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

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

sigh all you want to....

Little do you know I work in the insurance department in my state for the state. You don't have all the facts. You are speaking from a political standpoint and nothing more.

You do not know what each state is doing right now. I can tell you in my state the commissioners have already gone into closed session to discuss this and my governor opposes this. So you are wrong advising this person on what to do.

You simply do not know everything going on.

I know the law...I don't claim to have super secret insider knowledge like you are trying to do.

If your Governor decides not to follow the law...he is just screwing over the residents of your state.

Fact: Medicaid coverage is expanded under the health care law.

Originally posted by LadySkadi

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by burntheships

 

You know I have to agree with those that think that the Supreme court ruling coming from Roberts was brilliant but not for what many think was a win on Obama care, people doesn't understand that he just won the presidency for Romney, I can see already the panicking tax payers running to vote for him in order to keep the IRS "healthcare (gestapo) I mean enforces" out of their paychecks and backs

Just brilliant Justice Roberts wording was just brilliant.

Have to admit, that thought crossed my mind, as well -

All well and true today guys, but people have shoooort memories...a life to live. Will the outrage last long enough to get this JACKWAGON and his partners in crime voted out?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I am not ignoring what you are saying my friend, I understand what you are coming from, but trust me all this is going to be reworded again and will have to be approved in congress in order to refine the role of the IRS as the way it stands now is to vague.

That, if the whole thing is not repeal first next month, but I got the feeling that the Obamacare will die when he loses the elections in November and will be at the mercy of whatever comes our way with Romney.

reply to post by stanguilles7
reply to post by LadySkadi


That's the first thing I thought. If there was ever a reason to vote for the new sell out, Romney, this is probably it.

Roll the dice and see how much bologna he's talking.

Originally posted by TheLastStand
I hope americans keep stockpiling guns and ammo and are ready to kick some ass for liberty. You're government is completely out of control and are invading the lives of everyone with their mandatory BS.

huh?...helping the poor and middle class be able to afford and recieve healthcare like every other industralized country in the world, means that the "government is completely out of control and are invading the lives of everyone"?? and...keeping people from medical care because they can't afford it, that's liberty??

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The Healthcare Law is here to stay...regardless of what Romney campaigns on.

Not if enough states decide to abandon it. Then its nullification by the states and I see that happening rather quickly.

reply to post by burntheships


I am just as cynical as yourself on this but solving the matter cannot be accomplished by basing arguments on false or misleading information. Unfortunately many posters just parrot whatever information is fed to them and do nothing of their own critical thinking to determine what is true and what is bogus and what might be in between.

Overall there are parts of the opinion that are good for precedent and for reexamining the role that the Federal Government has expanded into. Chief Robert's opinions regarding the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause should be highlighted and noted.

By recognizing that in the past 100+ years the Commerce Clause has crept and expanded its original intent, he lays down the foundation for future rulings and future challenges to question the use and invocation of the clause by Congress in its attempt to regulate certain activities. Typically and frequently the Supreme Court relies heavily on precedent when forming an opinion but in the challenge of the Commerce Clause; Federalist Papers 45 and various other sources other than precedent were utilized to frame the opinion. Reigning in the Clause is a good step forward in my opinion.

Also encapsulating the Necessary and Proper Clause in the manner in which he did, Roberts made it known to Congress that the Clause doesn't allow them to just make legislation for legislation purpose and it must adhere to and follow their enumerated powers.

His opinion on the taxing powers of Congress slightly do not follow the logic presented in regards to the two clauses above and Ginsburg let that be known and basically questioned the Chief Justice's motive or understanding. But where he got it right was that if the "Mandate" is to be seen as a tax, than Congress is well within their plenary powers to levy such a tax as long as it follows the intent of the enumerated power.

This threw the ball right back to President Obama and said "You stated it wasn't a tax, but that is the only way it will be able to stand. So you now have your "Mandate" but it is a tax upon the People." The Government wanted it both ways and the Supreme Court said you can't and this is the only way it will be Constitutional.

Levying new taxes, in a time where taxes (from all sources) are constricting incomes will be a huge elephant in the room for those who still decide they want this Act to stand as is. It also says that the Government gets to pick and choose who they will apply the penalty to and who they will exempt; another hot-topic point that the People have a hard time with. Why does Suzy-Q get off free while I have to pay?

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

I'd be pissed if someone within my state opted out of anything without the people of the state putting it through a vote.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You don't know the law. You are *snip* here propagandizing for the DEMS, and easily seen.

That's your problem your not in the know within my state. I am trying to educate these people that it is different for each state. So get over it. You don't know what's going on, you are simply reverting to a political view. that's all.




Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

The biggest problem I see with this precedent is that any lobbyist with a politician in their pocket and a product to sell can now have an instant customer base with a majority vote in congress and a presidential signature. We could eventually be taxed at 100%+ of our income with all of it padding the bottom line of business.

All this from a president that promised anyone making less than $250,000 (later changed to $200,000) a year would not see their taxes increased by one dime. Yet he still has some blind support from people that do not see past his skin color and do not hold him to his promises.

Never before have I been this disgusted with the entire American political system.

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by stanguilles7
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

That's the first thing I thought. If there was ever a reason to vote for the new sell out, Romney, this is probably it.

Roll the dice and see how much bologna he's talking.

edit on 28-6-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

To clarify - I had that thought regarding Roberts - not about voting for Romney.

Don't want to vote for either of 'em

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I am not ignoring what you are saying my friend, I understand what you are coming from, but trust me all this is going to be reworded again and will have to be approved in congress in order to refine the role of the IRS as the way it stands now is to vague.

That, if the whole thing is not repeal first next month, but I got the feeling that the Obamacare will die when he loses the elections in November and will be at the mercy of whatever comes our way with Romney.

You do know that Obama has to sign any repeal...right???

The House will pass it as political theater...doubt it will even be voted on in the Senate...and let's say we are in the Twiligh Zone and the Senate does pass the repeal...Obama will veto it.

UNBELIEVABLE that you honestly think it may be repealed next month...just further reason to take your opinion into question about the "tax" aspect.

Romney can't just repeal it either...they would need a super majority in the Senate. If that happens...healthcare is the least of our concerns.

reply to post by marg6043


I once wondered why the IRS was selected as the Obamacare enforcer in the fist place. It all makes sense now. They knew it was a tax from the onset and decided to play the name game and Obama 3 card Monte instead. The slight of hand game that was played on the nation and the fact that very few congressmen even read it before voting on it in the first place.

Was this Pelosi's original surprise that she alluded to. I hope your right with the whole Roberts theory!!!!

Did you all know that there is now discussion within the GOP about introducing a tax block on this? Since this now a tax burden through the IRS congress can put in language to bar citizens from being taxed. So you see there is always a way to undo something. Now, this will be introduced next year to block it as a tax. Congress adjusts tax code every year. So bingo an easy way out.

reply to post by butcherguy


The penalty (or tax; it was argued as both) is for those that are not exempt or already in an insurance program and they choose not to engage in the forced market action. The Government than applies the penalty (or tax) upon that Individual for their inaction.

I don't agree with it as it adds more power to the IRS and Government, but for now, it is what it is and Representatives have to campaign and justify it. A large mountain to overcome in my opinion.

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You don't know the law. You are some troll sitting here propagandizing for the DEMS, and easily seen.

That's your problem your not in the know within my state. I am trying to educate these people that it is different for each state. So get over it. You don't know what's going on, you are simply reverting to a political view. that's all.

Hi,

I am the person who made the original post about my hearing impaired friend. We live in Texas. I am sorry I made this post because there is much squabbling going on and I can't stand it. I will find out what my state decides to do and we will go from there.

One point: If we are made to purchase health insurance then coverage for hearing loss should be on all policies!

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Since this is now a tax penalty, legislation can be made to remove the tax burden. They have found a new way.

In the actual legislation, do they refer to the 'fee' that must be paid as a penalty or a tax.

I am speaking of the fee that must be paid if you do not buy health insurance.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The Healthcare Law is here to stay...regardless of what Romney campaigns on.

Not if enough states decide to abandon it. Then its nullification by the states and I see that happening rather quickly.

Care to explain by them states deciding to abandon it?

The only thing they have control over is to not expand Medicaid...and then, the SCOTUS decision only protects them from having their EXISTING funding cut. But the Federal Government can still sue each state for not following FEDERAL law...and they can stop any increases in funding for them.

Besides...not expanding Medicaid just hurts their residents...because they will all still be subject to the Individual mandate...it just takes away an option from low income people.

If a State decides to do that...they will just look like the bad guys.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
To clarify - I had that thought regarding Roberts - not about voting for Romney.

Don't want to vote for either of 'em

Sigh... yea me either.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.