Healthcare Ruling: Individual Mandate Ruled CONSTITUTIONAL, entire law upheld.

So 9 people have decided what everyone else has to do?
Thats nice

I hope those applauding this remember this day,cause do you really believe it stops here?
First step in having gov mandate what you ARE going to have to do.
When they push harder,those of you who agree with this,also deserve whatever else comes done the pipe.
Enjoy!

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


Your income (Cash money) isn't your property.
Your actual physical property (assuming it's not mortgaged) is not going to be taken away, By anyone. This is delusional paranoid ramblings of people who listen to much Alex Jones.

Originally posted by maplecustom
This is awsome for the US, and the right thing to do. I live in a country where i pay 36% tax. So does "everybody" else, and therefore everything whit in healthcare is provided for me by the state. No hospital bills what so ever.

I went to the US last autumn for studies, and without my travel insurance i would have to pay up to 10.000$ for one night in the hospital if they had to watch me. Thats just utterly madness.

Then stay in your Home Country.

You are fine with paying 36% taxes? Wow, you have been duped.

reply to post by macman


I as a taxpayer pay for health care for Native Americans, VA Veterans, Govt employees, legislators, etc.

I want my taxes to benefit ME! Not insurance companies!!

One last time. . . . . .

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I'm pretty sure that feeling many of you are feeling today will be repeated in Nov. Years of preaching about this law being unconstitutional preaching the AFP cool aid and other right wing money and the propaganda campaign just failed in a huge way despite the court leaning to the right.

I'm shocked that the court ruled in the favor of the law with so much resources put into the campaign to hate it.

Wow!

edit on 28-6-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

I agree...November may hurt for some people.

The thing is...this ruling doesn't get Republicans any votes...people who are angry at this ruling were already voting Republican.

However...some people may re-evaluate the propaganda they have been fed and realize that they were lied to by the Republicans and Fox News.

All around...good news for Obama.

reply to post by dxdydz


The answer to your question is no to all of the above. You will be required to pay for insurance yourself. If you don't as of 2014 you will be taxed 2,000 per individual in your family every year for not having insurance.

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by macman

 

I want my taxes to benefit ME! Not insurance companies!!

I agree. But now it just makes it worse for the individual.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
The "be responsible" people are up in arms about a law that makes people "be responsible" for health care coverage if they can afford it.

The healthcare law is good for the people, huge insurance can deny people coverage for pre existing conditions.

Another win for the people from the supreme court, wow two decisions in a row.

Another win for corporatism, you mean. Obamacare requires us, by law, to give money to corporations. You know, those things that liberals pretend to hate? Never has it been more clear that our country is run by corporate interests.

And you cheer it on. Sucker.

/TOA

Originally posted by MOMof3
Private health insurance has failed too many people. It has failed because even if you have insurance, pay every dime of co-pays, deductibles, etc., you still go broke and lose everthing with a major illness or accident, so what is insurance good for? This country will go socialism if private companies continue to make their products inaccessible to millions of americans.

You do know that this healthcare bill took care of all those problems...right?

Insurance companies can no longer deny treatment or put a cap on how much they pay out.

So I assume you like this bill...right?

reply to post by beezzer


OS will just ignore you.

reply to post by MidKnight


The Elites many the Poor 0

The largest tax increase the history of this country, will be upheld by those who refuse (moore IRS agents to look forward to I'm sure) to get the insurance so, in my opinion I'm cursed if I do, and cursed if I don't

Having healthcare is the least of my concerns, I don't like doctors or hospitals, and haven't seen one in years, why does someone like me need health care? What happens is my decision not some unknown bureaucrat, now it looks like they will be able to implement the Independent Panel Advisory Board, who will have the final answer on what procedure your allowed to have to begin with, so what good is it, except more money for the elites of this country) looking at me as if I should be paying more into the system, so they go along fat and with pockets well lined, with cash.

Big pharma, big medical

reply to post by macman


What exactly does this new ruling "restrict" exactly?
The right for you not to care about poor people?
The right for you to pretend the poor and needy don't exist?


And also...What?...Advancement of society isn't restrictions? I know of 12 pretty big restrictions that a bearded guy gave on a mount once,You might of heard of them. It's pretty much the basis of the human race.

An idea for the GOP and Romney -

Forced Gun Ownership!

You must purchase a firearm from one of the preapproved lobbying firearm manufacturers or from China. If you refuse to own a firearm and then further refuse to take the mandated government training and pay your training tax and gun ownership license fee then you will be taxed as a penalty. If you refuse to pay the tax, the SWAT team will take away everything you own and then place you in to a welfare program where a firearm will be provided for you with one bullet.

Use bullet wisely.

reply to post by FlyersFan

As far as your comment 'being a responsible member of society' and buying into the gov't insurance
...
So, by being too poor to buy into this government product

There is no "gov't insurance" to buy into.

Are you that ignorant of the facts of this bill or are you intentionally trying to spread false information as well???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


So expenses that may or may not happen, and I may or may not be able to pay for, is reason enough to take away my right to choose to buy a product from a private company or not? Exactly who gave anyone the right to poke their head into my finances to deem whether or not I have the means to cover potential future expenses?


Seriously, I'd really like others to stay out of my business and my wallet. It is not the governments personal piggy bank to dip into when ever someone feels I should contribute more to society.

reply to post by The Old American


To drive you must pay for car insurance. Your barking up the wrong tree I think healthcare should be a right. All the money spent to hate on this bill was wasted. Ha Ha on you and those that support fox news and the televangelists!!!

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by jrod

 

That is what I am afraid of. This could leave many Americans myself included with a tax penalty that we cannot afford. Then what?

Then, the IRS, (the federal reserve army) will garnish your wages, kick you and your family out of your home, and take everything that you own.............

Why do you think the SCOTUS called it a tax? This is just more tyranny disguised as the government cares about you and that they want to help........

This may be true, but look at the bright side....once youear homeless and destitute, YOU'LL GET FREE
HEALTHCARE....Yippeeeeee

Here's some of the text of the decision and conclusions offered by someone that knows the law better than I.

1.
individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

Congress cannot force you to participate in interstate commerce, or enter into a private contract for services under the commerce clause.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Con- gress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the prin- ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sus- tained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

2. The mandate cannot arise under the "necessary and proper clause" :

Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Nec- essary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U. S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the ex- ercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for mak- ing those reforms effective.

3. The provision of the act that requires a payment of a penalty if you go without insurance is sort of struck down and sort of up held. The penalty was read by the court as a tax therefore it is not unconstitutional, however, the tax cannot carry the effect of a penalty for failure to comply with the law. This appears like a loss however it is not because the tax cannot rise to the level of a penalty. Therefor the tax cannot be higher or the same as the health insurance.(warning this is pursuant to my reading). Really the whole act could be nullified if congress simply eliminated the taxation provision or set it so low as to actually save a person money over buying coverage.

4. The states cannot have their medicare funding cut off for failure to expand medicare coverages to higher income recipients. This is the governmental creep provision that would slowly legislate in socialized medicine. If the state says we are not increasing benefits the government then cannot use the threat of cutting off medicare funding if they do not comply. Therefore the coverages will not change in most states and there will be no greater penalty or cost.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.

Bomb Shell language

(a) The Spending Clause grants Congress the power “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Congress may use this power to establish cooperative state-federal Spending Clause programs. The legitimacy of Spending Clause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17. “[T]he Constitu- tion simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 178. When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressur- ing the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislation runs counter to this Nation’s system of federalism.

There is nothing left of this law except for the tax provision. Which can be easily dealt with. The scariest provisions are nullified. Obama is smoking crack right now rocking back and forth trying to figure out how to subvert this ruling. But he will appear after a fashion and glowingly say there is victory. Don't believe it.

My husband is retired military and we have government insurance. He works for a large company that has a health insurance plan, which we don't utilize. As of January 1, 2012 this company reverted to a bare bones minimum coverage plan in anticipation of this ruling, it was known in his company that this would happen. So, before the mandate even took place, it was costing more money for the employees for insurance as a DIRECT result of this even being a possibility. Meaning, it now costs the employee's even more for insurance, they will pay more out of pocket. My understanding is that a lot of other companies are doing the same.

Someone else mentioned something about a government option of $1200 a year for government insurance, is this really an option, because I know nothing about it?