Individual mandate is not a tax

How is Obama going to claim he kept his campaign promise not to raise taxes by one dime on people making less than $200k when he's also claiming that the mandate is a tax in all these court cases? All the lib/dems out there, are you ready to admit he broke that promse?
that promise was already broken with the cigarette tax congress passed that pays for the health care of other citizen's children. that cigarette tax is on the poor and middle class, by sheer numbers alone, it is not on the wealthiest, for the most part.
 
,when has a politican never lied? Or when has a politician been able to comply with all campaign promises?
In fact when have you personally never lied in your life time?
 
i wonder if there were any supreme court cases on our prisoners ALL getting free health care...was it ruled that us tax payers HAVE TO PAY for the health care of prisoners or it would be cruel and unusual punishment????
 
i wonder if there were any supreme court cases on our prisoners ALL getting free health care...was it ruled that us tax payers HAVE TO PAY for the health care of prisoners or it would be cruel and unusual punishment????


FYI:

Supreme Court orders release of over 30,000 prisoners in CA to … improve health care
Share posted at 12:57 pm on May 23, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
regular view California will have to release over 30,000 inmates from its prison system to comply with a Supreme Court ruling earlier today. The court cited chronic violations of inmates’ rights in its 5-4 decision. The reductions will improve the delivery of health care services to the remaining inmates, claims the majority:
The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed a court order requiring California to cut its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates to improve health care for those who remain behind bars.
The court said in a 5-4 decision that the reduction is “required by the Constitution” to correct longstanding violations of inmates’ rights. The order mandates a prison population of no more than 110,000 inmates, still far above the system’s designed capacity.
There are more than 142,000 inmates in the state’s 33 adult prisons, meaning roughly 32,000 inmates will need to be transferred to other jurisdictions or released.
Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal jurists in the decision, while the four conservatives were aghast at the implications. Calling the ruling “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history,” Antonin Scalia’s dissent predicted a higher number of releases, 46,000. Those may end up going to county jurisdictions rather than state prisons, or perhaps sent to other states with more room in their penal system, but that will cost California money the state simply doesn’t have.
The immediate effect of the order will almost certainly be a large-scale release. That will increase pressure on an already-overburdened parole system and send career criminals back to ply their trade in communities throughout the state — and the country. The increased costs on communities won’t help the state improve medical care to prisoners; it’s more likely to sap the state’s treasury.
This poses other questions as well. What is California supposed to do with convicts now? If they can’t add to the current level of inmates, then they’re going to have to release even more on a one-for-one basis, putting revolving doors on the prisons again. The same will be true in other states, which had joined California in opposing the order, which now have to operate under a new Supreme Court mandate on prison populations.
The state could build more prisons, which would solve the problem. Unfortunately, California spent its money on practically everything but new prisons over the last few decades. The average age of their prisons was 55 years in 2009′s report from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. California has a responsibility to invest in its prison infrastructure, as well as a responsibility to provide for the safety and basic health needs of its inmates. But the Supreme Court has its own responsibility to keep criminals from victimizing their communities, too. This looks like a big failure all the way around.

Supreme Court orders release of over 30,000 prisoners in CA to … improve health care « Hot Air
 
i wonder if there were any supreme court cases on our prisoners ALL getting free health care...was it ruled that us tax payers HAVE TO PAY for the health care of prisoners or it would be cruel and unusual punishment????


FYI:

Supreme Court orders release of over 30,000 prisoners in CA to … improve health care
Share posted at 12:57 pm on May 23, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
regular view California will have to release over 30,000 inmates from its prison system to comply with a Supreme Court ruling earlier today. The court cited chronic violations of inmates’ rights in its 5-4 decision. The reductions will improve the delivery of health care services to the remaining inmates, claims the majority:
The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed a court order requiring California to cut its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates to improve health care for those who remain behind bars.
The court said in a 5-4 decision that the reduction is “required by the Constitution” to correct longstanding violations of inmates’ rights. The order mandates a prison population of no more than 110,000 inmates, still far above the system’s designed capacity.
There are more than 142,000 inmates in the state’s 33 adult prisons, meaning roughly 32,000 inmates will need to be transferred to other jurisdictions or released.
Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal jurists in the decision, while the four conservatives were aghast at the implications. Calling the ruling “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history,” Antonin Scalia’s dissent predicted a higher number of releases, 46,000. Those may end up going to county jurisdictions rather than state prisons, or perhaps sent to other states with more room in their penal system, but that will cost California money the state simply doesn’t have.
The immediate effect of the order will almost certainly be a large-scale release. That will increase pressure on an already-overburdened parole system and send career criminals back to ply their trade in communities throughout the state — and the country. The increased costs on communities won’t help the state improve medical care to prisoners; it’s more likely to sap the state’s treasury.
This poses other questions as well. What is California supposed to do with convicts now? If they can’t add to the current level of inmates, then they’re going to have to release even more on a one-for-one basis, putting revolving doors on the prisons again. The same will be true in other states, which had joined California in opposing the order, which now have to operate under a new Supreme Court mandate on prison populations.
The state could build more prisons, which would solve the problem. Unfortunately, California spent its money on practically everything but new prisons over the last few decades. The average age of their prisons was 55 years in 2009′s report from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. California has a responsibility to invest in its prison infrastructure, as well as a responsibility to provide for the safety and basic health needs of its inmates. But the Supreme Court has its own responsibility to keep criminals from victimizing their communities, too. This looks like a big failure all the way around.

Supreme Court orders release of over 30,000 prisoners in CA to … improve health care « Hot Air
on what constitutional grounds do prisoners get their healthcare paid for??? I just don't get it?

if money is limited, I'd rather help some poor family with their health care than to pay for a criminal's health care? Is this on the grounds that it would be cruel and unusual punishment if we did not supply it?
 
i wonder if there were any supreme court cases on our prisoners ALL getting free health care...was it ruled that us tax payers HAVE TO PAY for the health care of prisoners or it would be cruel and unusual punishment????


FYI:

Supreme Court orders release of over 30,000 prisoners in CA to … improve health care
Share posted at 12:57 pm on May 23, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
regular view California will have to release over 30,000 inmates from its prison system to comply with a Supreme Court ruling earlier today. The court cited chronic violations of inmates’ rights in its 5-4 decision. The reductions will improve the delivery of health care services to the remaining inmates, claims the majority:
The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed a court order requiring California to cut its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates to improve health care for those who remain behind bars.
The court said in a 5-4 decision that the reduction is “required by the Constitution” to correct longstanding violations of inmates’ rights. The order mandates a prison population of no more than 110,000 inmates, still far above the system’s designed capacity.
There are more than 142,000 inmates in the state’s 33 adult prisons, meaning roughly 32,000 inmates will need to be transferred to other jurisdictions or released.
Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal jurists in the decision, while the four conservatives were aghast at the implications. Calling the ruling “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history,” Antonin Scalia’s dissent predicted a higher number of releases, 46,000. Those may end up going to county jurisdictions rather than state prisons, or perhaps sent to other states with more room in their penal system, but that will cost California money the state simply doesn’t have.
The immediate effect of the order will almost certainly be a large-scale release. That will increase pressure on an already-overburdened parole system and send career criminals back to ply their trade in communities throughout the state — and the country. The increased costs on communities won’t help the state improve medical care to prisoners; it’s more likely to sap the state’s treasury.
This poses other questions as well. What is California supposed to do with convicts now? If they can’t add to the current level of inmates, then they’re going to have to release even more on a one-for-one basis, putting revolving doors on the prisons again. The same will be true in other states, which had joined California in opposing the order, which now have to operate under a new Supreme Court mandate on prison populations.
The state could build more prisons, which would solve the problem. Unfortunately, California spent its money on practically everything but new prisons over the last few decades. The average age of their prisons was 55 years in 2009′s report from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. California has a responsibility to invest in its prison infrastructure, as well as a responsibility to provide for the safety and basic health needs of its inmates. But the Supreme Court has its own responsibility to keep criminals from victimizing their communities, too. This looks like a big failure all the way around.

Supreme Court orders release of over 30,000 prisoners in CA to … improve health care « Hot Air
on what constitutional grounds do prisoners get their healthcare paid for??? I just don't get it?

if money is limited, I'd rather help some poor family with their health care than to pay for a criminal's health care? Is this on the grounds that it would be cruel and unusual punishment if we did not supply it?


Cruel and unusual punishment is probably the rationale. What a country.
 
How is Obama going to claim he kept his campaign promise not to raise taxes by one dime on people making less than $200k when he's also claiming that the mandate is a tax in all these court cases? All the lib/dems out there, are you ready to admit he broke that promse?

by giving everyone who makes 80k or less the money to buy the plans, that how;)
 
Forcing someone to buy something from a PRIVATE COMPANY isn't a tax, it's extortion.

That the KIND of game that the MAFIA plays.

Buy our booze or die

Use our garbage company or we burn down your business.

Buy health care insurance from a private company or BE FINED. Refuse to pay the fines and go to jail. Refuse to go to jail and we will kill you!

Extortion, folks, not taxes, extortion

Under the old system on of my unemployed alcholic high school friends just had 10k of pancreas work done on your dime. His lone asset you can hope to sieze is a late 90s Nissan pick up.
 
If it's unconstitutional to require someone to buy insurance, why do states get to do it?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE5xmFAcW-U]YouTube - ‪Starbucks - Yawning commercial‬‏[/ame]

what funny is we find it funny when NY Carb does it, BUT, when the president makes that argument, its not funny, its dangerous.

I work surrounded by those who think along his ideological lines and I remember when he made that argument even they, sighed and shook their heads. One was honest enough to say straight out ;" does he know what the hell he is trying to do here"?
 
If it's unconstitutional to require someone to buy insurance, why do states get to do it?

wow... really? Do you not have any understanding of the US Constitution? It applies to the federal government. Try reading the tenth amendment. It was added to clarify the issue for those who might have been confused.
 
If it's unconstitutional to require someone to buy insurance, why do states get to do it?

what funny is we find it funny when NY Carb does it, BUT, when the president makes that argument, its not funny, its dangerous.

I work surrounded by those who think along his ideological lines and I remember when he made that argument even they, sighed and shook their heads. One was honest enough to say straight out ;" does he know what the hell he is trying to do here"?

I don't really think it is funny when anyone makes it. NY just bores me because I know he understands the difference between a state mandating insurance and the federal government doing it, he just wants to watch everyone jump through the hoops and call him an idiot. That bores me.

Obama is just a partisan who thinks the government can do anything he thinks is a good idea. What scares me about him is that he has the power to put his stupid ideas into practice, just like Bush thinking that the PATRIOT ACT was a good idea.
 

Forum List

Back
Top