Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, EARN LESS MONEY

[teapartysamurai]

No, I am NOT making that up!

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.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.

Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.

Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.

You HAVE to read this entire thing. It's scary as hell what these bastards intend for us:

Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

In that one statement "earn less money" was revealed the true intent of Obamacare, WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.

Obama wants to make as many people as possible poor and dependent on government for their very survival.

We have GOT to get these people out of office before they make it impossible to live any other way than under their socialist agenda.

This has got to be put to a stop.

I await the usual paid liberal stooges, who are hear to do nothing else but disrupt real debate, tell me Kaytal didn't say what he said.

 

[Truthseeker420]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

 

[California Girl]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

And that is true. You don't have to drive. I await the explanation as to how one avoids being born.

As an American, we have the right to 'pursue happiness', and if that means monetary wealth, that is our right. No one has the right to penalize someone for earning money. Fucking socialists and their obsessional and irrational hatred of other people's money is embarrassing for decent Americans.

 

[sparky]

In that one statement "earn less money" was revealed the true intent of Obamacare, WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

we're all worth less since the wall street crash, so it's fairly clear that the greatest catalyst for your term wealth distribution (vs. the more popular wealth re-distribution) hails from the fallout of casino capitalism

or to be more terse , capitalism let off it's leash creates a socialist b*tchslap

myself, i won't be holding my breath for all the kill a socialist for mommie movement members looking to burn every welfare queen at the stake to make this connection


~S~

 

[teapartysamurai]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Number one, that's STATES giving that mandate, and they have the right under the 10th Amendment (moron).

Number 2, driving is not a right, it's a privilege given to you by your sundry state.

NOT EVEN CLOSE to the FEDERAL GOVERMENT forcing a healthcare MANDATE on us in violation of the Constitution.

But thank you for illustrating how little liberals understand the Constitution.

 

[sparky]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

And that is true. You don't have to drive. I await the explanation as to how one avoids being born.

As an American, we have the right to 'pursue happiness', and if that means monetary wealth, that is our right. No one has the right to penalize someone for earning money. Fucking socialists and their obsessional and irrational hatred of other people's money is embarrassing for decent Americans.

nasty flakes for breakfast again, eh?

 

[sparky]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Number one, that's STATES giving that mandate, and they have the right under the 10th Amendment (moron).

Number 2, driving is not a right, it's a privilege given to you by your sundry state.

NOT EVEN CLOSE to the FEDERAL GOVERMENT forcing a healthcare MANDATE on us in violation of the Constitution.

But thank you for illustrating how little liberals understand the Constitution.

spoken almost like a Vermonter.....

 

[teapartysamurai]

In that one statement "earn less money" was revealed the true intent of Obamacare, WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

we're all worth less since the wall street crash, so it's fairly clear that the greatest catalyst for your term wealth distribution (vs. the more popular wealth re-distribution) hails from the fallout of casino capitalism

or to be more terse , capitalism let off it's leash creates a socialist b*tchslap

myself, i won't be holding my breath for all the kill a socialist for mommie movement members looking to burn every welfare queen at the stake to make this connection


~S~

That was a pretty lame and desperate deflection.

Pointing out that the Obama admin representative is arguing we can earn less money is akin to wanting to burn every welfare queen?

I mean how hysterical can you get.

Desperate to get us off the subject and put us on the defensive now, aren't we?

Did you think that was going to work?

 

[teapartysamurai]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Number one, that's STATES giving that mandate, and they have the right under the 10th Amendment (moron).

Number 2, driving is not a right, it's a privilege given to you by your sundry state.

NOT EVEN CLOSE to the FEDERAL GOVERMENT forcing a healthcare MANDATE on us in violation of the Constitution.

But thank you for illustrating how little liberals understand the Constitution.

spoken almost like a Vermonter.....

Spoken like someone who knew he just got his ass kicked and can do nothing in return but uselessly sputter.

 

[teapartysamurai]

And the liberals fall silent.

That's what they do when they know they really can't BS and deflect their way out of a subject.

 

[dblack]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Not me. I think mandating car insurance is just as bad. Always have.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Since when does one have to drive?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anyway, I carry enough auto insurance just in case some left wing asshat or beloved illegal who thinks he doesn't have to carry insurance hits me, I'm covered.

 

[RDD_1210]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

And that is true. You don't have to drive. I await the explanation as to how one avoids being born.

As an American, we have the right to 'pursue happiness', and if that means monetary wealth, that is our right. No one has the right to penalize someone for earning money. Fucking socialists and their obsessional and irrational hatred of other people's money is embarrassing for decent Americans.

And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.

 

[Toronado3800]

No, I am NOT making that up!

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.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.

Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.

Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.

You HAVE to read this entire thing. It's scary as hell what these bastards intend for us:

Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

In that one statement "earn less money" was revealed the true intent of Obamacare, WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.

Obama wants to make as many people as possible poor and dependent on government for their very survival.

We have GOT to get these people out of office before they make it impossible to live any other way than under their socialist agenda.

This has got to be put to a stop.

I await the usual paid liberal stooges, who are hear to do nothing else but disrupt real debate, tell me Kaytal didn't say what he said.

This is nothing new. If you got a bad gall bladder ten years ago and did not feel like paying for it the trick was to earn less money and hide your assests.

I at least know one broke non working person who got their gall bladder removal paid for by you socialist tax payers who support the old system. At least if the new system was in place when the gal had a decent job she would have paid SOMETHING into some health insurance pool.

Oh well. We can go back to the free loader socialist Eisenhower era system if you prefer. Or let hospitals throw out folks who cant pay. Or make health nsurance mandatory. I dont see too many other choices.

 

[California Girl]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

And that is true. You don't have to drive. I await the explanation as to how one avoids being born.

As an American, we have the right to 'pursue happiness', and if that means monetary wealth, that is our right. No one has the right to penalize someone for earning money. Fucking socialists and their obsessional and irrational hatred of other people's money is embarrassing for decent Americans.

And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.

Life: the right to live.

Liberty: the right to live freely.

Pursuit of happiness: As defined by each individual.

Absolutely nowhere in the Constitution does it tell me that I have to support other people. Nowhere. Nada. Zip. Not one fucking word.

I choose to support others. I do not have to be forced. You are an irrational human being.... and irrationality makes you stupid.

 

[RDD_1210]

And that is true. You don't have to drive. I await the explanation as to how one avoids being born.

As an American, we have the right to 'pursue happiness', and if that means monetary wealth, that is our right. No one has the right to penalize someone for earning money. Fucking socialists and their obsessional and irrational hatred of other people's money is embarrassing for decent Americans.

And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.

Life: the right to live.

Liberty: the right to live freely.

Pursuit of happiness: As defined by each individual.

Absolutely nowhere in the Constitution does it tell me that I have to support other people. Nowhere. Nada. Zip. Not one fucking word.

I choose to support others. I do not have to be forced. You are an irrational human being.... and irrationality makes you stupid.

Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.

You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.

 

[teapartysamurai]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

Not me. I think mandating car insurance is just as bad. Always have.

It's not the same. A state has the right to mandate you carry insurance as part of the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING in their state.

The 10th amendmemnt gives them that right.

The Federal government, on the other hand, does NOT have the right to mandate you have car insurance.

The same goes for health insurance.

The federal government does not have a right to mandate you buy ANYTHING.

 

[teapartysamurai]

That's what the neonuts say about mandated car insurance. " you don't have to drive".

And that is true. You don't have to drive. I await the explanation as to how one avoids being born.

As an American, we have the right to 'pursue happiness', and if that means monetary wealth, that is our right. No one has the right to penalize someone for earning money. Fucking socialists and their obsessional and irrational hatred of other people's money is embarrassing for decent Americans.

And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.

HeLLOOOOOOOOOOO! We are also FREE TO STOP SOCIALISM FROM RUINING THIS COUNTRY!

"Free to live in a society that supports one another."

How about free to stop SUCH WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.

Oh like now we have no choice? We live in "Obama's America" or we get out?

Guess again, Totalitarianist!

 

[dblack]

It's not the same. A state has the right to mandate you carry insurance as part of the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING in their state.

I didn't say it was the same. It's certainly not a constitutional violation. But I think it's just as bad in terms of overreaching government and undercutting personal responsibility.