13 attorneys general sue over health care overhaul

**PoliCon** · 03-23-2010, 01:54 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/...NhdHRvcm5leXNn

Only 13? I would have though it would be all 57!

**swirling_vortex** · 03-24-2010, 08:39 AM

Woo-hoo, go PA! Tom Corbett is running for governor too this election cycle, so it should get interesting.

Hopefully more states will get on board.

**Wei Wu Wei** · 03-24-2010, 12:38 PM

It's just a show. Everyone knows it's not unconstitutional for the governmeny to levy taxes or issue tax credits which is all that's happening here.

It's just to get people riled up about it, I can garuntee fox news is going to report this all day like it's actually a Real Thing (which it's not)

**PoliCon** · 03-24-2010, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by swirling_vortex

Woo-hoo, go PA! Tom Corbett is running for governor too this election cycle, so it should get interesting.

Hopefully more states will get on board.

Agreed.

**PoliCon** · 03-24-2010, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

It's just a show. Everyone knows it's not unconstitutional for the governmeny to levy taxes or issue tax credits which is all that's happening here.

It's just to get people riled up about it, I can garuntee fox news is going to report this all day like it's actually a Real Thing (which it's not)

For a second I was going to post a serious response to this post - and then I reread it and realized that I should respond in the same spirit the post was made. THEREFORE:

**Wei Wu Wei** · 03-24-2010, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by PoliCon

For a second I was going to post a serious response to this post - and then I reread it and realized that I should respond in the same spirit the post was made. THEREFORE:

So you have a serious reasons for believing what you believe but you just choose to not explain them? Ok sure bud. And I really know the secret to immorality (but I'm not gonnna tell you teehee)

**Lager** · 03-24-2010, 04:11 PM

Wu, I'd like to hear what your argument before the Supreme Court would be, explaining how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is the same as levying taxes. It's okay, I've got a few moments.

**Wei Wu Wei** · 03-24-2010, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Lager

Wu, I'd like to hear what your argument before the Supreme Court would be, explaining how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is the same as levying taxes. It's okay, I've got a few moments.

They are calling it a mandate and certain sources are describing it as a new law with a punishment attached. That is not what it is.

Here is what everyone is calling the Mandate:

A new tax is issued on everyone, if you have or purchase insurance you receive a credit on that tax.

That's it. No law is going in the books that says "all citizens must purchase health insurance" they are just issuing a tax and credits.

Taxing is perfectly constitutional.

"Supreme Court, this so-called mandate (as you obviously know) is not a federal law, but a tax with credits. That is all."

**Lager** · 03-24-2010, 04:46 PM

You are implying that everyone is going to pay the fine upfront, and those that prove they have insurance are going to get a credit back? You know that's a stretch.

**Lager** · 03-24-2010, 04:54 PM

Here is the actual text of the bill as near as I could find:

All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption

Although many people may feel that the burden of taxation is a "penalty", there is no legal basis for equating the two terms. A tax has more in common with a "fee" than a fine.