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]dawg
(10,622 posts)47. Well, you've got me there.
We all know how the party ends; let's all try to be kind to each other and have a great time while we're stll here.
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