10 ms·

But transportation taxes also require you to purchase something from a private party. You just hand your money to the government, who does the purchasing for yo

by lutorm 10y ago

But transportation taxes also require you to purchase something from a private party. You just hand your money to the government, who does the purchasing for you. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer in single payer health care (I'm from Sweden), but in the absence of that, whether you pay the money in taxes or directly to a private end party doesn't seem that different to me. (And the US Supreme Court apparently agrees, since the mandate was upheld as constitutional.)

Tactic 10y ago
Yes. And I have a semblance of input to the government. Again, I am fine if it is decided that we need to raise taxes to cover such things. What I am against is the government telling me I have to buy something. It is a precedent that is sure to get abused and distorted in the future. If it is allowed it will not stop at health insurance. Business has too active a hand in the US government as it is. How much worse will it get when they start greasing the palms to make sure they too have a required audience? Edit: (Forgot) Yes, the supreme court upheld it. That doesn't make it right, just constitutional. If an amendment to the constitution is required, then so be it. Seriously, it has me considering moving to another country.
- sneak 10y ago
  > Seriously, it has me considering moving to another country. The torture, indefinite detention, universal surveillance, and permanent war were insufficient on their own? It took buying healthcare?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
massysett 10y ago
The mandate was not upheld as constitutional, because there is no mandate. One can decide not to buy insurance, and instead pay a penalty. The Court ruled that this penalty is a permissible tax.
- hoorayimhelping 10y ago
  This doesn't make it right, or even correct. The Supreme Court is not infallible and often gets it wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

by lutorm 10y ago

Tactic 10y ago

Yes. And I have a semblance of input to the government. Again, I am fine if it is decided that we need to raise taxes to cover such things. What I am against is the government telling me I have to buy something. It is a precedent that is sure to get abused and distorted in the future. If it is allowed it will not stop at health insurance. Business has too active a hand in the US government as it is. How much worse will it get when they start greasing the palms to make sure they too have a required audience? Edit: (Forgot) Yes, the supreme court upheld it. That doesn't make it right, just constitutional. If an amendment to the constitution is required, then so be it. Seriously, it has me considering moving to another country.

sneak 10y ago
> Seriously, it has me considering moving to another country. The torture, indefinite detention, universal surveillance, and permanent war were insufficient on their own? It took buying healthcare?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

massysett 10y ago

The mandate was not upheld as constitutional, because there is no mandate. One can decide not to buy insurance, and instead pay a penalty. The Court ruled that this penalty is a permissible tax.

hoorayimhelping 10y ago
This doesn't make it right, or even correct. The Supreme Court is not infallible and often gets it wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson