Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[Liability]

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?

Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Interesting read when you have the time.

I think THAT brief merely addresses the question of whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States SHOULD take the case. And now that the SCOTUS has done so, that brief is of very limited utility.

I believe that Landmark may have something more definitive to say about HOW that case should be decided by the SCOTUS if it is permitted to file an amicus brief on the merits.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?

Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Interesting read when you have the time.

I will say it again if the government can force people to buy something once whats to stop the government from forcing you to buying other things.. Like a house. You can't live here you have to buy that house and live there., or you have to buy one of those new battery golf carts they are trying to pawn off as cars.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?

Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Interesting read when you have the time.

I will say it again if the government can force people to buy something once whats to stop the government from forcing you to buying other things.. Like a house. You can't live here you have to buy that house and live there., or you have to buy one of those new battery golf carts they are trying to pawn off as cars.

oh what? people don't like that idea that the government might be able to force people to buy something else? Welcome to the world of total control of your life by the government.

 

[Flopper]

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?

Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Interesting read when you have the time.

First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail. The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income. So for a $100K income the fine is $1K. Any insurance you buy is going to cost considerably more. However, over a period of time the fine increases to $695 or 2.5% of income. The fine does not provide enough of a penalty to force anyone to buy insurance if they really don't want it. However, with or without the fine, there will be very few people who can afford insurance that will not purchase it. Low income earners will be exempted. In fact very low income earners will be covered under Medicaid. The real issue is can the government force you to take responsibility for your healthcare needs by buying insurance.


Will fine be enough to make people buy health insurance

 

[dblack]

First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail. The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income.

Utter, unmitigated bullshit. What happens if you don't pay the fine?? Do you think that no one has gone to jail for not buying auto-liability insurance. Think again. Fines are coercion. No way around it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The decision probably will rest on whether the court accepts a ruling from the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that around half the nation does not use any healthcare.

I actually expect the court to rule that there is no standing to bring suit until the bill goes into full effect.

 

[The T]

Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?

Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Interesting read when you have the time.

First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail. The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income. So for a $100K income the fine is $1K. Any insurance you buy is going to cost considerably more. However, over a period of time the fine increases to $695 or 2.5% of income. The fine does not provide enough of a penalty to force anyone to buy insurance if they really don't want it. However, with or without the fine, there will be very few people who can afford insurance that will not purchase it. Low income earners will be exempted. In fact very low income earners will be covered under Medicaid. The real issue is can the government force you to take responsibility for your healthcare needs by buying insurance.


Will fine be enough to make people buy health insurance

And where does Government come off to foce people to buy something they don't want or necessarily need?

Under what auspices?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Tell us how universal health could function with an "opt out" provision.

That's the thing. There doesn't need to be an "opt out" option, nor is it necessary to outlaw private coverage. It's just that the private coverage becomes unnecessary.

Think about it. Obviously the money to run UH would have to be raised through additional taxation. If people were forced to pay up to operate the system why would they opt to seek care outside the system.

Which is exactly my point. The market for private coverage would dissolve from a lack of demand, without it being outlawed.

 

[rdean]

I work at a company with revenues of over two billion a year. Last week, we were called into the Town Hall to hear about the price increase from Obamacare. It was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. But spread out over the entire company.
When they were finished, many people went back to work. But not the people who wanted to get their kid put on their insurance. Because of Obama, they are able to do that up until the age of 26. Which pretty much covers college. People won't be willing to give that up.

Now I keep hearing about how awful it is from they right, but no one will say why. Oh, because of Obama. That's right. And it has nothing to do with race. They just hate him because, uh, why do they hate him again?

 

[Greenbeard]

Don't Believe so, But most people agree with out the Mandate the Law is pretty much Unworkable.

The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.

 

[Liability]

The law is certainly workable without the mandate. Open enrollment would be extended and insurance companies would charge a late enrollment fee. Depending on the number that signed up, the cost of coverage for preexisting condition would have to increase. The 260 billion in deficit reduction through tax increases and cutbacks in Medicare, the increase coverage of Medicaid, closing of the Medicare doughnut hole and numerous other provision would exist.

no it isn't because it can't be paid for

The individual mandate isn't intended or designed to raise revenue. That's a misconception.

Bullshit.

The mandate is designed EXACTLY to raise revenue. Everyone has to be in it and made to pay for it. And the President SAID as much:

Public Statements By President Obama
Confirms The Importance Of The Individual
Mandate.
President Obama believed the ACA would not be
“fully operative as a law” absent the individual mandate.
In a speech urging congressional enactment of
the Act, he stated, “the only way this plan works is if
everybody fulfills their responsibility, not just government,
not just health insurance companies, but
employees and individuals.” He continued, “ince
[the ACA] will make sure that insurance is affordable
for everybody, we’re going to also say everybody needs
to get insurance. Because if there are affordable options
and people don’t sign up, then the rest of us pay
for somebody else’s emergency room care.” Thus, “mproving
our health care system only works if everybody
does their part. . . .” Barack H. Obama, Remarks
on Health Care Reform in College Park Maryland
(September 17, 2009), in Public Papers of the Presidents,
Administration of Barack H. Obama, 2009 (emphasis
added). We take President Obama at his word
and encourage the Court to do the same.

-- quoted in the Landmark Legal Foundation Amicus Brief, http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Supreme Court FL Obamacare Amicus.pdf

That's the dilly-o.

You can disagree with that contention, but your words really don't trump the words of the President himself in calling for the passage of the ACA and the mandate as a crucial part of it.

 

[The T]

Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Interesting read when you have the time.

I will say it again if the government can force people to buy something once whats to stop the government from forcing you to buying other things.. Like a house. You can't live here you have to buy that house and live there., or you have to buy one of those new battery golf carts they are trying to pawn off as cars.

oh what? people don't like that idea that the government might be able to force people to buy something else? Welcome to the world of total control of your life by the government.

It's what t he Progressives started us toward in 1913...we are at the pinnacle for decision. Will the SCOTUS decide for the 10th Amendment, or allow the FED to land the final death knell?

 

[jillian]

That's the dilly-o.

You can disagree with that contention, but your words really don't trump the words of the President himself in calling for the passage of the ACA and the mandate as a crucial part of it.

how is the mandate different from having to contribute to social security?

 

[J.E.D]

Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think. 5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.

That isn't really how it should be for something like this. The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision. I suppose that's asking for too much, we don't have enough pols who are willing to make a tough call that's in the best interests of the country rather than what's best for themselves or their party.

Don't forget that Kagen has to recuse herself from voting on this, because she was a part of the drafting of this law. So it will be a lock to be voted out.

No she doesn't and no she wasn't. Thomas, on the other hand, is another story.

 

[The T]

Looks like it'll come down to how one man votes, Kennedy I think. 5-4 split vote is highly likely, one person will make the call.

That isn't really how it should be for something like this. The dems will never agree to this, but they oughta scrap the whole damn thing and do it right this time with enougn bipartisan support to avoid a SCOTUS decision. I suppose that's asking for too much, we don't have enough pols who are willing to make a tough call that's in the best interests of the country rather than what's best for themselves or their party.

Don't forget that Kagen has to recuse herself from voting on this, because she was a part of the drafting of this law. So it will be a lock to be voted out.

No she doesn't and no she wasn't. Thomas, on the other hand, is another story.

And what story is that? Kagan was directly involved. She got promoted for it. Thomas was/is NOT.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now where are they going to put all those criminals for not paying?

Compelling question...isn't it?

The SCOTUS has alot to wade through. Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation are right in the thick of it...He spoke of this tonight...

Landmark Asks Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare.

Landmark's Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Interesting read when you have the time.

First of all, it's just a fine. No one is going to jail. The fine is $95 or a maximum of 1% of income. So for a $100K income the fine is $1K. Any insurance you buy is going to cost considerably more. However, over a period of time the fine increases to $695 or 2.5% of income. The fine does not provide enough of a penalty to force anyone to buy insurance if they really don't want it. However, with or without the fine, there will be very few people who can afford insurance that will not purchase it. Low income earners will be exempted. In fact very low income earners will be covered under Medicaid. The real issue is can the government force you to take responsibility for your healthcare needs by buying insurance.


Will fine be enough to make people buy health insurance

That provision is insignificant.
The major issue is the reimbursements to medical professionals which Obama described as "efficiency"....
When government forces efficiency upon the people, it always hurts. Bad.
Efficiency is a euphemism for "we will take your money and give you nothing in return".
Low Income earners will be exempt..Low income for purposes of this law is up to $62,000 per year for a family of 4. $66,000 is in the top 25% of all wage earners.
That means about 30% of the wage earners will be funding Obamacare. And THAT is the most objectionable part of this. And THAT is why this law is a job killer.
We will see people stop working just so they can qualify for no cost government administered health insurance. There will be 3 time the number people riding in the boat as those rowing the boat. The system is doomed to collapse upon itself just like the Western Euro socialized medicine systems.
The actual threshold is 400% of the 'poverty level' which is about $88,000. The subsidy is available on a sliding scale. At the $62k level, the subsidy is 100%.
This boils down to the number one priority of the PPACA law which is to create dependency upon government. People will vote their wallets 100% of the time. They will reward the party that gives them the most goodies.
Therefore, because it is the democrats which gave 75% of the country free health insurance, of course those people who reward those people with their votes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

so obama lied?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ]President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year - YouTube[/ame]
shocking

The TOTUS may have lied. The President was just reading along.

It is apparent that the President couldn't have been lying. It's a lock that he has no fucking clue, one way or the other, whether it is or isn't a tax.

I thought it was AKOTUS...Ass kicker of the united states. Ask BP.

 

[Liability]

That's the dilly-o.

You can disagree with that contention, but your words really don't trump the words of the President himself in calling for the passage of the ACA and the mandate as a crucial part of it.

how is the mandate different from having to contribute to social security?

Social Security may be viewed as insurance. Alternatively it may be viewed as a form of savings. Either way, it is a tax and it is acknowledged AS such.

The "analogy" to mandatory insurance as a pre-requisite to owning a vehicle and obtaining a registration from the state or as a pre-requisite to having a driver's license has ALWAYS been a false analogy. Driving is a privilege, as you know. It is not a "right." The States HAVE a right to condition the granting of that privilege upon certain conditions.

The ACA's individual "mandate" is allegedly NOT a "tax." It can't be a tax, in fact, for a variety of legal reasons. President Obama himself has insisted that it isn't a "tax."* And it also isn't conditioning some privilege on certain requirements. It is a compelled duty imposed on all citizens (actually all people in the USA) premised upon some fanciful notion of the Commerce Clause.

It transforms the entire notion of a limited government of enumerated powers on the BASIS of the commerce clause (together with the necessary and proper clause) into an unlimited government with no bounds upon its powers.

_________________
* Here is an excerpt of one article explaining pretty concisely why it cannot legally BE a "tax."

* * * *

The 16th Amendment grants Congress the power to “collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” The Supreme Court has defined “derived” income to mean “undeniable accessions to wealth.” Here, the mere refusal to purchase a product is not any kind of “income” or accession of wealth.

Likewise, the penalty cannot be an excise tax. An excise tax is imposed on an event or item, such as the acquisition of a machine gun. Again, there is no event to be taxed, and never in American history has a federal excise tax been imposed on an American’s inactivity.

Thus, the tax is constitutionally a “direct tax” – similar to a head tax, or a tax on real estate. The Constitution requires that such taxes be imposed “in Proportion to the Census.” The mandate penalty is not so apportioned.

Congress does have nearly limitless authority to create income tax deductions and could have created one for the cost of buying approved insurance. Courts, however, will not be ruling on the constitutional bill that Congress might have enacted but, rather, on the unconstitutional one that Congress did enact.

-- Why ObamaCare Mandate Penalty Can’t Be a Tax*|*Independence Institute

 

[thereisnospoon]

Tell us how universal health could function with an "opt out" provision.

That's the thing. There doesn't need to be an "opt out" option, nor is it necessary to outlaw private coverage. It's just that the private coverage becomes unnecessary.

Think about it. Obviously the money to run UH would have to be raised through additional taxation. If people were forced to pay up to operate the system why would they opt to seek care outside the system.

Which is exactly my point. The market for private coverage would dissolve from a lack of demand, without it being outlawed.

Your point is precisely part of the plan. That is to destroy the private health insurance industry.
What right does the federal government have to do that?
Since when should private health insurance be deemed 'unnecessary'?
If the federal government can pass laws which eliminate private health insurance effectively nationalizing the business, what then is to stop them from doing the same thing to other businesses or industries?
This is as un-American as it gets.
The PPACA must be neutralized or ripped apart making it moot.

 

[The T]

But see? This is what they are arguing...it is NOW a TAX...before it was a TAX...Nevermind it forces Commerce...or go to jail for not participating

so obama lied?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ"]President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year - YouTube[/ame]
shocking

The TOTUS may have lied. The President was just reading along.

It is apparent that the President couldn't have been lying. It's a lock that he has no fucking clue, one way or the other, whether it is or isn't a tax.

Or is it a matter of forced commerce whether the citizen has a pecuniary interest or not...