Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No, the ACA doesn't "force" you to buy an insurance product from a private corporation. [View all]Selatius
(20,441 posts)68. I really doubt that. Folks like Max Baucus did more damage going against the Public Option.
That's where heavy damage was inflicted. For her part, Nancy Pelosi delivered a Public Option in the House version of the bill. It was the Senate that deleted that. Had it not been for the Senate, there wouldn't be as much bitching about ACA from the left as there currently is.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
113 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, the ACA doesn't "force" you to buy an insurance product from a private corporation. [View all]
dawg
Jun 2012
OP
Working off the framework of a Republican, corporate friendly law is the quickest way to UHC?
MadHound
Jun 2012
#16
Republicans love ACA, as do the insurance cartels. That's why they want to kill it so bad!
emulatorloo
Jun 2012
#36
2.5% of income is a big hit for those barely getting by. Especially those out of school struggling
Erose999
Jun 2012
#49
The difference between taxes and penalties was explained in detail by Judge Vinson in
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#38
So if a person chooses to pay a penalty instead of complying with the law, it is not a penalty?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#46
I personally don't give a shit if Republicans had the same idea a decade or 2 ago.
phleshdef
Jun 2012
#45
The law makes a distinction between taxes and penalties. The language in 26 USC 5000A
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#19
Congress expressly called it a penalty in "26 USC 5000A." No word play is required or involved.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#109
If you are looking for someone you can reason with here you can save your breath
NNN0LHI
Jun 2012
#23
And, of course, Obama is right. It is a penalty as reflected by 26 USC 5000A.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#30
Penalties are imposed to punish people for their actions or their willful failure to act.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#35
Judge Vinson explained in detail the difference between taxes and penalties in his 2010 opinion
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#41
If a Constitutional scholar such as President Obama says that it is not a tax, why should you
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#53
Excuse me, but you seem to be very intolerant of people calling it what Congress called it when they
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#75
The act was passed by a publicly elected Congress, signed by a publicly elected President
pinto
Jun 2012
#91
Do you feel government is part of the solution or part of the problem? That seems a standard divide,
pinto
Jun 2012
#97
I do not give a flying fuck whether this 2.5% is called a tax, a penalty, or a turd payment.
dawg
Jun 2012
#60
TeaPubliKlans are the ones who demand we all buy insurance from the cartel.
TheKentuckian
Jun 2012
#67
I really doubt that. Folks like Max Baucus did more damage going against the Public Option.
Selatius
Jun 2012
#68
Your entire argument is semantics and you're shouting people down for semantics
TheKentuckian
Jun 2012
#69
I didn't say it was the same other than in regard that both are penalties for non-compliance with
TheKentuckian
Jun 2012
#113
There is a moral difference between a tax and a penalty, or between a fee and a fine.
BlueCheese
Jun 2012
#105