IRS Fines Millions for Not Having Obamacare

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Hmm. Sounds like every President.

Did you have a chance to actually read any of the Constitution yet?

From Article II Section 1: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I don't see anything there about tailoring his Execution of the laws to your satisfaction.

If he's in abrogation of his Oath, why hasn't the Congress impeached and tried him?

What makes you think I'm excusing any President?

Apparently Mr. Obama's 'best ability' is worse than others.

I believe I've mentioned the opposition party is weak, at least in leadership.

Mr. Ketsuko

a reply to: ketsuko

You're transgender now? LOL

No offense, but, how is your excusing or not excusing the President or any President relevant to anything?

You asked me a question, I answered.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

Seems to me the Individual Mandate, a Republican idea, calls for those who don't have insurance to be penalized via tax penalties.

How is it that the IRS is doing anything except it's duty under the law?

You would prefer that the laws be ignored?

How is that supposed to work when the system is corrupt? In a normal world, bad laws would be challenged and overturned and confirmed traitors would be hung. But this isn't a normal world, it's bizarro world where wrong is right, up is down and traitors garner respect.

Cheers - Dave

I'm talking about the IRS following the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President.

That law no longer exists. The SCOTUS (unelected non-legislators, non-executives) have modified it several times already. The current ACA is not the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President. The original law had a non-severability clause, which was ignored. Our President is enforcing an illegitimate law that has only been salvaged by judicial activism and the apathy of the opposing party.

Not that an acolyte of progressivism and central planning would care about those details. Ends justify the means, and all that.

Mr. Ketsuko

Why don't you concentrate on accurate and/or meaningful words coming out of your mouth instead of trying slap-dash to put them into other's mouths?

As to the rest of your screed, I refer you to the US Constitution, Article III. You might find an actual read of the document useful.

Why don't you address the post instead of deflect like a typical progressive?

I suggest you follow your own advice, and this time not fill in the non-existent blanks with words you make up in your own mind or passed on to you by another progressive.

Mr. Ketsuko

Why don't you ask a relevant question instead of trying to project your silly beliefs about me onto me?

I answered your question quite clearly. I realize you may not be that familiar with the US Constitution, but I did provide the relevant part for your reference.

And, by the way, when you stop parroting the right-winger talking points of the day, I might listen lightly to your critiques of my words.

I see that happening ... never.

IRS are gangsters. It is not surprising that gangsters will act like gangsters!

I.R.S. Means. I Represent Satan

And...

OBAMA IS THE ANTI CHRIST!

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, are you against ACA or for it? It seems like you're for it but want to blame the republican party for the parts people don't like. The individual mandate was necessary to get this whole thing off the ground and to make a profit for the insurance companies. Of course we're now seeing that the fruit is bitter and that profit isn't materializing. Who exactly did you think was benefiting from this? If it wasn't financially viable for insurance companies it would never have passed. They thought it would be and as the fines go up it might be.

I'd ask you, like I've asked so many people who try to talk authoritatively about the ACA, did you read it? I got about 2/3 of the way through it which is 2/3 more than most of the people that voted to make this turd a law. It's a terrible piece of crap and the whole process of getting it passed was the blind leading the dumb.

I listened to supporters of the ACA talk about the evil insurance companies. The whole time, baffled, I asked who exactly they thought had the infrastructure to take it on. Nobody ever offered and answer because the answer was uncomfortable for the ACA crowd. The insurance companies, those evil insurance companies, were the only ones that had the infrastructure to tackle it. Nobody wanted to talk about that while they demonized those same insurance companies. It's a stacked deck and the insurance companies win every hand.

Another thing that nobody seems to know is that an appointee gets to make decisions about how reimbursement works. All the people crying about reproductive rights and birth control played into it all. What happens when a republican president appoints a pro-life head? Suddenly the reimbursement for abortion and birth control is $.99 and good luck finding a provider. This law is a turd for democrats too, they just don't know it yet.

Don't try to blame the opposite party for this piece of crap. You wanted it, rabidly, and you got it. Now, as the years go on, you're going to have to live with it. If anybody took the time to, wait for this shocking thing I'm going to suggest, READ THE BILL then they might know that it's crap. That's too much like work though. It's much easier to take some talking points from other people that didn't READ THE BILL and argue on the internet.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

It was an enormous volume of vaguery that has taken hundreds of thousands of pages of legal opinions and "final instructions" on how to actually make the turd float.

As an employer, the changes to the way insurance is handled, and the constantly changing stipulations to ACA, are beyond a nightmare.

I checked to see if I could get an exemption under the ACA. To do so, my state, Tennessee has to expand Medicare and Medicaid. It isn't. I would have to meet the Tennessee requirements to get Medicaid. Since, I own land. That disqualifies me. I would be forced to sell it to qualify. THAT IS NOT HAPPENING!!!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

One more question which I think will resolve it for me ... is anyone in Government automatically a traitor?

I wouldn't say everybody in goverment, they don't all have the ability or position to produce destructive change, some are very good people simply following very bad orders. However the situation is problematic in that, as an example with military, if you complete an unethical or illegal order you can try to make the case that you were just following orders. But as evidenced in the Nuremberg trials, following orders still produced life sentences. Since we all know government creates laws to protect or enrich itself, application of law or any attempt at injunction will not work in removing the corrupt entities from power.

In Canada politicians created a statute on treason that has a 3 year limitation on bringing charges. Certainly with their control of the media and common obfuscation practices, they can far exceed this time period leaving them uncharged.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

Seems to me the Individual Mandate, a Republican idea, calls for those who don't have insurance to be penalized via tax penalties.

How is it that the IRS is doing anything except it's duty under the law?

You would prefer that the laws be ignored?

I think you are misleading a bit. You call this a "Republican idea" but no Republicans at all voted for this law. I know you wouldn't want to mislead any ATS viewers who don't know the details...right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

Seems to me the Individual Mandate, a Republican idea, calls for those who don't have insurance to be penalized via tax penalties.

How is it that the IRS is doing anything except it's duty under the law?

You would prefer that the laws be ignored?

How is that supposed to work when the system is corrupt? In a normal world, bad laws would be challenged and overturned and confirmed traitors would be hung. But this isn't a normal world, it's bizarro world where wrong is right, up is down and traitors garner respect.

Cheers - Dave

When was the last legal public hanging again? What, 1936? Do you remember that? It wasn't a traitor, it was a Black man charged with raping a White woman.

I'm talking about the IRS following the law that was passed by our Congress and signed by our President.

You seem to be making a generalized statement of your opinion about ... the state of the world.

Maybe your President...not mine. And the same for those in Congress. They don't represent me...in fact, they vote the opposite of me and many Americans. Basically, they are the enemy. Compared to ISIS, global warming, the economy problems and everything else, these people are more of a problem for those with my views of a functional, moral society.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Does it really matter who came up with the idea? What matters is who set it in motion. There are a lot of ideas out there that are completely harmless until someone makes them law. To say the democrats were hoodwinked is a cop out. Either they aren't smart enough to know when they are being taken, which means they aren't smart enough to run a government. Or, they are smart enough to run a government which means they knew what was happening when they implemented ACA. You cant say how smart the democrats are in one sentence then say how easily fooled they are in the next.

Obamacare amounts to nothing more than extortion. "Participate in this program whether you can afford to or not, or I will fine you and take the money from you anyway and there is nothing to can do to stop me." That is no definition of liberty I am familiar with.

a reply to: Gryphon66
They are being Ignored by The House The Senate and Obama.

They Only Use The Laws That Benefit Them.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

#democrats.in.charge.of.obamacare.are.mismanaging.it

#its.a.dotcom.bubble

No matter which way you look at it .
It's an Unfair and Unconstutional Tax.
I Agree with you This Admin did it all by themselves.

a reply to: bluesman462002

I am still not convinced of it being unconstitutional. Taxation is found in Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 1 of the constitution, and is bound by 'apportionment' equally throughout the states of the Union. This in not the case with the ACA, so it is easy to cry foul. I direct yo you further down to Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 13 where Exclusive legislative jurisdiction is granted over the seat of government: DC AND federal lands within states of the Union. These are two very powerful clauses because they are part of the seperation of powers... Political v. Legislative jurisdictions. Congress, only by apportionment, can tax within the states. Whereas thay can and do tax whatever the heck they want within the federal zone, since they have sole jurisdiction.

I believe that since the ACA is tied to 'penalties' in the IRC, that it is an excise on the privelige of holding public office, being a federal 'employee', chosing to domicile in DC, and voluntarily associating with the status 'US Citizen'... All of these voluntary acts create 'agency'.

The sumpreme court agrees with this idea.

"All the powers of the government must be carried into operation by individual agency; either through the medium of public officers, or contracts with individuals." Osborn v. Bank of US (1824)

The License Tax cases (1866) also shed light onto congress' [in]abilitry to legislate business within (intra) the states. That they are bound by apportionment and uniformity, and that they cannot authorize a business within a state in order to tax it.

Also in support is Downes v.Bidwell (1901) where we see key phrases "wherever the government extends" and "without limitations as to place". If we apply some of Bouviers maxims of law, we see that only debt and contract can be what is meant. Maxims being being: "debt and contract are of no particular place" and "the place of the contract governs the act."

What this all tells us is: the 'agency' created by voluntarily contracting with the government (ref my 2nd Paragraph forhow these contracts can look) means that contract will be governed by the laws of the 'United States' the federal corporation (see 28 USC 3002 (A)(15)) in the District of Columbia regardless of one's physical location.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

There are good things in the ACA, more people are covered in America than ever before. I like that.

Do I like how it was done? Nope, not a bit. Not by the D's or the R's.

The Individual Mandate is in spirit, if not in letter, completely Un-American.

I point out that it was originated by right-wingers and implemented in plan after plan by Republicans ... because that's the simple truth. I find it nauseating that they, as a party, are such sniveling cowards so as to deny an idea they themselves came up with.

I supported and support a national single-payer option for healthcare coverage. Let us all buy into the Cadillac Gold Plan that Federal Employees have.

In your last paragraph, you just drift off into nonsense. I have placed the "blame" for the ACA on the Democrats where it belongs. I place the blame for the Individual Mandate where it belongs. Both Democrats and Republicans have been offering "healthcare reform" for the last 30 years.

I'm good to live with it, but I do hope that some points get revised to work better for everyone.

I hope you can chill out though; you're going to need some healthcare for that ulcer if you're not careful.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ksihkehe
In your last paragraph, you just drift off into nonsense. I have placed the "blame" for the ACA on the Democrats where it belongs. I place the blame for the Individual Mandate where it belongs. Both Democrats and Republicans have been offering "healthcare reform" for the last 30 years.

So... the last paragraph was nonsense. I guess I need to ask again, since you dodged the question, did you read the law? It's a piece of crap, did you read it? You dodged the question so you really need to answer before you go on telling me about it, DID YOU READ IT? How can you tell me about it if you didn't READ IT?

FYI I don't need to chill. I don't really care at the end of the day. I just like watching ACA supporters squirm, like you did by not answering if you READ the law or not.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yippie Ti Yaa

They got the uninsured number down to 30 million from 40 million.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yippie Ti Yaa

They got the uninsured number down to 30 million from 40 million.

Care to prove it?

You know, with something from a site that doesn't have "Right Wing" in the title?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ksihkehe
In your last paragraph, you just drift off into nonsense. I have placed the "blame" for the ACA on the Democrats where it belongs. I place the blame for the Individual Mandate where it belongs. Both Democrats and Republicans have been offering "healthcare reform" for the last 30 years.

So... the last paragraph was nonsense. I guess I need to ask again, since you dodged the question, did you read the law? It's a piece of crap, did you read it? You dodged the question so you really need to answer before you go on telling me about it, DID YOU READ IT? How can you tell me about it if you didn't READ IT?

FYI I don't need to chill. I don't really care at the end of the day. I just like watching ACA supporters squirm, like you did by not answering if you READ the law or not.

Have you read the entire Bible cover to cover? Can you still talk about Jesus?

Have you read the complete works of Shakespeare? Can you still talk about Macbeth?

You're attempting (not very well) to make use of the "all or nothing" fallacy, a version of false dilemma.

If you can refute something I've said with a quote from the ACA, I'll be glad to learn.

If not, quit beating your chest.