Obamacare

[DrStraggler]

Yes...yet another obamacare post. I've been trying to form an opinion about it for sometime but I still don't understand what it means for doctors nationwide. I've heard frightening statistics like a 20% paycut for most doctors and a nejm survey that 46% of doctors would leave their profession if this passed, which it did.

And, before posters go off on me for being money hungry, I'm not afraid to say that my interest in medicine is partially fueled by the dream of being financially stable. Now that doesn't mean I'm in it for the wrong reasons, because helping others live easier lives is something I want to take part in.

So my main questions are
Will medically reimbursements really be hit that hard?
And if so, will medical school tuition go down so that we're not so much in debt?
Will more specific specialities be hit harder than general practice, or vice versa?
Will the financial situation be so bad that one will need to reconsider entering this field?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SoulinNeed]

There is no 20% paycut in "Obamacare." What you're referring to is a 27% (or so) pay cut in Medicare reimbursements that has been threatened for years and years (long before Obama came into office). This pay cut has always been delayed over and over again. It's now scheduled to go into effect at the end of this year, but it will likely be delayed yet again.

 

[235788]

canadian doc's make almost the same as US docs. So... who cares?

If you care about these things... DON'T GO PRIMARY CARE.

 

[JESSFALLING]

canadian doc's make almost the same as US docs. So... who cares?

If you care about these things... DON'T GO PRIMARY CARE.

Not to side track......but what happened to Jesus w/ a handgun? That was an epic avatar!

 

[tiedyeddog]

http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Insi...5&sr=8-1&keywords=health+care+bill+washington

read it, you're welcome.

 

[UCFKnight]

Yea, it really doesn't fix anything. Among many other things, it leaves Medicare even more underfunded then before, which is just going to cause more doctors to refuse it. What a sad day for seniors.

RIP Constitution.

 

[235788]

Not to side track......but what happened to Jesus w/ a handgun? That was an epic avatar!

You're right! He's coming back

 

[tiedyeddog]

RIP Constitution.

wtf? and what part of the constitution died today?

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

You're right! He's coming back

Looks like its been..........resurrected.

 

[NickNaylor]

wtf? and what part of the constitution died today?

Pretty much the part where the SCOTUS said something that wasn't a tax was a tax so that people could be compelled to purchase a product that some have no desire or need to purchase.

Obama: "It's not a tax!"
Democratic legislators: "It's not a tax!"
ACA: "It's not a tax! It's a 'penalty'!"
Supreme Court: "Mmm... it's a tax. Now please go use this tax power to effectively outlaw not having insurance coverage."

I'm not necessarily saying the ACA is a terrible thing. However, IMO the SCOTUS ruling is based, at best, on shaky ground constitutionally.

 

[UCFKnight]

wtf? and what part of the constitution died today?

Haha I knew I shouldn't have said that. Personally, I see it as the government requiring Americans to enter the healthcare market and buy a product or be fined for not doing so. Please tell me if I am wrong about that. If I am not, why is it not called the 'individual tax-mandate'? If it is a tax, why would the money not go to the government? Is that not the definition of a tax? 'The description of the provision doesn’t fit that of a tax. The provision is that you are required to buy something from a commercial vendor – i.e., not send revenue to the government, which is the exact definition of what a tax does – and that you are required to do so if you fit a certain income or employment profile; if you don’t fit the profile, you aren’t required to make the purchase; but if you do fit the profile and fail to make the purchase, you will be fined.'

To take an analogy from an oncologist friend, the Constitution has a cancer that is beginning to metastasize. That is to say, a mandate is the same thing as a tax now.

 

[UCFKnight]

Pretty much the part where the SCOTUS said something that wasn't a tax was a tax so that people could be compelled to purchase a product that some have no desire or need to purchase.

Obama: "It's not a tax!"
Democratic legislators: "It's not a tax!"
ACA: "It's not a tax! It's a 'penalty'!"
Supreme Court: "Mmm... it's a tax. Now please go use this tax power to effectively outlaw not having insurance coverage."

I'm not necessarily saying the ACA is a terrible thing. However, IMO the SCOTUS ruling is based, at best, on shaky ground constitutionally.

Exactly.

 

[SoulinNeed]

Yea, it really doesn't fix anything. Among many other things, it leaves Medicare even more underfunded then before, which is just going to cause more doctors to refuse it. What a sad day for seniors.

RIP Constitution.

No offense, but I'm not sure what you're referring tow hen you quoted me. The 27% cut that I'm talking about has NOTHING to do with PPACA. It's not in the bill. It's a separate bill that's been around for years.

 

[UCFKnight]

No offense, but I'm not sure what you're referring tow hen you quoted me. The 27% cut that I'm talking about has NOTHING to do with PPACA. It's not in the bill. It's a separate bill that's been around for years.

You're right. I shouldn't have quoted you. I fixed it. Sorry about that.

 

[tiedyeddog]

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/02/the-founders-musket-mandate/

The federal government has been mandating citizens to purchase private goods since the writing of the constitution. The actual writers of the constitution thought it was O.K. for the nation.

And saying health insurance is an unneeded product for some is very short sighted. That's like saying education is not needed. Maybe we shouldn't force people to "buy" public school educations via taxes? Maybe we shouldn't compel kids to go to public school. After all, only those who will use their education should get an education. Someone's gotta be the trash man or a pornstar.

 

[Dave89]

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/02/the-founders-musket-mandate/

The federal government has been mandating citizens to purchase private goods since the writing of the constitution. The actual writers of the constitution thought it was O.K. for the nation.

And saying health insurance is an unneeded product for some is very short sighted. That's like saying education is not needed. Maybe we shouldn't force people to "buy" public school educations via taxes? Maybe we shouldn't compel kids to go to public school. After all, only those who will use their education should get an education. Someone's gotta be the trash man or a pornstar.

The Constitution does not authorize the government to force you to buy health insurance. Congress may not do through the tax code what they do not have the power to do legislatively. The SC tried to argue that because the penalty is so low, the government isn't really forcing you to buy insurance.

But Congress arguably did have the power to force you to buy a musket, because that provided for the "common defence."

 

[Praefectus]

The problem with the entire law was that it addressed access to insurance rather than access to care. It doesn't matter how many Brits are covered by insurance; what matters is that it takes months to receive a transplant organ or to get that "elective" hip replacement surgery. Insurance =/= Healthcare.

Also, it never looked at cleaning up defensive medicine. There are way too many CYA tests that raise the overall cost of medicine. Leave it to politicians (read: former lawyers) to take care of the trial attorneys rather than the doctors.

 

[JESSFALLING]

You're right! He's coming back

Praise his name

 

[Brachyury]

The problem with the entire law was that it addressed access to insurance rather than access to care. It doesn't matter how many Brits are covered by insurance; what matters is that it takes months to receive a transplant organ or to get that "elective" hip replacement surgery. Insurance =/= Healthcare.

Also, it never looked at cleaning up defensive medicine. There are way too many CYA tests that raise the overall cost of medicine. Leave it to politicians (read: former lawyers) to take care of the trial attorneys rather than the doctors.

Good thing patients in the United States never have to wait to see physicians or have surgery

 

[Fivo]

RIP Constitution.

The same constitution that listed slaves as 3/5 of a person? Yeah ok...

 

[UCFKnight]

The same constitution that listed slaves as 3/5 of a person? Yeah ok...

See other posts.

 

[Thego2guy]

The problem with the entire law was that it addressed access to insurance rather than access to care. It doesn't matter how many Brits are covered by insurance; what matters is that it takes months to receive a transplant organ or to get that "elective" hip replacement surgery. Insurance =/= Healthcare.

Also, it never looked at cleaning up defensive medicine. There are way too many CYA tests that raise the overall cost of medicine. Leave it to politicians (read: former lawyers) to take care of the trial attorneys rather than the doctors.

This is really good. I never thought of it that way.

Not to bring other "forums" into this, but reddit has a good subreddit (sub-forum) called "Explain it like I'm five". Its pretty good, and people explain EVERYTHING very explicitly.... except this topic.

I was wondering if someone can make an effort to REALLY explain this whole thing to me like I am five. I've done a bunch of reading on the topic, and a lot of the 'evidence' seems contradictory, so I'm still rather confused.

I also wanted to share a couple of interesting points from reddit, and I wanted your opinions on them:

Question: Why is health care so expensive in the US?

"
Many people in the US:
A) don't get insurance because they're healthy. This means health insurance on average costs more because only sick people get it. This is the point behind the individual mandate
B) Don't go for preventative care. This means that instead of going to their doctor and getting the $50 prescription for a cold, they wait 6 months and go to the ER to get $5000 treatment for respiratory failure.
C) Are not in as good health. Americans are more obese and exercise less than the average European, which means the average American has more health problems.
As for your other question, Canada and most other western nations afford UHC because they tax their citizens for it."


"

One of the big costs is insurance company overhead. Roughly 25% of the money we pay for health insurance never makes it past the insurance company. Only 75% goes to actual health care.
That 25% goes to pay for things like:

• Television advertisements for insurance companies.
• Paying claims agents whose job is to fight with doctors to try to reduce the amount of treatment you're getting.
• Salaries of people whose job is to look for preexisting conditions or other reasons to deny coverage.
• Salaries of ordinary insurance agents, the people who sell you health care.

One hotly-disputed piece of Obamacare is a rule that insurance companies have to reduce this overhead from 25% to 15%.
In general, this overhead doesn't exist in a single-payer system."


I keep hearing the argument that less physicians are going to accept Medicaid/Medicare patients, so that entire burden is going to go on public hospitals and the ER. Which will clearly not make the situation any better. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[DavetheMD]

Did this require a new thread?

 

[Frazier]

Yes...yet another obamacare post. I've been trying to form an opinion about it for sometime but I still don't understand what it means for doctors nationwide. I've heard frightening statistics like a 20% paycut for most doctors and a nejm survey that 46% of doctors would leave their profession if this passed, which it did.

And, before posters go off on me for being money hungry, I'm not afraid to say that my interest in medicine is partially fueled by the dream of being financially stable. Now that doesn't mean I'm in it for the wrong reasons, because helping others live easier lives is something I want to take part in.

So my main questions are
Will medically reimbursements really be hit that hard?
And if so, will medical school tuition go down so that we're not so much in debt?
Will more specific specialities be hit harder than general practice, or vice versa?
Will the financial situation be so bad that one will need to reconsider entering this field?

NO!

 

[235788]

Praise his name

hallelujah!

 

[jonmadden]

Yes 5.9% for 3 years to 16.7% total cut in medicaid and/or medicare. Primary care bump is BS as theyll make coding difficult and this is for 2 whole years a 10% bump for same program. Then a freeze for 10 years so inflation can make it a decrease overall

More control by government over healthcare spending which means corporations and their other budgets deficits take priorites. Like subsidies to insurance companies who are doing great and have been in spite of everything else going bankrupt

Even "nonprofit" insurance companies like kaiser permante NW has increased their capital cash surplus from 50-100 mill in the early 2000s to almost 600 mill. All are cash flushed and this was steady every year particularly 2007-2011 where all in oregon as an example increased premiums upper double digits. 50, even 100% for certain plans

They dropped people as well as all have to keep a low risk group and now with half a billion in cash on hand as well as subsidies can keep their rates artifically lower than anyone else that dares to enter the market.

since they dont have chuckle heads on wall street to give money made off sick people directly like a for profit insurance company. In the end same difference

And like good government does they take working peoples money to mainatain sweet corporate setups like this as well as bail them out of pissing away the countrys wealth

Same thing when UPS and fedex came into the post offices territory, they take all the profitable routes and steal the market with whatever corrupt money and the post office as a "public service" is left with a totally hopeless level of sustainability year after year. Let alone maybe actually give a return to the public for their investment

You realize how nuts this is? If you dont earn an income or one that would require you to owe taxes you know have to file a tax return regardless, its like communist russia how they want a tab on everyone.

Let alone all our health information and families will now be fully disclosed to the government, states, and insurance companies to isolate high risk areas from their business. Your name, ssn and that of each family member and the name and policy of the insurance company.

Every private health moment is going to take 5 seconds for them to pull up and use for god knows what. Hippa is totally neaningless with this info transmitted to the irs, not only your state but others and private companies as well as your employer who will provide if you dont

Bill clinton couldnt get a nut off without everyone knowing.

These arent healthcare providers or companies making payments, its the IRS.

Imagine when you have kids, I dont want my familys personal information, health as well as genetic in the future so accessible.

They have no right to step into peoples lives like that.

Im the least private person and would gladly put everything on a banner outside their windows but its the goddamn principle. This isnt just a tax issue, taxing you for something you didnt buy.

Theyre pushing their luck, im going to australia after residency. Although residents get 90-110k there.

They just want nurses anyway to do it for half the pay and half the training, theyll always be able to pay out of pocket themselves what do they care

 

[235788]

Yes 5.9% for 3 years to 16.7% total cut in medicaid and/or medicare. Primary care bump is BS as theyll make coding difficult and this is for 2 whole years a 10% bump for same program. Then a freeze for 10 years so inflation can make it a decrease overall

More control by government over healthcare spending which means corporations and their other budgets deficits take priorites. Like subsidies to insurance companies who are doing great and have been in spite of everything else going bankrupt

Even "nonprofit" insurance companies like kaiser permante NW has increased their capital cash surplus from 50-100 mill in the early 2000s to almost 600 mill. All are cash flushed and this was steady every year particularly 2007-2011 where all in oregon as an example increased premiums upper double digits. 50, even 100% for certain plans

They dropped people as well as all have to keep a low risk group and now with half a billion in cash on hand as well as subsidies can keep their rates artifically lower than anyone else that dares to enter the market.

since they dont have chuckle heads on wall street to give money made off sick people directly like a for profit insurance company. In the end same difference

And like good government does they take working peoples money to mainatain sweet corporate setups like this as well as bail them out of pissing away the countrys wealth

Same thing when UPS and fedex came into the post offices territory, they take all the profitable routes and steal the market with whatever corrupt money and the post office as a "public service" is left with a totally hopeless level of sustainability year after year. Let alone maybe actually give a return to the public for their investment

You realize how nuts this is? If you dont earn an income or one that would require you to owe taxes you know have to file a tax return regardless, its like communist russia how they want a tab on everyone.

Let alone all our health information and families will now be fully disclosed to the government, states, and insurance companies to isolate high risk areas from their business. Your name, ssn and that of each family member and the name and policy of the insurance company.

Every private health moment is going to take 5 seconds for them to pull up and use for god knows what. Hippa is totally neaningless with this info transmitted to the irs, not only your state but others and private companies as well as your employer who will provide if you dont

Bill clinton couldnt get a nut off without everyone knowing.

These arent healthcare providers or companies making payments, its the IRS.

Imagine when you have kids, I dont want my familys personal information, health as well as genetic in the future so accessible.

They have no right to step into peoples lives like that.

Im the least private person and would gladly put everything on a banner outside their windows but its the goddamn principle. This isnt just a tax issue, taxing you for something you didnt buy.

Theyre pushing their luck, im going to australia after residency. Although residents get 90-110k there.

They just want nurses anyway to do it for half the pay and half the training, theyll always be able to pay out of pocket themselves what do they care

tl;dr. Actually read half. Where did this come from?

 

[cheesier]

Pretty much the part where the SCOTUS said something that wasn't a tax was a tax so that people could be compelled to purchase a product that some have no desire or need to purchase.

Obama: "It's not a tax!"
Democratic legislators: "It's not a tax!"
ACA: "It's not a tax! It's a 'penalty'!"
Supreme Court: "Mmm... it's a tax. Now please go use this tax power to effectively outlaw not having insurance coverage."

I'm not necessarily saying the ACA is a terrible thing. However, IMO the SCOTUS ruling is based, at best, on shaky ground constitutionally.

It was structured like a tax, so it's a tax. The politically motivated label that the Democrats gave the tax is irrelevant to the ruling.

 

[Dave89]

It was structured like a tax, so it's a tax. The politically motivated label that the Democrats gave the tax is irrelevant to the ruling.

There are only certain types of taxes Congress may levy. This is not a permissible tax, based on precedent. Congress passed it as a penalty, but even as a tax, it fails requirements of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4. Roberts said it functions as a tax, and despite the fact that it is an illegitimate tax and was not passed as a tax, it's ok. This is nonsense.

 

[phltz]

The Constitution does not authorize the government to force you to buy health insurance. Congress may not do through the tax code what they do not have the power to do legislatively. The SC tried to argue that because the penalty is so low, the government isn't really forcing you to buy insurance.

But Congress arguably did have the power to force you to buy a musket, because that provided for the "common defence."

The government isn't forcing anyone to buy health insurance. It's giving them a financial incentive do so. This is just one more in the long, and broadly accepted tradition of Congress giving people financial incentives to do stuff via the tax code: have a home mortgage, donate to charity, save for retirement, have children, buy municipal bonds, have student loans, etc, etc. The government doesn't _force_ anyone to have a home mortgage, but it'll charge them thousands more dollars a year in taxes if they don't. The ACA "mandate" is actually peanuts compared to all these other incentives.

 

[Dave89]

The government isn't forcing anyone to buy health insurance. It's giving them a financial incentive do so. This is just one more in the long, and broadly accepted tradition of Congress giving people financial incentives to do stuff via the tax code: have a home mortgage, donate to charity, save for retirement, have children, buy municipal bonds, have student loans, etc, etc. The government doesn't _force_ anyone to have a home mortgage, but it'll charge them thousands more dollars a year in taxes if they don't. The ACA "mandate" is actually peanuts compared to all these other incentives.

Except...as a tax, the mandate fails under all established precedent for taxation.

 

[Caesar]

Pretty much the part where the SCOTUS said something that wasn't a tax was a tax so that people could be compelled to purchase a product that some have no desire or need to purchase.

Obama: "It's not a tax!"
Democratic legislators: "It's not a tax!"
ACA: "It's not a tax! It's a 'penalty'!"
Supreme Court: "Mmm... it's a tax. Now please go use this tax power to effectively outlaw not having insurance coverage."

I'm not necessarily saying the ACA is a terrible thing. However, IMO the SCOTUS ruling is based, at best, on shaky ground constitutionally.

I don't think you understand how the SCOTUS works.....

 

[Dave89]

I don't think you understand how the SCOTUS works.....

How is he wrong?

 

[cheesier]

How is he wrong?

If the SCOTUS says it's a permissible tax, it's a permissible tax. They don't take what Obama said in his stump speeches into account when they make rulings.

 

[Caesar]

It was structured like a tax, so it's a tax. The politically motivated label that the Democrats gave the tax is irrelevant to the ruling.

I usually try to stay away from this nonsense, but I just can't resist myself since I actually read the opinion today.

From the ruling:

Congress's decision to label this exaction a "penalty"rather than a "tax" is significant because the AffordableCare Act describes many other exactions it creates as"taxes."..... Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat itas such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functionslike a tax.

And about the nonsense above about calling it something it is not:

In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155
U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285
U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.

 

[Dave89]

If the SCOTUS says it's a permissible tax, it's a permissible tax. They don't take what Obama said in his stump speeches into account when they make rulings.

OK, here's how our government works: Congress legislates. The SC judges whether the laws conflict with the Constitution.

There is no precedent for this "tax." None.

This would be enough of a problem if Congress were trying to enact a new type of tax. But by their own admission, they were not. This is a penalty. Basically, Roberts said in effect that "you guys said it's a penalty, and it wouldn't work if that were the case, so (wink, wink) we'll just call it a tax. Even though there's no precedent.

Basically, you just defended Nixon's "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." Just with the SC.

 

[Caesar]

How is he wrong?

The SCOTUS has the obligation to prove that any law in unconstitutional by all arguments. The tactic is not to find ONE instance where something is Unconstitutional but to find ALL instances in which it is not.

Anyway, let us all not forget that the power to declare legislation unconstitutional is not a listed power in the first place.

 

[tiedyeddog]

OK, here's how our government works: Congress legislates. The SC judges whether the laws conflict with the Constitution.

There is no precedent for this "tax." None.

This would be enough of a problem if Congress were trying to enact a new type of tax. But by their own admission, they were not. This is a penalty. Basically, Roberts said in effect that "you guys said it's a penalty, and it wouldn't work if that were the case, so (wink, wink) we'll just call it a tax. Even though there's no precedent.

Basically, you just defended Nixon's "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." Just with the SC.

And what, because there isn't a precedent it's automatically unconstitutional?

 

[Dave89]

And what, because there isn't a precedent it's automatically unconstitutional?

There's a reason there are only certain types of taxes the Congress may levy. Others may be added by amendment (see income tax Amendment), but this is a new type of tax which has no precedent. So, yes - unconstitutional.

 

[cheesier]

OK, here's how our government works: Congress legislates. The SC judges whether the laws conflict with the Constitution.

There is no precedent for this "tax." None.

This would be enough of a problem if Congress were trying to enact a new type of tax. But by their own admission, they were not. This is a penalty. Basically, Roberts said in effect that "you guys said it's a penalty, and it wouldn't work if that were the case, so (wink, wink) we'll just call it a tax. Even though there's no precedent.

Basically, you just defended Nixon's "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." Just with the SC.

Not every SC ruling has a precedent. And again, the SCOTUS looked at the function of the "penalty" and determined it was effectively a tax and treated it as such. These are facts. Read the section of the ruling that Caesar posted.

And yes, when the SCOTUS says something is constitutional, it is at least for the time being. By definition, unconstitutional laws are struck down by them while constitutional laws stand. That's how our government functions.

 

[Caesar]

OK, here's how our government works: Congress legislates. The SC judges whether the laws conflict with the Constitution.

There is no precedent for this "tax." None.

This would be enough of a problem if Congress were trying to enact a new type of tax. But by their own admission, they were not. This is a penalty. Basically, Roberts said in effect that "you guys said it's a penalty, and it wouldn't work if that were the case, so (wink, wink) we'll just call it a tax. Even though there's no precedent.

Basically, you just defended Nixon's "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." Just with the SC.

For the second time, I quote this....

Congress's decision to label this exaction a "penalty"rather than a "tax" is significant because the AffordableCare Act describes many other exactions it creates as"taxes."..... Amicus argues that even though Congress did not label the shared responsibility payment a tax, we should treat itas such under the Anti-Injunction Act because it functionslike a tax.

But this time I add this:

The question is not whether that is the most naturalinterpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a "fairly possible" one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895).

Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941) ("In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation,not its definition or the precise form of descriptive wordswhich may be applied to it" (internal quotation marksomitted)); United States v. Sotelo, 436 U. S. 268, 275 (1978) ("That the funds due are referred to as a ‘penalty'. . . does not alter their essential character as taxes").7

 

[Caesar]

There's a reason there are only certain types of taxes the Congress may levy. Others may be added by amendment (see income tax Amendment), but this is a new type of tax which has no precedent. So, yes - unconstitutional.

false. Laws are assumed to be constitutional unless deemed to exceed the powers granted to the federal government. You are assuming with this statement that all laws are unconstitutional by virtue of not being in the constitution. You are just looking at it from the opposite end of how the courts look at it.

 

[NickNaylor]

It was structured like a tax, so it's a tax. The politically motivated label that the Democrats gave the tax is irrelevant to the ruling.

No, it wasn't structured like a tax. I'm assuming you think that because the IRS was given the task of collecting it.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

 

[Dave89]

false. Laws are assumed to be constitutional unless deemed to exceed the powers granted to the federal government. You are assuming with this statement that all laws are unconstitutional by virtue of not being in the constitution. You are just looking at it from the opposite end of how the courts look at it.

Seeing as the power to tax is indeed limited, it is a problem if this "tax" does not fall into any of the categories of the permitted taxes. I really do not understand you. Why do you think the income tax needed an Amendment?

 

[linebacker57]

The same constitution that listed slaves as 3/5 of a person? Yeah ok...

thats why the constitution is like a living document, and we make amendments to it, because once the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865, this clause was rendered moot

 

[cheesier]

No, it wasn't structured like a tax. I'm assuming you think that because the IRS was given the task of collecting it.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

Your personal opinion on whether it was structured as a tax is not corroborated by the overwhelming evidence that it was - from the fact that the solicitor general argued that it was crafted as such to the ruling itself. You are a smart enough guy to know that you don't really have the knowledge to look at the tax code or the legislation well enough to make such a bold claim.

 

[Dave89]

thats why the constitution is like a living document, and we make amendments to it, because once the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865, this clause was rendered moot

I'm sure Fivo has some better ideas on how to limit government and protect our natural rights than following the Constitution. I await his/her suggestions with bated breath.

 

[tiedyeddog]

false. Laws are assumed to be constitutional unless deemed to exceed the powers granted to the federal government. You are assuming with this statement that all laws are unconstitutional by virtue of not being in the constitution. You are just looking at it from the opposite end of how the courts look at it.

This is EXACTLY my point!

 

[Caesar]

Income tax is a direct tax. It was not permitted under the constitution. This is an indirect tax.

 

[Dave89]

Income tax is a direct tax. It was not permitted under the constitution. This is an indirect tax.

Which type of tax does this fall under: direct (apportioned), excise, or income?