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

Originally posted by butcherguy
Taxpayers giving them some money to pay is hardly 'chipping in for themselves', it is us paying their way.

Your argument is the same as saying it is not a tax and then it is a tax.... They are chipping in because we give them the money to chip in....see how it all works....lol

This is why I'm suggesting that 50% will pay nothing and maybe even make money off the deal. 20% will pay almost nothing, 5% will not care and do their own thing and so that leaves 25% who will not get anything and will feel the biggest pain.

The money needs to come from somewhere, and so the top 30% will pay as it has always done since forever, that doesn't change.

The bill will be 5k per American, so if 50% of households don't pay anything that means the upper 50% will need to cover that part too.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

The entire bill isn't magically converted into a revenue bill...one part of the bill was upheld Constitutional because it is a tax, and always was a tax.

If enforcement of the mandate was, as you say, always a tax please answer me this:

Why did the Supreme Court take the case?

A tax must be fully enacted before it is allowed to be brought before the SCOTUS.

Did the POTUS lie?

edit on 30-6-2012 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2012 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)

Outkast Searcher, I see you completely ignored my question. Too hard for you to answer?

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu
Two questions, keeping in mind that I AM "the uninsured":

1) How, exactly, are you "paying for"me? If you can be convincing and specific enough, maybe I'll have to send you a refund, eh?

When someone with no insurance gets cancer, is hit by a truck, suffers a heart attack, who do you think picks up the tab?

Don't know, don't care. It's not me. If it's you, maybe you ought to look after that. That still doesn't answer my question - how exactly are YOU paying for ME?

2) What is it about this legislation that makes you think it will "make sure" that I do anything differently from the way I do things already?

Nothing can make you stop being a freeloader who fails to contribute to the society he benefits from.

Says the guy who knows nothing about me or what I do, or how I live. We're not talking about your "society" here - we're talking about insurance and health care. You seem to have slipped off the track.

Extra credit question: Are you able, ever, to reply to someone without attempts at condescension and name-calling?

What name did I call you?

We can start out with "freeloader". Especially amusing considering you know nothing about me. Precisely where do you believe I am "freeloading"? What exactly am I taking that I'm not paying for from your "society"?

Here is a question for you. Do you think you should only pay for firemen and police when you yourself actually use them?

I don't use them at all, but I DO pay for them. Someone has to keep folks like you safe at night, and I can't be everywhere at once.

Originally posted by THEDUDE86
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

recessions don't last forever...so based on your logic this will be pretty good once the economy goes forward

I believe this will drive down medical cost, as it has in Massachusetts

? It has...... Not in the MA I live in?

What happens here in MA,

You file taxes and if you do not have your letter and number from your insurer you get a tax penalty of around $350 per year. My health insurance has done nothing but up year after year even with this plan in place. The insurance has climbed so high that our employer chose a plan with a $1000 deductible should you need surgery. They kick back $500 to us employees.


If you believe this plan will lower your taxe, insurance rates or anything else your way out of touch.....


here is a link that if you take the time to browse you find that subsidized health care costs in MA actually double from 2006-2011.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by habitforming


hmmmm...i didnt see the word 'blame' in my post..............i did see the word 'complain' tho. but is a reasonable assumtion that i would be 'blaming' barrycare for the possible rise in premiums or the possible nixing of 'cadilac' programs...and as i think about it, its the insurance companies that are to blame for any premium increases or dropping of programs..whatever thier reasoning may be.


(end of reply)

on the subject that was being discussed a couple of pages ago and was the main point of my post back then.....justice kagan and her possble conflict of interest or 'recue' herself.........so is makeing no comment about wheather or not one said or didnt say anything on a subject..the same has ADMITTING that one did or didnt not say anything on a subject? personal i dont think it is and i think the administration is hiding it......... that said i would just assume that by not 'rescueing' herself, she is admitting that she made no comments during her time as solicitor general about the healthcare reform cases at the time...what does everybody think?

reply to post by Classified Info
oh please, more of this nonsense ??
yes, the package sold and passed as a Healthcare mandate w/penalties.
it was specifically shot down when claimed to be a tax.
we, nor our Representatives, voted or supported a new TAX.
nice try.

taxation without representation is not valid.

as for the recusal, see above posts ... March 2012 and Feb 2011 ... Justice Kagan is a disgrace to the concept of the Supreme Court and she should be sanctioned.

Justice Roberts can offer his opinion to bypass the rules but that doesn't make it proper procedure or legal for that matter.

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu
reply to post by Classified Info

 

What do they do with people who are in auto accidents and severely injured if they don't accept medical help? Just wondering. The Amish don't use cars (or they didn't used to). Scientologists do. What's the hospital policy? Kill them? Let them die on a stretcher somewhere without care? Do they let the family take the mangled person home to let them die?

since this is a "trick" question, let's answer from the beginning ...

What do they do with people who are in auto accidents and severely injured if they don't accept medical help?

which "they" ? what does whom do with them ??
if the injured refuses transportation, the hospital doesn't encounter them.
if they refuse treatment at the hospital, several options remain.

Let them die on a stretcher somewhere without care?

if they were not transported to the hospital, they are not dying on a stretcher somewhere without care.

Do they let the family take the mangled person home to let them die?

again, this depends on "whom", the responding officers can "Baker Act" the party if necessary. The responding EMTs have the authority to act on your behalf if you are unconscious. Passengers or family or by-standers can remove you from the scene if you refuse any treatment and are not detained by authorities.

odd thing about this question is ... your adjective ... "severely" injured.
isn't that rather subjective? what defines severe?
conscious or unconscious? active bleeding, exposed bone, head trauma, whiplash, partial amputation?
if i am not unconscious, it isn't any medical person(s) or beaurocrat(s) decision to make, period.

reply to post by Xcathdra


kudos

thanks for posting this, i didn't figure OutKast would bother looking or following-through.
i listened intently to those hearings.
the arrogance in her responses is still resounding in my head.
i knew then that this day would come and here we are.

Originally posted by clearmind
that said i would just assume that by not 'rescueing' herself, she is admitting that she made no comments during her time as solicitor general about the healthcare reform cases at the time...what does everybody think?

I think as Solicator General when Obamacare was challenged in court she advised on the topic.
I think as Solicator General when AZ SB1070 was challenged she advised on the topic.

By her own admission she ststaed there were cases coming to the Supreme Court she had involvement in.

I think by the DOJ refusing to release records that she advised on Obamacare as SG. If not there is no reason not to release the information.

I find it less than coincidental that during her confirmation hearings she used the term substantive involvement, which is the exact same language used by the DOJ in their response to the FOIA request.

I find it suspect she would recuse herself for AZ SB1070, which without her participation the expected outcome was the court would strike it down. I find it suspect she did not recuse herself for Healthcare because the court was divided and relied on a swing vote. Had she recused herself and a tie ensued the ruling by the 11th circuit would stand, invalidating the entire Obamacare bill.

I think her non recusal was planned to ensure the best possible outcome for the healthcare law.

reply to post by Xcathdra

more deserving kudos and at this point,

Why is the DOJ hiding her involvement if it was not substantial?

i'm leaning towards practice ??

between Pelosi, Rangel, Holder and a slew of others, is it any wonder that members of the top echelon have been bailing from this administration by the boatloads ??

Originally posted by nenothtu
Don't know, don't care. It's not me. If it's you, maybe you ought to look after that. That still doesn't answer my question - how exactly are YOU paying for ME?

We already had this dance. This is where I asked if you were born at home and dad did all the medical work. I also asked if you were ever in the US military. I asked if you got your shots as a kid. You ignored my questions but not me.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

That's your job...you make the claim...you back it up. You don't ask everyone else to go prove your own claim.

nice try dear but, history is just that, history.

i did not request or need you to prove my fact, i suggested you discover it for yourself.
You do your homework, i've already done mine.

the reason i didn't post it is because i am not your secretary, teacher, errand-boy or slave.
you want the information, go get it, it's out there.
it is your duty to expand your knowledge, not mine.

XCathdra seems to have found and shared it just fine, (thank you) so why are you complaining to me?

"made it up in my head" ?? -- yeah, the day she said it at the Congressional hearings
[i was tuned in and paying attention, were you ??]

i always admit when i'm wrong so you keep trying

soooo, are you picking at the words "she promised" or "she testified under oath" ??
to claim "I will" under oath (as she did), generally = a promise, but perhaps you see it differently.

actually, i already knew about Thomas' wife but hadn't (still haven't) looked at all of the USSC opinions in the matter. [which would include their vote - concur/dissent]
and with regard to Thomas' opinion, i ASKED and as usual, you attack

ETA: btw, regarding Thomas' recusal - it is not as cut and dry as Kagan's issues.
Thomas probably should have on "ethical" grounds (spirit). Kagan agreed to on procedural grounds (function), there is a clear difference.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Do you think the DOJ should be investigated for violating the FOIA law since their refusal to release documents come no where close to the exemptions for national security in place?

ABSOLUTELY and i'm wondering if there is a time limiting statute regarding such action.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Funny...I don't see her mention the ACA specifically in there anywhere.

funny that you would think she should.
she wasn't confirmed, she had no case before her, how could she be that specific ??

i see you're avoiding the fact that she alluded to 10 potential cases of "conflict" AND the fact that she did recuse herself just 3 days earlier regarding the immigration decision.

and, i never said anything about ACA specifically either, i said "conflict of interest".

Now that's odd...because that's what I asked for.

so, why are you now demanding proof of your fantasies ??

reply to post by clearmind

so is makeing no comment about wheather or not one said or didnt say anything on a subject..the same has ADMITTING that one did or didnt not say anything on a subject?

not necessarily, however, withholding ALL documents relating to the speculation of impropriety is extremely indicative of guilt and in this case, could encompass unlawful execution of her duties on the Court.
(because of her position as SG during the lower court challenges), she could reasonably be perceived guilty until proven innocent.

and, she is blissfully showing her blatant disregard for everything she swore to uphold.

i would just assume that by not 'rescueing' herself, she is admitting that she made no comments during her time as solicitor general about the healthcare reform cases at the time...what does everybody think?

this ^^^^ is more than assumption, it's likely.

by rendering opinion, she has indicated that no "conflict" exists.
IF such conflict can be proven [even with DOJ running interference] - more than this decision would be in jeopardy.
considering she may have violated both procedure and law by not recusing herself, she may not even be able to hide behind the 5th at this point.

since it is www.statesman.com...reported that she has recused herself from 25 of the 51 cases on the current USSC docket, why NOT this one ??
there have been plenty of lower court challenges since Congress passed it.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by nenothtu
Don't know, don't care. It's not me. If it's you, maybe you ought to look after that. That still doesn't answer my question - how exactly are YOU paying for ME?

We already had this dance. This is where I asked if you were born at home and dad did all the medical work. I also asked if you were ever in the US military. I asked if you got your shots as a kid. You ignored my questions but not me.

I didn't ignore those questions. I answered them right here. that was over two days ago, and answered in a timely manner.

You must have missed the response - or just skipped it.

Sort of like you are doing right now with MY questions.

WHO is ignoring WHOSE questions?

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by LastProphet527

 

I dont think you understand what Charity is . It isnt Charity if your forced to give it ......

------------

The Charity of the Bible is that the Lord will provide and to let the person in need come into your field and pick the fruit he needs himself and then leave , not for me to do it for him.

edit on 28-6-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

So how does one pick their own fruit if you have stolen all the fruit trees? Let me guess you're a “Teavangelical?” Do you realize white southern evangelicals interpret the Bible through the purism of druid values handed down through the generation by their ancestors which is a value system almost identical to a Babylonian value system that is extremely narcissistic and monopolistic of resources and opportunity?

Ride the back of the beast! That's what you and your ilk are doing.

I just took a quiz that was put together by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

I, like many, have not read the entire law, but I did answer 9 of the 10 questions correctly.

ETA: Those ten questions can't adequately cover such an encompassing law, but it does give a person an idea of what they know about those ten things

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

It has always been roughly 50/50 for those who supported/opposed. Recently that opposed percent has gone up due to Republican propaganda about the mandate being Unconstitutional. Well the SCOTUS decided that for them...so I suspect the percent of those that oppose this will go down.

No.

SCOTUS ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. What they have ruled to be constitutional is the levying of a new tax. The mandate was forcing purchase via the interstate commerce clause. Now there is no mandate to purchse, but a big stick tax to beat us with if we choose not to. we can still make that choice - there is no provision to enforce the mandate under interstate commerce.

If it goes back to being a "not tax" but a mandate instead as it was first billed and insisted to be the case by Dear Leader himself in order to sell it, then it becomes unconstitutional again.

Bait and switch, anyone?

edit on 2012/6/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

Why is no one else realizing this?
Plus, now this just adds to the massive heap of lies that 0bama has promoted over 4 years.
And how is it that Liberals are not rioting in the streets? You are forced to purchase health Insurance.
I thought you guys were against Big Corps taking advantage of the little people.