It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:43 PM

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

I can't believe this. Has this what the administration has come down to? If this isn't a ringing endorsement for socialism in this country, then I don't know what is!

For instance, the example that's come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.

During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.

Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go.

The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?

More from the same article.

This is all about giving the government more control over our lives. Those that are for bigger government will love this idea. A perpetual nanny-state that dictates to the public what we can do, eat, drink, live, etc.

I have to go to work soon, so forgive any absence on my part.

But I just wantd to throw this out to you fine folks as just another attempt from the government to be all controlling.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:48 PM
Well, I can't exactly "choose" to make "more $". My employer would decide that.
And bugging them to give a raise would probably end in being laid off.

So how come I can choose to make less $ than I already do?

Oh wait I get it???

He is saying make less money. As in, undocumented money. Under the old table. WINK WINK.

Yeah guys, let's all choose to make LESS money. Get it??

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:50 PM
The whole argument is turning into contraction of itself. If they were to improve people's health by mandating that they could only buy and eat healthy foods from the store, then by that logic, the health-care industry would go into decline. Big Pharma and the for-profit medical cabal don't want that to happen. There's too much money at stake.

Seems they've gotten themselves into a bind from trying to squeeze people for money from too many directions at once. They gotta make up their minds....

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:53 PM
I think the whole idea of a government even mentioning what kind of money we should make in order to defend a policy is disgusting.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:56 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
I think the whole idea of a government even mentioning what kind of money we should make in order to defend a policy is disgusting.

When the elites tell us how much $$$ they actually have, they "make less $$$" than our calculations estimate.

It's called Laundering.

The Authority seems to be asking for Americans to help solve our financial problems and health care problems by maybe laundering a bit of your paycheck through some other means to keep the paper looking nice and clean, if you know what I mean?

Best part is, when you "make less money", you don't have to pay taxes on the "money you didn't make". WINK WINK

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:56 PM
stupid plain stupid.

when are people going to get tired of the government tellling them how much money they can make?


hell between state and federal most people are paying 50 percent of their incomes already.

but wait not good enough now you have to pay for your own insurance because its now a federal law.

compounding the problem of obama constantly trying to raise the taxes of those who are more fortunate.

i dont like obama or this governent how about we have less government? sorry you people who want a less instrusive government do not what they are talking about.

if its not classwarfare is stupidity like this

we are all doomed.
edit on 2-6-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:21 PM
reply to post by neo96

Too many people have gotten used to the idea that it is normal and okay, for the government to mandate what we make, what we're worth.

We need to remind the government that it is none of their danged business!

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by beezzer

i agree it is amazing how many people are ok with someone else take their money but when someone tries to take theirs its oh hell no you dont.

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
I think the whole idea of a government even mentioning what kind of money we should make in order to defend a policy is disgusting.

Yes, of course. These socialists are just out of their friggin gourds. I don't know how else to say it. They think they have the right to tell us how much money to make or not make. They want everyone poverty stricken. It should be very clear. Socialism means everybody is equally poor and miserable.
edit on 2-6-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:02 AM
And the First Family made 4 million dollars between their salaries and books, and these people want to tell us to make less. In other words, we must pay for other peoples stuff or be poor.

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus... we must pay for other peoples stuff or be poor.

Or rather, we must "willingly" pay for poor people's stuff, or we should be poor and likewise expect the rich to cover our costs.

new topics

top topics


log in