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.

 

CBS News Confirms: Chief Justice Roberts Pressured to Change Vote on Healthcare

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


No it was approved initially as a tax. The enforcement of the mandate always was a tax penalty. The only thing that really changed in this decision is under which power was it constitutional. Under commerce clause it isn't but under taxation it is. But all the mechanisms that it operates on to make it fit under taxation were already there.


Ok, so the mechanisms were there but I think where the confusion (and frustration) sets in is when Obama open's his mouth because if you recall when he sat down with George Stephonaogolaiuglsguaolsugalopugus, he was adamant that this WAS NOT a tax and laughed at George Stephaolognahgdinosauropagus when he gave Obama the definition of 'tax'. So I suppose what people are proposing is that we should be OK with a lying president because after all, he is just a politician which means a professional liar. And basically we are just to put up with it because it was our choice to put him in office because we had so many politicians to choose from....2. Thank God we had a choice at least... right? Or maybe our sitting president, as a scholar of the constitution, just "misspoke" or "misunderstood" the question... as he wouldn't be trying to sell the ACA to and the individual mandate as a tax because he said he wouldn't raise taxes... but of course he didn't raise taxes because this mandate will only affect 5% (?) of the citizens? Do you see how this gets everyone chasing their tails?


mess   [mes] Show IPA
noun
1.
a dirty, untidy, or disordered condition: The room was in a mess.
2.
a person or thing that is dirty, untidy, or disordered.
3.
a state of embarrassing confusion: My affairs are in a mess.
4.
an unpleasant or difficult situation: She got into a mess driving without a license.
5.
a dirty or untidy mass, litter, or jumble: a mess of papers.




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
Realisticly, how do think this will affect the common insured american?

V/r

You know here at street level, the daily blue collar workers.



Hell if I know
This was done to bring costs down..the tools in place, when I last checked anyhow, limited health insurance companys to a cap for health service cost verses profit. That is good..so they can't make like 3000% profit off you. They have to justify why their rates are so high. In turn, they get a ton of new customers so its less milking the few for all they got a more of a walmart philosophy of profit by numbers.

For the average joe making median income at a standard job..not much change..they will get the insurance from their company. For the company, most companies are small (under 50) so they qualify for incentives..If they don't work for a company, then they will have to buy insurance, but if they make under a certain amount, its minimal anyhow..andif they are poor, then it will pretty much be free. The only one this is effecting is a large industry that wants to stiff employees on health care, or individuals whom make plenty of money but don't buy any coverage but could clearly afford it.

This is how it was presented...how it rolls out..we will see. I do know my niece is already benefitting. She is 22 now and covered by her dads health insurance..she has to pay now per month, but its very minimal compared to if she was to get her own. She is fine until 27, unless this gets rolled back. So, for her case, it is already kicked in and good. Even her father, whom see's rush limbaugh as a bit to liberal for his tastes, has seen benefit already from the health care. He is all breathlessly against the mandate on principle..but principles fall by the wayside when your daughters health benefits...I would hate to live in the duality of being a republican these days...but it is the norm I guess.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
reply to post by artnut
 


(Well, at my husband's place of employment, the insurance plan was dropped to a bare bone minimum, causing everyone to pay more in copays and, higher deductible, and less coverage. This was done in anticipation of the ruling, and my husband works in human resources and this is what he was told. I hear other companies have done this as well.

So what do you think? Has if affected the common insured American?)

Done in anticipation of the ruling.

Your husbands company did that to him. Not the ruling.

I have heard that companies are starting to take such actions, and are screwing their employees because of watercooler talk, and grapevine speculation simply because they know somebody who heard something. Then they react half cocked at the expense of who......there employees.

The changes he felt was because of his employer and of their own accord. Not because of the health care law.

So. Is the sky falling, or do you think its about to fall?

Dare i say profit before employee. Class warfare at its finest. Thats another topic though.


Absolutely profit before employee, but, the point is, is that it is still going to affect the average American, and already has. You posted a question, I answered it. It is already affecting average Americans, and will continue to do so.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by artnut

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
reply to post by artnut
 


(Well, at my husband's place of employment, the insurance plan was dropped to a bare bone minimum, causing everyone to pay more in copays and, higher deductible, and less coverage. This was done in anticipation of the ruling, and my husband works in human resources and this is what he was told. I hear other companies have done this as well.

So what do you think? Has if affected the common insured American?)

Done in anticipation of the ruling.

Your husbands company did that to him. Not the ruling.

I have heard that companies are starting to take such actions, and are screwing their employees because of watercooler talk, and grapevine speculation simply because they know somebody who heard something. Then they react half cocked at the expense of who......there employees.

The changes he felt was because of his employer and of their own accord. Not because of the health care law.

So. Is the sky falling, or do you think its about to fall?

Dare i say profit before employee. Class warfare at its finest. Thats another topic though.


Absolutely profit before employee, but, the point is, is that it is still going to affect the average American, and already has. You posted a question, I answered it. It is already affecting average Americans, and will continue to do so.







I respect your answer.

And I agree that when the entire health care program takes affect, it will affect the average American.

The question I pose to all in this thread is

Will this program have an entirely negative or positive affect on Americans financially?

Is it negatively resulted do to employers passing it on to employees to maintain higher profits?

Is the old health care system better than the new one?

Is the new one bad because it was designed by the corporate whore "Monkey Obama" and his constituents in office? That one is not directed at you.

V/r



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
This is all part of the act. It was never going to be struck down, zero chance of it happening. Now that a conservative justice was the deciding vote they need a cover up story, ie poor Roberts was blackmailed ect.

They've got you all hook, line and sinker. People will believe this junk and go back to think justice Roberts is a true conservative. It's hard not to laugh at some of you.

There was never a chance this would be struck down, zero.
edit on 2-7-2012 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Reply to post by macaronicaesar
 


Agreed.
I almost spit out my coffee this morning while listening to Paul Ryan talk about getting the law repealed.
That guy deserves an Oscar! He didn't even flinch! It must be hard to be giddy and excited and all warm and fuzzy inside, glowing with happiness, and have to repress it all and show a false outward alternate emotional response like he's upset.
It truly is remarkable.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
Realisticly, how do think this will affect the common insured american?

V/r

You know here at street level, the daily blue collar workers.



Hell if I know
This was done to bring costs down..the tools in place, when I last checked anyhow, limited health insurance companys to a cap for health service cost verses profit. That is good..so they can't make like 3000% profit off you. They have to justify why their rates are so high. In turn, they get a ton of new customers so its less milking the few for all they got a more of a walmart philosophy of profit by numbers.

For the average joe making median income at a standard job..not much change..they will get the insurance from their company. For the company, most companies are small (under 50) so they qualify for incentives..If they don't work for a company, then they will have to buy insurance, but if they make under a certain amount, its minimal anyhow..andif they are poor, then it will pretty much be free. The only one this is effecting is a large industry that wants to stiff employees on health care, or individuals whom make plenty of money but don't buy any coverage but could clearly afford it.

This is how it was presented...how it rolls out..we will see. I do know my niece is already benefiting. She is 22 now and covered by her dads health insurance..she has to pay now per month, but its very minimal compared to if she was to get her own. She is fine until 27, unless this gets rolled back. So, for her case, it is already kicked in and good. Even her father, whom see's rush Limbaugh as a bit to liberal for his tastes, has seen benefit already from the health care. He is all breathlessly against the mandate on principle..but principles fall by the wayside when your daughters health benefits...I would hate to live in the duality of being a republican these days...but it is the norm I guess.


Thanks for the reply.

You have shown the other side/good side of the program. I have spoken to friends of mine whom speak of positive affects of the program for family or friends. I also have some friends whom speak otherwise.

The latter however speak from personal opinion, and not from personal experience with the program either through friends or family experiences.

Mostly because well.......they don't like Obama.

ehhhh go figure. I don't fully buy into politicians for personal reasons. With that being said, I will look at government programs and pass judgement on facts, and matters of legalities. And lastly its true affect on the American People.

After all, everything that taste good, isn't good for you. And everything that taste bad, isn't bad for you.

ewwwwwwwww Brussel Sprouts!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MRuss
 


According to the article, if he was pressured by anyone, it was by the other conservative justices and not the mainstream media. Is the news supposed to stop reporting while the supreme court makes decisions? Please!



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by macaronicaesar
 


Agreed.
I almost spit out my coffee this morning while listening to Paul Ryan talk about getting the law repealed.
That guy deserves an Oscar! He didn't even flinch! It must be hard to be giddy and excited and all warm and fuzzy inside, glowing with happiness, and have to repress it all and show a false outward alternate emotional response like he's upset.
It truly is remarkable.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



I agree, it's absolutely sickening. When Romney gets elected and this law hasn't been repealed after 4 years, much like there were no WMD's in Iraq, then what? Will people still buy into this left/right paradigm?

This will not be repealed by anyone, period. The insurance companies love it and that is all that matters, this is after all a Republican plan.

The game is rigged and SCOTUS has always been in on it. I can't believe people eat this # up, these guys were appointed by presidents that were hand picked by their corporate masters, the SCOTUS is completely meaningless, it gives the perception of constitutional protections that it has always failed to protect.

What a joke, I can't believe intelligent people of the 21st century still buy this #.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 


Obama just decided to do a reconstruction of the military budget from where my husband gets his employment, it was not only him but so far thousands of contractors in the military are been laid off, from my husband side along 70 were laid off plus that doesn't count the ones that works in other areas in the military base he works at.

The Obama administration is doing a great job at thinning the military while leaving thousands of thousands jobless so much from the job creating promises, this are news you will not get to hear or see in the news.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The color of unemployment under the Obama administration how about that.

BTW corporation has been people for a long time, where have been hiding since that was passed by congress a long time ago and agreed by the Supreme court.

Corporate personhood

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2-7-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Just a couple of points...........During the opening arguments between the 9 Justices and the U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the tax issue was argued for only a few minutes.

Two days ago - the White House press secretary Jay Carney declared very strongly - vehemently - that it was NOT a tax - "its a penalty!!!"

Yesterday Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff declared the very same thing in a lengthy argument during a Chris Wallace interview on Fox News .....he vociferously defended the notion of "penalty" - "its NOT a tax - its a penalty............"

I think this decision puts the final nails in the coffin of ObamaCare come Nov..........and because of the tax vs penalty deception it also seals Obama's fate with respect to the presidential elections!!!

edit on 2-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: spell



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 


Obama just decided to do a reconstruction of the military budget from where my husband gets his employment, it was not only him but so far thousands of contractors in the military are been laid off, from my husband side along 70 were laid off plus that doesn't count the ones that works in other areas in the military base he works at.

The Obama administration is doing a great job at thinning the military while leaving thousands of thousands jobless so much from the job creating promises, this are news you will not get to hear or see in the news.



Reconstruction of the military budget is a good thing. The military wastes ungodly amounts of money. Everyone knew that the Department Of Defense was cutting its budget, and yes that included its contractors.

It's unfortunate your husband was laid off, and I'm sorry to hear that.

However, the DOD needed to trim down. Trim down on sandbagging soldiers, and over paid contractors.

After all, its the tax payers who paid your husbands contract. Let's not forget that.

In time's of war, i can see the justification of contractors. But with the Iraqi troop draw down, and upcoming Afghani troop draw down. Only key personnel and resources will be kept to help facilitate in execution of said missions.

Lastly, know that Contractors bid for jobs. Again, profit over employee. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do to maintain a contract. Especially if its not fixed.

lose some employees, or lose the entire contract.

Sorry, these are some of the harsh realities when dealing with the DOD.
edit on 2-7-2012 by PLASIFISK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 


Interesting that when somebody else loses their job we do not give two rat arse but when it hit home is not as easy, you most be well paid with a very secure job, so my husband losing his job to budget cuts to finance more waste an abuse somewhere else seems very good for you.

I hope you don't have to face unemployment after giving the government 20 years of your life as a military service man and then working for the government when you retire.

I see how nonchalant you are about somebody else losing their job because military cuts that perhaps do not affect you at all.

How sad, then I wonder where this nation is heading too, waste and abuse is on going regardless of from where the government trim to finance it.

Perhaps when they come after your retirment account you will not feel that bad either is all for the common good.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Sorry to hear about your husband losing his job. Welcome to the new America!!! You give 20 years and they kick you to the curb like you were nothing. All companies are doing this and have been for some time. It does not matter what line of work your in. Greed and power corrupt absolutely. It does not matter if it's Obama, Romney or Bush. They are all the same. Voting is a joke.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by PLASIFISK
 


Interesting that when somebody else loses their job we do not give two rat arse but when it hit home is not as easy, you most be well paid with a very secure job, so my husband losing his job to budget cuts to finance more waste an abuse somewhere else seems very good for you.

I hope you don't have to face unemployment after giving the government 20 years of your life as a military service man and then working for the government when you retire.

I see how nonchalant you are about somebody else losing their job because military cuts that perhaps do not affect you at all.

How sad, then I wonder where this nation is heading too, waste and abuse is on going regardless of from where the government trim to finance it.

Perhaps when they come after your retirement account you will not feel that bad either is all for the common good.



On the contrary, I am a SFC in the military with 3 years left till retirement. I deal with Aviation related mission, and have felt the budget cuts personally. I have had really good friends whom were contractors lose their jobs because of it.

How it has affected the turn around in repairing aircraft, which is supported by civilians contractors. I won't get into detail as to what entities they are. However know this, when soldiers on the ground need us, and we cant readily pick an airframe to go retrieve/support them, it hurts a lot.

My job is to ensure these soldier get help when they need it, so they can eventually go home to their families.

If the money isn't there, the parts aren't there.

If the parts aren't there, the aircraft don't fly.

If the aircraft don't fly, soldiers die.

And I live with that.

So yeah. DOD budget cut's. Again sorry your husband lost his job. My brothers and sisters are losing their lives.

sorry for being nonchalant.

V/r

In closing, I did manage to obtain an Electrical Engineering degree while fulfilling all of my military obligations.

Why you ask? Because that's one thing I know America is short on, and when I do get out of the Military I will continue to do my part in making this country better. Mind you, I will probably stay within my profession, but hey it's something.
edit on 2-7-2012 by PLASIFISK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The color of unemployment under the Obama administration how about that.

BTW corporation has been people for a long time, where have been hiding since that was passed by congress a long time ago and agreed by the Supreme court.

Corporate personhood

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2-7-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

Look deeper into the unemployment numbers via government jobs:

Obama has been dealing with massive loss of public sector jobs. This includes lots of military contract jobs...but it also includes things like teachers, police, firefighters...aka, public sector jobs
now
this is something that ultimately is being pushed to happen by the right wing..they, being nervous about government growing, were initially filibustering even the most mundane of tasks to get public sector growing, and now in power, are sitting and will auto-fail anything.
keep this in mind. Consider your personal view of why Obama sucks and hear these words. then ask yourself, what is he saying here.


Seriously...take a moment, stop auto-hating obama for fun and consider your specific issues and what Romney's ideas are.

Your solution to a burning house...if a garden hose isn't putting it out, throw gas on it and somehow that will fix it..

I think the opposite approach..the garden hose needs more powers and kinks removed.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
In my opinion, Roberts had something to hide---something he may have hid during his confirmation hearings. And so, he was threatened in plain sight through the media---in an article that hinted he may have lied during his confirmation hearings.


I was just talking about this kind of thing in a conversation with a friend last night. Blackmail is a powerful tool that is used to influence domestic (and foreign) policy. Most of those in power have something to hide and when they don't, they can always be set up by their domestic opponents or foreign intelligence agencies.

It is all part of the chess game that we don't see.
Sometimes when a behavior looks fishy, it's because it is actually fishy..



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The color of unemployment under the Obama administration how about that.

BTW corporation has been people for a long time, where have been hiding since that was passed by congress a long time ago and agreed by the Supreme court.

Corporate personhood

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2-7-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

Look deeper into the unemployment numbers via government jobs:

Obama has been dealing with massive loss of public sector jobs. This includes lots of military contract jobs...but it also includes things like teachers, police, firefighters...aka, public sector jobs
now
this is something that ultimately is being pushed to happen by the right wing..they, being nervous about government growing, were initially filibustering even the most mundane of tasks to get public sector growing, and now in power, are sitting and will auto-fail anything.
keep this in mind. Consider your personal view of why Obama sucks and hear these words. then ask yourself, what is he saying here.


Seriously...take a moment, stop auto-hating obama for fun and consider your specific issues and what Romney's ideas are.

Your solution to a burning house...if a garden hose isn't putting it out, throw gas on it and somehow that will fix it..

I think the opposite approach..the garden hose needs more powers and kinks removed.


I agree!!!!!!!

Better Garden Hoses andddddddd Brussel Sprouts!!

Second line.........



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SaturnFX
How is a tax unconstitutional?.

Being taxed for not buying a government product. You don't think that's unconstitutional?
And I'm pretty sure that all new taxes have to be approved by congress.
I could be wrong about that ... but I don't think so.



ALL tax bills MUST originate in the House of Representatives so that each representative be held accountable for those taxes levied upon the people. The thinking by the founders was that the Representative would have to be accountabel every 2 years at the polls for each decision made regarding taxation.

Enter ObamaTAX... the version passed by the House originated in the Senate, not in the House as required by the Constitution - making that a violation of the Constitution.

I don't think we even need to discuss how applying a "tax" as a penalty for lack of commerce is even conceivably legal or Constitutional.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join