It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
edit on 28-6-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)
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.
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.
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
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........
individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.
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.”
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.
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.
(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.