It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 50
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by nenothtu

Yep, I smell a few little spatters of turd hitting the fan as we speak.

If there is one thing you do NOT do, it's try to take from someone who has nothing, because they have nothing to lose. Not only that, they are forcing a burden on small business and their employees alike and distorting the very system of capitalism we are supposed to rely on. The end result is an even worse, one sided fake economy.

People have limits, and I think our policy makers don't fully understand they are quickly approaching them.
edit on 28-6-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

I drew my line when they first passed this monstrosity, and that line hasn't changed. I'm still standing at it and waiting for them to come.

You're right - when someone has nothing left to lose, they get downright dangerous. For most people, that means their "stuff". I have all the "stuff" I need - but screwing with liberty is another thing altogether in my book. I've not got nearly enough of that left to lose, so when they come for the last shred of it, they get a surprise.

What happens when they push all the small businesses out of business? What to the owners and displaced employees do when they have nothing left to do?

A wise man once said that "when you take a farmer's farm away, his ability to feed himself and his family, well, then he's got nothing better to do than lay in the woods and shoot at you all day."

I guess we'll see whether America has the backbone that our forebears did.

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

I guess so, because you have to be blind and stupid to not see where this is headed, financial tyranny. If people could afford health insurance they would've already bought it. IMHO this is an attempt to override supply and demand and it's not in our (your everyday American citizen) favor.

You can argue about how supply and demand doesn't affect healthcare because at the end of the day people will pay whatever for their own welfare, but that's not the point. The point is it's wrong to hold someone's very life over a bargaining or legislative table for money.

A country should want healthy citizens regardless of if they have to pay for it or not. That doesn't mean charging poor people more out of spite because you feel you are shouldering their burden. This is a REPUBLIC, not the United States of Me.

I'm sure we can all agree that most of the people on or around the poverty line are the ones without insurance. This is just wrong, you can't go try to collect money from people who don't have any in the first place. Way to piss people off.

Like I said people have limits and they are screwing with the most chaotic group of people with not much to lose. They are telling people that because they are poor, they have to pay a tax. Wrong move.
edit on 28-6-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:37 PM

Originally posted by jam321

I predicted it would.
edit on 28-6-2012 by jam321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

yep, I didn't read it all but, Basically what I got from it was very disappointing, not that I wasn't disappointed before, as in, it is all politics and you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, type of deal.

We have no real laws or justice in this country, its all based on money, greed and scheming and backstabbing their opponents and we are just along for the ride of torture and collateral damage and if your lucky and rich then you'll get a pass.

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

Someone say small busnesses? Know what is new with this:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:38 PM
And now for a moment of sanity....

Health insurance providers can't cancel your coverage once you get sick – a practice known as "rescission" – unless you committed fraud or intentionally withheld facts about your health when you applied for coverage.

Youth can be covered under a parent's plan until they turn 26.

Children with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage.

Health insurance providers may not place a lifetime maximum on benefits.
(Drop cancer patients from coverage mid-treatment)

Insurers are required to give consumers rebates if they spend less than 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care. Insurers are required to issue this first round of rebates by Aug. 1.
(Meaning they can't take more than 20% of revenues in profit to pay executive bonuses etc)

Health plans created after Sept. 23, 2010, are required to cover certain preventative services without requiring copays, deductibles and coinsurance.

The law also expands Medicare's coverage of preventive services, such as screenings for colon, prostate and breast cancer, which are now free to beneficiaries. Medicare will also pay for an annual wellness visit to the doctor.

If you are covered under a private Medicare Advantage plan, the law changes portions of the plan, cutting payments to some of those plans. Critics say that could mean the private plans may not offer many extra benefits that you may have previously enjoyed, such as free eyeglasses, hearing aids and gym memberships that they now provide.

If you are older than 65, the law is narrowing a gap in the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan known as the "doughnut hole." That gap applies to seniors who have paid a certain initial amount in prescription drug costs and must then pay the full cost until they spend a total of $4,700 for the year. Then the plan coverage begins again. By 2020, the "doughnut hole" will be closed entirely.

Starting Aug. 1, employers must provide health insurance plans that offer birth control as part of their preventative services.


Adults with pre-existing conditions will not be denied coverage (this already applies to children).

Most people will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a fine.

That penalty for individuals starts at $95 or up to 1 percent of income and grow in later years.

For families it would start at $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income.

The Supreme Court noted in its decision that Americans could choose to ignore the mandate and instead pay the penalty, which they deemed a tax.

People who don't qualify for Medicaid but still can't afford insurance may be eligible for government subsidies.

The subsidies would be used to help pay for private insurance sold in the state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014.

Applicants will not be rejected for insurance because of health status once the exchanges are operating in 2014.


The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to expand Medicaid, but it can't strip states of all their Medicaid funds if they fail to participate in that expansion. Prior to the court's decision, analysts expected that about half of the people who would gain insurance under the law would do so through Medicaid. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, it's up to each state to decide whether it expands coverage to more people.

If a state does decide to expand Medicaid, people with an income at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible to receive coverage.

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Indigo5

It only appears insane in the context of the extreme far right rhetoric you have been steadily fed for the past three years. The world is not ending, your "freedoms" are intact and providing healthcare for sick people the way every other developed nation on the planet does is not the end of America.


Your "freedoms" are NOT intact. When they can FORCE you to do business with a private company, your freedom is no longer in existence.

The technical name for that is, I believe, "fascism". You hug it if you want - I'm not going to.

have you hugged your fascist today?

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:39 PM
reply to post by travisirius

In 2011, 60% of firms offer health benefits, a statistically significant decrease from the 69% reported in 2010 but unchanged from the 59% reported in 2009

so 6 out of 10 companies offer healthcare....what about that 40% that dont or cant? i guess just shut them down so the percent of companies offering healthcare coverage increases......
its the lowest wage earners that get the least...

Firms with fewer lower-wage workers (less than 35% of workers earn $23,000 or less annually) are significantly more likely to offer health insurance than firms with many lower-wage workers (35% or more of workers earn $23,000 or less annually). While 68% of firms with fewer lower-wage workers offer health benefits, only 28% of firms with many lower-wage workers do

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by travisirius

my husband is a journeyman tool maker.
he works for a small company that consists of him, his boss, and his boss's wife. there was another employee there, but when they hired my husband, they found that he he knew how to do everything they needed done and there was no need for the other employee, they let him go.

no, he doesn't get insurance from his employer, and his employer has been taking a loss the past couple of years because the economy is crap. he is keeping the business afloat through his personal wealth from the sale of his vacation home.

more and more companies is going to the temp agencies for their employees... most of those employees are not insured!!

stay at home moms are not actively in the labor market. every company I've worked for except one of my first jobs in the 70's, paid part of the premium for the employee, but when it came to the additional cost of adding dependants on, well, that was all up to the employee!!
people need healthcare the most when they get sick. but chronically sick people often have trouble holding down a job. why is healthcare so tied into employment anyways?

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by mustangill
How many people in here think the Supreme Court Justices are bought and paid for?

The Supreme Court doesnt have Americas "best interests" in mind. I shall dare say,they never did.

"Partisan" decision making..............

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by travisirius
reply to post by butcherguy

Most companies carry health coverage:

Are you a migrant worker or are you just setting up a straw man?
I'll bet you get coverage at work.
My point is only those without health coverage get taxed!!!

Hello again!
I get that part megabrain.
What you need to get is that migrant workers exist. In fact, there are quite a lot of them. Do you have any figures on how many of them have health care? They get paychecks.
Here's something else, I don't have to be a migrant worker to know how things work for them. But if I have picked peaches, apples, tomatoes and corn at various locations that were not at my home... Would that qualify me? If so, then I have been a migrant worker.

In making your point, you found it necessary to state that if a person gets a paycheck, they should have health insurance. That is what I took issue with. I have no idea why you found a need to write it. Fact is, the two do not necessarily go together. You can admit that, or you can try blame me for creating straw men as a way to deflect away from simple fact that, your glorious intelligence notwithstanding, were incorrect (I am sure it the first time).

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:44 PM

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.

This is so silly. It's kind of like, if there were such a thing as "food insurance" and you were forced to pay it, but only if you eat food, that way in case you get sick, it would be covered. It is just absurd to think people could manage without cars. Maybe certain people in certain cities, but not everyone. Certain people even require certain types of vehicles for their job (farmers need trucks).

People should get their insurance money premiums PAID BACK to them when they cancel coverage or die. (I'm not sure at what point it would be fair.) You know insurance companies make massive profits at our expense. That should tell you it's a crooked deal. At any point the deal is NOT in their favor, they wuss out and drop you or raise your rate.

The insurance companies are almost as bad as the banks. They own some of the largest buildings just like the banks. How'd they get all that? Not by playing fair, that's for sure.

This is how I see it...either the corporations will rip us off, or the government will. Hell, they are one in the same pretty much as it is. The power structure is the same, whether its corporations or the government. It's power concentrated in the hands of a small number of corrupt people.

I should be able to drive my car without insurance if I want to. Screw all the damn monthly fees that only work to my advantage IF I get hit, THEN my rates are jacked up. It's basically like a casino; dealer never loses.

Certain taxes make sense to me, like money to build roads. Others are excessive and just fraud.

Some people are okay paying car insurance because they've been doing it for so long. Well, I have not forgotten about what a scam it seems to me. They aren't doing me any favors. They just take my money and give me an incentive to get in an accident (if I am to "cash in" on the policy) or they give me an incentive for them to win if I never get in a wreck. Who wants to get in wreck and have premiums go sky high? NObody. Who wants to donate money to a megarich corporation? Nobody. Damn insurance business is a scam. Same with health insurance, for many people who get denied coverage when they are found ill. They search for any bit of information the applicant provided so they can find you in breach of contract and boot you off the policy.

Let's not just keep the government out of our lives. Let's keep the real government (the corporations) out of our pockets too! They are both corrupt thieves.

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:45 PM
The country is so far too the right that this crap is being lauded as a win by the left?

Seriously?? Allowing the government to demand that you buy For Profit healthcare is the Liberal plan?

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

I never took the meaning of "baby boomer's" very seriously for obvious reasons I always see it as an "American thing" been from a different background I don't take a lot of things seriously even when I should, thankfully both my husband parents and my parents are well off, both own their homes and do not pay taxes on their properties, been this property in Puertorrico, PR have universal healthcare even when it seems "free" it is not, from the retirement checks and SS checks money is taken to pay for this coverage, both my father and father in law have veterans benefits that save lots of money of healthcare cost, but they are also healthy even in their age.

Now for my mother and mother in law is a different story even with universal health care medications can eat on their allocated cap for cost of medications.

Interestingly even when they have the so call universal care is a cap yearly of how much they can used for medical treatments and medications that means once is reached they have to pay for their medications as an out of pocket expenses.

Now I am still a littler confuse about your post dawnstar

Very soon if my husband doesn't find another job we are to be sucking up all those tax payer that are still paying taxes so the littler ones can get healthcare for free, you know my husband has been doing that for over 30 years while he was working paying for all those in need, after all we have never qualified for anything due to income.

My husband retirement account will be hit next without a steady income as usual.

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:46 PM

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

F&S to the OutKast for the OP.

While I have to admit, (that in the back of my mind) I was hoping that a possible "thumbs-down" on the personal mandate might be the impetus needed to begin crafting single-payer "Medicare-For-All" modifications to the Affordable Care Act, I guess this means that we'll just have to find another way to get it done.

Now for the bigger question; Are they going to spike the ball? I thought that the TP/GOP was going to spike the ball! I've been waiting all day! My beer has gotten hot and my popcorn is stale! When the hell are they going to spike the ball!

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

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by daynight42

okay, what about this difference....

get yourself a quote for car liability insurance....
and for health insurance, on your own, without any employer pitching in.....

see the difference now??

besides, the idea that people don't exist without cars in our society is not true!! I was in my 30's and had three kids with no driver's liscense even. used to walk everywhere with the kids. grocery shopping, and carrying it home was so much fun! hubby was driving truck for a living so he wasn't didn't take long for him to give in finally and I got my driving priveledge!!
edit on 28-6-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:51 PM
I just do not understand the need for mandate across all Americans. Less than 10% fall into the I don't have insurance/can't get it category, so why not just focus on them and not mandate all 100%?

I have great insurance, but I'm sure my company will drop me and pay the penalty, that is just smart math.... Then I'm going to get the free crappy insurance where I have zero choice in anything, or pay out my butt for something I already have today.

Lastly why didn't the court just say you can't have it as a penalty and tell them to reword it and revote on it for as it stands it wasn't constitutional. The fact that Obama and crew said it wasn't a tax and everyone in Congress voted on it as if it wasn't a tax is enough to say it is void and they need to revote since the whole aspect of how it is paid off changes, but the Court must now be a new legislative branch of government.

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

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

read up a little on the new considerations with this forced health-care:

the 50 employees hurdle will not affect your significant other's case... he will need to buy-in to a coverage or be 'TAXED' as the SCOTUS defines it

you as a sty-at-home-maker will need to get a coverage or fall into the nanny-state category and get govt sponsered health care that will have death panels to decide IF you will be permitted the extradinary care needed in your case-- if extradinary care is indeed needed

all hail lord Øbama who will have your life and the lives of the Drone program assassinations to sign-off on in his daily briefings...
friggin millionare turd courtesy of the elites/NWO puppet Masters

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:55 PM
John Roberts is the biggest traitor to this country since Benedict Arnold.

new topics

top topics

<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in