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.

 

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

page: 40
74
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
So lets see, this is mandating we buy ins. Its not coverage.
So even if someone opts to pay the penalty for not having ins, they can still go to the ER and run up a huge bill that tax payers will still be paying for. Is this correct?




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


Yes...that is the meaning of a "mandate".

You don't have to like it...you just have to follow the law.


Don't get any more Elitist in thought then that.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

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.


I don't think you could be any more wrong.
Insurance companies aren't making enough money because the cost of health insurance is too high already and not enough people are buying it. Enter the government and the Obama administration. They are simply passing laws NOT to make health insurance more affordable, but to MAKE SURE that people are forced to buy it. This will do nothing to reduce the cost. Whenever the government gets involved in a market that is supposed to be free and competitive, then the prices go up and we the people are the ones paying for it.
In a truly free market without government oversight or intervention, this would take care of itself. If the cost of healthcare and medicine wasn't so regulated by the federal government already (FDA/Medicare/Medicaid, etc), then insurance could lower its prices in order to be more competitive, or go out of business as they should. This whole idea that the government can be our nanny state and take care of us is the very opposite of what liberty is all about in this country, and its going to be the end of our freedoms if we don't wake up.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by coop039
 


Great question I too wonder what the answer is.
And does this fine go directly to the insurance companies to control their costs. Where does the fine go?
Or does the government take the fine and buy you insurance?
This is nuts.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
My good friend is upset about this because he is unemployed and hearing impaired. His big complaint is that he is now forced to buy insurance and most insurance plans don't even cover hearing loss. What a ripoff!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl
My good friend is upset about this because he is unemployed and hearing impaired. His big complaint is that he is now forced to buy insurance and most insurance plans don't even cover hearing loss. What a ripoff!


If he is unemployed, he will qualify for Medicaid.

You should comfort him by providing him with facts.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by the4thhorseman
 


This source is from the government radio news I listen to, the experts on constiutional laws were explaining to callers what the entire Ruling by the Supreme court was about, while some are rejoicing that is a win for Obama on the healthcare is not when it comes to the "mandate" it cannot be call a "mandate" but in order to penalize the people for not buying insurance it have to be call a tax.

Any new taxes that are enforced by the Federal Government have to be approved by congress.

So is not really a win but another challenge next month is going to be a ruling on "the repeal obamacare law" in congress around the 17 of july lets see what is going to happen.

As for another federal tax this will not happen before this years elections as not politician want to touch that subject now.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I really don't see how auto insurance can be mandated but to do so with health care is unconstitutional? Uninsured citizens cost the industry billions and raise the health care costs for the rest of us. If one is unconstitutional shouldn't the other also be unconstitutional?

Furthermore I'm disgusted that nine individuals decide the entire direction of our country.


ETA: CNN: Court may uphold the mandate through a tax clause....
edit on 6/28/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)


Couldn't agree more. Having said that, little fun fact: The individual mandate portion of the bill is actually a RIGHT WING idea that was originally promoted by the Heritage Foundation. So whenever you see a Republican or TP monkey bitch about it, just remember that it was THOSE GUYS who rallied for that individual mandate in the first place...of course only until Obama supported it, at which point it was suddenly called "socialism"



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The Individual Mandate WILL STAND as a TAX...HUGE victory for Obama


How do you see a large tax increase, when we have the President saying it wasn't a tax and that purchasing insurance shouldn't be such, as a victory? Still reading all of it now but there are some gems of good note here.

Commerce Clause: Reigned in slightly and back to a more principled understanding of that of Madison in Federalist Paper 45.

Necessary and Proper Clause: Encapsulated to be what it was meant to be -- legislation that only is based upon the enumerated powers given.

His opinion on the taxes is where I am still reading into along with Ginsburg's dissent and the joint dissent.
edit on 28-6-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Oh, there is another option, WE THE PEOPLE can vote the responsible parties out of office and I get the distinct feeling that may just be what happens.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Any new taxes that are enforced by the Federal Government have to be approved by congress.


Hopefully in the next few days people will rise up and demand that they not be burdened with this additional tax. Hopefully congress will be smarter than the SCOTUS on this matter. Hope .. hope ... hope congress destroys this before it snowballs ...



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Obama, America's first "European President."

You have to understand how emotionally fulfilling it is for liberals to see this ruling. Obama's every move has been designed to make America look more like a small European nation:

- Curtail oil usage by reducing supply (moderate success)

-open borders (very successful)

-trains! even trains to nowhere in CA and FL (successful jobs program)

-a smaller, less victory-oriented military (moderately successful)

-gun control (momentary setback)

-gayer ( two thumbs up!)

-economically "bound" to EU (success)

-nationalize heavy industry (some success)

-and now socialized medicine.



See, we're almost as good as those wonderful Europeans. Just think what O'bama can accomplish in a second term.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 



Any new taxes that are enforced by the Federal Government have to be approved by congress.


It was approved by Congress.


I don't know who you were listening too...but everyone else I've heard disagrees with that assessment.

The Law stands and the Mandate is Constitutional because it is being enforced as a tax...which is in the bill...which is why the IRS has always been responsible for enforcing it.

Wishful thinking...but false propaganda.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


At least you got half of it correct?

It was not pitched nor was it to be actually used. It was from the Heritage Foundation, as a think tank.
Kind of like people sitting around, waxing the life fantastic, some eavesdrops and then claims it was all the plan of those sitting around.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Here is the entire SCOTUS decision...only 193 pages.
www.supremecourt.gov...

CNN Article:
news.blogs.cnn.com...

In its 5-4 decision to uphold the U.S. health care law, the Supreme Court answered several key questions:
...

Question: Can the federal government force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration?

The court's answer: Yes, but the justices ruled that the federal government cannot remove existing Medicaid funding if the states choose not to participate in the new program.




This last part here I read as giving the OK for States to just say no thanks...

If they can't be penalized for non-participation it does imply that chosing not to participate is an option for the States.


They cannot be penalized by taking medicaid money, but there are a lot of ways for the federal government to hope sway over the states, many ways to punish the ones who will not do as they want them too.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


The problem is that in order to stand as a tax it have to be approved by vote in congress.

Congress so far has been adamant on approving new taxes as this will become another Federal tax like the one we pay now on Medicare and Medicaid aka entitlement programs.

While certain provisions of Obama care stands the mandate is not, at least until the wording is change and approved by congress.

Things are going to become very interesting.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Do you actually believe that congress will take this up again for a vote? They lawfully should because it's a tax increase but I just don't see it happening. Call me cynical.
If in fact congress does have to vote on this again it would never pass. At least not in an election year.
edit on 28-6-2012 by dxdydz because: corrected punctuation



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by texasgirl
My good friend is upset about this because he is unemployed and hearing impaired. His big complaint is that he is now forced to buy insurance and most insurance plans don't even cover hearing loss. What a ripoff!


If he is unemployed, he will qualify for Medicaid.

You should comfort him by providing him with facts.




Yes, I get that, but I also see his point. If we're forced to buy insurance (self-employed, or people who don't make much money) then we should be able to have insurance to take care of personal needs. Insurance for hearing loss is incredibly hard to find.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


You don't know what you're talking about...for starters, military spending actually increased under Obama. But who cares about facts, right?


Btw, half of the stuff you listed are actually great for the country



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Wrong is was approved as a "mandate" not as a tax, it have to be rewritten to change that part of it.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join