Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 8th, 2011, 02:30 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1320794461' post='366872

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1320794368' post='366869']

You think under Obamacare everyone can choose whether or not they want to buy insurance, and if they don't their only "penalty" is they cannot claim the tax deduction??
Correct. The so-called "mandate" is structured as a tax credit.
So why is there so many court cases about a Federal mandate??

[/quote]



Because of wingnuts who are opposed to any federal regulation of health care.



If you think there is a mandate which results in a fine, please cite where that is in the Act or in the tax code.
skrekk is offline  
Old November 8th, 2011, 02:40 PM   #22
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
You are wrong



SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

(A) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.



An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.



SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.

(1) IN GENERAL. If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection ©. (2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN. Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.



(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY. If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month

(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayers taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or326

( files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty. ©



AMOUNT OF PENALTY.



(1) IN GENERAL. The penalty determined under this subsection for any month with respect to any individual is an amount equal to 1/12 of the applicable dollar amount for the calendar year.



http://www.opencongr...nid=ocuo_nid_70



Yes tax deductions can be taken in advance, in some cases, and used to purchase insurance, but there is still a mandate for everyone to be covered



How on earth did you miss that?
garysher is offline  
Old November 8th, 2011, 02:50 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
That's not how it was implemented in the Act that was passed. I've already cited where the implementation exists in the tax code, and it's just a tax credit.
skrekk is offline  
Old November 8th, 2011, 03:11 PM   #24
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
That's not how it was implemented in the Act that was passed. I've already cited where the implementation exists in the tax code, and it's just a tax credit.


I quoted from the Act that was passed.



If it was simply a tax credit there would be no issue about a mandate.



How could you get this so wrong?
garysher is offline  
Old November 8th, 2011, 04:03 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1320793849' post='366865

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1320792544' post='366855']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1320788575' post='366835']

But the difference is there is no mandate to take out a mortgage or buy a home, but everyone has to buy health insurance from somewhere?


Once again you prove just how poor your reading comprehension is. Read my comment again, where I noted: "Nor are you forced to even have health insurance, just as the presence of the mortgage interest deduction doesn't obligate you to buy a house."


Open your other eye, skrekk.



If I don't buy a house, or rather go into debt over home ownership, sure, I don't get the mortgage interest deduction, but I don't have to pay an "interest equivalent" tax.



If I don't buy "approved" medical insurance, I don't get the insurance deduction, and I have to pay a "premium equivalent" tax.

[/quote]



False. There is no "premium equivalent tax", you just can't claim the tax credit.

[/quote]



Open your other eye, and ear.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRNx-F8vRmM&feature=related[/youtube]
imaginethat is offline  
Old November 8th, 2011, 08:32 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1320793849' post='366865

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1320792544' post='366855']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1320788575' post='366835']

But the difference is there is no mandate to take out a mortgage or buy a home, but everyone has to buy health insurance from somewhere?


Once again you prove just how poor your reading comprehension is. Read my comment again, where I noted: "Nor are you forced to even have health insurance, just as the presence of the mortgage interest deduction doesn't obligate you to buy a house."


Open your other eye, skrekk.



If I don't buy a house, or rather go into debt over home ownership, sure, I don't get the mortgage interest deduction, but I don't have to pay an "interest equivalent" tax.



If I don't buy "approved" medical insurance, I don't get the insurance deduction, and I have to pay a "premium equivalent" tax.

[/quote]



False. There is no "premium equivalent tax", you just can't claim the tax credit.



Quote:
Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit

Starting in 2014, individuals and families can take a new premium tax credit to help them afford health insurance coverage purchased through an Affordable Insurance Exchange. Exchanges will operate in every state and the District of Columbia. The premium tax credit is refundable so taxpayers who have little or no income tax liability can still benefit. The credit also can be paid in advance to a taxpayer’s insurance company to help cover the cost of premiums. On Aug.12, 2011, the IRS issued proposed regulations that describe who will be eligible to receive the premium tax credit and how to compute the credit. The proposed regulations also describe how to reconcile any advance credit payments for health benefits purchased through an Exchange with the final credit amount. The proposed regulations provide numerous examples, solicit written comments and provide a notice of public hearing. Comments must be submitted by Oct. 31, 2011.


I'm not sure how much clearer I can be - the so-called "mandate" is structured as a tax credit.

[/quote]



You, with your well-developed forked tongue, are wasting yourself. You should become a politician because you display many of the characteristics of one.
imaginethat is offline  
Old November 8th, 2011, 08:34 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 55,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1320796237' post='366884

That's not how it was implemented in the Act that was passed. I've already cited where the implementation exists in the tax code, and it's just a tax credit.


I quoted from the Act that was passed.



If it was simply a tax credit there would be no issue about a mandate.



How could you get this so wrong?


He's not wrong. You just have a problem deciphering doublespeak, which skrekk commands with respectable authority.



Still, it's doublespeak. Skrekk and Obama are masters of it.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoXKEVUobU[/youtube]
imaginethat is offline  
Old November 9th, 2011, 04:39 AM   #28
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
What does it matter anyway? The mandate is Constitutional no matter how you look at this. A Reagan appointee that Pat Robertson felt pretty secure in bringing this appeal before, sided with the President and the Affordable Care Act, as being within the powers of the Congress to regulate as commerce. His decision speaks for itself when you read what he said. And if the DINO's and the republicans in Congress would not have fought it tooth and nail, it would be a much better piece of legislation than the one we have today. And maybe after 2012, we can make it a better one, one that doesn't involve the insurance companies. But it is still better than what we had before now, even with it's faults.
waitingtables is offline  
Old November 9th, 2011, 06:28 AM   #29
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
What does it matter anyway? The mandate is Constitutional no matter how you look at this.


Only the SCOTUS can decide that.



But according to shriek there is no mandate so why are they bothering to review the case?
garysher is offline  
Old November 9th, 2011, 04:50 PM   #30
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1320845969' post='366941

What does it matter anyway? The mandate is Constitutional no matter how you look at this.


Only the SCOTUS can decide that.



But according to shriek there is no mandate so why are they bothering to review the case?


Not only the SCOTUS. It only goes there if the courts rulings are still being challenged, and then ony if the SCOTUS decided to hear the challenges over what the appeals court had found. But right now, we have more appeals court judges upholding the ACA and a SCOTUS that has not yet decided to hear the challenges to the appeals to the federal appeals courts ruling.
waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
"obamacare", appeals, court, federal, upholds



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Sends Proposition 8 to Supreme Court! elmo5159 Gay and Lesbian Rights 1 June 5th, 2012 07:04 PM
Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional elmo5159 Gay and Lesbian Rights 30 June 1st, 2012 01:00 AM
Court Upholds Health Care Law imaginethat Current Events 13 August 22nd, 2011 09:45 PM
Court upholds church use of hallucinogenic tea foundit66 Religion 11 May 14th, 2006 04:57 PM
The Federal Appeals Process tadpole256 Political Talk 2 May 31st, 2005 11:21 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.