Supreme Court rules in favor of Obamacare in King v. Burwell

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

You have no idea, we first got slap with the trade agreement and now this one, I wonder, if is anybody out there within any political party or political group that is working for the America hard worker? this days, we are right now at the mercy of big interest, over bloated corruption in government and multinationals, that can rape us also with law sues when they are losing profits, what happen to America? can somebody explain?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

So when Obama screws over millions, it's a talking point.

When conservatives opt to get rid of Obamacare, it's a tragedy.

By screw over millions...you mean letting 20 Million people see a doctor who couldn't before?

Strange idea of what screwing over Americans is.

Typical.

Focus on 20 million and ignore 300 million.

a reply to: Willtell

Whoa talking about ignorance, heck people were doing just fine before Obama care and for the confederate flag we has been doing well with it so far.



Obmacare just transferred the bulk of their pay offs on the backs of the working class as usual.

a reply to: Willtell

Tell that to my 82 year old father that worked all his life since age 14 paying taxes, just found out that his outstanding health problems will not longer be treated due to his age.

In Other words he went from health care to comfort care, make his life easy with a whole bunch of medications to ease his pain and suffering until he dies, this also is happening to my father in law.

thank you Obamacare now my father will die in your comfort care, because the poor down the streets needs the years my father worked like a slave to paid for their health care.

this is an outrage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And BTW my father and father in law are not even terminal. just old.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

So when Obama screws over millions, it's a talking point.

When conservatives opt to get rid of Obamacare, it's a tragedy.

By screw over millions...you mean letting 20 Million people see a doctor who couldn't before?

Strange idea of what screwing over Americans is.

Typical.

Focus on 20 million and ignore 300 million.

Nah...they have healthcare coverage too.

Two tribes in the jungle.

One drags their unproductive elderly and sick to the edge of the village to die. They are a strain on resources. Them eating whilst not hunting means some members will be less fat.

The other recognizes the value in nursing their sick back to health so they can once again hunt for the village and they understand while the elderly can no longer hunt, they have tribal wisdom and knowledge that is useful.

You can hypothesize on your own which tribe will survive longer, be more successful or which you would want to belong to...

But in this country the voters decide.

a reply to: Indigo5

Spare me.

The government has dictated that I must pay to another corporation a sum of MY money so that they can provide care to people who can't or won't pay for it themselves.

I know you don't like corporations, but what about the biggest corporation, government.

Government as a corporation has no assets that they don't first steal, then they dictate what assets go where, and dictate what you should spend and how much you should spend.

And there is no law protecting you from this "corporation".

a reply to: marg6043

And they said there were no death panels......ARRGGHHHHHH!

a reply to: beezzer

Not only that, but the MILLIONS that are here ILLEGALLY!!!!!!!

Oh wait, they're trying to ram that down our throats as well. And with a complacent SCOTUS, I'm sure it will be no problem.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5

Spare me.

The government has dictated that I must pay to another corporation a sum of MY money so that they can provide care to people who can't or won't pay for it themselves.

There are plenty of tax-free failed states on the globe you can live in where you would not be expected to participate in such a "scheme"?

a reply to: Indigo5

I don't wanna hypothesize, I want a nifty "letter" associated with, and tellin' me, which tribe to root for.....

GO TEAM!!!

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: beezzer

Not only that, but the MILLIONS that are here ILLEGALLY!!!!!!!

For this issue I would suggest exploring North Korea...very secure borders, zero illegal immigration...actually no immigration at all, illegal or otherwise..

originally posted by: ketsuko
Weep for the 9th and 10th Amendments. They just got trashed by this ruling. If state=Federal Government whenever anyone in DC decides it does, there is nothing stopping them from overpowering every decision made at the state level and taking power over the states at every turn.

Yes! Someone is critically thinking! Thank you!

EVERY state of the Union has TWO separate and mutually exclusive 'States'. The Republic (Commonwealth) State, and the Corporate State.

The Corporate State, i.e. 'The State of ------' IS a Federal Instrumentality expressly for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction over the federal lands/areas within the geographical borders of a state of the Union.

The federal government "graciously" shares this jurisdiction under the auspices of the assimilated crimes act, the rules and decision act, and agreement on coordination of tax administration. This duality of jurisdiction is also seen in Cohens v. Virginia (1821) and Downes v. Bidwell (1901) - If so inclined to read SCOTUS decisions.

The tricky part is determining which of the two jurisdictions a particular statute or law applies to.

Generally, as in the OP, laws that are codified in Title 42 USC, as the ACA is, require the publishing of implementing regulations in the Federal register to be applicable to the states of the Union and those domiciled within them. I personally have not found any, but that is not to be construed to mean they are not in there [somewhere].

Failure to publish in the federal register, means that the law is only applicable to federal employees with a domicile in the District of Columbia, and only enforceable on federal territory... which an instrumentality IS considered federal 'territory'.

Suffice to say, what they are doing [extending an offer to contract, become a federal 'employee'] in not inherently unconstitutional... but, the way they do it is tantamount to fraud... in its simplest terms, they [the federal government] are using voluntary social [federal employee] benefit franchises to usurp the separation of powers doctrine, by compelling participation [political association] under the threat of penalty... in and of itself an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

I highly recommend study into the legal facets, definitions and jurisprudence surrounding [Civil Statutory] 'Status', 'Domicile', 'residency', 'United States' and 'State', 'territory', 'possession', and 'instrumentality'. I know that the last thing I want to BE [Statutory Status Wise] is a 'U.S. Citizen' -----> Liability, burden, jurisdiction; a 'non-citizen national' has not these things.

Edit: Vox Clamantis

G'day folks.

a reply to: beezzer

they are just demanding that you take responsibility for your family is all!!
geez considering that that part of obamacare was a republican baby before it was a democratic one, you'd think the republicans would appreciate it at least some!!

thought you liked responsibility??

a reply to: Freenrgy2

Exactly, this is the new word for it, Comfort care, after age 80, people that has lived that long, in pretty much healthy condition like my father, is becoming a burden to the SS (that he paid in full during his working years and more, and medicare, the government wants to save money so the best way to get rid of the burden is to withhold treatment and give comfort, meaning keep them sedated oblivious so they can die faster.

Is incredible, my father was told that he no longer will be eligible to any preventive care, unless he pays out of his own pocket for it.

He is a very active man for his age, no hart conditions or any major health condition at all, beside prostate problems due to cancer that is a very slow cancer and first he will probably die from old age than the type of cancer he has.

People are no paying attention to what is going on with the government and how they are getting away with population control targeting the very old.

edit on 25-6-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

So when Obama screws over millions, it's a talking point.

When conservatives opt to get rid of Obamacare, it's a tragedy.

By screw over millions...you mean letting 20 Million people see a doctor who couldn't before?

Strange idea of what screwing over Americans is.

And what about the millions who lost their insurance because of this law and now have to pay HIGHER premiums to get LESS INSURANCE coverage than they had before???

And then there's those people who have the same insurance but have seen their rates triple.

Yes....this law is a disaster. It is going to bankrupt the country and only creates a dozen more problems for every one it attempts to solve.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

bush and friends bankrupted the country, obamacare just bailed the insurance companies out after the financial collaspe wiped out the stocks, or at least that's my guess.

a reply to: tkwasny

Stop it. This post has NOTHING to do with this thread.

This country is an oligarchy. They will do nothing without giving the oligarchs their pound of flesh. In this case the loathsome insurance companies are the eaters here who are devouring the flesh of the American people.

Sure they have allowed some crumbs of cheaper health insurance to trickle down to the poor but again at the expense of the American people not the elite oligarchs…the flesh eaters and vampires.



ol•i•gar•chy
1. a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
"the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president"
o a country governed by an oligarchy.
"the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century"
o government by oligarchy.