Obamacare is not “the law of the land”. It is legislative tyranny!

[ron4342]

Passed by House and Senate. Signed by President. Opined by SCOTUS. Obama re-elected easily in 2012 when the GOP's signature campaign points was to overthrow ACA.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land and the Will of We the People.

Yes, it was passed by the House and the Senate, without a single Republican vote. Moreover it was passed without having been read by anyone who voted for it. Remember the words of Nancy Pelosi?

The President signed it because he was just as uninformed and ignorant about the details as were the members of the House and the Senate.

How come the ruling of the Supreme Court is more valid now than it was regarding the 2000 presidential election?

ACA is every bit as bad a law as the Prohibition was and it will be repealed just as the Prohibition was.

Claudette,
There are a lot of programs that exist in America that our founding fathers never mentioned in the Constitution. For example, the Constitution says nothing about air traffic controllers. And it doesn't say anything about building a federal freeway system. The Dept of Ag, the EPA, and the FDA were never mention either. Yet we have them and more!!!! And why do we have them? The answer is found in the Preamble of the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
All of the programs mentioned above "promote the general welfare." I'm curious, are you so far gone that you cannot see that helping 30 million Americans get health care IS PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE? Or do you believe promoting the general welfare means placing those 30 million in a position where a major illness or accident will force them into bankrupcy and eventually onto the street?

 

[ron4342]

There's nothing in the ACA that stops people from making their own health care decisions and choices.

They can still choose not to have insurance...they'll simply have to pay a fine.

Therefore, your entire argument is debunked, simply and easily.

Pay now, pay later. "Buy" health care "insurance", or pay a fine. That's quite a choice. Either way, the citizens are being scammed and bilked out of their money. Pay government, or pay government cronies, who will see to it that government gets their kickback.

Consider the following scenario gallantwarrior: A person who could buy insurance but doesn't goes to the hospital where he finds out he has cancer. The hospital is forced to treat him and in the course of time the bill for that treatment becomes $500,000. When he doesn't pay the hospital turns the bill collecters loose and they end up takiing his house and savings thereby putting him on the street. However, suppose the house and savings are only worth $250,000. The hospital is left holding bag to the tune of the rest of the bill. Because the goal of the hospital is to make a profit, being forced to eat large bills from deadbeats is a sure recipe to force the hospital out of business. To counter this the hospital raises its rates. The insurance companies see this and immediately raise their rates.
Now the bottom line is this: If you are a responsible person and have health insurance you will see your rates climb to pay for a deadbeat asshole who could afford health insurance by chose to behave irresponsibly. So, are you happy paying for the hospital care of people who could get health insurance but don't?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There's nothing in the ACA that stops people from making their own health care decisions and choices.

They can still choose not to have insurance...they'll simply have to pay a fine.

Therefore, your entire argument is debunked, simply and easily.

You really want to go with that?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for some lazy fucks medical care.
ACA will get shot down once everyone realizes what a clusterfuck it is.

 

[Hoffstra]

You really want to go with that?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for some lazy fucks medical care.
ACA will get shot down once everyone realizes what a clusterfuck it is.

The Constitution also says nothing about an Air Force.

 

[EriktheRed]

There's nothing in the ACA that stops people from making their own health care decisions and choices.

They can still choose not to have insurance...they'll simply have to pay a fine.

Therefore, your entire argument is debunked, simply and easily.

You really want to go with that?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for some lazy fucks medical care.
ACA will get shot down once everyone realizes what a clusterfuck it is.

Wonder if people said that about Social Security and Medicare, too...

 

[ron4342]

Blab! Blab! Blab! The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is the final word on what is law and what isn't law. You can cite all the cases you wish but it still comes down to the most recent decision given by the Supreme Court justices. You may not like it and you may want to put up a smoke screen but those justices have ruled that ACA is a law of the land <PERIOD>

 

[Hoffstra]

The Supreme Court says the ACA is cool.

So until The People pass an Amendment to the Constitution saying otherwise, the thing is legal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Elections have consequences.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There's nothing in the ACA that stops people from making their own health care decisions and choices.

They can still choose not to have insurance...they'll simply have to pay a fine.

Therefore, your entire argument is debunked, simply and easily.

Pay now, pay later. "Buy" health care "insurance", or pay a fine. That's quite a choice. Either way, the citizens are being scammed and bilked out of their money. Pay government, or pay government cronies, who will see to it that government gets their kickback.

Consider the following scenario gallantwarrior: A person who could buy insurance but doesn't goes to the hospital where he finds out he has cancer. The hospital is forced to treat him and in the course of time the bill for that treatment becomes $500,000. When he doesn't pay the hospital turns the bill collecters loose and they end up takiing his house and savings thereby putting him on the street. However, suppose the house and savings are only worth $250,000. The hospital is left holding bag to the tune of the rest of the bill. Because the goal of the hospital is to make a profit, being forced to eat large bills from deadbeats is a sure recipe to force the hospital out of business. To counter this the hospital raises its rates. The insurance companies see this and immediately raise their rates.
Now the bottom line is this: If you are a responsible person and have health insurance you will see your rates climb to pay for a deadbeat asshole who could afford health insurance by chose to behave irresponsibly. So, are you happy paying for the hospital care of people who could get health insurance but don't?

I'll be forced to eat the cost for others under this newest socialist offering, too. I don't get to choose the coverage I want or need. I'm 58 years old and made my contribution towards species perpetuation (and paid for the related expenses) long ago. Why should I be forced to pay for maternity and infant care expenses, or birth control, among other procedures I have never and will never need or use? So it doesn't much matter, I am being enslaved to a system that will forcibly take the fruits of my labor in order to provide for others who have neither earned, nor deserve the benefit of my efforts.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You really want to go with that?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for some lazy fucks medical care.
ACA will get shot down once everyone realizes what a clusterfuck it is.

The Constitution also says nothing about an Air Force.

One of the few enumerated responsibilities of the Federal government is to provide for national defense. Seems to me that providing an Air Force actually is supported by the Constitution. The part I'm not finding in the Constitution is the part that grants the Feds permission to rob the productive citizens in order to buy the votes of the non-productive leeches in society.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There's nothing in the ACA that stops people from making their own health care decisions and choices.

They can still choose not to have insurance...they'll simply have to pay a fine.

Therefore, your entire argument is debunked, simply and easily.

You really want to go with that?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for some lazy fucks medical care.
ACA will get shot down once everyone realizes what a clusterfuck it is.

Wonder if people said that about Social Security and Medicare, too...

At least you get something back from those programs. This is nothing but a gift to the losers in this country and paid for by the people who are actually productive members of society.
Fucken parasites....

 

[johnwk]

The ACA was legally voted on in the House and Senate.

The President signed the bill into law.

Its the law of the land.

Not if it violates the limited powers granted to Congress or any of the Constitution's restrictive provisions such as No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken..

What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the “shared responsibility payment” which is often referred to as the individual mandate? This question has not been answered by the Court. Roberts never answered this question but merely indicated the individual mandate tax levied upon those failing to have federally approved health insurance is to be collected along with income taxes.

We can immediately exclude imposts and duties as being the taxing power allowing the individual mandate tax because imposts and duties are taxes imposed on the import or export of goods.

And in reference to the power to lay and collect excise taxes, excise taxes can be levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations or upon a privilege granted by government such as a corporate granted charter. An excise tax may also be levied upon a particular piece of property or is use. But I cannot imagine the excise taxing power as it was understood and used by our founding fathers allowing it to be used to levy the Obamacare “shared responsibility payment”.

With reference to the power to lay and collect taxes on “incomes” without apportionment, this taxing power requires a realization of profits or gains which then becomes the subject of taxation. But the subject of taxation under the individual mandate is not a profit or gain, collectively called “income”. The subject matter being taxed under Obamacare is a failure to have federally approved health insurance which triggers the tax and obviously excludes this taxing power to be used to levy the shared responsibility payment.

But we still have Congress’ power to lay and collect “direct taxes”, but direct taxes by our Constitution, require an apportionment among the States which Obamacare’s individual mandate tax fails to do.

When Roberts wrote that “The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States”, he totally ignored the historical characteristics which identify a direct tax as understood by our founders. In fact, the shared responsibility payment is characteristic of a direct tax! A review of Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, a contemporary writing of the time which our Founders were familiar with and often referred to with reference to taxation, we find the following reference regarding a capitation tax as being a direct tax:

“Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, id. at pg. 540.

The shared responsibility payment is in fact to be computed from the wages which a working person earns, and thus takes the form of a direct tax as understood by our founders, and thus requires it to be apportioned when levied!

There seems to be a consistency among the founders comments that direct taxes are those assessed to the individual by government, while indirect taxes are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject. For example, Hamilton's brief in the Hylton carriage case which Roberts quoted says: 'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes, taxes on lands and buildings, general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'

Is it not a fact that the shared responsibly payment is proposed to be assessed from a working person’s annually earned wage, and not upon a thing which the individual is free to acquire or reject?

And so, if Roberts was right and the individual mandate is an exercise of the taxing power, the question remains unanswered as to what tax authorizes Congress to enter a State and directly tax the people therein for not having federally approved health insurance and do so without apportioning the tax among the States? Unfortunately, not one of our “conservative” media personalities, to the best of my knowledge, and this includes Mark Levin who I am quite fond of, will lay out the above stated argument that Obamacare is not the law of the land, and only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution can be said to be the law of the land!

The bottom line is, Obamacare is not the "law of the land". It is legislative tyranny backed up by judicial tyranny and would impinge upon a woman’s’ fundamental right to make her own medical and health care decisions and choices. And, our courts have repeatedly held that a legislative act which impinges upon a fundamental right is “presumptively unconstitutional”. For example see: a legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

The Court has also held: "The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

Are you suggesting a women does not have a fundamental right to make her own medical and health care decisions and choices?

Why do you hate women and are ok with the federal government impinging upon one of their most fundamental rights?


JWK




Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

 

[Hoffstra]

Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

ObamaCare passed by a majority of the House and a super-majority of the Senate.

do you prefer the tyranny of the minority?

 

[johnwk]

Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

ObamaCare passed by a majority of the House and a super-majority of the Senate.

do you prefer the tyranny of the minority?

Tyranny of the minority? Under our Constitution it would take three fourths of the States to approve new regulatory powers granted to Congress which are being usurped under Obamacare. Aside from that, my friend, how do you justify impinging upon a women's fundamental right to make her own medical and health care decisions and choices, which is exactly what Obamacare does? Are you suggesting the purchase of health insurance as a women sees fit for her own personal needs is not a primary decision which affects her medical and health care needs?

Why do you ignore what our Courts have repeatedly held with respect to fundamental rights, that a legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

Additionally, why do you also ignore what the Court have stated about imposing a fine upon women who choose to exercise a Constitutional right? The Court stated: "The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

Are you suggesting a women does not have a fundamental Constitutional right to make her own medical and health care decisions and choices?

JWK

They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist thieves who use the cloak of government force to steal the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create

 

[billyerock1991]

Passed by House and Senate. Signed by President. Opined by SCOTUS. Obama re-elected easily in 2012 when the GOP's signature campaign points was to overthrow ACA.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land and the Will of We the People.

So were the creation of DHS, Patriot Act. Look at what the govt has done with that dept ie spying, wire tapping, collection of metadataa etc. Fast forward to aca and govt forcing its citizenry to buy a product.

These are just two behemoths that are antithetical to the founders beliefs. They would have been adopted by the british crown.

all of these thing you wrote here are new laws add to the old law ... to help it run better... as for whats going on is a typical republican ploy to kill the program from the inside ... by having them not signing up for 1 year... this will cause the plan to fail if people don't sign up for health care... the health care bill is funded not by tax payers, ... the majority of it is funded by companies being tax, example the medical device tax this will give health care 30 billion dollars to run health care ... this is why repub-lie-clowns want to have it removed not because its a tax but it will cause ACA to fail if they pulled it that's why Dem's are saying absolutely not

 

[billyerock1991]

You really want to go with that?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for some lazy fucks medical care.
ACA will get shot down once everyone realizes what a clusterfuck it is.

The Constitution also says nothing about an Air Force.

One of the few enumerated responsibilities of the Federal government is to provide for national defense. Seems to me that providing an Air Force actually is supported by the Constitution. The part I'm not finding in the Constitution is the part that grants the Feds permission to rob the productive citizens in order to buy the votes of the non-productive leeches in society.

and now you know why you will rpt in hell

 

[billyerock1991]

damn them leaching children ... damn then disable people ... the seem to be taking all of gallantwarrior money by leaching off the system ... first he says women you must squeak out that baby ... never mind how will you pay for it... but don't ask gallantwarrior for assistance now, the baby is squeaked out its not his problem any more ... no leaches means no leaches get it weman ???

 

[gallantwarrior]

damn them leaching children ... damn then disable people ... the seem to be taking all of gallantwarrior money by leaching off the system ... first he says women you must squeak out that baby ... never mind how will you pay for it... but don't ask gallantwarrior for assistance now, the baby is squeaked out its not his problem any more ... no leaches means no leaches get it weman ???

Damn those illiterate slobs who exercise their internet access. Dem wimmin should keep dey's legs togever if dey gots no money to raise 'em. And ur right about it not being my responsibility to raise the little fuck-trophies once they land on deck. Never was my problem, new should be. Unless I'm the party responsible for the "squeaked out" child.

U hav know consept wut pursonnal respunsubulity is, do u?

 

[johnwk]

Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

ObamaCare passed by a majority of the House and a super-majority of the Senate.

do you prefer the tyranny of the minority?

Tyranny of the minority? Under our Constitution it would take three fourths of the States to approve new regulatory powers granted to Congress which are being usurped under Obamacare. Aside from that, my friend, how do you justify impinging upon a women's fundamental right to make her own medical and health care decisions and choices, which is exactly what Obamacare does? Are you suggesting the purchase of health insurance as a women sees fit for her own personal needs is not a primary decision which affects her medical and health care needs?

Why do you ignore what our Courts have repeatedly held with respect to fundamental rights, that a legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

Additionally, why do you also ignore what the Court have stated about imposing a fine upon women who choose to exercise a Constitutional right? The Court stated: "The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

Are you suggesting a women does not have a fundamental Constitutional right to make her own medical and health care decisions and choices?

JWK

They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist thieves who use the cloak of government force to steal the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create

Hoffstra

Did you miss my above response to your post?


JWK

 

[JakeStarkey]

Johnwk cannot define Marxism or socialism, cannot give examples of such in American government.

John is a mccarthyite. McCarthyism* - definition of McCarthyism* by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Mc·Car·thy·ism (m -kär th - z m). n. 1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence