Is it acceptable for the government to force on you something you do not want?

[dblack]

You don't respect the peoples' right to hold free elections, make choices, and be bound by it. I knew you would throw in the red herring of CR, which does not apply. SCOTUS has opined on it.

This is the only issue here. You disagree with the law.

Tough. Work to change it. But don't think anyone is going to Balkanize the nation for you.

Nope. It's not the law that's in question. It's consent of the governed. When the contract for consent (aka "the Consititution") is violated, all bets are off.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The consent of the governed is decided by elections.

Then you all have a lot of work to do; get to it.

But an individual has no authority to decide the validity of consent by himself legally.

That's the road to madness. Obey the law, work to change what you don't like.

 

[Dante]

The consent of the governed is decided by elections.

Then you all have a lot of work to do; get to it.

But an individual has no authority to decide the validity of consent by himself legally.

That's the road to madness. Obey the law, work to change what you don't like.

Does a group of individuals have no legal authority to decide the validity of consent by themselves, even if that group represents a majority, say 51% - 75% of the population? Is it only individuals by themselves who have no legal authority to decide the validity of consent?

geeze, get's crazy when your logic and line of reasoning is followed

 

[Dante]

emilynghiem and JakeStarkey

 

[dblack]

The consent of the governed is decided by elections.

No, it isn't. That's what you fail to grasp. Consent of the governed is what gives elections validity. Without it, they are are simply mob rule.

 

[Michelle420]

The consent of the governed is decided by elections.

Then you all have a lot of work to do; get to it.

But an individual has no authority to decide the validity of consent by himself legally.

That's the road to madness. Obey the law, work to change what you don't like.

Jake, Emily doesn't think she has an authority to change law.

I have talked with her offline, she works real hard in non profit poor communities for a living.

She is really just a person who is interested in mediation and unifying groups.

 

[Dante]

The consent of the governed is decided by elections.

No, it isn't. That's what you fail to grasp. Consent of the governed is what gives elections validity. Without it, they are are simply mob rule.

a refresher, and from of all places, Heritage:

Part of the reason for the Constitution's enduring strength is that it is the complement of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration provided the philosophical basis for a government that exercises legitimate power by "the consent of the governed," and it defined the conditions of a free people, whose rights and liberty are derived from their Creator. The Constitution delineated the structure of government and the rules for its operation, consistent with the creed of human liberty proclaimed in the Declaration.

Justice Joseph Story, in his Familiar Exposition of the Constitution (1840), described our Founding document in these terms:

We shall treat [our Constitution], not as a mere compact, or league, or confederacy, existing at the mere will of any one or more of the States, during their good pleasure; but, (as it purports on its face to be) as a Constitution of Government, framed and adopted by the people of the United States, and obligatory upon all the States, until it is altered, amended, or abolished by the people, in the manner pointed out in the instrument itself.​

The Meaning Of The Constitution​

 

[dblack]

Here's what dimwitted "majoritarians" can't seem to comprehend. Constitutional limits on government power make democracy possible. They make consent a viable proposition. With proper limits, we can say "Ok, I'll give up my right to decide for myself in certain contexts". No sane person would subject themselves to unlimited majority rule. But that's what you stupid bastards are clamoring for. Well, no.

 

[Michelle420]

Anytime anyone anywhere suggests our Hawaiian born President is a Kenyan loses the respect of knowledgeable folks.

Yeah, birthers ugh!

 

[Dante]

Here's what dimwitted "majoritarians" can't seem to comprehend. Constitutional limits on government power make democracy possible. They make consent a viable proposition. With proper limits, we can say "Ok, I'll give up my right to decide for myself in certain contexts". No sane person would subject themselves to unlimited majority rule. But that's what you stupid bastards are clamoring for. Well, no.

 

[fbj]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

 

[Greenbeard]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

If you're unemployed, no. If you're working full-time, yes. At that wage, you'll get a good-sized subsidy to go shop for a plan of your choice.

 

[fbj]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

If you're unemployed, no. If you're working full-time, yes. At that wage, you'll get a good-sized subsidy to go shop for a plan of your choice.

That sounds retarded because it will be taking away from a salary that is already LOW

 

[emilynghiem]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

If you're unemployed, no. If you're working full-time, yes. At that wage, you'll get a good-sized subsidy to go shop for a plan of your choice.

That sounds retarded because it will be taking away from a salary that is already LOW

Dear fbj and Greenbeard
also watch out for the govt reducing subsidies and returns

Greenbeard can you look up and cite what is the effect on reduced
govt benefits subsidies and tax returns? So people's costs will go up in other ways.

Also what is the salary range that is exempted from the 1% tax penalty.

My issue is that even though my income shows a high amount from working two jobs,
the majority of my salary is paying for loans and debts to help nonprofit community
groups helping low income districts recoverying from govt abuses and damages
that the govt never recognized and so no restitution is covering the costs to these commnities.

My salary is used to help keep their nonprofit programs going
so they can do the work that the govt not only failed to provide
but enabled tax money to go to hostile interests to destroy these communities,
trying to take them over from the nonprofit and volunteer groups trying to prserve them.

So this investment of my resources to protect equal interests of the community
violated by govt abuses and corruption that we are too poor to defend and prove in court,
takes up much more of my salary
yet does not count as an exemption and I would still be taxed on my salary level.

right now I have insurance through my day job but that will end by this year.

So if this issue is not resolved,
I will be penalized even though my money is going toward public expenses
that govt incurred by their damaging abusive behavior to take over poor districts
by giving tax money to competing developers and bleeding out the nonprofit groups,
seizing land evicting them and shutting down their programs so they can fund the
competing interests in public housing an dpublic schools to take over these communities.

this happened in two districts in Houston I was trying to help
promote their own educational programs to set up campuses in their districts.

so it has cost me over 60,000 in credit card debts
that I work two jobs to pay the interest hoping this will get resolved soon
but it has dragged out 10 to 15 years longer than I ever expected.

Since that does not count as an exemption
how much am I looking to pay

what is the minimal salary that is charged 1% for not buying insurance

 

[fbj]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

If you're unemployed, no. If you're working full-time, yes. At that wage, you'll get a good-sized subsidy to go shop for a plan of your choice.

That sounds retarded because it will be taking away from a salary that is already LOW

Dear fbj and Greenbeard
also watch out for the govt reducing subsidies and returns

Greenbeard can you look up and cite what is the effect on reduced
govt benefits subsidies and tax returns? So people's costs will go up in other ways.

Also what is the salary range that is exempted from the 1% tax penalty.

My issue is that even though my income shows a high amount from working two jobs,
the majority of my salary is paying for loans and debts to help nonprofit community
groups helping low income districts recoverying from govt abuses and damages
that the govt never recognized and so no restitution is covering the costs to these commnities.

My salary is used to help keep their nonprofit programs going
so they can do the work that the govt not only failed to provide
but enabled tax money to go to hostile interests to destroy these communities,
trying to take them over from the nonprofit and volunteer groups trying to prserve them.

So this investment of my resources to protect equal interests of the community
violated by govt abuses and corruption that we are too poor to defend and prove in court,
takes up much more of my salary
yet does not count as an exemption and I would still be taxed on my salary level.

right now I have insurance through my day job but that will end by this year.

So if this issue is not resolved,
I will be penalized even though my money is going toward public expenses
that govt incurred by their damaging abusive behavior to take over poor districts
by giving tax money to competing developers and bleeding out the nonprofit groups,
seizing land evicting them and shutting down their programs so they can fund the
competing interests in public housing an dpublic schools to take over these communities.

this happened in two districts in Houston I was trying to help
promote their own educational programs to set up campuses in their districts.

so it has cost me over 60,000 in credit card debts
that I work two jobs to pay the interest hoping this will get resolved soon
but it has dragged out 10 to 15 years longer than I ever expected.

Since that does not count as an exemption
how much am I looking to pay

what is the minimal salary that is charged 1% for not buying insurance

So if my job offers me insurance it would not have any effect on my tax return right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

No.

With regard to someone with no income living in a state with expanded Medicaid, he would be eligible for that state's Medicaid. For someone earning $9.50 an hour, he can either purchase private insurance through the exchange with the likely assistance of a subsidy or opt not to buy insurance and pay into the program so he can purchase insurance should he need it or want it in the future.

For those who opt not to by insurance and not pay into the program, they may pay the tax that is due instead. If they refuse to pay the tax, the sum will be deducted from any refund – if no refund is due, no further action is taken by the government.

This is why it's a lie that the ACA 'forces' anyone to have insurance, as each citizen is at liberty to not have insurance if he so desires, where he'll instead pay a tax – or not, depending on the specific situation; a tax no different than the many other taxes we pay as members of society, a tax which is Constitutional pursuant to Congress' taxing authority.

Last, for those with no income in states that didn't expand Medicaid, they'll have no insurance, nor will they be subject to the tax.

 

[fbj]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

No.

With regard to someone with no income living in a state with expanded Medicaid, he would be eligible for that state's Medicaid. For someone earning $9.50 an hour, he can either purchase private insurance through the exchange with the likely assistance of a subsidy or opt not to buy insurance and pay into the program so he can purchase insurance should he need it or want it in the future.

For those who opt not to by insurance and not pay into the program, they may pay the tax that is due instead. If they refuse to pay the tax, the sum will be deducted from any refund – if no refund is due, no further action is taken by the government.

This is why it's a lie that the ACA 'forces' anyone to have insurance, as each citizen is at liberty to not have insurance if he so desires, where he'll instead pay a tax – or not, depending on the specific situation; a tax no different than the many other taxes we pay as members of society, a tax which is Constitutional pursuant to Congress' taxing authority.

Last, for those with no income in states that didn't expand Medicaid, they'll have no insurance, nor will they be subject to the tax.

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

 

[emilynghiem]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

No.

With regard to someone with no income living in a state with expanded Medicaid, he would be eligible for that state's Medicaid. For someone earning $9.50 an hour, he can either purchase private insurance through the exchange with the likely assistance of a subsidy or opt not to buy insurance and pay into the program so he can purchase insurance should he need it or want it in the future.

For those who opt not to by insurance and not pay into the program, they may pay the tax that is due instead. If they refuse to pay the tax, the sum will be deducted from any refund – if no refund is due, no further action is taken by the government.

This is why it's a lie that the ACA 'forces' anyone to have insurance, as each citizen is at liberty to not have insurance if he so desires, where he'll instead pay a tax – or not, depending on the specific situation; a tax no different than the many other taxes we pay as members of society, a tax which is Constitutional pursuant to Congress' taxing authority.

Last, for those with no income in states that didn't expand Medicaid, they'll have no insurance, nor will they be subject to the tax.

the TAX is discriminatory by only exempting people approved
by govt as meeting regulations BIASED BY BELIEF
and penalizing others BIASED BY BELIEF.

C_Clayton_Jones happens to be of the creed and group
that isn't taxed against their beliefs.
So doesn't see this as depriving liberty but paying a tax anyone
should agree to pay.

This is biased and deceitful to deny as biased.

Because if it were the other way around
if the only exemptions were people paying into PROLIFE programs
and the tax penalties on all citizens refusing,
go into PROLIFE programs,
then this would unfairly penalize prochoice
citizens taxed while prolife people are exempted
for funding their own prolife programs they already believe in funding.

the prochoice people would be FORCED
by either the mandate or the tax penalty
to fund PROLIFE programs they don't believe in
and thus punished and discriminated against for
paying the same into PROCHOICE programs
not considered exemptions by this biased law.

C_Clayton_Jones
will probably say "but the law that was passed
was not biased prolife" so this cannot be compared
because such a case doesn't exist in case law.

However, imagine if it HAD been biased towards prolife.
And it went through Congress and Courts that way.
then CCJONES would be crying it is
against free choice and imposing a prolife religious bias.

 

[OnePercenter]

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

So you think it's OK for a person without medical insurance to let taxpayers fit the bill for their healthcare?

 

[emilynghiem]

So if I am a person who is unemployed with no insurance or working full-time as $9.50 an hour i would have to get OBAMACARE?????????????/

No.

With regard to someone with no income living in a state with expanded Medicaid, he would be eligible for that state's Medicaid. For someone earning $9.50 an hour, he can either purchase private insurance through the exchange with the likely assistance of a subsidy or opt not to buy insurance and pay into the program so he can purchase insurance should he need it or want it in the future.

For those who opt not to by insurance and not pay into the program, they may pay the tax that is due instead. If they refuse to pay the tax, the sum will be deducted from any refund – if no refund is due, no further action is taken by the government.

This is why it's a lie that the ACA 'forces' anyone to have insurance, as each citizen is at liberty to not have insurance if he so desires, where he'll instead pay a tax – or not, depending on the specific situation; a tax no different than the many other taxes we pay as members of society, a tax which is Constitutional pursuant to Congress' taxing authority.

Last, for those with no income in states that didn't expand Medicaid, they'll have no insurance, nor will they be subject to the tax.

Obama is truly the dumbest mutherf*cker I ever laid eyes on

Just so blinded by political bias
they cannot see they are precluding and punishing
other beliefs that are equally valid.
they see their "belief in health care as a right"
as the default truth, similar to Christians who
believe God's law is the truth and other ways are wrong.

When Christians attempt to impose laws favoring
their beliefs, the liberals cry for separation of church and state.
But when it comes to their beliefs, that is just right anyway
so it should be established by law.

the problem is we don't all agree to respect
political beliefs as equal under the Constitution
as we interpret religious beliefs to be included
under the first and fourteenth amendments.

we need to have conferences and consensus
on political beliefs, and decide if amendments
should be clarified on how to protect and
include these equally instead of excluding and discriminating
by imposing one political belief over another which
in practice denies equal protection on the basis of creed.

people are too biased and emotionally
tied up in their views to see and respect them as equal creeds
similar to religions.