonder if it would have impact or being just seen as another cost of doing business.
I wholeheartedly agree. And if he did cave to Obama because of blackmail, that means there's something that can be used against him again, to rule correctly next time.
Lowering deductibility might be seen as a cost of doing business, but with high salaries no longer deductible, then there would be smaller profits to distribute to the shareholders and it would certainly have to affect some decisions like lower dividends, or finding cheaper places to do business, or cutting pay for upper middle management, or even reducing their numbers. And Trump has been calling for companies to move their operations back to the US. A few years back, Switzerland nearly passed a law regarding salaries above a 25 to 1 ratio to low paid workers. I don’t remember the details.
Typical of ANY govt critter (in this case, day late/$ short, but @ least on the right path): Debate begins on step 2+ and everyone presumes the ‘facts’ (usually Leftists’ premises).
Unfort., many on FR doing the same *SMH*
“Congress’ taxing authority”. *THAT* was NEVER the question. *THE* question, that was never answered: By what authority??
Congress may tax, for that which is has authority (IE: NONE via A1S8); let alone the fact of welfare being a violation of the 5th/13th on its face.
Unfortunately the opinion that determines the outcome is John Robert’s. I believe he will try to save Obamacare, especially the part that doesn’t depend on more people buying private health insurance (the option to expand Medicaid). What has changed since the passing of the 2017 tax reform law is the mandatory requirement that most people must purchase private health insurance to avoid a tax penalty. John Roberts may loosen the states’ control of health insurance premiums because health insurance companies will claim that less young and healthy people buy private insurance now so they have to boost prices.
So if this really is going to hurt millions of people desperate for health care, then they can reinstate a penalty of $1 so that it is again a tax.
***************************************************
Or they can actually pass the well-thought-out Kill and Replace legislation that was defeated by a single vote (McCain’s despicable “thumb’s down” vote & finger to the American people).
In 1974, I found a company that covered my insurance as part of my salary. If I hadn’t, I would have had to scrounge up a policy. You can’t go without coverage. It’s a duty to yourself, and you have to start young before you have a very negative diagnosis.
People who think they’ll never need a policy, and procrastinate shouldn’t get angry at others. They should get angry at themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.