It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama defends government forcing people to buy insurance to SCOTUS

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Kafternin
 


You're wrong. I pay for my own doctor visits, office visits and emergency room visits. If I can't afford it at the time of service, I am sent a bill. If I don't pay, it goes to a collection agency and I can lose my house. The only people I know who we pay doctor visits for are illegal immigrants and low income citizens on a state subsidized insurance health plan. I also cannot afford medical insurance. Single, making minimum wage in your 50's with high bp......good luck with that! Married, with 3 dependants, just over the "low-income" figure with house and car payments, utilities, food etc, work at a job which provides no health insurance since they won't hire you full time and keep you just under the required hours to be eligible for company health insurance benefits......Figure it out.

Okay, so now you think about it. We are already forced to subsidize health CARE to low income. With the Obama care, we will continue with the health CARE and ALSO be forced to buy our own health insurance which many can't afford. Low income is the only admittance to getting a voucher for health insurance premium assistance. Lets say you make a decent wage, but have had a messy divorce (or two) and pay alimony and child support. You've already lost your house to your ex but the loan is still in yours and her name and she can't or won't refinance. You lost the job you had when you were married and don't make enough to afford health insurance premiums. You're financially tapped out but not so on the books. They don't take into account your expenses, only your income.

Have you checked out insurance premiums? And at the #ty high insurance premiums you get with even a $5-$10,000 deductible and still pay a couple hundred a month or more premium for insurance on top of paying for all your's and your family members doctor visits and hospital visits. And by the way, you're STILL paying for those low income and illegal resident's doctor visits medicines and health care. Every one is f36#d!!!

edit on 7-1-2012 by Gridrebel because:




posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by Kafternin
 


You're wrong. I pay for my own doctor visits, office visits and emergency room visits. If I can't afford it at the time of service, I am sent a bill. If I don't pay, it goes to a collection agency and I can lose my house.


You are already wrong right there. By the time you lose your house, you have already been treated. The expense has already been covered by the rest of us. You losing your house never gets me a refund on your failed hospital debts. If you can prove otherwise has ever once happened in the US, I would love to continue.

ETA:
Wondering how many of the people too poor to pay their medical bills have homes to lose, you know to um, cover the debt.

Also wondering how many homes my hospital owns as per your logic.
edit on 7-1-2012 by Kafternin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kafternin
 


Well I HAVEN'T lost my house because I pay my bills. If one does lose their house, the proceeds are absorbed by the county which in turn cycles thru the same old same old.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
WELL the government forces us
to buy and have car insurance
so this not some new concept
of the government making people
buy some type of insurance.


The state does not force you to buy car insurance. If you are complying with the rules and regulations set by the state regarding licensed drivers who have surrendered the bill of sale of their car to a DMV in exchange for a title of registration, you are doing so because you voluntarily contracted with the state to be a member of the DMV country club. You, expressly signed a contract with the state agreeing to surrender your right to drive in exchange for the privilege to drive and with those privileges come rules and regulations. It was your choice alone to surrender your sovereignty and volunteer to be a licensed driver.


edit on 7-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The state governments do not allow you to drive without insurance. If you cannot drive, you cannot work in many cases. Grown adults cannot really on mommy and daddy for a ride to work. There is no public transportation outside metropolitan areas. So, in essence, you ARE forced to buy car insurance.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The state governments do not allow you to drive without insurance. If you cannot drive, you cannot work in many cases. Grown adults cannot really on mommy and daddy for a ride to work. There is no public transportation outside metropolitan areas. So, in essence, you ARE forced to buy car insurance.


The state government does not allow licensed drivers to drive without insurance. The regulation falls within the purview of a licensing scheme and not outside of it. For those who understand they possess an unalienable right to travel, including the use of an automobile to do so, they will not volunteer for this licensing scheme and are outside the purview of any rules and regulations set forth by that scheme.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Sovereign Citizen? That does fly unless you want some jail time and top billing on the terrorist watch list.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


No person has to accept any labels in order to be free. The contractual agreement made by the licensing scheme by the DMV is completely harmonious with contract law which means if you are a licensed driver then you agreed to all the regulations that come your way and no one forced you to do a damn thing.

Instead of playing the fear mongering and bullying game why don't you just accept that you volunteered to surrender your rights and nobody forced you to do it. Accept responsibility for your own actions, brother...or keep labeling people and lamenting how you're just the effect of a state if that makes you happy.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


There's plenty of people running around in cars without any driver license.

Driver licenses are unconstitutional anyway, if you don't do business with your car. Then it falls under commerce, which the government can regulate. Otherwise, everything else is BS.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I think the liberal democrat socialists know already that people who can afford it buy it, and those who cannot will be forced to go to the govt....that is the point, forcing us into more socialism. I just wish more people could understand what they are trying to do here.
edit on 8-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by seabag
 


No person has to accept any labels in order to be free. The contractual agreement made by the licensing scheme by the DMV is completely harmonious with contract law which means if you are a licensed driver then you agreed to all the regulations that come your way and no one forced you to do a damn thing.

Instead of playing the fear mongering and bullying game why don't you just accept that you volunteered to surrender your rights and nobody forced you to do it. Accept responsibility for your own actions, brother...or keep labeling people and lamenting how you're just the effect of a state if that makes you happy.



There is a subtle force and you know it. Just try applying for a job without a driver's license and social security number. Just try to do anything without it. What kind of alternet ID will you have? A student ID? A library card?
A card issued by a foreign consulate? A passport with an rfid chip in it?


edit on 8-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I'm no expert on this but,

we are seeing waiver after waiver being granted.

If your employer does not give an insurance plan, it looks like you have to buy your own policy.

The rates are already going sky high.

If you are unemployed and not on medicare, and can meet some requirments for medicaid, you are probably exempt. But I don't know that for sure.

I think you will be required to declare this on an IRS tax form.

What if you do not have to file a return ?

Will this force all citizens to file a tax return now ?

Very gray and tricky.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





There is a subtle force and you know it. Just try applying for a job without a driver's license and social security number. Just try to do anything without it. What kind of alternet ID will you have? A student ID? A library card? A card issued by a foreign consulate? A passport with an rfid chip in it?


The "subtle force" you speak of comes from the not so subtle ignorance of the People. Take applying for a job for instance (a practice I find wholly repugnant in these modern days and would encourage anyone who has the courage and conviction of soul to simply just go into business for themselves, but...) if a drivers license were so necessary to secure a job then why is it that the federal and state legislatures have written statutes criminalizing employers for hiring "illegal aliens"? Indeed, why is it that immigrants only here for a few months seem to understand the American Dream better than any 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th generation American?

Frankly, I am a bit surprised that you would defend an argument claiming that the federal government has a right to force people to do business with private insurance company's because "states do the same with automobile insurance". Worse is this tacit approval of all of this "subtle force" which implicitly reveals priorities, and those priorities do not seem to lie in individual sovereignty but instead in a need to remain a consumer, employee, and general subject to a government. Hardly American in my view, but then my view is often labeled as the "un-American" view so what do I know?

What do I know? This is what I know; Constitutionally speaking, We the People remain the holders of the inherent political power and we have unalienable rights that compelled We the People to "form a more perfect union" in order to better protect those rights...and yet, here we are debating about how "subtle force" has made us all less than what we really are. This is what I know.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The state governments do not allow you to drive without insurance. If you cannot drive, you cannot work in many cases. Grown adults cannot really on mommy and daddy for a ride to work. There is no public transportation outside metropolitan areas. So, in essence, you ARE forced to buy car insurance.


I have a driver's license yet operate an automobile without owning my own insurance. I am breaking no law and the only reason I have a license is because my job requires me to have one. I am a grown adult and find my own means of transportation; public or personal.

Your argument isn't all inclusive so you cannot proclaim that you are forced to buy car insurance.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


What would happen if the person couldn`t afford to buy insurance , just does not have the means!

Would the Gov then pick up the tab, or debtor`s prison,..


It's my understanding that technically, the IRS is the only US entity allowed to have one arrested for non-payment and thrown in prison. Hence, debtor's prison so to speak.

And ... it is my understanding that THIS is the reason they put Obamacare under the IRS for enforcement.

Debtor's Prison, FEMA Camp, same difference.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kafternin
reply to post by beezzer
 


Do you know anyone that has never, or will never need healthcare in their entire life? I am trying to find this superhuman myself. At the moment when someone with no insurance gets sick or injured, WE ALL PAY FOR THEM. Under the individual mandate, they will have to pay for their own ass.
Your argument against this is...
I mean speaking as the conservative you so obviously are.
Why should I have to pay for anyone else to get healthcare?


People kill me with "We pay for them", no one in the US gets out of paying some kind of tax on almost a daily basis. However, the individual mandate is unconstitutional and wouldn't be necessary if the POTUS had not caved on the public option (which the conservatists fought against).

A public option would have Forced the insurance companies to lower their premiums to compete. Lobbyism or legal bribery prevented this from ever happening.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by popsmayhem
WELL the government forces us
to buy and have car insurance
so this not some new concept
of the government making people
buy some type of insurance.


If you choose not to own a car, then you don't have to.

But this is different. Just by breathing, you'd be required to purchase insurance.

It is each state that establishes those vehicle laws, not the federal government. It's in the Constitution that things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is SUPPOSED to go under states control. A state government can establish a law forcing everyone to wear uniforms 24/7/365 if it wants to.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   


It is each state that establishes those vehicle laws, not the federal government. It's in the Constitution that things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is SUPPOSED to go under states control.
reply to post by tkwasny
 

Thank you. It is good to see that someone understands the US Constitution. As you stated, the federal government does NOT force you to buy auto insurance. Furthermore, as you state, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that one must buy auto insurance.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Thank you. It is good to see that someone understands the US Constitution. As you stated, the federal government does NOT force you to buy auto insurance. Furthermore, as you state, the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that one must buy auto insurance.


Edited to clarify:

To highlight what you have pointed out and maybe expound a bit -- but I do believe a large portion of those participating in this thread so far do understand this.

The regulation (for insurance), as JPZ has stated, is not compulsory and is a completely voluntary contract between you and the State Government(via proxy with your insurance company because of said regulations.)


edit on 8-1-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
The thirteenth amendment to the US Constitution forbids slavery and servitude (except for imprisonment for crimes). What this means is that the government cannot force you to buy anything upon threat of a penalty or imprisonment. The government cannot force you to "work" so that you "must" purchase any "thing" they command. That would be forced servitude and is therefore unconstitutional. And the SCOTUS will so decide that way.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join