I recently received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield telling me: If you don’t buy our product, you will be penalized! Well, the way they actually worded it was:
The Affordable Care Act is changing America’s health insurance system, and you’re required to have health insurance in 2014….
The law requires you to have health insurance in 2014. And in order to have health insurance, and avoid a penalty, you must enroll by March 31.
…At Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network, we care about your health–and your health care. And we want to be sure you have access to the affordable coverage you need and deserve.
That’s their bold emphasis, by the way. And I like that last bit about how they want to help me get the “affordable” coverage that I “need and deserve”. Or ELSE!
I had to laugh when I got this letter. I find it humorous that the media — and insurance companies — constantly refer to the “penalty” of Obamacare’s individual mandate. They (rightly) completely ignore the Alice-In-Wonderland logic of the Supreme Court’s ruling that it is a tax, but not a penalty, since penalizing people for not buying insurance would be unconstitutional. I can’t help but wonder what John Roberts and the other Supreme Court justices must think when they constantly read in the media about the “penalty”….
quotation marks mislead.
roberts never said it’s not a penalty.
more accurate to say he equated the #penalty to a #tax.
It’s a joke, you goof. Nevertheless, Roberts did indeed say it was not a penalty.
if he said it, he contradicted what he wrote in the court opinion. look it up.
btw, comedy is not ur forte. leave it to professionals.
Dude, argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. You need to “look it up”. When I say “Roberts did indeed say it was not a penalty” I am referring to his reading of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Court ruled that it was constitutional on the grounds that it was, quote, “a tax, not a penalty”, unquote.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/08/the-logical-flaws-of-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-the-affordable-care-act/
there u go again. u took roberts’ words out of context — as u did mine in the past. déjà vu. yes, he literally wrote those words in that order, but not alone. their meaning is clarified by what’s right before them — their context. u mischaracterize what he said by how u paraphrase it, replacing 6 of his words [‘may for constitutional purposes be considered’] w/ one [‘was’] changing a qualified equation into an unqualified one. also u omit that 9 pages later he called it a penalty.
LOL! Yes, right. So, in context, Roberts ruled it was constitutional on the grounds that it was “a tax, not a penalty”. You clown. Points for effort, though.
that’s not the context. if u don’t know it, u’r a fool. if u do, u’r a liar.
You’re hilarious! One of us is a fool, for sure.