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.

 

Here is what is REALLY wrong with the SCOTUS ruling

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
While everyone is arguing about "individual mandate" this or "repeal" that I posit that the real damage by this ruling has yet to be identified or discussed.

The real issue with this ruling has nothing to do with "obamacare" but has everything to do with the federal government's ability to compel a person to purchase something under threat of some sort of tax penalty.

This case has not set a precedent at the SCOTUS level that it is OK for the federal government to force people to buy something. Healthcare is just the beginning. It doesn't even matter if Romney wins the next election or the Repubs take over the senate. They can repeal all they like, the precedent is set.

It may be this administration, the next, or the one after that, but somewhere down the line the federal government is going to threaten us with taxation if we don't buy something else.

Perhaps Obama wins the next election and a law is passed, or an executive order written (since he seems to like to do things unilaterally and without the consent of congress) which will require everyone to buy a Chevy Volt (or a car that gets greater than XX mpg) or else face a penalty of N thousands of dollars each and every year until they do.

Perhaps a law will be passed, or executive order written, or EPA regulation created, that says we will have to install solar panels on our houses and if we don't generate YY% of the total power consumed in our homes we will be penalized ZZZ dollars for every watt.

Perhaps we will face penalties for living in certain neighborhoods?

Perhaps we will face penalties for having certain occupations?

Perhaps we will face penalties if we don't eat certain kinds of food (McTax anyone?)


No matter what happens to obamacare over the coming months/years it pales in comparison to the damage the SCOTUS has done to the US this day. They have given the federal government carte blanch to force us to do whatever they want us to do, or else.

Of course, this will only affect those of us who can pay taxes but are not rich enough not to care. The "poor" will effectively be exempted because they have no money with which to pay the tax penalty (same as they are essentially exempted from obamacare). The rich won't care because they are rich and they will just pay whatever or call senator buddy-buddy and get an exemption for themselves. The rest of us, in the middle, who work and diligently pay our taxes are screwed. We will be forced to participate in government mandated stupidity, costing us money and who knows what else, or opt out and be fined, costing us money and who knows what else.

This will continue until we are in the poor house and there is no more middle.

I have no idea what has happened to this country and this ruling effectively nullifies the constitution. God Bless the Former USA.
edit on 28-6-2012 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I agree with you 100% This is just another nail in the coffin of freedom.

First they decided to take our money to run this completely inefficient corrupt Govt.
Then they decided to give our money to other people whether or not they need it, are on drugs, or just lazy.
Now they are telling us what we have to buy.

Sooner or later the Govt. is going to take everyone's money and we will all get an equal monthly allowance, regardless of your occupation or how hard you work.

Except the rich and famous of course.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Here is the next "individual mandate". If Obama wins the next election I predict there will be a law, or order, which will require people to purchase a car that meets the new EPA regulations for 34mpg. If we don't buy one, then we get taxed (penalized) until we are broke, or we buy one, in which case we are probably still broke.

EPA MPG "regulation" (unlawful mandate)

Obama trys to coerce people to buy a Volt

Obama pushes "fuel efficient" cars



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
almost everybody in n.america is forced to buy car insurance.

and that's why you get situations where your quote is worth more than replacing the car.

the same thing will happen in the health insurance business.

they'll offer "avoid the fine" packages that will be priced just a few hundred bucks less than the min. fine and it'll be worth less than the paper it's printed on.

and people will jump over each buying these worthless overpriced insurance packages just to comply with the law.

it'll be like having no insurance at all. it'll probably just cover your doctors visit and have very high, unaffordable deductions.

going back to car insurance. if they made it optional, i can guarantee you, you'd have car insurance companies offer full coverage for $10 a month.

that's because no one would buy it, and fix any car damages themselves much, much cheaper.

but a human life is not something to be treated like a car and it's not something to be sold on the open market.

societies tolerate taxes for these very kind of situations were everybody benefits. why americans can't see that, but tolerate $700 billion bailouts, that only benefit a losing company is hard to rationally explain.


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



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
It isn't just that, (I do agree with everything you said) but think of all the things they can now restrict.

-Cigarettes are bad, if you are a smoker you will pay even more so you either can't afford to smoke, or you will pay xx amount of money on your taxes.
-Alcohol is bad for you, if you drink, see above
-If you are obese, morbidly obese or don't have a gym membership, then see above
-If you take meds made by big pharma, you will pay more on taxes because they cost more

For those of you that think this is ok, see also if you don't drive a vehicle that the government doesn't deem efficient, you will not only pay more at the dealership, more in taxes at the end of the year and more in taxes at the pump.

Food not deemed to have nutritional value will cost more, which will also increase the cost of healthy food.

TV's, stereo's computers any type of equipment that may use energy, if deemed to use more energy than the government feels is excessive, you will pay more.

The government will continue their power grab and legislate through taxation. The White House was worried, or gave the impression they were worried, but now that Obamacare was ruled constitutional, that just gave them all the power to form new taxes and legislation.

Maybe some of you don't agree and think I am reading too much into it, that's fine. Just remember we all have our own opinions, I just ask that we try to stay respectful of others as this is a heated topic and will be easy for any of us to blow up on each other.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 


Oh, it has already started. At least here in California.

I bought a new Challenger a few years ago and had to pay a $1,000 "gas guzzler tax" on top of everything else.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
almost everybody in n.america is forced to buy car insurance.



However, the federal government isn't the one requiring it, the State is. The State is fully within its rights under the Constitution to compel residents of the State to do pretty much whatever their State legislature decides as long as it is aligned with the State's constitution. Car insurance has absolutely nothing to do with the federal government.



societies tolerate taxes for these very kind of situations were everybody benefits. why americans can't see that, but tolerate $700 billion bailouts, that only benefit a losing company is hard to rationally explain.


You are right, except that societies do not levy taxes, governments do. Governments, US included, levy taxes for the "greater good". This is where medicare and medicaid and social security come from. The government takes a part of every paycheck and uses it to fund these programs. The difference is, none of these programs allow the government to compel you to buy something. They are a tax, plain and simple. Not a tax for not purchasing something.

If you were to make an argument for socialized healthcare--meaning a tax on every person to help pay for basic healthcare for the whole--then you and I may agree. However, that is absolutely not what has happened.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
That is basically what I was repeating in the other thread. This decision will open the door up to some very scary things, all of which will lead to the American people loosing their ability to make choices regarding where they spend their money.

Nice to know our freedoms can be tossed aside so easily while our President talks about how great it is on television, a nice little freaking grin on his face. This is a sad day for America.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stinger94
 


You are definitely on the right track. This ruling has completely unshackled the federal government to pretty much do whatever it wants under the guise of taxation and the commerce clause. If the federal government can compel you to buy a commercial product, they can compel you to do anything.

This will lead to abuse of taxation as a penalty in ways that I am sure no one has ever thought of. I can imagine government bureaucrats are right now thinking of new ways to use this tax leverage to coerce behavior out of the masses. This is just the tip of the ice berg.

The even more saddening thing is, it doesn't matter if they are democrat or republican. They will both abuse this new found absolute power.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by Bakatono
 


Oh, it has already started. At least here in California.

I bought a new Challenger a few years ago and had to pay a $1,000 "gas guzzler tax" on top of everything else.


Right, but while it is absurd, california is fully within its rights to do that, because it is a state tax. The thing is, if you don't like the states asinine laws, you can leave. If you don't like the federal governments asinine laws you can....suck it up.

The Constitution doesn't allow the feds to dictate what citizens of the States can or cannot do. It delegates that authority to the States. That is effectively overruled and now the feds are all powerful.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 


As a member of the active duty military, I can not leave California if I don't like it.

I am under contract to be where I am told.

But otherwise yes, I agree with the rest of your post.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


Ah, well then you are hosed until you can PCS. I know how you feel. Unfortunately that contract between you and the feds nullifies a lot of the rights you would otherwise have. Double jeopardy comes to mind (tried in civil court then courts martial upon release back to the military for the same offense, it happens).

I am no knocking military service, by any means; did it myself. I am just agreeing with your point that you don't have any choice in this case.

However, once you do have a choice, you should get the hell out of california. I lived there for a couple years, that place is nuts.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Hey, check this out. Who can argue with the simplicity of this?





posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 


I have to agree, but the Supreme Court side stepped the rule by saying this was a tax. Since the government can levy taxes, they can fully get away with this. I'm wondering if this was a back room deal. Since it was made and signed into law by saying this was most definitely NOT a tax, the supreme court instead of saying the law was unconstitutional, they got skirted the constitution by saying it was a tax.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinger94
reply to post by Bakatono
 


I have to agree, but the Supreme Court side stepped the rule by saying this was a tax. Since the government can levy taxes, they can fully get away with this. I'm wondering if this was a back room deal. Since it was made and signed into law by saying this was most definitely NOT a tax, the supreme court instead of saying the law was unconstitutional, they got skirted the constitution by saying it was a tax.


Not a side-step, blatant judicial activism. They DIDN'T rule on the law before them AS IS. They changed the words around to make it constitutional enough based on previous case law. Ruling based on previous case law judgement, which are based on previous case law judgement, which are based on previous... until the logic has nothing to do with the original constitution laws intent.

Like a madman playing out scenario after scenario in his head, which is his reality, while the world of reality and truth scurries about outside of him.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

With the Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s health care law, everyone is wondering what’s next for big government. Here are some ideas for federal policymakers to consider:

Federal Broccoli Act of 2013: Eat your broccoli, else pay the IRS $1,000.

Federal Recycling Act of 2014: Fill your blue box and put on the curb, else pay the IRS $2,000.

Federal Green Car Act of 2015: Make your next car battery powered, else pay the IRS $3,000.

Federal Domestic Jobs Act of 2016: Don’t exceed 25 percent foreign content on family consumer purchases, else pay the IRS $4,000.

Federal Obesity Act of 2017: Achieve listed BMI on your mandated annual physical, else pay the IRS $5,000.

Federal National Service Act of 2018: Serve two years in the military or the local soup kitchen, else pay the IRS $6,000.

Federal Housing Efficiency Act of 2019: Don’t exceed 1,000 square feet of living space per person in your household, else pay the IRS $7,000.

Federal Population Growth Act of 2020: Don’t exceed two children per couple, else pay the IRS $8,000.


iowntheworld.com...

Satire, I know. But how close to the truth do we want to get?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Beezer could you possibly translate what is going on with this Healthcare ruling to a Brit. I'm interested to know whats happening but don't really understand what you guys are getting with these new reforms.

I mean it's reasonably simple in the UK, health service comes from taxation. You can still buy private healthcare, but will still be taxed for the NHS. No one needs to take out insurance and companies are not required to provide insurance to employees.

How does that differ with what Obamacare is offering?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by beezzer
 


Beezer could you possibly translate what is going on with this Healthcare ruling to a Brit. I'm interested to know whats happening but don't really understand what you guys are getting with these new reforms.

I mean it's reasonably simple in the UK, health service comes from taxation. You can still buy private healthcare, but will still be taxed for the NHS. No one needs to take out insurance and companies are not required to provide insurance to employees.

How does that differ with what Obamacare is offering?


Basically, Americans will be required to get health insurance. Period. If you don't, you will get fined in the form of a "tax" that'll be administered by the IRS.

The issue that many of us have, is that while insurance companies gain in the short term through this manditory buy of insurance, the law stipulates that no-one will be denied pre-existing condition status.

Imagine Britain having no requirements for car insurance. Then all of a sudden, everyone is mandated to have auto insurance. And pre-existing conditions do not apply. You can then take your auto (that had a accident last year) and file a claim. The drain on the system is going to be enormous!

But it is the fact that we now have a choice. BUY insurance or PAY a fine.

Our "freedom" to choose neither is gone now. The government is dictating that individuals and companies that have over 50 employees have to provide insurance.
So companies that have over 50 employees can fire some (to get below 50) or raise prices (to counter the additional cost) or go broke.

That's just my interpretation of the bill. You may get another perspective from those who are happy for this.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think I can understand both perspectives. I guess it depends on your personal circumstances. For millions who don't have any insurance then I imagine they will see the bill as a very good thing. Those who feel they are being forced into a system they believe is unconstitutional and unsustainable will think it's a very bad thing.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think I can understand both perspectives. I guess it depends on your personal circumstances. For millions who don't have any insurance then I imagine they will see the bill as a very good thing. Those who feel they are being forced into a system they believe is unconstitutional and unsustainable will think it's a very bad thing.



That is it in a nutshell.

Ironic though. This "law" will do more to create division between the perceived haves and the perceived have-nots.

Just more division.
More separation.

Typical.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join