Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 10:25:29 AM
Yet you seem to forget your history class, or did they teach you about the fact that the House was controlled by the opposing party?

Oh, the irony here...

Quote
Aside the fact that he accomplished what he set out to do, destroy the USSR.

First, this was hardly his only goal, but it was the only one that appeared to have come to fruition, and so conservatives desperately cling to it.  Secondly, you can't possibly attribute the collapse of the USSR to something as simplistic as Reagan's defense increases.  Thirdly, isn't it ironic that the USSR collapsed as a (partial) result of spending too much money on defense?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 09:08:21 AM
As the SCOTUS rationale puts it, the government does this all the time.  It's called taxing.

And interesting statistic here; the Reagan tax increases of 1982 are almost twice as large of a tax hike as the affordable care act.

Still didn't answer.  Are Canadians free to turn it down without penalty or not?   Also, this tax increase on those making less than $250,000 goes against the promises made does it not?  A family of four will be taxed over $2,000 in 2016.  That's on top of what they already pay.  So what happens if one doesn't pay up when due?

Quote from: republicans2 on July 02, 2012, 10:37:28 AM
Still didn't answer.  Are Canadians free to turn it down without penalty or not?   Also, this tax increase on those making less than $250,000 goes against the promises made does it not?  A family of four will be taxed over $2,000 in 2016.  That's on top of what they already pay.  So what happens if one doesn't pay up when due?

Guess what? The same damn thing that happens when you don't pay any other TAX.
Yeah I know: "Bbbbbbut Obama said....". Guess you can file that with all the other stuff he lied about.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:32:20 AM
Oh, the irony here...

First, this was hardly his only goal, but it was the only one that appeared to have come to fruition, and so conservatives desperately cling to it.  Secondly, you can't possibly attribute the collapse of the USSR to something as simplistic as Reagan's defense increases.  Thirdly, isn't it ironic that the USSR collapsed as a (partial) result of spending too much money on defense?

Oh boy.

You may not like the idea of the United States spending "too much" on defense, but normal Americans like it.  We like being safe, and sleeping at night knowing no matter what attack is launched on the US, we are protected.  Don't worry, we protect Canada too, so you're welcome for that, along with our health care your elite depend on.

Regarding the spending, Reagan, unfortunately, agreed to a dollar tax for every two dollars of spending cuts.  The Dems hosed him on that deal.  Reagan didn't want to raise the taxes, but to get some spending cuts, which no Dem would ever dream of, he did it.  You can thank the Dems for higher taxes and increased spending.

Dems need to appeal to the uneducated, like yourself, to get elected.  So, by saying they will raise taxes on the achievers, they get your support.  It is pretty sad.

Quote from: republicans2 on July 02, 2012, 10:37:28 AM
Still didn't answer.  Are Canadians free to turn it down without penalty or not?

I think it depends on the province.  Not that it's relevant to the point.

QuoteAlso, this tax increase on those making less than $250,000 goes against the promises made does it not?  A family of four will be taxed over $2,000 in 2016.  That's on top of what they already pay.  So what happens if one doesn't pay up when due?

It's a tax that only applies if you willfully refuse to get health insurance (ergo, it's conditional); and did Obama make that pledge in the River Styx now?  He obviously meant it as a penalty, not a tax, yet the courts ruled it as the latter.  It's not any willful violation of his campaign pledge.

Read this:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
I think it depends on the province.  Not that it's relevant to the point.

It's a tax that only applies if you willfully refuse to get health insurance (ergo, it's conditional); and did Obama make that pledge in the River Styx now?  He obviously meant it as a penalty, not a tax, yet the courts ruled it as the latter.  It's not any willful violation of his campaign pledge.

Read this:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

The court did not rule it a tax.  Roberts did.  That's it.

Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:01:34 AM
The court did not rule it a tax.  Roberts did.  That's it.

Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:01:34 AM
The court did not rule it a tax.  Roberts did.  That's it.

Uh no. He simply agreed with the administration argument that it was a tax. And considering that manner in which it was passed is only used for taxes, that would also make it a tax. Likewise the fact that it will be collected by the IRS. And there is the fact that how much you pay is based upon your income. The only thing that will be accomplished by continuing to deny it's a tax, is to allow the administration to wiggle out of having to deal with the implications of its "victory".

Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 11:30:48 AM
Uh no. He simply agreed with the administration argument that it was a tax. And considering that manner in which it was passed is only used for taxes, that would also make it a tax. Likewise the fact that it will be collected by the IRS. And there is the fact that how much you pay is based upon your income. The only thing that will be accomplished by continuing to deny it's a tax, is to allow the administration to wiggle out of having to deal with the implications of its "victory".

Then why did Roberts rewrite it into a tax?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:32:20 AM
Oh, the irony here...

First, this was hardly his only goal, but it was the only one that appeared to have come to fruition, and so conservatives desperately cling to it.  Secondly, you can't possibly attribute the collapse of the USSR to something as simplistic as Reagan's defense increases.  Thirdly, isn't it ironic that the USSR collapsed as a (partial) result of spending too much money on defense?

Son, I remember this time as if it were yesterday, in fact the majority of us on this forum lived through the Cold War era.
So please, without using an opinion piece, prove Reagan didn't bring the USSR to it's knees.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
I think it depends on the province.  Not that it's relevant to the point.

It's a tax that only applies if you willfully refuse to get health insurance (ergo, it's conditional); and did Obama make that pledge in the River Styx now?  He obviously meant it as a penalty, not a tax, yet the courts ruled it as the latter.  It's not any willful violation of his campaign pledge.

Read this:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427

You brought up the Canadian health care system and how the US pales in comparison.  And this article was from Canada.  It's not relevant because you either can't answer it or won't because it will show that Canadians are now more free then it's neighbors.

Bush Sr. And Obama can now side by side sing "read my lips".

Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 11:54:10 AM
So please, without using an opinion piece, prove Reagan didn't bring the USSR to it's knees.

Is this "commit every logical fallacy in the book" day?  Read up on burden of proof, and then come back to prove that monkeys don't live on mars.

It's still irrelevant to the point; Obama's allegedly atrocious tax hike is actually significantly less than that of the model conservative president.



---------------------------------------------------

Quote from: republicans2 on July 02, 2012, 11:59:44 AM
You brought up the Canadian health care system and how the US pales in comparison.  And this article was from Canada.  It's not relevant because you either can't answer it or won't because it will show that Canadians are now more free then it's neighbors.

I've already demonstrated this.  Canada spends 10% of its GDP on health care and covers 100% of its people.  The States spends 17% of its GDP to actually cover less than 85% of its people.  Ergo, on the cost side (the angle that conservatives nail Obamacare on the most) the Canadian health care system is the undisputed winner. 

Now; in terms of effectiveness, my link demonstrates that the US health care system is actually more tangled in bureaucracy and less efficient than its Canadian neighbor.

So since I've established Canada's clear advantages in health care, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the claims that the quality of health care in Canada is atrocious, or the waiting times are too long, or any of the other never-proven accusations lobbed at the universal health care system.

Hint: anecdotal evidence is not sufficient.  I want clear statistical evidence to support the notion that a significant number of people emigrate to the US to receive health care treatment, or that the Canadian health care system is less effective.  Because all the actual evidence suggests otherwise.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:20:23 PM
Is this "commit every logical fallacy in the book" day?  Read up on burden of proof, and then come back to prove that monkeys don't live on mars.

Wow, you really expect me to help you prove your claim?
You made the claim, now back it up!

You see, this is how debate actually works, you make a claim, it's your responsibility to prove said claim, the onerous of duties is upon you son.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:20:23 PM
Is this "commit every logical fallacy in the book" day?  Read up on burden of proof, and then come back to prove that monkeys don't live on mars.

It's still irrelevant to the point; Obama's allegedly atrocious tax hike is actually significantly less than that of the model conservative president.



---------------------------------------------------



I've already demonstrated this.  Canada spends 10% of its GDP on health care and covers 100% of its people.  The States spends 17% of its GDP to actually cover less than 85% of its people.  Ergo, on the cost side (the angle that conservatives nail Obamacare on the most) the Canadian health care system is the undisputed winner. 

Now; in terms of effectiveness, my link demonstrates that the US health care system is actually more tangled in bureaucracy and less efficient than its Canadian neighbor.

So since I've established Canada's clear advantages in health care, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the claims that the quality of health care in Canada is atrocious, or the waiting times are too long, or any of the other never-proven accusations lobbed at the universal health care system.

Hint: anecdotal evidence is not sufficient.  I want clear statistical evidence to support the notion that a significant number of people emigrate to the US to receive health care treatment, or that the Canadian health care system is less effective.  Because all the actual evidence suggests otherwise.

I've made no claims.  Simply asked a question.  If a Canadian citizen opts out of coverage, will they be taxed or even penalized?  Can they lose property if the government comes after them for not paying said taxes or penalties?