Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

"When a court confronts an unconstitutional statue its endeavor must be to to conserve, not destroy the legislation," Roberts wrote.


That's pretty damn messed up right there. He's saying if the Constitution and some piece of legislation were on a sinking boat the priority is to save the legislation and let the Constitution drown.


Yeah, that doesn't even make any damn sense...


ETA: The Romney camp is giving the rally cry that the only way to stop this is to unseat Obama. Obama might have won the battle but he may well be in danger of losing the war. This may just fire up enough people to give Romney the win.
edit on 6/28/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


recessions don't last forever...so based on your logic this will be pretty good once the economy goes forward

I believe this will drive down medical cost, as it has in Massachusetts



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Ookie
 


You wont go to jail because "ObamaCare" says that if you don't pay it , no one can come after you or your assets. So, no need to stock up on tuna cans and hide out somewhere. No one is going to come get you.

You should have read the bill, then you would have known that. Saved yourself all the paranoia.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Basically!

If the government wanted to force Iowans to pay a tax for one of Billy Mays' silly inventions because they make life easier, they now have a precedent to do so.
This is just as bad if not worse than the Citizens United ruling. SCOTUS is basically a tool. Ya hate to believe it, but how can it not be? Itms clear as day.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Well, this just opened the door for our Jr. Dictator to come up with more ideas. How about mandate what kind of car people own? (Environment). What kind of food we can eat. (healthcare). Ect, ect.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Billy Mays didnt invent anything

he was a salesperson

he sure sold you.....lol



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I'm CONFUSED. foxnews keeps saying that the states can opt out, do what they want, and states are already "suing" about it.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I'm in NJ. They are saying Christy opted out, as did a few other states.. Where does this leave us, I wonder??? So confusing



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
It going to open the door for the situation where whoever donates the most to a given administration will have a law/tax written declaring Americans must be taxed to own whatever they manufacture or provide.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Come on everybody..

Give me a pat on the back.

I predicted it here



6-3


it wasn't completely constitutional but you were nearly spot on



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I have to agree with most of the post here so far as to this being just another step down the road to the gov't taking more and more control of our lives.

As for the tax issue, the individual mandate originally outlined a fine for those who did not purchase health insurance. The SCOUS has declared that the fine could not be used as a fine under the commerce clause but is constitutional under the tax clause as a tax. So it sounds to me like if you don't purchase health insurance, you will be taxed instead of fined.

The auto insurance issue has been brought up but can not be compared to this. Buying auto insurance is only required if you decide to own/drive a vehicle. The only time that a fine is levied against you is if you are driving and you are caught by the authorities during a traffic stop or involved in an accident. There is no requirement to prove to the gov't that you have insurance on an annual basis or face a tax or fine.

My question now, as has been mentioned already, is what else will this allow the gov't to force us to buy? Now that it has been shown that the gov't can mandate the purchase if health insurance, what's to stop the gov't from mandating other items?

This is a sad day for the United States.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Foxnews made an interesting observation...

If the ruling on the medicare / medicaid section of the law. If they understand it correctly, that section, which required states to increase the number of people and spend money as the law states, was restricted then the remainder of the law, while upheld, is invalid.

The ruling on that section would allow states to opt out of the program without conflicting with federal law. If that is accurate then this law has no teeth in terms of forcing the states to comply. That portion was challenegd by 26 states and was rolled into this decision.

Further analysis suggests that the court removed the portion that would allow the HHS Secratary to withhold funding from states who dont comply. So while it looks like they cant opt out, if the state refuses to comply there is nothing the federal government can do about it.
edit on 28-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by THEDUDE86

This recession might.

Not everyone can pay for health care now... it's going to get much more expensive. What do you think people will do? They'll quit buying what little they buy now!

Companies will be forced out of business because they can't pay enough to cover the tax increase... those jobs will be gone... more people out of work and unable to pay.

I will be surprised if we even have health care in five years.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Chance321
 


Don't worry. Drake says Operation Green Light will have fixed all that stuff in the next 72 , welp , now 46 hours.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Rockpuck

That ruling also puts health insurance out of business, unless they do some weird public-private partnership. I don't think the insurance companies are going to be very happy about this.

Obama just screwed them big time.

TheRedneck


Not just then but the whole country and maybe the whole world before he is done.
I have never been up on the whole religion thing (do not believe in it) but he is starting to look like the Antichrist to me



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by j.r.c.b.
I'm in NJ. They are saying Christy opted out, as did a few other states.. Where does this leave us, I wonder??? So confusing


It means if you probably wont get future federal funds in the future....

existing funds have to be given as it is law, but future funds will not be given....such as bailout money, new project money, basically new money


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Rockpuck

That ruling also puts health insurance out of business, unless they do some weird public-private partnership. I don't think the insurance companies are going to be very happy about this.

Obama just screwed them big time.

TheRedneck



Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by THEDUDE86

Oh, it will change... now you will be taxed enough to pay for insurance, plus the huge bureaucracy behind it.

All in a time of recession. This will not end well...

TheRedneck



Your views seem confused?

First off..the Insurance companies were the ones that pressed for the Mandate, as did the GOP who originally concieved it, all before Pres. Obama put it forward.

They will not go out of business, they are not unhappy with it. If the mandate was nixed they would have still been on the hook to cover folks with pre-existing conditions without the mandate to cover the costs.

Secondly...the mandate goes in to effect when? So the bit about more taxes in the middle of a recession also seems confused.

Lastly, I will point out that covering everybody and doing so early on saves Trillions over the next decade as it is less expensive to diagnose, treat and prevent disease early on than later-stage...diabetes, cancer etc. etc. etc.

This early recognition and treatment represents an insane cost saving for the Gov. and individuals and will be directly evident in lower individual costs and with a little rational conservative input to assure those savings aren't spent elsewhere, it would result in a net reduction in government outlays for healthcare...less taxes and a medicare system that survives.

I hope the GOP returns to sanity so we can have some rational penny pinchers to pass the savings along to taxpayers...but bottom line is that this will reduce costs and theoretically taxes, not increase them.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by j.r.c.b.
 


States that opted out will not be getting any FEDERAL funding for healthcare. They have to come up with it all on their own.

So...... congratulations if you don't want Medicare anymore.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra

If that is true, then I am certain Alabama will opt out. Will so few states left in the program, what has it accomplished, other than taking up space in the law books?

I am also confused... tax must be applied equitably. So does that mean that if you want your own insurance, you still have to pay the government insurance tax as well?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

"When a court confronts an unconstitutional statue its endeavor must be to to conserve, not destroy the legislation," Roberts wrote.


That's pretty damn messed up right there. He's saying if the Constitution and some piece of legislation were on a sinking boat the priority is to save the legislation and let the Constitution drown.


Yeah, that doesn't even make any damn sense...


ETA: The Romney camp is giving the rally cry that the only way to stop this is to unseat Obama. Obama might have won the battle but he may well be in danger of losing the war. This may just fire up enough people to give Romney the win.
edit on 6/28/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)


I think it makes sense.

When you find one part of a law that is Unconstitutional, the goal is to find a way to preserve as many of the Constitutional parts of the law...not use it as an excuse to destroy the entire law.





new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join