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

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by macman

 

I don't remember being asked to pay for the military, yet 50% of our taxes go to the military insitution, while 45,000 people die each year in the US for not having insurance. And a lot of that budget goes to private contractors. You have been forced to pay private companies for awhile now.

What this law does is finally points our moral compass in the right direction.

Please show me where those people have died from not having health insurance.
And yes, some the Military Budget does go to PMCs.
Since Health Care is not a Right, nor is it defined in any founding documents, then taxing for it is not in the design of our country.

The Progressive way of though is more dangerous that Brain Cancer.

if you already have health insurance with a private company, you do not get "taxed"...nobody is forcing you to get it, if you already have it...so what does this have to do with the "founding documents" and "rights"? what freedom are you losing?

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by macman
Since Health Care is not a Right, nor is it defined in any founding documents, then taxing for it is not in the design of our country.

Here is where I have been contemplating and just got done with a private conversation expounding on this.

Chief Justice Roberts rolled back 70+ years of Congress utilizing the "Commerce Clause" as their ace-in-the-hole means of passing and regulating nearly all aspects of the American citizenry. He also made not to Congress that the Necessary and Proper Clause isn't some magical wand that allows them to invoke it and legislation must be. He specifically states "Although the Clause gives Congress authority to “legislate on that vast mass of incidental powers which must be involved in the constitution,” it does not license the exercise of any “great substantive and independent power[s]” beyond those specifically enumerated."

Given that, its power of taxation, which is a clear and plenary power enumerated should only be applied to those powers specifically enumerated. This I believe is the "silver-lining" along with another point made in another thread regarding the taxation angle. How is one taxed by not engaging in an activity?

Sounds like another suit needs to be filed.
So that the SCOTUS can address that specific angle.

Originally posted by LightsideAssassin
This is just the beginning.Now that they got away with mandating healthcare, they'll begin adding things they can make you buy. Every corporation is salivating at the thought of being added to the "mandatory product" list now. Lobbyists will be having a field day making sure "their people" get on said list.

We revolt now, or we will truly be enslaved. There is no other choice.

I understand your reasoning but honestly, they have to now go through the taxation route (one that requires Congress apply taxes to the public for things they wish us to do) because the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause explicitly and effectively handcuffed.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court handed the People an opportunity if they have the fortitude to act upon it. Congress now has the challenge to keep their seats while explaining to their constituents why they are taxed for not engaging in an activity or commerce.

Maybe now we can see some people see the odious nature in which politicians have acted and begin the long journey of replacing them.

reply to post by jimmyx

if you already have health insurance with a private company, you do not get "taxed"...nobody is forcing you to get it, if you already have it...so what does this have to do with the "founding documents" and "rights"? what freedom are you losing?

Absolutely correct.
Citizens will be taxed for not complying with the government's wishes.

Sounds a lot like a penalty.... Doesn't it?

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop

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)

A lot of people don't understand the same thing...and that's one of the saddest facts about certain people in this country.

The reason is actually quite simple, if you're really open to the "why" and it's that Auto Insurance being mandated *IF* you want to own and drive a car. If you don't want to pay for it, simply don't own an automobile...millions of people don't and live their lives quite happily.

In order to get out of this taxation, one must die. That's it. Die. Or "not make enough money" which, unless i've missed it, hasn't been described in detail yet...or I guess we could just vote his ass out of office in a few months.

Which will happen. As Justice Roberts said in his comments (or alluded to, at least) vote him out. Vote him out. Vote him out. Vote him out.

in order to, as you put it, "get out of taxation" simply buy your own private health insurance...why is this so hard to understand?

reply to post by jimmyx


Interestingly when we were dissecting the Obamacare and the links to Romney universal care that is not so universal at all we found out the realities of the Mess Romney state is right now due to the cost that is eroding the state budget.

What the Fed and obama did to hide the truth of Romney mess? they bailed out the state to avoid the state from going bankrupted.

Yes, another reality the bill never have anything clause to control cost, people are forced to get insurances and can not even use them because the out of pocket expenses

That is why now Romney is trying to Repeal Obama care and is making it his campaign base because he knows what a failure is.

Still his universal health care in his state was voted by the people not forced by the federal government that is a big difference.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Absolutely correct.
Citizens will be taxed for not complying with the government's wishes.

Sounds a lot like a penalty.... Doesn't it?

My biggest hangup in the opinion really. I do believe the Chief Justice played a bit of chicanery with his tax/penalty explanation. Though it is what it is and it shall be interesting how people will campaign on this:

Side A: Vote for me, I will make sure those in the middle (not too poor and not rich enough) will pay a penalty....err tax....err....assessment for not being engaged in the "shared responsibility" of health-insurance.

Side B: Vote for me and I will repeal the penalty for simply being a citizen and deciding what activity you wish to engage in or not engage in; be it health-insurance or any other non-activity this Government has deemed to be taxed.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by jimmyx

 

if you already have health insurance with a private company, you do not get "taxed"...nobody is forcing you to get it, if you already have it...so what does this have to do with the "founding documents" and "rights"? what freedom are you losing?

Absolutely correct.
Citizens will be taxed for not complying with the government's wishes.

Sounds a lot like a penalty.... Doesn't it?

if you did not have health insurance at all, and you had a serious illness, then i guess you simply want to be left alone to die? is that your thinking? is that what you want for all the rest of us americans?

I am not sure if anyone has asked/mentioned this yet, but isn't a portion of the new healthcare bill unconstitutional? From what I understand, we will be required to send in our medical history to the government, at which time they will add it to their national database (which I find disturbing and creepy). Then a government panel will decide treatment. Doesn't this violate our 5th Amendment, since no "...private property be taken for public use, without just compensation?"

Also, wasn't one of the big selling points of this healthcare bill the fact that preexisting conditions won't limit those trying to obtain health insurance? If we have government panels deciding treatment, won't those preexisting conditions factor in when deciding what kind of treatment we'll be allowed to receive?

Anyway, I am just trying to get clarification on these things, since I am not sure, hence the questions. If anyone could answer those for me, I would be very grateful

Thank you!

Originally posted by jimmyx

if you did not have health insurance at all, and you had a serious illness, then i guess you simply want to be left alone to die? is that your thinking? is that what you want for all the rest of us americans?

THAT freedom to do so has been taken away.

But we had too many of those pesky freedoms didn't we.

Originally posted by jimmyx
in order to, as you put it, "get out of taxation" simply buy your own private health insurance...why is this so hard to understand?

And if one cannot buy their own they will be taxed (unless you fall into whatever flavor-of-the-month "class" of people that will be deemed 'exempt' of course). Taxed for living and deciding what activities you wish to not be involved in.

Politics is a "shared responsibility" -- should we also tax those who do not contribute to a campaign? Or volunteer their time back to the Government? Maybe we can tax those who don't want to be part of the "shared responsibility" of the National Debt and are not buying T-Bills.

i find the statements ..'if you have health insurance already this doesnt affect you/me' and 'just go BUY health insurance and you wont be taxed' absolutly ridiculous..... the point is that you have no choice in the matter..BUY it be TAXED/PENALIZED.

me me me me me me me......obamacare is about forcing private companies to accept things they didnt want (even tho this is a big boon for the insurance industry..the govt is still forcing private companies to engage in something..which opens up another arguement) abd force the people to buy something they may not need or be taxed for not engaging in the 'commerce' .

yes there are those that are not covered because of circumstance..but alot of those not covered by health insurance choose not to..or just havent gone to thier local county and applied for whatever reason.

and what is going to happen to the state of 'alternative medicine'?

me me me me me me me me me me me ........

What happens to the "Notch" people that will be created ?


You know, those who won't "qualify" for Medicaid and who don't get employer insurance,
And won't be able to afford the exchange rates.
(probably because they are part time).


Is there some kind of financial "help" provided in ObamaCare ?
(section ?)

And, where does the money come from for the "help" ?

Originally posted by xuenchen
What happens to the "Notch" people that will be created ?


You know, those who won't "qualify" for Medicaid and who don't get employer insurance,
And won't be able to afford the exchange rates.
(probably because they are part time).


Is there some kind of financial "help" provided in ObamaCare ?
(section ?)

And, where does the money come from for the "help" ?

Taxation for other than the enumerated responsibilities of the Government is nothing more than votes, power and keeping that power. Congress can create and dictate what groups are part of the "niche" and exempt them at will; or remove that exemption just the same.

Originally posted by xuenchen
What happens to the "Notch" people that will be created ?


You know, those who won't "qualify" for Medicaid and who don't get employer insurance,
And won't be able to afford the exchange rates.
(probably because they are part time).


Is there some kind of financial "help" provided in ObamaCare ?
(section ?)

And, where does the money come from for the "help" ?

OOOH OOOH!
I know this one.
The notch people will be used as the reason for implementation of their next change to the healthcare system.
Maybe Universal Single Payer?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Can it provide the actual defining and restricting of the Commerce Clause? I hope.
Wishful thinking, maybe sort of?

reply to post by butcherguy


Any company that has more than 50 employees will be required to provide healthcare insurance. Does that mean even part-time people will have access to healthcare insurance under their place of employment?

What happens to those healthcare plans for those who bought it because they can't afford real insurance, like CareNow plan for people who visit the clinic?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


SCOTUS? Never heard it, but I love it!!!!

My interpretation of this is that they can compel us to pay a "tax" but they can't make us get health insurance. That is exactly what it says. If the tax is cheaper than the health insurance, how many people do you think will opt for the health insurance? They're more interested in tattoos, iPhones and the Warped Tour.

Secondly, the purpose of the bill is to provide a subsidy to help pay health insurance premiums for those who can't afford them. That's great it you're already doing well but what about those who are scraping by? Let me illustrate:

I have a $3000/Yr Family deductible or $1500 per person (my wife and me). I recently made a trip to the ER. A chest x-ray was billed at $500, the ER visit was at least another $500. I paid a $150 co-pay out of pocket.

Now, because I haven't met my deductible for the year, I have to pick up the balance as well. How many people who need help paying their premium are going to be able to afford those costs? If they had the $1000 laying around, they likely wouldn't be one of the people walking into the ER without insurance and letting the hospital eat the cost, the way it is now.

And by the way, my insurance policy is somewhat typical. It's not a top-tier policy, but one step below. If anybody thinks they'll get a policy that gives them carte blanche at their local hospital, they are in for a surprise...if it's a private insurance company.

Remember, the "tax" is to susbsidize the cost of insurance premiums, NOT to give a way free healthcare for all. You will get a policy that is likely less expensive than the one I have. Those trips to the ER that are weighing down the hospitals now will still go un-paid by the state dependents.

This isn't a victory for Obama by any stretch of the imagination. All it did was impose a tax. It DOES NOT compel ANYBODY to get insurance. That falls under the Commerce Clause and IS unconstitutional. This was a slap in the face to Obama for showing disrespect to the SC after the campaign finance ruling a few years ago. You Obama-bots have been PWNED.

Originally posted by jimmyx


if you already have health insurance with a private company, you do not get "taxed"...nobody is forcing you to get it,

The law states that if i don't have it, I MUST buy it. So just because it does not affect me today, does not mean it does not affect me tomorrow. I am forced to either have Health Insurance or be taxed.
Sounds about as FORCED as you can get.

Originally posted by jimmyx.so what does this have to do with the "founding documents" and "rights"? what freedom are you losing?

The Freedom to choose not to have/purchase Health Insurance. This is not a complex thing to comprehend.