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: 45
74
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by texasgirl
 


Texas is very pro GOP and Perry opposes this. You should check with your state and ask them.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Oh, that is not all, my husband just lost his job two weeks ago thanks to Obama restructuring of the military and the cuts he forced on the military to be able to waste more on his health care soon to be failure

I guess because my husband still gets a military retirement we will have to starve, live in the street so we will not get penalized I mean "taxed" for losing our health care if my husband can not find a job soon.

Thanks to Obama and his promises that we can believe on.

I have to agree that under the Republicans my husband job was a secure job after he retired from the military, now we don't even have that security under Obama we just lost it.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
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.


The part of the bill that you quoted earlier refers to it as a penalty.
I guess words mean nothing to the govt any more. Tax and penalty are two different things to me.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 



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.


It's Federal Law..it applies to all States.

Now if individual States decide not to follow that law...they will be sued and forced by court decision to follow it. The only thing the SCOTUS did was prevent the Federal government from withholding funding while that process plays out.

I don't care what inside information you claim to have...I doubt it's true.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
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.


And Obama has to sign it.

So no bingo.

I haven't found the exact radio show you are listening to...but I think I am close.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidKnight
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


The difference though with auto insurance is... You don't have to have it. only if you want to drive do you have to have auto insurance. With the health insurance, I have no choice.


I have a choice.

They're already taxing us to death. the first Revolution was started over a far less pervasive and onerous "tax".

My choice is non-compliance. they can come and snatch their "tax" out of my ass. Let's see which of us survives it the longest - me or the tax collectors.

I will not be browbeaten into subsidizing a private industry by being forced by the government to purchase their NON-product.

Didn't Mussolini have something to say on that subject?

This is my answer:

Molon labe.

Come get it.




edit on 2012/6/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by burntheships
 


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.


Well so far I have not heard from even one person who wants this period, no one!

Who wants more taxes ?

That is why Obama fought so hard to keep people from thinking it was a tax!

Come November the people will let Washington know!

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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I am done arguing with you, you are just trying to spin my comments around. You are now ignored.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I am sorry to hear that Marg. very sorry,

I am kinda late to this discussion but didn't the Justices just decide what the meaning of is, is?

The way I see it they are twisting words to suit themselves.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


You get a paycheck? Then you should have health insurance from your employer!
This place is funny, how many people here think if you have health insurance think they will be taxed?
Well, here's your sign.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
sorry, haven't read the whoe thread, but want to point something out for some!!

obamacare does not give people the right to healthcare!!
it doesn't have that much to do with people getting healthcare...
it has everything to do with health insurance!! and mandating people who are financially pushed to the limit give up their home, or the food on their table, or whatever else they need so they can come up with the money to buy overprice, next to useless health insurance isn't providing healthcare!!! matter of fact, it might do just the opposite! since being hungry because you had to take the grocery money and use it for health insurance, to cold because your chose the electricity, or homeless, or whatever is gonna end up more likely to make you sick!!
and you still won't have the cash to pay the deductible to get anything out of the insurance company! you won't have AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE!
my advice is you find yourself in this position is to give up the car, tell social services you can't get to work because you have no car, can't work, sorry, no income, sorry, lo and behold!!! you've found your road to healthcare, shelter, electricty, food, ect!!

obamacare is not gonna work!!! there are too many people unemployed, underemployed, taking jobs with little pay, and to put it bluntly....you can't get blood out of a stone, regardless of the decisions of the supreme court, or laws passed in washington! if the money isn't there, it isn't there, and what are they gonna do, throw the workers into jail for not paying??? ya that would be real smart, won't it?? who's gonna replace us? the single moms many of whom haven't worked a day in their lives???

I have a husband who works for a company of three people!! he doesn't get healthinsurance through the company, I have three adult kids living with us who have been unemployed more than employes, with most of them under the age where i can put them on my insurance...

think I will write obama a letter and ask him if he really things I am gonna be working 40 hours a week and end up at the end of it owing my boss money because the danged gov't thinks I should be responsible for providing insurance for all of them!

and of course, the only thing that the court had a problem with was extending medicaid, so it could available to help more people!


it's not gonna work!!!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Brilliant post, thanks for bringing up one subject I understand under the Supreme Court ruling, Is nice to read what I will like to say but can not as I am not as eloquently as you are with words.

Thanks again for that post.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





They're already taxing us to death. the first Revolution was started over a far less pervasive and onerous "tax".


OMG I been thinking that for months,



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by travisirius
 





You get a paycheck? Then you should have health insurance from your employer!

How many people think that everyone that gets a paycheck has health insurance?

Here's YOUR sign.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

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.


This is from last year and what prompted my statement today


Various states are taking another approach to defeat ObamaCare. These states are considering the idea of nullification. Idaho Governor Otter recently said “we are actively exploring all our options - including nullification.” State nullification is the idea that states can refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both spoke of the favor of nullification. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” Likewise, James Madison said that states were “duty bound to resist” every time the federal government violated the Constitution.

Some states aren’t waiting for the outcomes of federal lawsuits in federal courts. They’re simultaneously attempting to make ObamaCare void in their state legislatures. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, “nullification is a tool in the bag of those who want to dam the river of government expansion. It has been used before, and to good ends.” Thus far, 12 states have introduced similar versions to the Federal Health Care Nullification Act drafted by the Tenth Amendment Center this year. These bills either fully nullify or refuse compliance with ObamaCare.


Please don't attack my source in typical fashion.

www.freedomworks.org...

ETA
Obama can sue each and every state if he wants. To do that he'll have to ignore everything else he's supposed to be doing.
edit on 28-6-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers
www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
The part of the bill that you quoted earlier refers to it as a penalty.
I guess words mean nothing to the govt any more. Tax and penalty are two different things to me.


This is where the dissenting opinions were hung up on. They wrote the following in questioning just what you are saying:

Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for
the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’”


They understood that the Court has held precedent regarding the definition of the two and said it cannot be both and must be one or the other.

Since the legislation itself is just as vague, they contended that recognizing as a tax would have to render it unconstitutional and invalid. Chief Justice saw it the other way and offered a poor analogy that basically stated that meaning isn't the same as intent and if the Court were to hang themselves up upon the wording, than much of legislation would be questioned based solely upon definition. (To which I would be okay with, because legislation should be clear, transparent and unambiguous)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
This law will help no one but the government and the insurance companies by FORCING the people of this country to purchase a product from a private company.

The expansion of Medicaid is a joke when the program costs taxpayers 80 BILLION a year in fraud. Fix the current system, offer a public option to help those who are falling in the cracks, but don't force me to buy something from a private company.


This law won't provide any actual health care for anyone, it subsidizes health insurance costs that are bought from private companies. These subsidies have to paid for by someone and each one of us is that someone. Each of us will foot the bill for this, poor, rich, doesn't matter. Costs on everything will go up, people will have less to spend and an already depressed economy will be pummeled with a new tax burden on the backs of the very citizens this law is supposed to help.


Please explain how this is good for anyone outside of the government and the private health insurance industry?

When will the working class people say enough is enough? When will we realize that eventually, the middle class will run out of money to give in the form of government mandated handouts? Then what? The middle class will disappear and we will all depend on the government to "take care of us." I'm sorry, but that is not a future I want for my children.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
As I am understanding this, it can be upheld if it is a tax, which pretty much means insurance will have to be administered through taxation itself instead of requiring individuals to buy private insurance. The law is constitutional if re-written in that manner, unconstitutional if requiring individuals to purchase their own insurance.

Confusing, but that's what I get.

TheRedneck


And to me , well, yea, that's pretty twisted.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


well said dawnstar
nowhere does it say healthcare will suddenly become affordable and there seems to be a bit of confusion..just because one is employed, that does not mean the company offers healthcare...so now all those people will have to go register with the county for medical assistance or be left to pay a couple hundred a month for coverage.....




top topics



 
74
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join