NO MERCY!

The apocalypse has been averted.

My favorite is the people who proclaim they are just going to pay the fine they are so fed up with the website problems. Do they want insurance or no? That would seem the important question. The fine on next year's tax return is going to be a lot less than even the most basic insurance plan.

Why wouldn't you want to have health insurance? Oh, yeah! You ARE Superman!

No buses can run over you!

@4: are you saying you refuse to buy health insurance? and you're condemning freeloaders?

Its sad that SB is too stupid to know that the U.S. Supreme Court says the ACA is legal as is the income tax I guess in a few years he'll take civics in high school and learn the roles of the branches of government.

Also when he grows up a bit he'll find out that health insurance is good idea.

What's really sad is that in a number of States with Republican governors who have refused to join in the Medicaid expansion program, poor people will not be able to get insurance. And most of those states have a lot of poor people. Yay for freedom.

@5: Agreed, the way he twists logic to suit his needs, it's like watching a master of origami at work. Only the end product he produces doesn't impress anyone (including himself, I suspect).

Seattleblues has already proven he does not have the slightest idea what insurance is or how it works, nor how the ACA itself works. All he is doing is playing the internet tough guy to a crowd of people who rightfully think he is an immature clown (or actually just some kid somewhere in his mom's basement) and a fantasy scary black Obama who will never even know of his act of civil disobedience, which most people just call tax evasion.

So put your fake money where your fake mouth is Seattleblues and call the IRS to tell them specifically that you will not be paying this tax, and why, and make sure you give them your identifying info so they know the full scale of your valiant protest against health care. Otherwise, what's the point?

Seattleblues is just upset that she will no longer be able to purchase an insurance plan that does not provide coverage for mental health issues. Under ACA she can no longer say to her family "I'm not going to seek psychiatric care my insurance doesn't cover it".

People who want insurance aren't affected by this, because they'll need insurance from January 1-March 31. I guess it might affect those who aren't able to sign up during open enrollment because of website issues, but chances are that most will have fixed the problem by then. The fine for not getting insurance will be effective for signing up some healthy people who might roll the dice otherwise, because it is 2% of family income, and the cost of insurance premiums is capped by the law (after subsidies) at 9.5% of income. Some people will pay 2% of their income to get nothing, but enough people will be prudent enough to realize that it's better to pay 9.5% (or much less, depending on your income) in exchange for actual functional insurance.

@4: Good luck with that. Lemme know when you finish building your bunker.
/popcorn

I pay taxes to feed those who refuse to accept their responsibility to feed themselves.

I pay taxes to care in retirement for those who refused to provide for their own retirement.

I pay taxes to house people too lazy to do so for themselves.

I pay, now, to provide 'free' or subsidized health care premiums for anti American trash with a belief in their rights to the proceeds if my hard work.

And now a tyrannical government acting well outside its authority tells me not that I must be responsible for my medical bills but to purchase a specific tool not in my interests or pay a fine for my refusing to obey an unlawful order?

Well, fuck you and fuck them, you freeloading anti American scum.

Oh, fyi-

Separate but equal was once state law supported by the Supreme Court.

Minimum wage laws are constitutional now solely because a treasonous president threatened the Supreme Court, in the infamous switch in time that saved nine.

So you folks will be calling for those two policies too, right?

With regards to tyrannical Obamacare the court got it wrong. I'll not help give a veneer of right to this abhorrent policy by abiding by its illegal terms.

@14, It's cute that you seem to think that people who support the ACA are overwhelmingly brown unemployed people who don't pay taxes. I don't have actual demographic info on Stranger readers, but I suspect they're largely white, male, upper middle class, college educated folk (kind of the way Seattle leans) who pay more in taxes than you do.

I've been hailing from MA for awhile now. It's cool. We dig Romneycare here--it'll do you good whether you like it or not. Good luck on that tax evasion scheme!

@15
Odd that liberals are so obsessed with race. I know Obama's a terrible president who dislikes how Americans do things. His skin color, his faith or lack of it (probably uses a veneer of Christianity as a political tool, but otherwise doesn't care for what it's worth) his family status and so on don't interest me.

If in fact Stranger readers are middle class progressive tax schemes should offend them most. Wealthy business owners can afford tax hikes whatever I think if whether they should be asked to. Poor freeloaders get paid for their citizenship in welfare, direct payments like the odious EITC and so on. It's the middle class whose contribution hurts, means real household impacts, that should be mad as hell.

Stranger readers are far likelier young with middle class aspirations but not middle class incomes. Those who've earned their way in life generally know better than to buy progressive junk economics.

@16, Your mind just immediately jumped to Obama when you read "brown," there, didn't it? He is as much white as he is black and that part of the discussion had nothing at all to do with him. But you're right that liberals do talk about race more, no question, though I suspect it has a little less to do with the things we find hateful or how we pick candidates.

You don't like the EITC? You are ridiculous. There is a reason almost all economists (not just progressive economists) LOVE the EITC--it rewards earning more money rather than penalizing people for working more. It provides an incentive for people to better themselves. It is an instance of welfare done correctly. If working full time guaranteed a living wage and there weren't three people looking for every one job that is currently available, we probably wouldn't need as much of such things like the EITC.

Ah so sad, little SB is to stupid to know what the word illegal means

Ah well what you are forgetting is that Seattleblues has really good ignoring skills. As she once shared with me she has younger siblings who tease her constantly for being a idiot. Thanks to them she is, by her own admission, immune to information that comes from outside her own mind.

In a weird way you kinda have to admire her strength. Seattleblues has withstood 30 some odd years of her family teasing her for being an idiot.