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: 42
74
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Go back and read his statement released this morning.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Hilarious.

Rejecting the system works quite well provided enough people get out of sheep mode. I almost hope Romney wins, then maybe people who vote Republican will come to the realization a lot of former Dem voters have... both parties are the same, we will gain some of our power back by rejecting the 2 party system.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
Ok now that's out of the way..Watch the insurance fraud and rates sky rocket now. Mark my words insurance fraud is going to be the next big crime wave to hit this country. Not to mention the insurance companies will raise the rates. It is all orchestrated. You didn't think the disgusting corruption of the health industry was going to stop did you....no it is going to get much worse ...watch.


If we got rid of all insurance companies and paid people reasonable livings so they could save enough for illness and pay cash to medical care like in the old days. the medical care costs would be very low.

If the government would have given all the bale out money that was taken from our hard labor and given it to the people who earned it, the millions of homes sitting rotting empty and the families homeless in tent cities, would have paid their mortgages and all people would have put that money back into the system, sick bankers would not be made richer, but our new Government is a corporation patsy, so the health care must be just another step along that road.

They have hired mining people to oversee mine safety, oil people to oversea oil drilling safety, growers and meet producers say whats safe for your food, GMO none of our say, why would anyone think they are trying to HELP us?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


It is ONLY FREE to those that DO NOT pay any taxes in Canada. Tax payers like myself and others who work for a living pay for the health care of other Canadians that do not. Even NONE Canadians like refugee's get free health care (Prime-minister Harper thankfully made it illegal for refugees to get more health services than Canadian citizens, they used to have prescriptions, dental and eye care paid for, something NO Canadian other than welfare and disability recipients get) . The system currently in place in Canada has massive flaws because it actually makes it ILLEGAL to pay for a doctors visit out of pocket privately. Canadians in my position would gladly pay out of pocket for routine things like checkups, annual flu vaccines, shots, common colds, etc if it reduced the amount of income tax I had to pay each year which is enormous.

Currently no matter how much you earn in Canada, be it 5,000 a year to 20,000,000 a year, everyone gets free health care, there's no middle ground or ratio coverage system in place; that's what makes it over burdened and flawed causing LONG wait times for surgeries and EXTREMELY long wait times to see specialists like ENT's (Ear Nose Throat). I waited 4 MONTHS to see an ENT last year, absolutely disgusting. Next time I will drive across the border to New York state to see a specialist and gladly pay for it with my own money, especially if I am in any pain like I was for 4 months with my right ear.

I saw a couple people claiming Canadians get free prescription coverage, no, they don't. Only people on welfare, disability and old age pensioners (pensioners with no other savings or income, poor old people) get free prescription coverage. Unless you work for a decent company for some time that has an insurance plan like dental and prescriptions, you pay out of pocket for prescriptions here in Canada.
edit on 28-6-2012 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
OK, it is a tax. The IRS is in charge of health insurance. The IRS can put a lock on your business door; grab assets; confiscate income and seize your home. If this happens to you, you have to hire a lawyer, pay court fees, loose your business, etc. This expense comes out of your pocket, you have to prove you are not guilty. Imagine what is going to happen when the IRS starts to "strong arm" health insurance. The IRS does not have anyone to control them as it is, now their powers are unlimited. Think of the damage the Depart of Health and Human Resources can weld concerning health issues they deem self imposed. Stop and contemplate. We are in serious danger.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Drumroll::::::first time I ever thought OutKast was right about anything:::::

He has a good grip on the decision.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Down 160 points as of right now.
Let's see how low it can go!


Yes. See Obama. Businesses do not want this!!! Almost every stock I watch is down. 146 points now. It's only mid day.


Actually stock market is very shaky due to more Banking Scandal, Barclay's one of the largest Banks in the world just got fined by the US & UK for it's involvement in rigging interest rates ..... other banks currently under investigation for this huge global fraud are HSBC, RBS, Citigroup, UBS, JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by underduck
I think some of you guys are missing the point. This is a HUGE human rights victory. Giving everyone right to health care is far more important than any petty squabbles we have with the current or past administrations.


I'm confused.

You mind explaining to me how it's a "human rights" victory, if it's being forced as a tax on people.. and actually not given to you at all.

Basically, you are becoming a "forced customer" to the companies that everyone hates.

Human rights victory my ass, and I couldn't care less about partisanship.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
When is a tax not a tax???

The largest tax increase in U.S. History!


Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal says President Barack Obama's health care overhaul
is the largest tax increase in the U.S. history.www.independentmail.com...


Remember when Obamacare was not a tax?



www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
When is a tax not a tax???

The largest tax increase in U.S. History!


Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal says President Barack Obama's health care overhaul
is the largest tax increase in the U.S. history.www.independentmail.com...





Hmmm yeah, not really though.



1. Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04 percent of GDP;

2. Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2 percent of GDP;

3. Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13 percent of GDP;

4. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

5. Excess Profits Tax of 1950: .97 percent of GDP;

And here are the top five tax increases from the "modern" era of 1968-2006:

1. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

2. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: .8 percent of GDP;

3(t): Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: .5 percent of GDP

3(t): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; .5 percent of GDP;

5: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; .49 percent of GDP



www.politifact.com...
edit on 28/6/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

But Roberts’ really brilliant move was to uphold the individual mandate under Congress’s taxing authority and explicitly to reject its constitutionality under the commerce clause. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her opinion, there was no reason for Roberts to rule on the commerce clause question, because a majority agreed that the act was a constitutional tax penalty.

Roberts did so regardless to create with the four conservative dissenters a majority view that a health insurance mandate violates the commerce clause. This result is in keeping with Roberts’ conservative view of restricting federal power and leaves him free to vote to strike down progressive federal legislation as unauthorized by the commerce clause. Moreover, by characterizing the individual mandate as a tax, Roberts hands Republicans a facile campaign cry that Obamacare Means New Taxes — and that Democrats are the party of taxation.

Finally, his decision allows Roberts to falsely paint himself as a neutral arbiter whose principled constitutional interpretations cannot be overridden by his politics. He implies that he thinks the law is a bad idea by adding a note at the end of his decision that the court expresses no opinion on its wisdom. If the court is not expressing an opinion, there would be no need to say so. But Roberts adds the line to underscore what a principled jurist he is voting that the law is constitutional even though he disapproves of it.

The reality, of course, is that Roberts has permitted the implementation of a conservative health-care regime, energized the Republican base, preserved his ability to vote against liberal congressional measures as violating the commerce clause and aggrandized himself as an apolitical Chief Justice. I tip my hat to his evil genius.



www.nydailynews.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Like I said before, congress will have to define the tax provision now been imposed with the rewording of the mandate.

Obama just as well lost the November elections on a "matter of wording" on his Obamacare.



"The word tax can make many tax payers uneasy but add IRS as a enforcers and that will spark mass panic, pecially when use as a political tool this november"

Like I said before things are going to become very interesting.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by underduck
I think some of you guys are missing the point. This is a HUGE human rights victory. Giving everyone right to health care is far more important than any petty squabbles we have with the current or past administrations.


I'm confused.

You mind explaining to me how it's a "human rights" victory, if it's being forced as a tax on people.. and actually not given to you at all.

Basically, you are becoming a "forced customer" to the companies that everyone hates.

Human rights victory my ass, and I couldn't care less about partisanship.


Lets not forget, its NOT health care. It mandates you buy health insurance. Insurance and care are two different things.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
Single-payer, Medicaid for all.


LOL Have you ever seen what the quality of care under Medicaid is?

Yes, now we should all aspire to have such low standards for everyone....

Take away a person's right to seek and pay for thier own plan that is superior to the State approved minimum. Awesome, soon we can all have the same low standard quality of healthcare won't it be awesome.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Some final thoughts before I go to bed.

An analogy.

A person is stabbing another person with a knife.

The case goes to the Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 split, Justice Roberts changes the name from "knife" to "fluffy kitten". He doesn't change the act, he just changes the definition.

It's our job to stop the act.

November. Vote Obama out!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by burntheships
 



"The word tax can make many tax payers uneasy but add IRS as a enforcers and that will spark mass panic, pecially when use as a political tool this november"




That must be some of what the SCOTUS meant when they said this
may not be WISE.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Marg, I understand where you are coming from but it is, as Outkast has without exhaustion explained, already legislated.

26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1)

"The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68."

Subchapter B of chapter 68 is provisions and law that allows the Government to assess penalties for not paying the tax.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

And federal 'excise taxes'.

as in the ones on your phone bill, cable bill, etc.......


Don't forget to keep the tax return record of money you didn't owe but paid and they sent back so they can tax the returned and tax the taxes.

If you overpaid they don't return your overpaid dollars with interest, but if you underpaid you pay interest one every cent.

Oh yeah and we don't have taxes we can understand so some pay hundreds a year just to have someone do the taxes, and we have to keep all records 10 years, even if for a small business that means renting a storage place.
edit on 28-6-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


These laws get upheld, and this stuff happens because people do not understand the law in the United States. The original intent of the law has been twisted which is why rulings such as these are upheld as "Constitutional."



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Go back and read his statement released this morning.





Is it that hard to be specific about what you are talking about?

A quote...a link...anything???



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join