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: 66
74
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Because the government shouldn't be forcing its people to purchase something they might not want.

WHAT IS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?

You don't get it? Why people are upset?

Our government is forcing us to buy something we don't want and then penalizing us if we don't?




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by axslinger
 


well said

i have a similar deductable....thats aloooooot of money out of pocket..whos gunna help us out? ha ha apparently just the fact that one is employed and has employer healthcare coverage means that our lives are just hunky-doory



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by toriacee
 



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?


The section below makes the "guarantee" to be able to get insurance.
But it looks like there is no "guarantee" of specific treatments or how much the insurance will cost you !!!
It could be some where else, but I think that's where the HHS has broad and wide discretion.
(like "mini" dictatorships ?)
That may be the "catch".


Page 46 (effective 1/1/2014) ?

Sec. 1201\2702 PHSA PPACA (Consolidated) 46
‘‘SEC. 2701 ø42 U.S.C. 300gg¿. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
‘‘(a) PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PREMIUM RATES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the premium rate
charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage
offered in the individual or small group market—
‘‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved only by—
‘‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual
or family;
‘‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with
paragraph (2);
‘‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by
more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section
2707(c)); and
‘‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not
vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
‘‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular
plan or coverage involved by any other factor not
described in subparagraph (A).
‘‘(2) RATING AREA.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall establish 1 or
more rating areas within that State for purposes of applying
the requirements of this title.
‘‘(B) SECRETARIAL REVIEW.—The Secretary shall review
the rating areas established by each State under subparagraph
(A) to ensure the adequacy of such areas for purposes
of carrying out the requirements of this title. If the
Secretary determines a State’s rating areas are not adequate,
or that a State does not establish such areas, the
Secretary may establish rating areas for that State.
‘‘(3) PERMISSIBLE AGE BANDS.—The Secretary, in consultation
with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners,
shall define the permissible age bands for rating purposes
under paragraph (1)(A)(iii).
‘‘(4) APPLICATION OF VARIATIONS BASED ON AGE OR TOBACCO
USE.—With respect to family coverage under a group
health plan or health insurance coverage, the rating variations
permitted under clauses (iii) and (iv) of paragraph (1)(A) shall
be applied based on the portion of the premium that is attributable
to each family member covered under the plan or coverage.
‘‘(5) SPECIAL RULE FOR LARGE GROUP MARKET.—øAs revised
by section 10103(a)¿ If a State permits health insurance
issuers that offer coverage in the large group market in the
State to offer such coverage through the State Exchange (as
provided for under section 1312(f)(2)(B) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act), the provisions of this subsection
shall apply to all coverage offered in such market (other than
self-insured group health plans offered in such market) in the
State.

COMPILATION OF PATIENT PROTECTION
AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT



Can anyone explain what a "RATING AREA" is ?

Is it geographical or an "age pool" ?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Ich bin ein Amerikana! Might as well get used to phrases like that, because what just happened, and what is being done to our nation is nothing short of Germany circa 1920s/30s. Our founding fathers would be PISSED!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post 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?

What do you care about my business?

Why am I responsible for anyone's (other than my family) health?

ETA: How about you worry about whoever you want to, but don't make it my responsibility to worry about whoever YOU want me to?

edit on 29-6-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


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


Here is the defining and restriction of the Commerce Clause:

The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity.


Other notables from the slip from C.J. Roberts:

They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.



The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.



Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are
doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
It is time to energize everyone who opposes the government giving some faceless, nameless bureaucrat with no medical knowledge, just a cost analysis sheet of if you are worth it or not, the power to decide if you get treatment or not.

I lived in Europe for many years. Socialized medicine is great if you have the cold or flu, but if you are old, infirm, or get a life threatening illness, forget it. You are more likely to die before you get your turn in line at treatment. You only get treatment in time if the bureaucrat thinks you are still of any value to society, otherwise you are placed on "wait lists" which are really "death watch lists".

WHAT CAN PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE OBAMACARE AND ALL IT REPRESENTS DO?:

Get out and vote! Drive people who believe as you do to the polls if they can't drive! Organize voting parties.
Make YouTube videos mocking what will happen as a result of Obamacare. Make them funny/poignant. Start and participate in challenging blogs stating your beliefs and encouraging like minded people to vote.

Act defeated around your liberal friends and reassure them that the Supreme court victory means BO will be re elected, Help them be complacent and feel so confident in victory they stay home.

Take your iPhones to the polls, record and post on YouTube any and all instances of voter fraud you see before the video is confiscated.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T DO NOTHING - DO SOMETHING!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by axslinger
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.


Chief Justice Roberts says exactly that. "The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,..." but "The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

It is just now Congress has to sell a new tax (and possibly future taxes) upon the People. Good luck with that one.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
ARE YOU UPSET ABOUT THE RULING?

Whatever you do, don't try and convince your liberal friends to your point of view. Read the posts here, it won't work. The best tactic is to act humble and defeated around those who aren't going to change their minds.

Let hard core liberals think they have won. Tell them you give up and are staying home from voting. Give them every impression that Obama is a shoe in and sure to be re-elected. The more we act like that around liberals the more likely they will stay home on election day. They will talk to their friends and laugh at your defeatist attitude, yes, let them. We must now strive to make them feel superior and that they will win. That will ensure at least some of them will stay home, not vote, fat and secure they will win, until it is too late and the polls close.

It is only the like minded and those who have an open mind that you need to energize to get out and vote. We MUST secretly and quietly energize so many people that we have an army of voters who are silent but deadly.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Thank you for your response. It could certainly be the "catch." I would also like an explanation of the "rating area."

Amazing how it doesn't seem anyone truly knows everything that is in this bill. After all, wasn't it Pelosi who said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Scary...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Reply to post by grandmakdw
 


"Socialized medicine" & "death panels"
Really?
You're only up to that? That's sooooooo 2010.
There's actually 60 pages preceding your post which clearly show why this is not socialized.
Death Panels? No comment.
Why are there only a few who dislike the mandate, but aren't spouting outright lies concerning what the ACA does? Is it so commonplace now to make up hyperbole when you disagree with something?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I know, I'm jumping in here late; but, I am NOT about to read 86 pages. I do have the Obamacare Q & A thread in another tab, so perhaps my question will be explained over there. Here goes:

Didn't the 'original' Obamacare have something about non-Americans (illegal, legal, documented, undocumented, what ever the correct PC flavor is this month) also being covered? I was wondering how they would be, given they are UN-documented. So...

Is this directly, or indirectly(?), tied to the Obama executive order to give 'work visas to the 'il'legal immigrants? This way even the 'il'legals will be paying for medical insurance in way of an IRS penalty?

I was wondering how in the heck we were going to be on the hook for illegals 'legally' being covered under Obamacare. The number of United States citizens paying into the system is finite, illegal immigration is not. The numbers of illegals is an infinite number that is impossible to predict, given our current border situation. So, how does Congress budget for this?

Could this be a playing factor in the newly issued EO on illegals now being legal to work here? It also explains the age bracket, considering the age bracket that Obama included is the age bracket that most of us are healthy and choose not to have health insurance. I mean, how many twenty year olds will actually see any benefits of their annual healthcare premiums paid?

I know that in my twenties, I may have been to the doctor a handful of times. Each time was a flu or something viral. I KNOW that all the office visits, meds, and et.al. did not come close to what I contributed to my employer provided healthcare premiums. I estimated it at about $3600 paid for single person and still paid office copays and rx copays. That would average $36,000 paid for about $450 (at the most) in medical costs.

So, what I'm getting at is this: I figured this Obama plan was always meant to be the way we were going to pay for the baby boomers medical. I mean, why not just come out and say it? Why lie and play hidden ball under sea-shell with my parents and grandparents health? My generation has ALWAYS known that we will have to deal with the retirement of our parents and their medical needs. However, our government believes we are too ignorant to figure it out. So, they dance around the issue, try to sell it to us through our emotions, calling it something else, anything but the truth. Apparently we can't handle the truth! So, this will end up costing us 30% 300%, 3000% (who knows by now....everyone, and everything had their hand in this kitty and they all had to be paid off through this ponzi scheme, wrapped in a brown paper bag and big red bow. TNT written in big red letters on the side.

I'm getting way too off track. Bottom line: Are illegals covered? If so, is it only the 16 - 30 yr olds (or whatever bracket Obama set up) that will be covered? If so, will it be justification for withholding healtchare penalties from their (now legal) checks?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Reply to post by toriacee
 


Itms always been that way. Right now, if you wanted to, you cannot read any bill which yet to be voted on.
Why would the ACA be any different? Why single it out as if it stands alone in that regard?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
I know, I'm jumping in here late; but, I am NOT about to read 86 pages. I do have the Obamacare Q & A thread in another tab, so perhaps my question will be explained over there. Here goes:

Didn't the 'original' Obamacare have something about non-Americans (illegal, legal, documented, undocumented, what ever the correct PC flavor is this month) also being covered? I was wondering how they would be, given they are UN-documented. So...

Is this directly, or indirectly(?), tied to the Obama executive order to give 'work visas to the 'il'legal immigrants? This way even the 'il'legals will be paying for medical insurance in way of an IRS penalty?

I was wondering how in the heck we were going to be on the hook for illegals 'legally' being covered under Obamacare. The number of United States citizens paying into the system is finite, illegal immigration is not. The numbers of illegals is an infinite number that is impossible to predict, given our current border situation. So, how does Congress budget for this?

Could this be a playing factor in the newly issued EO on illegals now being legal to work here? It also explains the age bracket, considering the age bracket that Obama included is the age bracket that most of us are healthy and choose not to have health insurance. I mean, how many twenty year olds will actually see any benefits of their annual healthcare premiums paid?

I know that in my twenties, I may have been to the doctor a handful of times. Each time was a flu or something viral. I KNOW that all the office visits, meds, and et.al. did not come close to what I contributed to my employer provided healthcare premiums. I estimated it at about $3600 paid for single person and still paid office copays and rx copays. That would average $36,000 paid for about $450 (at the most) in medical costs.

So, what I'm getting at is this: I figured this Obama plan was always meant to be the way we were going to pay for the baby boomers medical. I mean, why not just come out and say it? Why lie and play hidden ball under sea-shell with my parents and grandparents health? My generation has ALWAYS known that we will have to deal with the retirement of our parents and their medical needs. However, our government believes we are too ignorant to figure it out. So, they dance around the issue, try to sell it to us through our emotions, calling it something else, anything but the truth. Apparently we can't handle the truth! So, this will end up costing us 30% 300%, 3000% (who knows by now....everyone, and everything had their hand in this kitty and they all had to be paid off through this ponzi scheme, wrapped in a brown paper bag and big red bow. TNT written in big red letters on the side.

I'm getting way too off track. Bottom line: Are illegals covered? If so, is it only the 16 - 30 yr olds (or whatever bracket Obama set up) that will be covered? If so, will it be justification for withholding healtchare penalties from their (now legal) checks?





I have had health insurance for a long time and only used it yearly for annual exams. I never get sick, maybe once every 7 years or so. I am extremely healthy and, although I have health insurance, I am mad about this ruling because it took away my RIGHT not to have it. So, if I decide I can't justify the cost of continuing the plan I can't even cancel it without a penalty from the IRS.

Sorry I don't have an answer about the illegal immigrant question but I just had to say that.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jedimind


I said that if anyone can rebut his arguments then I'm all ears...


It is a strategy often employed.

One half-truth...lie...distortion is quickly pounced on and debunked.

BUT...give a long ramble/laundry list of various half-truths and BS...it requires a few pages of debunking. People have short attention spans and won't read the debunking and the orignal claimant of the BS or poster will simply not respond and move on to new BS.

One lie makes the news....a series of lies lumped together exhausts the listener and demands more work from Honest folks to rebut.

Mitt Romney employs this in his debates and speeches.

Gingrich observing the same about Romney:


"He would say thing after thing after thing that just plain wasn't true," Gingrich said of the former Massachusetts governor in reference to last Thursday debate's on CNN. "I don't know how you debate a person with civility if they're prepared to say things that are just plain factually false. "





After a debate in Florida, Newt Gingrich said Romney gave "the most blatantly dishonest performance by a presidential candidate I've ever seen." Earlier, Rick Santorum said he was "stunned that Mitt Romney does not have the ability to discern something that is blatantly false."


www.cnn.com...


Try this...pick an item you would like me to address...and be prepared to respond...and respond based on cited facts and evidence...and I will respond honestly to anything that he claimed in the laundry list

edit on 29-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by niceguybob

I'm still not sure who is going to pay for this new found wealth of health insurance. The whole thing smells like politics. DUH! Get the votes from illegals,make them citizens,give them health insurance and sign the voter log?
WTF?



Bingo.
This has been my opinion all along. All these illegal aliens or undocumented workers, whatever you want to call them, are being given more and more access to government programs and protection under the law,
I think we can stop wondering why the Democrats are opposed to voter ID laws. They are blatantly buying their loyalty and pandering to them at the expense of the American people.
My grandfather came to the US from Mexico and became a US citizen the old fashioned way. He did everything by the book. I have some relatives who are here legally, some have green cards and some are here illegally. So keep that in mind before anyone decides to call me a racist because of my views on immigration.

The illegals who are allowed to stay and work under Obama's new policy will not be excluded from access to to health care. If they can't afford it, guess who has to pay?
We are going to pay more and get less.

edit on 6/29/2012 by Sparky63 because: spelling always spelling! *&^^%^%@%@$^$%



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Reply to Texasgirl:

I totally get it. I feel the same way. The only reason I had the insurance as a young adult was because my employer provided it. I went many years without it, when I worked as Independent Contractor. I was rolling the dice that I would not need to go the the doctor, but that was my choice to make. During my time of not having insurance, I made lifestyle decisions differently. For instance, I stopped snowboarding when I didn't have insurance. I didn't want to needlessly put myself at a higher risk of injury because I knew I couldn't afford it. I also ate differently and took vitamins, and many other little lifestyle changes.

BTW, I even went years without auto insurance. I was young, could barely afford my auto payment and the insurance was just about as much as the monthly payment. During that time, I was very conscious about driving. I didn't drive after 10pm, since I figured more cops were out. I drove much less and didn't take my normal trips of "driving for the sake of driving." I parked far away from other cars and never ever let anyone drive my car during that time. (I did end up getting caught, got a ticket and a fine that was half of what my monthly insurance rate was. I figured it was worth it, considering I went 3 years of not paying)

Oh, and this is NOTHING like auto insurance. IRS doesn't monitor our car insurance plans. Our employer doesn't withhold our auto insurance payments.

Oh, and another thing...this is NOTHING about people getting medical. This is 100% about people paying for insurance. Just because someone is insured does not guarantee medical treatment. That depends on many factors, one being whether the hospital/clinic/doctor will take your insurance to cover expenses.

So, this is NO WIN for those not insured. It's the opposite. They are no closer to getting medical treatment. In fact, many will argue (and a very valid argument) this mandate will make it harder for them to receive care. No body, NOBODY in the US is turned away for not having insurance. That is against the law. This mandate just made it the law that people can now be turned away! Plus, the mandate puts many more people, issues, red tape, policies, etc, between you and your medical treatment. It will be harder to get care. GUARANTEED!
edit on 29-6-2012 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Normally I would be against this, but *IF* its done right (its government though, so it wont be) if the costs of insurance came down it would be great, currently for me I have to pay $500 a month for cobra insurance, which I wont be eligible for anymore in a month or two, and I cant get hired anywhere full time, and its pretty hard to afford that and living when you only make $20k a year and have to drive 50 miles a day for work with gas at $3.50+ a gallon.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Oh, and this is NOTHING like auto insurance. IRS doesn't monitor our car insurance plans. Our employer doesn't withhold our auto insurance payments.



That's right. The IRS can't seize your house or imprison you because you don't have auto insurance. Stop paying your auto insurance and you stop driving, you walk or take the bus and life goes on.
Stop paying for health insurance and you are now a criminal, subject to the full wrath of the IRS.
Have you ever tried to reason with the IRS? I shudder to think of the massive new bureaucracy of government goons monitoring our health care payments.
Not a pretty site.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23


i think people live where they grow up or where they can find the best possible job after college.


If you think tax rates don't come to mind when people make the decision on whether to move or not, you are very naive.

There is a reason the states with the highest tax rates in the country have seen large amounts of their residents leaving and going to states with much lower tax rates.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join