teapartysamurai
Gold Member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 20,056
- 2,562
- 290
- Thread starter
- #21
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.
Theyre in the business, Sutton pushed back. Theyre told if youre 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 dont 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 were 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 its a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. Its 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 doesnt need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at
Sutton interjected, That wasnt in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you dont 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 dont 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.
Explain how Einsenhower forced people to buy healthcare?
It isn't the same thing.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATING YOU HAVE HEALTHCARE OR ELSE LIVE WITH LESS INCOME!
Not the same thing, but thanks for trying to deflect.