It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Federal appeals court rules health care reform bill constitutional

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:53 PM
so much for freedom, the right to chose, and the voice to say no! from the link

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Wednesday ruled in favor of the Obama administration and Congress, finding a key provision in last year's sweeping health care reform bill constitutional.
BS nothing in this bill is constitutional, this is like saying, you must have auto ins whether or not you drive, or do have a vech or not. Do not have it?; pay a fine or go to jail!

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by bekod

Well, everyone has a physical body that gets sick and ill sometimes, that needs to be fixed by a professional. And since only those that drive cars are required to buy auto insurance, your analogy fails. I would have no problem going back to the way health insurance was, BUT then anyone that doesn't have health insurance has to show up at the doctor/hospital with a suitcase full of bills to pay their bill, otherwise i pay for it through my insurance premium and that's unamerican, me paying for you like that. Right?

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:17 PM
Does Obama healthcare state that each American will have to pay about $1000 per month for this plan? If it does for sure 100%, with a penalty and eventually jail time for not paying... then kiss your rights you think you have goodbye.

I live in a poor area and no one here can possibly afford $1000 per month. Are they planning on bankrupting my whole town?

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

I live in a poor area and no one here can possibly afford $1000 per month. Are they planning on bankrupting my whole town?

Yes, so then after their manufactured problem has their manufactured solution implemented, they will have more control.

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:21 PM
Just say NO...doesn't really matter, it will all be moot in the next couple of months anyway. Anyone who is still buying the mainstream bandwagon doesn't have a #ing clue as to what is coming.

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:54 PM
they better bring the costs down to like $100 a month then, or I guess im going to jail. Not all of us have good jobs with benefits, im losing my insurance again in 1 month and it costs me at least $500 a month for COBRA, which I can not possibly afford as thats 1/3 of my monthly income right there, and we all know when the government touches something the costs double.

Oh well, at least I get a free roof over my head, 3 squares a day and free health insurance in jail

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:18 PM
no people its not constitutional.

and no your payments will not be lowered in fact they will be going up and that is if you can find a doctor.

you think healthcare is expensive now wait and see the full effect and the thousands who will be put of of work.

and if your barely making it now good luck with something they are forcing you to buy now.

this is what you get when you elect idiots they know better for you and they gave themselves the power of life and death over you.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:37 AM
The good news is it still is to go before the USSC, the sad news is they are just as bad as this court is, so yes the ones like me will go to jail er FEMA camps, and the ones that don't will make up the difference by... you guessed it paying our share any way. There are more of us ,the ones that can not pay, than the ones that can. So you that can, will still flip the bill, just more out in the open, not by hidden coast or test that are not needed, but payed for by your ins co. SO how does it fell to pay for unused care when, as it is now, you pay for a needed care.
edit on 30-6-2011 by bekod because: editting

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:43 AM
Since it's finally decided to be constitutional ...

Let's all make sure that those bastards are required to use it too...

ALL Judges, their families, congress etc... all the way up to the top.

We'll see about crooked judges.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by JibbyJedi

The federal government can't set the prices but put limits on how much profit a health insurance company can make. Also, if you make less than $60,000/year you'll get money to help pay for insurance.

I mentioned in another thread, that's five rulings saying it's constitutional and two saying it's not. We've still got months, if not years before the supreme court sees it.

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 02:17 AM
Here's how screwed up this decision was: Its constitutionality was based on a Wickard v. Filburn in 1942, by the SCOTUS. From Wikipedia (I feel dirty posting a Wiki link, but it's accurate enough):

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

So, in effect, the SCOTUS determined that anyone not selling food that they have grown themselves, but using it for their own consumption, was hurting Amerika's economy and he could be forced to sell it, burn it, or whatever the Supreme Court told him to do with his property.

This was a blatant violation of his 4th Amendment protections as a property owner. The SCOTUS, with that one decision, laid the groundwork for the erosion of our rights and telling us what we can and can't do with our property, money, bodies, or what have you.

And the current SCOTUS is perpetuating it. Go Amerika.


new topics


log in