About That Question Of Taxing Those Without Health Care

PART VIII–HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage. 

`Subpart A–Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage 

    • `Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

 `SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

 `(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of– 

  •  
      `(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over 
  •  
      `(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. 
  • `(b) Limitations- 

  •  
      `(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
  •  
    •  
        `(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
  •  
    •  
        `(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
  •  
    •    
      •  
          `(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
  •    
    •  
      •  
          `(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (e) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage’ for `self-only coverage’. 
  •  
      `(2) PRORATION FOR PART YEAR FAILURES- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of tax so imposed (determined without regard to this paragraph and after application of paragraph (1)) as– 
  •  
    •  
        `(A) the aggregate periods during such taxable year for which such individual failed to meet the requirements of subsection (d), bears to 
    •  
        `(B) the entire taxable year.

 `(c) Exceptions- 

  •  
      `(1) DEPENDENTS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual for any taxable year if a deduction is allowable under section 151 with respect to such individual to another taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the same calendar year as such taxable year.
  •  
      `(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a nonresident alien. 
  •  
      `(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES- Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.
  •  
      `(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES- Any individual who is a bona fide resident of any possession of the United States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during such taxable year. 
  •  
      `(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION-

    •  
        `(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section. 
    •  
        `(B) EXEMPTION- An application for the exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed with the Secretary at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe. Any such exemption granted by the Secretary shall be effective for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate. 
  • `(d) Acceptable Coverage Requirement- 

  •  
      `(1) IN GENERAL- The requirements of this subsection are met with respect to any individual for any period if such individual (and each qualifying child of such individual) is covered by acceptable coverage at all times during such period. 
  •  
      `(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `acceptable coverage’ means any of the following:

    •  
        `(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009). 
    •  
        `(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRANDFATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of subsection (b) of such section).
    •  
        `(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
    •  
        `(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act. 
    •  
        `(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE)- Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including similar coverage furnished under section 1781 of title 38 of such Code.
    •  
        `(F) VA- Coverage under the veteran’s health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual’s priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title.
    •  
        `(G) OTHER COVERAGE- Such other health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner, recognizes for purposes of this subsection. 
  • `(e) Other Definitions and Special Rules-

  •  
      `(1) QUALIFYING CHILD- For purposes of this section, the term `qualifying child’ has the meaning given such term by section 152(c).   `(2) BASIC PLAN- For purposes of this section, the term `basic plan’ has the meaning given such term under section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.  `(3) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE- For purposes of this section, the term `Health Insurance Exchange’ has the meaning given such term under section 100(c) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, including any State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of such Act. 
  •  
      `(4) FAMILY COVERAGE- For purposes of this section, the term `family coverage’ means any coverage other than self-only coverage. 
  •  
      `(5) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME- For purposes of this section, the term `modified adjusted gross income’ means adjusted gross income– 

    •  
        `(A) determined without regard to section 911, and
    •  
        `(B) increased by the amount of interest received or accrued by the taxpayer during the taxable year which is exempt from tax. 
  •  
      `(6) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES- The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55. 
  • `(f) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations or other guidance (developed in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) which provide–

  •  
      `(1) exemption from the tax imposed under subsection (a) in cases of de minimis lapses of acceptable coverage, and
  •  
      `(2) a process for applying for a waiver of the application of subsection (a) in cases of hardship.’. 
  • (b) Information Reporting- 

  •  
      (1) IN GENERAL- Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by inserting after section 6050W the following new section:

60 Comments

  1. Perry:
    We are mandated to carry car insurance, aren’t we? So what’s new?

    So, Perry, if this health plan limited you to 1500 calories a day, you would follow that?? So, what if there is a mandatory weigh-in once a month with penalties if you don’t show up. Would you do that? Seems to me if the Gov’t mandates anything for Perry, he would willingly give up his free will and do it?

  2. White House Snitch Line:
    From Whitehouse.gov blog

    There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

    BIG BROTHER Wants You To Report!

  3. “Perry:
    We are mandated to carry car insurance, aren’t we? “

    No. Only to the extent of covering the damage you may do to others with your vehicle, and then, only to the extent you intend to use the car you own on the public highways.

    You do not need insurance to own a car.

    What you are proposing, is essentially a tax on one’s life.

    This is the stuff of literal social war, Perry. No wonder you keep predicting it. You won’t be satisfied until there is one.

    “So what’s new?

    4 August 2009, 3:29 pm “

    Spoken like a true termite. Your complete lack of appreciation for human freedom, Perry, and for self-direction and responsibility, leaves me amazed. How did an organism like yourself ever wind up in a land of freedom?

  4. Oh I see, DNW, so you are the grand decider of that which constitutes freedom and patriotism, typical of those aristocrat control freaks who position themselves on the fringe, and then who pontificate like you with your mouth filled with marbles.

    Laws are mandates, without which we would not have an orderly society. I would think someone whose life has been devoted to the law would understand that basic concept. So get the marbles out of your mouth, DNW, for a change, and make a case for your ad hominems, if feel compelled to use them!

  5. Perry sez:
    Laws are mandates, without which we would not have an orderly society. I would think someone whose life has been devoted to the law would understand that basic concept.

    You mean like Jim Crow Laws were mandates????

  6. So, Perry, if this health plan limited you to 1500 calories a day, you would follow that?? So, what if there is a mandatory weigh-in once a month with penalties if you don’t show up. Would you do that?

    So it’s just one small step for you from government taxation to mandatory diet control, huh, Yorkshire? This is, presumably, in line with your rambling posts about how refroming health care is somehow the same as “Hitlerism”…

    What you are proposing, is essentially a tax on one’s life.

    59B(a)(i) and (ii) above make it clear that it is a 2.5% tax on gross income for a limited group of people, DNW. This is “essentially a tax on one’s life” in the same sense as an income tax is “essentially a tax on one’s ability to work” or a capitaql gains tax “essentially a tax on one’s ability to own property”.

  7. You mean like Jim Crow Laws were mandates????

    He means like stopping at a red light and keeping to the right when you drive are mandates. I look forward to libertarians asserting their freedom by driving on the wrong side of the road and running every red light they come across.

  8. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    You mean like Jim Crow Laws were mandates????

    He means like stopping at a red light and keeping to the right when you drive are mandates. I look forward to libertarians asserting their freedom by driving on the wrong side of the road and running every red light they come across.

    No Pho, he said “Laws are mandates,”. He did not say traffic laws are mandates. The inference of Laws Are Mandates means all laws are. The writer of the statement was clear. So, when Jim Crow Laws existed, they were mandates by that statement. So, if the mandates of Healthcare are enacted, the Government will then have a mandate on controlling your life. So, if, the Healthscare law would say no one can consume more than 1500 calories a day, it’s a mandate. 1501, you broke the law.

  9. I sometimes wonder if we’re getting bogged down in the minutia, which just tends to make people’s eyes glaze over. The real question is the end game of all of this. Does Obama intend to push for what will eventually become a single payer, government monopoly on health care? It certainly looks that way, never mind he and the Dems are being pretty cagey about it right now.

  10. Eric sez:
    Obama intend to push for what will eventually become a single payer, government monopoly on health care? It certainly looks that way, never mind he and the Dems are being pretty cagey about it right now.

    Well, Barney Frank, head of one of the committees writing this Bill has come out in favor of it. Drudge has a few videos showing BO pushing for it. A number of others have advocated it. So, somewhere, somehow this is the ultimate aim. OK, now report me to flag@whitehouse.gov if you care to be a snitch.

  11. He did not say traffic laws are mandates.

    Help me out here – are you saying that traffic laws are not laws? That traffic laws are voluntary? Or are you unfamiliar with the word “analogy”?

    Does Obama intend to push for what will eventually become a single payer, government monopoly on health care?

    Still haven’t figured out the difference between single payer and single provider for which you were so brutally spanked on Pandagon, huh, Eric?

  12. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    He did not say traffic laws are mandates.

    Help me out here – are you saying that traffic laws are not laws? That traffic laws are voluntary? Or are you unfamiliar with the word “analogy”?

    Well, Pho, you win the obfuscation take it out of context award for tonight. Congratulations. What’s your next task?

  13. DNW, to Perry, in response to Perry’s categorical,‘We are mandated to carry car insurance, aren’t we? So what’s new?‘:

    ‘What you are proposing, is essentially a tax on one’s life.’

    Phoenician, “replying” with misdirection:

    ” 59B(a)(i) and (ii) above make it clear that it is a 2.5% tax on gross income for a limited group of people, DNW. This is “essentially a tax on one’s life” in the same sense as an income tax is “essentially a tax on one’s ability to work” or a capitaql gains tax “essentially a tax on one’s ability to own property”. “

    1. I was replying to Perry’s proposition analogizing the utilization of the public roads with a motor vehicle, with simply being alive.

    Not only was his attempted analogy based on a factually incorrect implied premise,(that one must have auto insurance merely if one has a car), but his sweeping generalization morally authorizes what is in effect a kind of capitation tax.

    The fact that you editorially excised the context from my reply, Phoenician, does not change the fact. It merely makes you into a special kind of liar.

    2. Your substantive comments are irrelevant to the contention I actually advanced since:

    a, You admit that in principle some people will in fact be liable to being taxed for no reason other than being alive and not having or refusing to purchase government “acceptable” insurance.

    Your supposedly ameliorative observation, is merely to the effect that not all people will be so taxed; and that the tax will be, you insinuate, akin to a marginal rate income tax on excessive income, and apply only to those in this tax bracket.

    No doubt you will also eventually remark that they can register with the state as conscientious objectors …

    b, Your attempted analogy with a progressive income tax in the first sentence of your reply is clearly faulty; and your second attempted analogy with capital gains taxes is based on nothing more than pretended propositional equivalencies you have manufactured and offered up in pointless quotation marks. Your supposed equivalent propositions are not in fact equivalent in logical form to the proposition I advanced to Perry regarding his own ideological position.

    These regularly practiced deceits of yours, it has become plain, are intentional

    As I remarked before, I have come to the conclusion that you are a different kind of moral thing, outside of the pale inhabited by the honest and honorable; and that discussion between me and you is as pointless as would be a discussion between a trout and a sea lamprey.

    Face it, your evolved breed is one that figures to survive by the strategy of farming the farmers; and that the best way of ensuring yourself a steady supply of nourishment is by co-opting the democratic process through marshalling your idiot clients into a voting block designed to keep every productive person in your grasp and harnessed to your wagon.

    No wonder Perry imagines that there will social war if he doesn’t get his way and that you are so unrelentingly persistent and shameless. Vampires must have their host, or die. Your kind has no other choice.

    Fortunately, thanks to our ancestors and our inheritance, we Americans do.

  14. Perry wrote:

    ” Oh I see, DNW, so you are the grand decider of that which constitutes freedom and patriotism, typical of those aristocrat control freaks who position themselves on the fringe, and then who pontificate like you with your mouth filled with marbles.

    Laws are mandates, without which we would not have an orderly society. I would think someone whose life has been devoted to the law would understand that basic concept. So get the marbles out of your mouth, DNW, for a change, and make a case for your ad hominems, if feel compelled to use them!”

    First, Perry, you are confusing invective, with ad hominem.

    As for freedom Perry, I know what freedom is because I have always been free and because my ancestors have always been free, and because I can see that they had good and ennobling lives before the advent of some of your most cherished collectivist improvements (not to confuse advances in technology with your equity pimping.)

    And I also know what freedom is because there has always been a starkly contrasting standard of comparison available to us whether it was chattel slaves here in the U.S., marxist serfdom in the USSR, peonage across the southern border, or legal subject status across the northern.

    Have you ever been anything other than a client of the state, existing through it’s active agency, and by its leave, Perry?

    If so, why is the concept of freedom so invisible to you? Just no taste for it?

    As for laws, Perry, the question is not whether laws are mandates, but whether if they are to be described as mandates, what other than the fact that they have been “mandated” in some way, makes them just, or morally obligatory, or valid.

    If you recognize no rules and limits for rule making (such as adherence to constitutional procedures and limitations), other than what a legislature, mob, or single man can supposedly decree and inscribe, if you recognize no limitations as to domains of application, or sway, then, you cease to embrace the concept of lawful law, and have only commands, backed by more or less effective coercive sanctions to justify your compulsions.

    And of course, that may be all that is necessary to satisfy someone like yourself: “I Perry, command you to love me unconditionally, and to fill my belly, and provide me with opportunities for self-realization and orgasmic satisfactions!!!

    I don’t doubt that you have very intense wants, Perry; and that you wish to compel the social distribution of the satisfaction of these felt wants, according to your own lights.

    What I do doubt is, that I am obligated by any respectable theory of law or morality to satisfy them just because you can wrangle up enough fellow crackpots and trolls to make a loud noise in favor of it.

    Now as for the operations of social control freaks and opponents of change and such: what again was your position on Federally mandated Social Security and medical insurance?

  15. DNW, aside from continuing to make assumptions about a person you know next to nothing about, you are so tied up in legalize that you appear to have lost sight of values. I don’t intend to respond to your assumptions, except to say they are not correct, but I will say something about values.

    Resorting to values enables the setting of limits on laws and behavior, for those that become generally accepted, according to our system of government.

    That said, as an example, I am a strong proponent of social security, acting as a safety net for those in their more vulnerable years. No one, not even you, can possibly be totally prepared for all eventualities. To that extent, we are our brother’s keeper, an ennobling value to me.

    Likewise, I favor universal healthcare, which I consider a basic right, based on the same value just mentioned.

    When you apply the law in your profession, not only should the Constitution be kept in mind always, but also your basic values.

    Then the difference between us, I suspect, is with regard to some basic values.

    For example, based on my pro-life value, I am against war unless it is a last resort in defense. I am against the death penalty. I am against abortion. I am for individual freedom of choice on these issues, which then renders them important topics of debate. Finally, I am in support of euthanasia if so desired by the individual.

    Since you may disagree with one or more of these positions, you are free to discuss, to debate, to attempt to have your idea codified instead of mine, the ultimate requirements being general acceptance and consistency with the Constitution according to current the SCOTUS interpretation thereof.

    This is the way our system is supposed to work. Inherent in this process is the freedom for each of us to be part of the process, which ultimately will limit the freedom of those who disagree.

    All this said, I have never been able to understand people like you, especially you in the law profession, who arbitrarily take an absolutist position on the concept of freedom, when you know full well that there can be no such a thing.

    I will finish by saying that absolutism exists only within an individual in terms of personal beliefs. Here is where your absolute freedom resides, DNW. From each individual who wishes to do so, there comes the challenge to convince others of one’s dearly held beliefs, codifying them if one can, but always recognizing that at this point there are no absolutes!

    The one with the best ‘sales pitch’ carries the day.

  16. “DNW, aside from continuing to make assumptions about a person you know next to nothing about, you are so tied up in legalize that you appear to have lost sight of values. I don’t intend to respond to your assumptions, except to say they are not correct, but I will say something about values.

    Resorting to values enables the setting of limits on laws and behavior, for those that become generally accepted, according to our system of government.

    That said, as an example, I am a strong proponent of social security, acting as a safety net for those in their more vulnerable years. No one, not even you, can possibly be totally prepared for all eventualities. To that extent, we are our brother’s keeper, an ennobling value to me.

    Likewise, I favor universal healthcare, which I consider a basic right, based on the same value just mentioned.

    When you apply the law in your profession, not only should the Constitution be kept in mind always, but also your basic values.

    Then the difference between us, I suspect, is with regard to some basic values.

    For example, based on my pro-life value, I am against war unless it is a last resort in defense. I am against the death penalty. I am against abortion. I am for individual freedom of choice on these issues, which then renders them important topics of debate. Finally, I am in support of euthanasia if so desired by the individual.

    Since you may disagree with one or more of these positions, you are free to discuss, to debate, to attempt to have your idea codified instead of mine, the ultimate requirements being general acceptance and consistency with the Constitution according to current the SCOTUS interpretation thereof.

    This is the way our system is supposed to work. Inherent in this process is the freedom for each of us to be part of the process, which ultimately will limit the freedom of those who disagree.

    All this said, I have never been able to understand people like you, especially you in the law profession, who arbitrarily take an absolutist position on the concept of freedom, when you know full well that there can be no such a thing.

    I will finish by saying that absolutism exists only within an individual in terms of personal beliefs. Here is where your absolute freedom resides, DNW. From each individual who wishes to do so, there comes the challenge to convince others of one’s dearly held beliefs, codifying them if one can, but always recognizing that at this point there are no absolutes!

    The one with the best ’sales pitch’ carries the day.”

    Perry,

    Apparently what I am to take away from your response, after sifting through the secular humanist and collectivist philosophical chaff, and your advocacy of S.C. judicial imperialism in the service of [driving] evolving social standards, is the following:

    You value or desire ends and objectives in the hierarchy you value them in, because you value them in the hierarchy you do.

    These desires of yours are not objectively implied in any universal sense as goods, but are the means and ends that happen to make you feel happy.

    Your ability to politically point to them as supposedly objective goods, is simply another way of saying that you have established an ability to persuade others to grant you your wishes; for these wishes are not objectively determinable as necessary or primary human goods by any rational human observer, but are only developed as public values as the result of salesmanship.

    Thus, there is no logical hierarchy of universal human values, and no way of determining good from bad values, except through your subjective feelings about what you happen that or any other day to want or not to want for yourself and others.

    What you generally want is physical security and comfort and pleasure, and for others to harness their energies to providing you with it; even at the expense of what they view as their most basic freedoms and rights of self-direction and governance.

    You believe that you are your brother’s keeper, and it is obvious that what you mean by this is that you wish to be your brother’s controller.

    You also value human life you say, to the apparent extent that it doesn’t interfere with comfort or convenience.

    Then, you value the destruction of human life just as much or more; unless it is criminal life.

    Taking in the overview, it is clear that you value the freedom, or better, the social permission, of people to make literal and immediate life and death choices for themselves and their potential progeny – insofar as the “SCOTUS” allows it – but you think, or better “feel” that while the social freedom to kill yourself or your fetus is good or a “value”, the social freedom to go without social security insurance, or to substitute a different kind of non-government controlled old age insurance, is too much freedom for an individual or group of individuals to manage or be permitted.

    Oh, and the people who want to run their own lives and allow you to do so are “control freaks”; while the people who insist on both government bureaucracy directed and apportioned access to medical treatment, and the necessity of buying into a government controlled “old age insurance plan” – which you have no real legally enforceable claim on should the provider decide you don’t get it anymore – are advocates of human freedom, and fighters for choice.

    Well, Perry, I guess it’s like you earlier admitted: You make no claims to be spouting objective truth here; you are just making a sales pitch.

    Say, Perry … If you thought about it calmly, you would agree wouldn’t you, that you are in principle a totalitarian, in the sense that you believe that no facet of human existence is sacrosanct and inviolate, and that every facet of human existence is in principle properly subject to a regime of political direction and control?

  17. And if the hastily assembled C4C program is now 200% UNDERFUNDED, how can we trust the hastily put together Mandated By Law Health Care Program? There, the same mistake will cost Trillions and Trillions.

  18. a, You admit that in principle some people will in fact be liable to being taxed for no reason other than being alive and not having or refusing to purchase government “acceptable” insurance.

    No, DNW, they will not. If they have no income, and pay no health insurance, they will not be taxed. Obviously.

    They are “taxed for being alive” in the same way that an income tax “taxes them for being alive”, and for the same reason – to take a part of their income to pay for a collective expense.

    Babies are alive. Babies have no income. When a baby who has no health insurance is taxed due to this law, you will have a point. Until then, all you have is overblown rhetoric and spluttering.

    As always, the sight of you going into full ink-squirting squid mode is highly amusing. Carry on.

  19. They are “taxed for being alive” in the same way that an income tax “taxes them for being alive”, and for the same reason – to take a part of their income to pay for a collective expense.

    If Cap and Trade comes in, we’ll be taxed for exhaling CO2, an alleged pollutant.

  20. If Cap and Trade comes in, we’ll be taxed for exhaling CO2, an alleged pollutant.

    Reaaaaaaally, Yorkshire? I don’t suppose you can provide one single iota of proof, any politician who has even remotely suggested this as a serious idea?

    In 2006, the US put out 19 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person. By a quick calculation, that exhaled by the lungs was about 2% of this, and that doesn’t account for carbon locked up by our biomass.

    “Common Sense Politics”, my backside.

  21. Or, to put it in perspective, carbon emissions are currently trading for around $20US on the European markets. This means that if the US had some sort of scheme, it might cost the average US citizen about $400 annually, indirectly. Probably less as production becomes more efficient.

    Of this, $8 would be about the cost of breathing.

  22. By the way, Perry, the confusion about freedom is covered quite nicely in Thomas Frank’s “One Market Under God”. DNW isn’t unique in his deluded cant; he’s just more wordy than most.

    Give it a try – well worth a read.

  23. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    If Cap and Trade comes in, we’ll be taxed for exhaling CO2, an alleged pollutant.

    Reaaaaaaally, Yorkshire? I don’t suppose you can provide one single iota of proof, any politician who has even remotely suggested this as a serious idea?

    And you allegedly write comedy??????? You couldn’t see through that tongue in cheek statement? (crutching away shaking head)

  24. Phoenician: “Give it a try – well worth a read.”

    Thanks, I appreciate your recommendations and will follow up on this one. I’m looking forward to receiving shortly “The Doubter’s Companion”.

  25. DNW: “Well, Perry, I guess it’s like you earlier admitted: You make no claims to be spouting objective truth here; you are just making a sales pitch.”

    Correct, and you are too, DNW, except you have yet to admit it.

    I could well counter you exactly as you just did me, using nearly identical language, although I would avoid the assumptions and straw men. For example, you say to me: “You believe that you are your brother’s keeper, and it is obvious that what you mean by this is that you wish to be your brother’s controller.” Straw man! No, I don’t wish that. I am a democrat!

    Here’s an example of misinformation followed by a straw man: “You also value human life you say, to the apparent extent that it doesn’t interfere with comfort or convenience. Then, you value the destruction of human life just as much or more; unless it is criminal life.”

    Here is what I said: “For example, based on my pro-life value, I am against war unless it is a last resort in defense. I am against the death penalty. I am against abortion. I am for individual freedom of choice on these issues, which then renders them important topics of debate. Finally, I am in support of euthanasia if so desired by the individual.”

    You are not in a courtroom here spinning information in favor of your client, DNW.

    If you wish to label me on this pro-life value, you could name it ‘libertarian’, and in concert with the basic ethic, described in many religious texts, which speaks to the inherent and primary value of life.

    This is my point: There is no difference between us except that you take the position of an absolutist, therefore beyond refutation. I take the position of a salesman, simultaneously recognizing that my pitch may need to be modified by new knowledge. Your position is not subject to modification, it seems!

  26. Phoenician in a time of Romans wrote:

    ‘a, You admit that in principle some people will in fact be liable to being taxed for no reason other than being alive and not having or refusing to purchase government “acceptable” insurance.

    No, DNW, they will not. If they have no income, and pay no health insurance, they will not be taxed. Obviously.

    “Oblate spheroid” anyone?

    You must have missed the part where I used the phrase “refusing to purchase”, which implies …

    So, anyway, along with institutionalized madmen, dependent and suckling infants, who can by their nature neither affirm or refuse anything having to do with matters of politically imposed obligation, will not be directly taxed; unless that is they have income. Which according to you, they do not.

    How brilliant of you to think of that. How about the ancephalic too? Did I forget to explicitly exclude those incompetents from the parameter “some”?

    They are “taxed for being alive” in the same way that an income tax “taxes them for being alive”, and for the same reason – to take a part of their income to pay for a collective expense.

    I suppose we are to generously assume in your case, that you stipulate without saying so, that these collective expenses are the traditional costs of running a constitutional government?

    Oh, wait, no. If we follow your past expansions, I guess we must not. Your expanded use seems to include very much more than that. It’s consistent with your warped idea of “collective purposes” that the definition would extend to cover the repugnant and contemptible obligation of our being forced to ensure your contentment and satisfaction by purchasing you the services of a catamite. No thanks, Phoenician.

    Now, back to babies without income …

    “Babies are alive. Babies have no income. When a baby who has no health insurance is taxed due to this law, you will have a point. Until then, all you have is overblown rhetoric and spluttering.”

    1st. This law, isn’t law here yet, has hardly been published, and hasn’t even been read by many of its proponents. That’s the poin:, we are trying to keep “law” devised according to your fetid and suffocating collectivist sensibilities at bay.

    2nd. Contrary to your contention, some babies do have income; taxable unearned, and even taxable earned income; the latter in the case of say, infant advertising models.

    IRS:

    “A dependent must file a return if all his or her income is unearned income, and the total is more than the amount listed in the following table.
    Under 65 and not blind $ 900 “

    “Responsibility for Child’s Return
    Generally, the child is responsible for filing his or her own tax return and for paying any tax, penalties, or interest on that return. If a child cannot file his or her own return for any reason, such as age, the child’s parent or guardian is responsible for filing a return on his or her behalf.

    Signing the child’s return. If the child cannot sign his or her return, a parent or guardian can sign the child’s name in the space provided at the bottom of the tax return. Then, he or she should add: “By (signature), parent (or guardian) for minor child.” ”

    Taxable income of dependent minors, 19 to newborn, as per the American IRS.

    Your contention is therefore, clearly wrong.

    You really should quit spouting off on topics you don’t understand. Topics like American law, or history, or anything to do with philosophy, or logic, or even reasoning in general.

    Yeah, I guess you would be feeing pretty embarrassed by those blunders of yours right about now; if you had a normal complement of human honor, and an appropriate sense of shame, that is. But, you are a neurotic collectivist troll, and you don’t, so …

    As always, the sight of you going into full ink-squirting squid mode is highly amusing. Carry on

    .

    And remember of course as I pointed out earlier, that we will also be able to register with the government as religious or concientious objectors too; probably; maybe.

    How generous of your totalitarian and parasitic kind to promise that provision!

    Though what might happen if some Catholic bishop or Baptist evangelist says that to be forced to join in this program is a violation of the conscience, and half the country gets the idea to opt out on that basis, is anyone’s guess.

    My guess, is that your breed would try to change the rules rather than suffer the agony of being forced to support and maintain yourselves with the like-kind left to you.

  27. Perry wrote:

    “DNW: “Well, Perry, I guess it’s like you earlier admitted: You make no claims to be spouting objective truth here; you are just making a sales pitch.”

    Correct, and you are too, DNW, except you have yet to admit it.”

    So when you say that it’s humanly better that I should pay for your health care, than send you head-first into a boiling tank of pitch; that’s just you selling soap, and not anything that is really supposed to be taken seriously as “true”.

    Glad we cleared that up, Perry.

  28. And remember of course as I pointed out earlier, that we will also be able to register with the government as religious or concientious objectors too; probably; maybe.

    You want to claim religious or concientious objector status against… taxation?

    How very special of you, DNW.

  29. Please, Eric, tell us about the Soviet health care system and how it’s the same as the public plan currently being debated.

    Of course, nobody is advocating any such thing but you have to rely on such gross exaggerations to try and make a point. What is being advocated a public OPTION. Got private insurance? Awesome, go home. End of story. Maybe you and DNW can get together for beers and complain about how paying for the fire department to put out the fire at somebody else’s house is an infringement on your civil liberties as a US taxpayer.

    LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!!

  30. but mike socialism! socialism! socialism! evil evil socialism! socialism, mike! mike, socialism! socialism! wow socialism omg!

  31. Oh, I’m serious about the fire department! My hard earned tax money is being frittered away on a bunch of guys loafing around and play cards all day? Ridiculous. Especially considering that I’ve never had a fire. It’s an ugly tribute to a pathetic utilitarian cause.

  32. ” You want to claim religious or concientious objector status against… taxation? “

    Just against the kinds of taxes that would use the force of law to bind me financially to slope-shouldered spindle-armed ignoramuses like yourself, and be used for underwriting your moral dysfunctions.

    By the way, did you miss the option recorded in the text?

    SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

    `(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of–

    c) Exceptions

    `(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION- “

    See?

    “How very special of you, DNW.”

    That’s why my ancestors lived here, and I live here yet as a free citizen of a constitutional federal republic, while your ancestors lived there as subjects, and you continue to live there, in a nation powerless to defend itself, as a subject of a queen, in a country without a coherent written constitution, as a state dependent parasite, who is neurotically trying to spread it’s system and web of groundless interpersonal and legal claims worldwide.

    So if it somehow makes you feel better and less jealous, no, apart from your malevolent persistence, you are not very special, or even morally significant, at all.

  33. “DNW: “Well, Perry, I guess it’s like you earlier admitted: You make no claims to be spouting objective truth here; you are just making a sales pitch.”

    Perry: Correct, and you are too, DNW, except you have yet to admit it.”

    DNW: So when you say that it’s humanly better that I should pay for your health care, than send you head-first into a boiling tank of pitch; that’s just you selling soap, and not anything that is really supposed to be taken seriously as “true”.

    Glad we cleared that up, Perry.

    “Perry: No, DNW, “we cleared” nothing up when you fabricate like that.”

    Make up your mind Perry, is it objectively true that contributing my taxes toward your medical insurance is a “better” interpersonal value than dumping your obnoxious carcass in a vat of boiling pitch and avoiding the expense of an undesired and uncongenial dependent, or is it not? LOL

    Is the supposed “need” for my underwriting your private interests, an objective necessity which is socially manifest as a morally binding “value”, or is it merely a matter of the effectiveness of your political salesmanship?

  34. “Of course, nobody is advocating any such thing but you have to rely on such gross exaggerations to try and make a point. What is being advocated a public OPTION.”

    And punishments for those who opt out. Haven’t you been reading?

    Got private insurance? Awesome, go home. End of story.

    Unless you wish to self-insure; then not end of story.

    “Maybe you and DNW can get together for beers and complain about how paying for the fire department to put out the fire at somebody else’s house is an infringement on your civil liberties as a US taxpayer.”

    Stopping the spread of house fires is a municipal activity; as you should know. In the case of rural dwellings, there are instances where volunteer fire companies perform this service, and in some cases it is possible to opt out; and risk the consequences.

    If you were to analogize this example of yours to the matter under discussion, the proper analogy would be with the public health services, city and state, which have the power to quarantine, require vaccinations for public school attendees, set sanitation standards and so forth, in order to prevent the spread of contagions.

    Thus it becomes obvious that both your with your supposed fire department analogy, and Perry with his “car insurance” example, have your noses deep in a bowl of polemical horseshit.

    Bon appetite, chumps!

    LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!!”

    Better John Stark and his heritage, than you and yours.

  35. DNW, you still won’t admit that you are a salesman, although you obviously are! I’ll let our fellow commenters assess your competence at it!

    And with regard to your underwriting my special interests, I happen to be underwriting yours too!

    We belong to the same community, a fact that you have yet to understand, having passed by for the majority of your life, I’d guess. Can I call you ‘Geezer’?

    Moreover, you illustrate your uber-arrogance by looking down your nose at Phoenician. I dare say you can learn a few things from her; in my case many, for she is obviously a very intelligent person who does her homework and expresses herself with exemplary skill, clearly, succinctly, and without marbles in her mouth!

    Having a good friend who has spent some time in NZ, I can tell you that I would love to visit there. Her son and wife and grandchildren live in north east Australia; en route to or back, she always arranges an extended stopover in NZ. I suspect you really know nothing about this peaceful and lovely country.

  36. Of course, nobody is advocating any such thing but you have to rely on such gross exaggerations to try and make a point. What is being advocated a public OPTION.

    Option my ass! We all know the Left wants government run health care, so why not just be honest and upfront about it?

  37. Option my ass! We all know the Left wants government run health care, so why not just be honest and upfront about it?

    Because what you “all know” is a figment of your delusional imaginations?

  38. Mr Tallis wrote:

    Option my ass! We all know the Left wants government run health care, so why not just be honest and upfront about it? (Eric)

    Because what you “all know” is a figment of your delusional imaginations?

    Figment of our imagination? President Obama talks about private insurance being part of the plan now, when he has to get congressional votes to get it passed, but he was more honest about his goals a few years ago:

  39. Dana, that is not true. How many times had we heard from Obama during the campaign, even vs Hillary in the primaries: “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” He still says the same thing!

    He supports private insurance, and he supports a public option, like the Congress members already have.

    PS: Regarding the video, it is classic, taking statements and sentence fragments out of context, which may distort meanings. Also, there is a confusion that equates universal health care with single payer. They are not necessarily the same thing. Finally, there are some people who may believe the public option could lead to single payer. I am not sure of that; it depends on how the insurance industry responds. I personally am for single payer, similar to Medicare, and similar to the approach of many developed nations who deliver quality health at considerably less expenditure than out system. We should learn from them!
    http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

  40. DNW, you still won’t admit that you are a salesman, although you obviously are! I’ll let our fellow commenters assess your competence at it!

    Like I said before Perry, the supply of excalamation points is virtually unlimited, and they don’t go stale. You needn’t try and use them all up in one or two messages.

    And with regard to your underwriting my special interests, I happen to be underwriting yours too!

    Well then Perry, assuming that the terrible state of affairs you describe exists, let’s stop this obnoxious cost shifting before it goes any further. You can stop buying me apple trees and philosophy books, and I’ll stop paying for your AZT.

    We belong to the same community, a fact that you have yet to understand,…

    What “community” is that Perry? And what do you mean by “belong”?

    If I like my community the way it is, can I toss out annoying invaders like mikeg, without violating any “values” rules?

    “Moreover, you illustrate your uber-arrogance by looking down your nose at Phoenician. I dare say you can learn a few things from her; in my case many, for she is obviously a very intelligent person who does her homework and expresses herself with exemplary skill, clearly, succinctly, and without marbles in her mouth!”

    Princess certainly gets his back up and makes his bitter feelings known doesn’t he. But contrary to your claim Perry, he is often wrong, and demonstrably ignorant on those topics he purports to speak of authoritatively. That doen’t mean you personally can’t treasure your relationship with the little bugger, it just means that he has often been demonstrated as acting idiotically, and pretending to know things he doesn’t really know.

    “Having a good friend who has spent some time in NZ, I can tell you that I would love to visit there. Her son and wife and grandchildren live in north east Australia; en route to or back, she always arranges an extended stopover in NZ. I suspect you really know nothing about this peaceful and lovely country.”

    No doubt much of the NZ countryside is relatively unspolied and likely to strike most Europeans as beautiful.

    But what you think that that has to do with Princess’s status as a legal “subject”, living in a country without a constitution comparable to ours, and as a dependent of a small state incapable of ensuring its own continuance, is a mystery.

  41. let me understand the true depth of Dana’s delusional state. if a person says something that might be construed by Dana at one point and later says something that Dana can’t construe to match the way he’d like to describe reality, The Truth is…the thing Dana managed to find that suited his preferred description of reality. not the thing he’s saying now. why? well, the psychic powers of Dana, obviously!

    you understand that’s pretty much a functional description of how crazy people think, don’t you?

  42. “I have here a minute fifty-two clip that contradicts the 1000 times the President has made it clear that private insurance isn’t going anywhere. using ONLY THE POWERS OF MY BRAIN, I have determined that this minute fifty-two clip is clearly the one that represents reality.”
    –the right wing, throwing a noose over a beam and just giving up, 2009

  43. Perry wrote:

    Dana, that is not true. How many times had we heard from Obama during the campaign, even vs Hillary in the primaries: “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” He still says the same thing!

    And, of course, Mr Tallis concurs. But the question is: do you actually believe President Obama’s current statements that he supports private insurance? I don’t believe him, not in the least; I think that he is lying through his scummy teeth, because he knows full well that were he to propose single-payer outright, his proposal would be doomed to failure.

    I believe Mr Obama now, when he is trying to sell something, exactly as much as I believed him when he said that he was going to cut taxes, when he was trying to get elected.

  44. Perry:
    Dana, that is not true. How many times had we heard from Obama during the campaign, even vs Hillary in the primaries: “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” He still says the same thing!

    Then what about this, and Barney Frank saying Single Payer?
    http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

    Remember the Tax Pledge? Broken right away. BO may say what you want to hear, but it isn’t what he always means! And remember Rev. Wright on BO, he’s just a politician.

  45. That’s why my ancestors lived here, and I live here yet as a free citizen of a constitutional federal republic, while your ancestors lived there as subjects, and you continue to live there, in a nation powerless to defend itself, as a subject of a queen, in a country without a coherent written constitution, as a state dependent parasite, who is neurotically trying to spread it’s system and web of groundless interpersonal and legal claims worldwide.

    I love it when the ignorant are reduced to this sort of ranting. Mainly because it allows me to mention this.

    But contrary to your claim Perry, he is often wrong, and demonstrably ignorant on those topics he purports to speak of authoritatively.

    That link again.

    Jesus, you’re funny, DNW.

  46. And, of course, Mr Tallis concurs. But the question is: do you actually believe President Obama’s current statements that he supports private insurance? I don’t believe him, not in the least; I think that he is lying through his scummy teeth, because he knows full well that were he to propose single-payer outright, his proposal would be doomed to failure.

    Dana, you are ignorant. Single-payer systems can and do have private insurance companies operating with them.

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_health_care_like_in_th.php
    http://www.southerncross.co.nz/

    If you don’t know the very basics of what you’re speaking about, you have a problem.

  47. Stopping the spread of house fires is a municipal activity; as you should know.

    And here we have a perfect example of why DNW is just like every other pinhead “libertarian”; he wants to make exceptions to the rules of the free market as he sees convenient.

    So the fire department being a “municipal activity” makes it alright for the local government to tax me even though I have never had a fire? And then you have gall to hector me about polemical bullshit.

    In the case of rural dwellings, there are instances where volunteer fire companies perform this service, and in some cases it is possible to opt out; and risk the consequences.

    Why can’t the free market take care of this issue? What a bunch of utilitarian dupes these volunteer fire fighters must be!

  48. I live in a brick house in Cedar Rapids. Why should I pay taxes for the fire department? I can’t opt out. Sounds like coercian to me!

  49. If you don’t know the very basics of what you’re speaking about, you have a problem.

    don’t know if you’ve heard but evidently the RNC has been mulling “we don’t know the basics of what we’re talking about but that’s not a problem” as their motto for the 2010 elections

  50. Mr Meter: The point of demarcation for me is simple: if the service provided is a general community service, such as roads, police and fire protection, it can be legitimate. But when a program is designed to take money from one individual to give to another, it’s wholly wrong.

  51. Mikeg,

    First mike, the previous portions of the exchange you edited out:

    Mikeg:

    ““Of course, nobody is advocating any such thing but you have to rely on such gross exaggerations to try and make a point. What is being advocated a public OPTION.”

    DNW:

    “And punishments for those who opt out. Haven’t you been reading?”

    mikeg:

    Got private insurance? Awesome, go home. End of story.”

    DNW:

    “Unless you wish to self-insure; then not end of story.”

    mikeg:

    Maybe you and DNW can get together for beers and complain about how paying for the fire department to put out the fire at somebody else’s house is an infringement on your civil liberties as a US taxpayer.”

    Now, begin with my reply to your U.S. taxpayer assertion above:

    DNW to mikeg:

    ‘Stopping the spread of house fires is a municipal activity; as you should know.’

    Mikeg:

    “And here we have a perfect example of why DNW is just like every other pinhead “libertarian”; he wants to make exceptions to the rules of the free market as he sees convenient.

    So the fire department being a “municipal activity” makes it alright for the local government to tax me even though I have never had a fire?”

    And so, mikeg, we finally, despite your editing tactics, arrive at the point where your debilitating ignorance and confusion becomes obvious.

    “It’s alright”, mikeg, because it’s Constitutional, as part of our federal system of limited government, and enumerated and separated powers.

    Now maybe you were educated in those British wool sheds you bitterly complain of. But, if you had taken a class in Civics in an American high school, and if you had paid attention, you might have learned something about the way our government was formed. And maybe then, the concepts of separation of powers, sovereign spheres, and of “police powers”, would have registered and remained with you. Probably not, but maybe.

    Not that any of this would be of any interest to a genetically formed little Stalinist like yourself, but that is wherein much of the strength of a constitutional system like ours lies, when it comes to preserving political liberty, mikeg. (I know, I know, you have no interest in freedom, you just want to know the quickest way to the center of the socialist scrum.)

    Anyway, your attempted analogy then, mikeg, between a universal and coercive system of nationally controlled medical insurance on the one hand, and state and local police, public health, and safety ordinances and services on the other, is just, well, just plain stupid, mikeg.

    Whether ignorance, or indignation has made you that way, is anyone’s guess. Or, maybe you just want to vent emotionally by arguing against some libertarian straw man.

    But whatever your problem, you have the answer in law and political philosophy, above.

    ” And then you have gall to hector me about polemical bullshit.”

    You are the one hectoring, mike, look at the thread.

    “‘In the case of rural dwellings, there are instances where volunteer fire companies perform this service, and in some cases it is possible to opt out; and risk the consequences.’

    Why can’t the free market take care of this issue? What a bunch of utilitarian dupes these volunteer fire fighters must be!”

    Now, you have become completely incoherent.

    Say mike, if you want to rail against those evil libertarians who don’t care enough about every little detail of your comfort to make you happy, you may do so without setting up straw men.

    Give Georgie Galloway a call. Let him know how unloved you are feeling; trapped here, in America.

  52. Phoenician:

    “I love it when …”

    You love it, when you link to some imaginary rebuttal, rather than meeting the point. I refer to liberty and limited government and political status; you respond with a link to a wiki article about an Economist social equity index termed an “Index of Democracy.”

    The queen is not head of your state? You do not have a unitary rather than federal government? You have a written constitution and an explict bill of rights having a force of law greater than any normal act of parliament?

    To show you what a joke both you and your “democracy” list is; Australia, which has had press reporting restrictions and no bill of rights in any fashion, gets a ten for civil liberties. The United Kindgom where they arrest and jail people for speech code violations gets a higher civil liberty score than the United States. Canada, which no longer has freedom of political speech, also gets the same score.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country’s bill of rights incorporated in the country’s constitution

    http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78883.htm

    “That link again.

    Jesus, you’re funny, DNW.”

    You think I am funny, I say you are a joke but pathetic. Seems fair.

Comments are closed.