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: 70
74
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Not that I'm surprised you are an expert on the subject....you claim to be an expert on everything with personal insider knowledge...
hahahahaha, don't you just love to discount first-hand, work experience.
but yeah, what do i know ??


The fact is that the uninsured are a huge burden on the system. Most people will end up in a hospital at some point in their life...you can't predict your health...which is why it is irresponsible not to have health insurance.
the uninsured have not been near the burden the illegals are or have been but let's make it the "citizens" fault, gottcha.

since i get healthcare for less than $50 per year, why would i have any interest in paying more or being "mandated" to ??




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by mrballistic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


If something would happen to someone who has your philosophy of "I'm healthy, I don't need insurance", then the burden is put on everyone else because of them not having insurance.




How is it a burden on everyone else??

They have always sent me a bill that I was PERSONALLY
responsibile to pay.. If it is a major car accident, same thing
your getting a bill YOU have to pay.. It is all on YOU


It's not all on you...they give you massive discounts so you can pay it yourself...they aren't compenstated at the full rate.

And when people can't pay...which does happen...they just write it off and take the loss.

Because they know this happens often...they raise the prices for everyone else.


Basic economics here.


Wow wish i could find THOSE hospitals...
Write it off? THEY SEND it to a credit agency
and its ALL ON YOU.
Charity hospital in la la land write it off!!

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
edit on 29-6-2012 by mrballistic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrballistic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by mrballistic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


If something would happen to someone who has your philosophy of "I'm healthy, I don't need insurance", then the burden is put on everyone else because of them not having insurance.




How is it a burden on everyone else??

They have always sent me a bill that I was PERSONALLY
responsibile to pay.. If it is a major car accident, same thing
your getting a bill YOU have to pay.. It is all on YOU


It's not all on you...they give you massive discounts so you can pay it yourself...they aren't compenstated at the full rate.

And when people can't pay...which does happen...they just write it off and take the loss.

Because they know this happens often...they raise the prices for everyone else.


Basic economics here.


Wow wish i could find THOSE hospitals...
Write it off? THEY SEND it to a credit agency
and its ALL ON YOU.
Charity hospital in la la land write it off!!

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
edit on 29-6-2012 by mrballistic because: (no reason given)

This is true, but true within the realm of ILLEGALS using the system, and not paying, go figure huh?

How it works. The Hospital will try to collect payment. If they can't, say for a $1000 bill, they will sell that bill to a collection agency at a discount.
Now, the Collection agency will go to collect.

But, with the ILLEGALS doing this, the collection agencies won't buy the bill, because they can't go after an ILLEGAL, unless of course the ILLEGAL used a fraudulent SSN. This is where the Hospital has to write it off, from their taxes.
So, how about this, since I believe in freedom of choice ( a far cry from Outkast's persuasion). If the Hospital wants to gamble on providing care to the ILLEGAL, go for it. Be humane and all, but no writing the debt off.
If the Hospital wants to remain in the black and open, then deny ILLEGALS treatment.

The ILLEGAL should not be here in the first place. Let them go back to their Country of Origin and get treatment.


The Hospitals that are closing, are not closing due to US citizens not paying. They are closing due to ILLEGALS.


And the whole argument of US citizens skipping out on the bill, so long as the Bankruptcy laws stand, as they were revised recently, the person is still liable for the bill. They will have to do payments, have property seized and auctioned and so on.
Their debt is not my burden.


But, lets not loose track of the OP. The ACA is a scam. It was, as presented numerous times by 0bama and company as NOT A TAX. There are speeches given about this not being a tax. But the SCOTUS, in Robert's write up on it, upheld it, due to Robert's stating it was incorrectly called a Mandate and that it is a Tax, therefore Congress can push it through.

It is not really a tax, as pointed out by OS. The Law states "Thou shall purchase Health INSURANCE". This does not guarantee Health Care.
Then, "If thou does not buy Health INSURANCE, thou shall be punished via a TAX".
So, you, as the individual loose the right NOT to have Insurance. But, OS will state you have a choice, and the choice is to pay the TAXor buy Insurance.
Wonderful, isn't it? Forced to do what's best for you, by the Fed Govt. And the individual, for the most part had no say in it.

But, the people that can't afford it, well, those people don't have to buy Insurance, nor be taxed. The Other people, the ones already paying for either, will carry your burden, via..............TAXES.

And, now since the Insurance companies are forced to insure all, their costs will go up as well.

What a wonderful, and humane law to pass. Force people to pay money either to the Govt as a Tax or to the Health insurance Companies as a product you must have.



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



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If you truly can't afford health insurance, this bill will give you assistance.


As I have stated, I cannot afford insurance, my employer doesn't provide it, and I make too much to qualify for medicaid. I don't want government provided insurance. I always believed that if I couldn't buy a product like insurance myself, I would be willing to accept the risks of not being able to seek medical care.

I have no problem accepting the fact that I may decrease my lifespan, or even die. I don't even mind the idea of having to die slowly at home with cancer or renal failure etc. My family knows this.

Under Obamacare and this tax, I am not free to do that. I now have to pay a punishment tax, that does not go to my benefit at all.

A pox on all our leaders.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by R3KR
America is becoming like Greece.
We are so fkd if we do not vote obama out in Nov!


The day Reagan warned us about has finally arrived.


Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."


Freedom is officially dead!

Thanks Obama!

Thanks SCOTUS!

Thanks Congress!






Exactly, and who gives a crap? We do, but we are not everyone in AMERICA!!! These 50 union states of America. Freedom IS free, we MUST take it back, by force if necessary!! And being as the "U.S." is a corporation, they have violated all laws of Mankind. Fraud and extortion being the biggest!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
Our president and repersentatives have effectively broken the best healthsystem in the world


You are out of your mind. You started to make a little sense until this train wreck of a thought.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Welcome to the welfare/nanny/socialist/fascist states of the union... We won't be called "Republic of the United States" anymore soon anough...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

just how in hades name is it gonna make health insurance more affordable to us all?? and please consider just how many we have unemployed, underemployed, and earning crap wages!!!

I bet the only way it will make the insurance cheaper if the insurance companies pay less and less on the claims and have much higher deductibles!!!

I'm gonna start scanning the news, looking, I'd almost be wiling to be that we will be reading about the big name insurance company ceo's and upper management getting higher salaries and bigger bonuses while at about the same time, we will start hearing about how the premiums need to be raised higher!!!
and this time they can raise it as high as the like, unless I am misinformed and there is something in that bill that can prevent them from doing it!!! and we will all have to pay it (even if the gov't subsidizes some of those who are less fortunate and not able to, the taxpayer will be picking up the tab), unless of course, we want to be slapped with more taxes, which if we can't pay well we will have the irs to contend with and possibly jail??

a kind of unnerving thing happened this year when we had to renew our insurance at work, our old company was too expensive so the company went through another company and the nice lady was there telling us about the policy.. she was really quite ademant that all those free screenings and such that they offered should be taken advantage of... very, very adament about it!! to the point where I left wondering if they would be denying coverage or something if I didn't do it???

I know I have a problem with bone density, that's why I make sure I eat as much calcium as I can. I tried the pills that they want me to take and quite frankly, they tear up my stomach. which, ya, I could go back to the doctor and he could prescribe an antacid, but then, they will cause the bones to deteriorate more....
I would rather not thank you!! just let me have my chocolate milk, my cheese, occasional broccolli and such without a hassle. and this lady made me wonder, if I would have the right to refuse such treatments....

could we be heading to a point where they've made us legally their human guinea pigs?? I am quite serious here.

I don't trust the gov't anymore, and I don't trust the healthcare industry, and the insurance industry is just one big ponzi scheme in my book. I am not gonna forfeit my right to decide weather or not the treatment that the doctor choses is right or not!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Supreme Court = 9 judges supposedly of high reasoning. So ,why do they come to so many 5-4 decisions? Obviously 4 of them are basing their decision on something other than reason, maybe we should just go to a coin toss.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow

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?


We have no presumed right to drive a vehicle (keep in mind that anyone can own one), it is a privledge, and therefore open to restrictions. Are we next goint to suggest that we have no right to live, that it is a privledge, and therefore open to restriction? That is the begining of a slippery slope that will eventually render the Bill of Rights obsolete. This is a sad day for our nation. We can celebrate Dependence Day with mandated blood drives and colonoscopies. No more fire works, just the deafening cries of grown men crying.


Misinformed.

Evidence presented for correction:

Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.



"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.



"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.


What does the US Supreme Court say?

"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.



"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Let the flood gates open with the facts:


"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.


Traveling in an auto, whether you operate the wheel /peddles or not, is a legitimate right of all citizens. No one's method of transportation can be restricted unless it is for PROFIT.


"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.


I should just hold back now.

Google the sources listed in the quotes!!!


"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.


This place complies all of these references :
Hard truth about driver licences.

Me? I usually read the law when I want to know what the law is.
Instead of making it up and passing on what the ignorant folks told me they thought it was.

What will work in court? Precedent and case law? Or an opinion?
That's up to you.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Blasphemy!
That is all I have to say... now I will spit on this POS document as soon as I print it out.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Blasphemy!
That is all I have to say... now I will spit on this POS document as soon as I print it out.


Which document are you going to spit on?

The Constitution???

That is the one that gave the SCOTUS the authority to make this decision.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia

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)


did you forget that owning a car is a privilege?
edit on 29-6-2012 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)


Owning a car is not a privilege! Good lord and I have to digress because this is completely off-topic.


If owning a car is not a privilege then why doesn't everyone own one?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia

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)


did you forget that owning a car is a privilege?
edit on 29-6-2012 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)


Owning a car is not a privilege! Good lord and I have to digress because this is completely off-topic.


If owning a car is not a privilege then why doesn't everyone own one? I think you are losing scope of the issue.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
ha..affordable healthcare act....i assume the prices charged at hospitals will now become affordable?? and the 'supporters' of this 'act' dont seem to fathom the precident it sets...in 3-5 years (i geuss i better state this for the cheap seats..'my opinion only') im sure there will be some type of tax on not engaging in something or not buying something...and of course it will be enacted.. the sheople have a huge case of memory loss...time is on the govts side..

affordable.....my employer has already warned us that increases in our premiums/deductables are coming this fall....i can feel the afordability already



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Now that it has been declared constitutional the cost has magically gone from 600 billion to 1.7 trillion...And we haven't even started day one yet...0o



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Hey, if you prefer fantasy over reality, that's your choice. Hell, it was your words.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by macman
 


Welcome to the welfare/nanny/socialist/fascist states of the union... We won't be called "Republic of the United States" anymore soon anough...


We are not called that now.
You sound just like the GOP when Social Security was passed. Look how that destroyed our country.


If you think having to pay for healthcare is a welfare/nanny/socialist state then what do you call having to pay men with guns to kill strangers because those men with guns told you those strangers wanted to hurt you?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Like hell I do.

I pay NO premiums, neither high, low, nor median. Nor do I pay my visits to corporate butcher shops with the big red crosses on the roofs. You can do as you please, but you can bet your last dollar that I won't be participating in your lotto, nor will I be paying any "tax" for the privilege of breathing.

This ruling changes nothing for me. I'll still go down swinging against Obamacare.





You had a natural birth at home? Daddy do the snipping? Who gave you your shots as a kid. I thought you were some kind of military? Maybe a wannabe? How do you plan on ending your life? Dying quietly at home? You will never get hit by a bus? You will not fall unconscious and be taken to a hospital? Can we make up a little contract? What do you suppose we do with you if something like that should happen?
Lotsa questions fer ya.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join