Thank you Chief Justice Roberts, you are a wise man.

[BGL]

Fuel taxes are excise taxes. By definition an excise tax is not paid directly by the consumer.

Consumer pays gas tax directly at the pump at time of purchase. Many oil companies post breakdowns of cost of gallon of gas at the pump so consumer knows how much of what they pay for gasoline goes to the oil company and how much the consumer is paying in state and Federal taxes.

But that is irrelevant to the point that a similarity between gasoline tax and the tax in Affordable Care Act are that both are avoidable taxes.

As for your charts, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that data.

Just answering someone's question.

I don't agree at all with the numbers you keep throwing out there.

Charts show how US system with insurance company tax on health care services is the most expensive, much more expensive than European systems which provide 100% coverage and better results at half the cost. That costs in the US are growing faster than costs in European systems, that US spends way more per capita than European systems. That US could fix health care problems by adopting any one of the much cheaper, more effective European systems.

 

[Bain]

Mandatory health insurance is reasonable if everyone in their lifetime will require health care and, like public education which is also mandatory, it is in society's best interests that everyone get health care and an education.

Let society decide with a nation wide vote on major issues such as these. Not the President, nor Congress.
It is, We the People of the United States of America. A Government of the People, By the People, & For the People.

As such congress should have most powers removed. They can elect to pass onto us, the citizens the right to vote on major issues.
Majority Rules. We can run the nation better than those in DC.

By the way, Nobody needs healthcare insurance. What we need is a true healthcare reform that brings reasonable prices to our citizens and stop insurance companies cold.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Unfortunately the Supreme Court just disagreed with you.

No, they did not. The court decided the individual mandate was a "tax". Furthermore, Congress can only regular inter-state commerce, not intra-state commerce. Thats why we still have incandescent light bulbs in Texas. We just can't ship them out of the state.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Republicans are SOOOOOOoooooooo dooomed in November, it isn't going to be close.

You're half right.

 

[BGL]

Let society decide with a nation wide vote on major issues such as these. Not the President, nor Congress.

We are a republic with representative government for a reason. People voting directly on every issue is unworkable and leads to bad government as we see in CA and other states where ballot initiative has made government dysfunctional. Direct democracy is unworkable. Adding things like "supermajorities" is what has hurt US system which worked well prior to the misuse of "supermajority filibuster" in US Senate and in many state legislatures. Get rid of binding ballot measures they become a tool for whoever has the most money to sway public on the issue. Restore the representative democracy established by the founders.

We did vote in last election in 2008 and health care was front and center issue with Obama pushing for most of the reforms he ended up advocating except he did not include Public Option. We can now vote again in 2012 and keep the reforms with Obama or get rid of them with Romney.

By the way, Nobody needs healthcare insurance. What we need is a true healthcare reform that brings reasonable prices to our citizens and stop insurance companies cold

Agree completely. I mispoke when I said "mandatory health insurance" is reasonable. I should have said mandatory particpation in a national health care plan like Medicare, like Social Security is reasonable.

A Medicare for All plan with everyone paying into Medicare is the way to go. Eliminates insurance companies, eliminated the 50% insurance company tax imposed on current US health care system.

 

[Fred Sherman]

I should have said mandatory particpation in a national health care plan like Medicare, like Social Security is reasonable.

Except for the fact that both will be broke. Socialism doesn't work.

 

[BGL]

Except for the fact that both will be broke.

Social Security and Medicare have a $2T combined surplus and that's after 30 years of failed Reaganomics which over the same 30 years ran up $14T in deficits and debt. So both work very well with Medicare having a 3% overhead vs. the 40% overhead/profit of insurance companies.

Socialism doesn't work.

Typically most people who say that do not know what is "Socialism". It is the public ownership of the means of production. In the case of health care, Medicare does not own the hospitals or employ the MD's etc. In UK, they do have a socialist health care system with the government owning hospitals and employing the health care providers directly and that works much better than US system in that it has lower costs, 10% of GDP vs US 18%, it covers 100% of the population vs. US 70% and UK has better health care stats, rated 18th in the world vs. US 37th. Remember what Deng Xiaoping said, "I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat as long as it catches mice.".

 

[Digital Doctor]

You're half right.

Welcome back.

 

[Brad L]

Consumer pays gas tax directly at the pump at time of purchase. Many oil companies post breakdowns of cost of gallon of gas at the pump so consumer knows how much of what they pay for gasoline goes to the oil company and how much the consumer is paying in state and Federal taxes.

But that is irrelevant to the point that a similarity between gasoline tax and the tax in Affordable Care Act are that both are avoidable taxes.

Consumers do not pay fuel tax directly. That would be illegal. Why not be honest?

There are two main rules for federal taxes. The 16th amendment is an exception and allows Congress to tax income (income tax). The Obamacare tax does not fit into the enumerated taxing powers of congress.
1. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment (never going to happen).
2. Indirect taxes must be levied by the rule of uniformity (fuel tax).

 

[BGL]

Consumers do not pay fuel tax directly.

Consumer do pay fuel tax directly and immediately at the pump. I think you mean they don't make the final payment to government which is interesting but irrelevant. I don't make income tax, Social Security, Medicare or state taxes directly either, that is done by my employer via payroll deductions. It is all irrelevant to the point that gasoline tax is an avoidable tax as is the health care tax.

 

[Brad L]

Consumer do pay fuel tax directly and immediately at the pump. I think you mean they don't make the final payment to government which is interesting but irrelevant. I don't make income tax, Social Security, Medicare or state taxes directly either, that is done by my employer via payroll deductions. It is all irrelevant to the point that gasoline tax is an avoidable tax as is the health care tax.

I think you're just trying to continue the argument for the sake of arguing, so this will be my last response to you in this thread. Fuel tax is an indirect excise tax. If gas stations charged you directly for the excise tax that would be illegal. The fact that excise taxes are indirectly passed down to consumers does not make it a direct tax. There are special definitions for direct and indirect taxes. I've offered no opinion here, just facts. Use Google for reassurance if needed.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Social Security and Medicare have a $2T combined surplus and that's after 30 years of failed Reaganomics which over the same 30 years ran up $14T in deficits and debt. So both work very well with Medicare having a 3% overhead vs. the 40% overhead/profit of insurance companies.
Typically most people who say that do not know what is "Socialism". It is the public ownership of the means of production. In the case of health care, Medicare does not own the hospitals or employ the MD's etc. In UK, they do have a socialist health care system with the government owning hospitals and employing the health care providers directly and that works much better than US system in that it has lower costs, 10% of GDP vs US 18%, it covers 100% of the population vs. US 70% and UK has better health care stats, rated 18th in the world vs. US 37th. Remember what Deng Xiaoping said, "I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat as long as it catches mice.".

Aside from people dying while waiting for treatment, sure. There's a reason why those of means come to the US for medical care. No waiting, no dying.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Social Security and Medicare have a $2T combined surplus and that's after 30 years of failed Reaganomics which over the same 30 years ran up $14T in deficits and debt. So both work very well with Medicare having a 3% overhead vs. the 40% overhead/profit of insurance companies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...16-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/24/nation/la-na-medicare-report-20120424

You were saying?

 

[Fred Sherman]

Welcome back.

Only briefly, but thanks.

 

[BGL]

I think you're just trying to continue the argument for the sake of arguing,

Simply noting that your obsession with gasoline tax and other sales taxes being "excise" taxes is irrelevant to the point made that the similarity between the gas tax (feel free to fill in any other avoidable tax if the gas tax similarity is giving you an ice cream headache) and the Affordable Health Care tax penalty for not having health insurance is that both are avoidable. It is simply a fact. Both are avoidable taxes.

 

[BGL]

Aside from people dying while waiting for treatment, sure.

Happens here a lot. New England Journal of Medicine estimated 40,000+ deaths are year in US directly attributable to people not getting health care when they need it. Doesn't happen in the more advanced systems in Europe as everyone has access to good basic health care which is why they rank in the top 20 while US ranks 37th in health care stats.

There's a reason why those of means come to the US for medical care.

Eyup the rich can get anything they want at Alice's Health Care Restaurant. Of course they also go to top hospitals in France, Switzerland, Germany and UK, many of which offer treatments not yet licensed in the US. You don't really see the rich Europeans coming to US for health care. The rich are always safe and what they can buy and where is irrelevant to the health care reform in US. However, the US system fails on every metric. It costs the US 18% of its GDP vs. 10% of GDP in the European countries. That's the nation paying 8% of $15T GDP, $1.1T dollars wasted on Wall St insurance products vs. health care. It is a huge economic drag for US economy, business and labor.

 

[BGL]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/20...16-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/24/nation/la-na-medicare-report-20120424 You were saying

Isn't Forbes byline "Captialist Tool"? Steve Forbes is quite the fringe character with all kinds of crackpot stuff. Why he even supported Reaganomics, the scam of the century promising budget surpluses every year and delivering record deficits, building up $14T in debt while Social Security and Medicare racked up $4T in surplus. And still these Laffer Curve loonies blame Social Security and Medicare for US deficits and debt when
the US Treasury reports that Social Security has a $4T surplus and, combined with Medicare, a $2T surplus over the same 30 years Forbes/Reagaomics ran up $14T in US debt.

The "double counting" that Forbes laments is the $4T Social Security surplus lent to US to pay for Reaganomics deficits and debt. Now the Reaganauts don't want to pay it back so they call it "double counting".

But back to health care and the facts there. US 18% of GDP for health care. Europe 10% of GDP. Europe covers 100%, US covers 70%. Europe ranks in top 20 in health care results. US ranks 37th.

 

[Fred Sherman]

And I though Obama was bad still blaming Bush. You're blaming Reagan more than 8 years after his death. Wow. Pathetic.

 

[BGL]

And I though Obama was bad still blaming Bush. You're blaming Reagan more than 8 years after his death..

Reagans $14T in debt lives on. His legacy so to speak. As for Bush, he did put 14 million out of work, run the US deficits and debt up $2T, spend $1.2T a year for eight years on oil wars for WMD that were never there. You did know the $2T in Wall St bailouts were under Bush?. Did you think that kind of disastrous mismanagement was going away in less than eight years? A Reaganomics revival of tax cuts and big deficits after inheriting the budget surpluses of Bill Clinton.

But we digress, it's health care that's the topic and the dysfunctional "private enterprise" US system that simply doesn't work for anyone other than the insurance companies that provide no health care but skim off $1.1T per year in overhead and profit. So how to fix it? Certainly the many, varied European national health care plans offer many successful road maps all costing 50% less than US system, providing 30% more coverage with 50% better results. What is not to like?

 

[Digital Doctor]

Heh Romney.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Romney wouldn't pick himself as a good candidate for office.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...his-tax-returns-would-ko-shot-at-white-house/

If the election is going to be close, (it's not), digging up Romney's tax returns would likely be disastrous for him.

For example, why did Romney invest more than $30 million in places like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda

, which are well known as foreign tax havens?
If he hasn’t been trying to avoid taxes, then why have a Swiss bank account

?
And if he has nothing to hide, then why is he the only presidential nominee in 30 years to release only a single year of tax returns?
After all, it’s not as though Mitt Romney can’t find his other tax returns.

Priceless.
2012 is *NOT* the year to elect a rich tax evader. (George Bush Sr. : Nawt gunna dew it)
As much as people aren't Obama fans, they aren't going to vote for an ultra elite.
That, you can take to the bank.