Thursday, June 28, 2012

Pay Obamataxcare Or I Call the Cops

Pay the Tax!



Obama told us in 2008 that he wouldn't raise taxes. In 2009 Obama told us that the individual mandate wasn't a tax. In 2012, Obama's legal team argued before SCOTUS that the mandate was a tax. So where does the lying end and the truth begin? For that matter, where does Congressional taxing power end? According to the Supreme Court it doesn't, it's unlimited.

Pay the Tax!


That's just as well, given that our Overlords government are living so well within their means.



So hurry up and buy healthcare, or I'll have to report you to the police while we still have enough money to pay for them.

What a madhouse.

LSP


9 comments:

G. Tingey said...

Yes, its' a madhouse, but not as you describe....
That this cobbled-together model of a civilised proper health-care-for-all system was the only one that could be forced past the entreched and corrupt and greedy "insurance" magnates.

Meanwhile, hotbeds of communism, like, errr ... SIngapore, Australia, New Zealand, Britian, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan etc ...
All have "single-payer" healthcare that operate more cheaply than the US one, and deliver better outcomes (life expectancy and child mortality, for starters).

Sorry, but you've been had - by the vested interests.

LSP said...

I'm not sure you got the point of my short post, GT, which was simply this:

Our government has cynically and deceitfully introduced a new tax under the guise of a "mandate" to buy something, in this case, health insurance. SCOTUS has ruled that this is lawful.

Given our ruler's multi-trillion dollar appetite for money, where will the "mandates" end?

No one knows, but we do know that the full coercive power of the state will be used to collect.

That sounds suspiciously like a tyranny to me, but it's a mad one, based on money that isn't there, on the "debt star".

Of course countries like Spain, France, Britain etc don't have a problem with government spending and debt, do they.

We've all been had.

All Seeing Eye said...

LSP, my apologies that I've not been around these parts for a good few months.

Real life has been a bit intense.

Back on my feet though and I'll be commenting again and getting my blog sorted out.

TheEye is officially Back In The Game.

David and Elizabeth Corey said...

Tyranny: The rule of one in the interest of the ruler himself. This is similar. It's the rule of one in the interest of the ruler's twisted ideological understanding of reality.

But Judge Roberts was brilliant. Reread Marbury v. Madison (1803). Roberts did something on the same order. "Okay Barack, you win, but not on the basis of the commerce clause, as you thought. No, your commerce clause arguments all fail. But on the basis of the TAX power -- something you never mentioned but are really doing -- you win. So let's see what the American people think about your real policy." Result: the court punts to the people, as it SHOULD (cf. Roe v. Wade, in which the court decides for everyone and starts a festering civil war below the surface of our culture). But the punt is a "lay up," to mix metaphors. If there's one thing the 50%-plus of America won't take from Obama it's a massive tax hike in the name of utopian healthcare reform. Hopefully, Roberts' bet pays off. Obama loses in November because there's never been a more focused way of judging one presidential candidate over another. This is not like the "economy." Who's responsible for that? Who knows? But healthcare reform and the tax consequences? Obama, Obama, Obama.

G. Tingey said...

Unforunate, but how else are you going to get a decent health-care system?
Like every civilised country on the planet has, and you don't, which makes you, erm, "Nekulturny"?
Given that the simple answer, a National single-payer system was blocked, by the aforementioned corrupt commercial interests?

LSP said...

Good to see you back, ASE. Hope all's well on the Rock.

Cheers.

LSP said...

I'd like to think you're right, DEC -- and there's more than a few that share you're view on the ruling. Then there's others who think the judge was "off his meds".

Whatever the case, it certainly serves to sharpen the electoral issue.

"I will not raise taxes! Oh. Sorry. I just did."

God bless.

LSP said...

I like your sleuth sense for corrupt commercial interests. Run a search for "crony capitalism healthcare".

Like "nekulturny" -- haven't heard that in ages.

Send another pic of your Defender, please.

Silverfiddle said...

Tingey:

They "Operate more cheaply" because many people die over there before getting cared for, while the rich buy their way out or... Wait for it...

...go to the US for care. Canadian politicians have publicly announced that they are trying to unwind their system.

You might have a case if our government were as efficient and thrifty as that of Germany or Australia, but alas it is not. It is grossly inefficient and morbidly obese.

Also, if you look at life expectancy controlled for accidents and crime (we Americans are violent and adventurous, dying from crime and adventure at rates higher than Europe), Americans live longer.

That's right, we have the best health care in the world, and we have the life expectancy to back that up.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/

http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/17/accidents-murders-preemies-fat