The Reality: ObamaCare Isn't Healthcare

[PoliticalChic]

ObamaCare: both a huge tax on the middle class....after all, that's where the wealth is,....and, worse....seeing to it that the once finest healthcare system in the world becomes no more than that of the third world.

America has never had the "finest health care system in the world" and it has never been nor is now that of "third world".
The claim by the OP is total misinformation. For a price, the best medical attention in the world is available in the United States. Those who can afford the best, can get the best. That is not the same as "the best system". Comparing the American health care system to "third world" is beyond ridiculous and in fact, a bold faced blatant lie.

It's third world if you can't afford it....

Bogus.

Have you ever tried it?

1. Post #17 outlines how all can avail themselves of healthcare.

2. Being independently and enormously wealthy, I don't have the same.....outlook....as peasants like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who is it named for?

The Affordable Care Act is Oblama's name?

An obvious oxymoron.

"Now There Can Be No Doubt: Obamacare Has Increased Non-Group Premiums In Nearly All States"
Now There Can Be No Doubt Obamacare Has Increased Non-Group Premiums In Nearly All States - Forbes

 

[Moonglow]

ObamaCare: both a huge tax on the middle class....after all, that's where the wealth is,....and, worse....seeing to it that the once finest healthcare system in the world becomes no more than that of the third world.

America has never had the "finest health care system in the world" and it has never been nor is now that of "third world".
The claim by the OP is total misinformation. For a price, the best medical attention in the world is available in the United States. Those who can afford the best, can get the best. That is not the same as "the best system". Comparing the American health care system to "third world" is beyond ridiculous and in fact, a bold faced blatant lie.

It's third world if you can't afford it....

Bogus.

Have you ever tried it?

1. Post #17 outlines how all can avail themselves of healthcare.

2. Being independently and enormously wealthy, I don't have the same.....outlook....as peasants like you.

I can tell....enjoy your snot....

 

[LOki]

ObamaCare: both a huge tax on the middle class....after all, that's where the wealth is,....and, worse....seeing to it that the once finest healthcare system in the world becomes no more than that of the third world.

America has never had the "finest health care system in the world" and it has never been nor is now that of "third world".
The claim by the OP is total misinformation. For a price, the best medical attention in the world is available in the United States. Those who can afford the best, can get the best. That is not the same as "the best system". Comparing the American health care system to "third world" is beyond ridiculous and in fact, a bold faced blatant lie.

It's third world if you can't afford it....

Bogus.

Have you ever tried it?

I did.

My coverage pre-ACA included my child for a one-time $45 administrative fee, and a $3500 flex spending account, no deductible for Rx.

Post ACA, less coverage (lost dental and vision), $340/mo to cover my child, no flex account, $400 deductible,...but $70/mo more in my gross pay.

 

[PoliticalChic]

America has never had the "finest health care system in the world" and it has never been nor is now that of "third world".
The claim by the OP is total misinformation. For a price, the best medical attention in the world is available in the United States. Those who can afford the best, can get the best. That is not the same as "the best system". Comparing the American health care system to "third world" is beyond ridiculous and in fact, a bold faced blatant lie.

It's third world if you can't afford it....

Bogus.

Have you ever tried it?

1. Post #17 outlines how all can avail themselves of healthcare.

2. Being independently and enormously wealthy, I don't have the same.....outlook....as peasants like you.

I can tell....enjoy your snot....

A response right out of the second grade boys bathroom.

Congrats.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems that Savage is correct about the ruination desired by Obama....ObamaCare removes the ability of NYers to avail themselves of first-world medical care, punishing as well as redistributing their wealth.


7. " New health plans sold through exchanges not accepted at some prestigious NYC hospitals
November 23, 2013
Washington Post

New Yorkers buying a health plan on the state’s new insurance exchange should read the fine print if they’re interested in getting care at some of the city’s top hospitals.

Not all are participating in the new plans created by the Affordable Care Act.

As of this week, not one of the plans for sale on New York’s health benefit exchange would cover treatment at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, one of the world’s largest and most respected cancer hospitals."
New health plans sold through exchanges not accepted at some prestigious NYC hospitals WTF RLY REPORT




8. And it's not just New York:
" WASHINGTON (AP) — Some of America's best cancer hospitals are off-limits to many of the people now signing up for coverage under the nation's new health care program.... An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance is excluded by five out of eight insurers in Washington's insurance exchange. MD Anderson Cancer Center says it's in less than half of the plans in the Houston area. Memorial Sloan-Kettering is included by two of nine insurers in New York City and has out-of-network agreements with two more.

In all, only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to AP's survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their states' exchanges."
Concerns about cancer centers under health law - Yahoo News



So....who is disputing what I stated about ObamaCare hurting the healthcare of Americans?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The bank robber Willie Sutton, famously replied to a reporter's inquiry as to why he robbed banks by saying "because that's where the money is."

For exactly the same reason, ObamaCare is aimed at the middle-class.


9. "ObamaCare targets the middle class, small business owners, professionals, individuals and families whose annual incomes are in the $60,000- $175,000 range. These middle-class Americans are finding that under ObamaCare they can no longer keep health insurance policies they were happy with, as they were once promised by the president. The policies they were instructed to buy had premiums that were in many cases higher than the ones they had, with annual deductibles that ran as much as $10,000 more than they were paying.

By eliminating the individual health insurance market, the administration is using ObamaCare to bring into being a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the poor."
Savage, Op.Cit., p. 128-129




ObamaCare Isn't Healthcare

....it's redistribution of the wealth of Americans by increase of premiums and deductibles,and the reducing of our healthcare to that of a third world nation.

 

[Ava]

Gawd how stupid..Oblama didn't write the law....the tax ruling came later after it passed...The main reason for the law was...medical corporate profits...Just like Auto insurance requirements...oh my and just think if you own a home, you are forced by corporations to have insurance ....

"....Oblama didn't write the law.."
Who is it named for?
Who signed it into law?
"Obama: 'I have become fond of this term, Obamacare'"
Obama I have become fond of this term Obamacare Video 9news.com




5. Now the reality:
ObamaCare is based on anti-colonialism, and anti-colonialism is hatred of America and Americans.

The concept of colonialism is blanketed on naïve college students and to receptive academics, intellectuals, activists, community organizers precisely because it validates envy and resentment of those with lower incomes toward those with higher incomes. As a bonus, it removes the stigma from implications of lesser ability and/or lesser performance on the part of those with lower incomes.


a. Further, it shifts the need for change from those who wish to rise, to others, and replaces any such burdensome task with a morally uplifting sense of entitlement.
Thomas Sowell, “Economic Facts and Fallacies.”





6. Michael Savage writes, in "Stop The Coming Civil War:"
"I've told my radio audiences over and over that Obama is intent on reducing the United States to just another third-world country through his attempts to destroy our capitalist economy. Finally, one of Obama's- the leader of software development, no less- validates me!"

“The time for debating about the size of text on the screen or the color or is it a world-class user experience, that’s what we used to talk about two years ago,” Henry Chao, an official at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services who is overseeing the technology of the exchanges said at a recent conference. “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.”
Obamacare official Let s just make sure it s not a third-world experience WashingtonExaminer.com

But....third-world......that it is.

#5. I wonder how many on the left have read Dreams FROM my Father or, The Roots of Obama's Rage. They would get everything you have posted, if they had.

 

[Staidhup]

Can we all be honest? Take the self employed individual. 52 years old, married, two children, pays his mandatory bronze plan health insurance premium each month. Child gets sick, he needs to get a check up, wife needs to get a check up, just how much do you think that mandatory health care plan will pay? zip, not one red penny until he meets his annual deductible, est. at $5,000. So tell me how a man earning lets say between $45,000.00-$60,0000 a year benefits from this kind of government mandated crap? If he took the $6,000-$8,000 in annual premiums paid and applied those funds to health care he would be better off than then paying between $11,000 and $13,000 to satisfy this failed and miserable attempt at mandating health coverage from these liberal pathetic excuses we have governing this country.

If in a free market all barriers were removed, policies were available to all individuals regardless of state of residence, 100% tax credit for premiums paid, coupled with tort reform, would not the cost of heath insurance premiums be driven down?

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. The apparatchiks of this administration, those who help to destroy the Constitution and persecute Americans, include sycophants like MIT's Jonathan Gruber....'the great communicator.'


Gruber, one of the creators of ObamaCare, claimed that 'ObamaCare's authors took advantage of the "stupidity of the American voter." The federal government paid Gruber nearly $400,000 for his work." Gruber apologizes for mean and insulting ObamaCare comments Fox News



a. " In speeches and interviews, Gruber admitted he helped the Obama administration craft the law in such a way that it would seem like it didn’t tax the American people when it did.... mocked the “stupidity of the American voter” for not seeing through the camouflage he helped design. " Jonathan Gruber the arrogant profiteering liar of the year New York Post




Not all of us were stupid...but he certainly described Obama voters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. But Gruber isn't that smart, either. His thinking represents that of many Liberals.....and it is riddled with mistakes. For example, " Obamacare Architect: Genetic "Lottery Winners" Have Been Paying An "Artificially Low Price"
The only way to end that discriminatory [healthcare] system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who've been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we'll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance." Obamacare Architect Genetic Lottery Winners Have Been Paying An Artificially Low Price Video RealClearPolitics



a." Gruber, the architect, it is said, of Obamacare, the professor at MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has now introduced eugenics into this entire health care debate by suggesting that there is a lucky gene pool. How did he phrase it? The winner of life's gene pool lottery or some such thing. So what he's getting at is that the healthy are lucky. The healthy, who don't have to spend as much on health care, the lucky, who are only lucky because of their genetics, we have to tax them more." Obamacare Architect Introduces Eugenics Genetic Lottery Winners Must Pay - The Rush Limbaugh Show


Get that???


For Liberals, the only way to get sick is to have some sort of genetic disposition toward same.

They deny that there are lots of reasons one becomes ill, not the least of which is failing to pay attention to one's health.


How about those 'throwing caution to the wind' pay more?
Imagine that....having folks be responsible for their own good health.....anathema to Liberals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Now...speaking of personal responsibility....some folks work two jobs...or work overtime to avail themselves and their families a higher standard of living.


Obama will simply not allow that!


ObamaCare is not merely a redistribution of wealth, but it is an attack on the middle class by redefining full employment from 40 hours per week to 30 hours.

What better way to move middle class workers into the lower category than by cutting their earning power by 25 percent?




a. "Republicans said the current statute gives employers an incentive to cut workers' hours to avoid paying fines as a result of the healthcare law. The healthcare law imposes fees on businesses that do not provide health insurance to employees who work 30 hours per week.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Wednesday that the bill would increase the deficit by about $46 billion because it would lower the number of companies liable for penalties and therefore reduce government revenues.

“Employees are losing wages and hours of work, and employers are losing the ability to offer jobs and structure their workforce in a way that best serves their business,” Bruce Josten, a lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce, wrote in a letter to the House on Wednesday."
House votes down ObamaCare s 30-hour workweek 252-172 TheHill




b. "Adding to a devastating CBO report of how Obamacare could damage the economy, a Duke University survey of top companies found that 44 percent are considering reducing health benefits to current employees due to Obamacare, confirming the fears of millions of American workers.

In its December survey of chief financial officers around the country, Duke also found that nearly half are “reluctant to hire full-time employers because of the Affordable Care Act.”

And 40 percent are considering shifting to part-time workers and others will hire fewer workers of fire some to avoid the costs of the program.



“An unintended consequence of the Affordable Care Act will be a reduction in full-time employment growth in the United States." Duke University 44 of U.S. firms consider cutting health care to current workers WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ironic that some voted for the fraud believing that he was some sort of constitutional scholar...and he would uphold the Constitution.


13. "The federal government has assumed great responsibility to tax and provide for our citizens under the interpreted authority of the general welfare clause in the Constitution. Our Departments of Transportation, Education, Agriculture, and Interior are all justified by the general welfare clause. Most recently one of the main justifications of the Healthcare Act is that Congress has authority to create such a law because of the general welfare clause.



But how Constitutional is this assumed authority? What would our founders say about this current view of federal power?


Since James Madison is called the Father of our Constitution, it makes sense that we would look to him for clarification on this point. Madison discussed this very issue in an argument he was making against subsidizing a cod fisherman in 1792.

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792


Madison was very simply explaining that the clause “common defense and general welfare” was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries."
The General Welfare Clause Justification for Obamacare - Liberty First





The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. The [powers of the federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. Fed. 45


And certainly wasn't intended to include medical insurance.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ironic that some voted for the fraud believing that he was some sort of constitutional scholar...and he would uphold the Constitution.


13. "The federal government has assumed great responsibility to tax and provide for our citizens under the interpreted authority of the general welfare clause in the Constitution. Our Departments of Transportation, Education, Agriculture, and Interior are all justified by the general welfare clause. Most recently one of the main justifications of the Healthcare Act is that Congress has authority to create such a law because of the general welfare clause.



But how Constitutional is this assumed authority? What would our founders say about this current view of federal power?


Since James Madison is called the Father of our Constitution, it makes sense that we would look to him for clarification on this point. Madison discussed this very issue in an argument he was making against subsidizing a cod fisherman in 1792.

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792


Madison was very simply explaining that the clause “common defense and general welfare” was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries."
The General Welfare Clause Justification for Obamacare - Liberty First





The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. The [powers of the federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. Fed. 45


And certainly wasn't intended to include medical insurance.

Dear PoliticalChic:
I thought the Conservatives counted it a victory that the Supreme Court struck down this argument about the ACA and the "general welfare" clause.

The controversy is that it was argued as a tax, and that is the argument that was ruled constitutional.

The problem being
(1) it was not argued and passed through Congress as a tax, or it would be struck down; because it was argued as a public health bill, presumably under the general welfare duty of federal govt, there was understanding this would not get past the Supreme Court and sure enough it did not -- under that format.

So the bill STILL did not pass both through the Congress and the Courts as either a
a. tax -- where this passed through the Court but was never voted on as a tax through Congress
b. general welfare application -- where this passed through Congress, but was struck down by the Court
but passed as a hybrid that changed form in midstream

(2) even if it were counted as a tax, this is debatable whether it originated in the House or not
a. some argue that since the ACA was a REVISED version of a previous bill, then the ORIGINAL form did originate in the House
b. others argue that it was changed too much, adding much more to it that was not there before,
and therefore it was a New bill, and not recognizable enough to be the previous bill reformed

(3) either way, the bill does NOT reflect the consent of the taxpayers affected either by
a. no taxation without representation as shown above
b. not depriving citizens of liberty without due process to show what crime has been committed that justifies loss of freedom to govt requirements, especially ones that were not prescribed by law in advance of this change
c. also related to no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime
d. separation of federal govt from rights reserved to the states or to the people, where a Constitutional amendment is required first before granting new powers to govt at the level that ACA created new roles
e. not establishing a religion, as in favoring the belief in the "right to health care" over "states rights" and by regulating exemptions on the basis of religion and creed, where only govt-sanctioned programs are legally recognized and other choices of individuals or groups are fined if these are not proven and recognized first.
f. violating equal protection of the laws by discriminating on the basis of creed, by exempting citizens from taxes who comply with beliefs in federally mandated health care requirement while penalizing citizens with taxes for exercising their beliefs in freedom of choice to pay for health care in other ways that are not crimes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ironic that some voted for the fraud believing that he was some sort of constitutional scholar...and he would uphold the Constitution.


13. "The federal government has assumed great responsibility to tax and provide for our citizens under the interpreted authority of the general welfare clause in the Constitution. Our Departments of Transportation, Education, Agriculture, and Interior are all justified by the general welfare clause. Most recently one of the main justifications of the Healthcare Act is that Congress has authority to create such a law because of the general welfare clause.



But how Constitutional is this assumed authority? What would our founders say about this current view of federal power?


Since James Madison is called the Father of our Constitution, it makes sense that we would look to him for clarification on this point. Madison discussed this very issue in an argument he was making against subsidizing a cod fisherman in 1792.

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792


Madison was very simply explaining that the clause “common defense and general welfare” was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries."
The General Welfare Clause Justification for Obamacare - Liberty First





The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. The [powers of the federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. Fed. 45


And certainly wasn't intended to include medical insurance.

Dear PoliticalChic:
I thought the Conservatives counted it a victory that the Supreme Court struck down this argument about the ACA and the "general welfare" clause.

The controversy is that it was argued as a tax, and that is the argument that was ruled constitutional.

The problem being
(1) it was not argued and passed through Congress as a tax, or it would be struck down; because it was argued as a public health bill, presumably under the general welfare duty of federal govt, there was understanding this would not get past the Supreme Court and sure enough it did not -- under that format.

So the bill STILL did not pass both through the Congress and the Courts as either a
a. tax -- where this passed through the Court but was never voted on as a tax through Congress
b. general welfare application -- where this passed through Congress, but was struck down by the Court
but passed as a hybrid that changed form in midstream

(2) even if it were counted as a tax, this is debatable whether it originated in the House or not
a. some argue that since the ACA was a REVISED version of a previous bill, then the ORIGINAL form did originate in the House
b. others argue that it was changed too much, adding much more to it that was not there before,
and therefore it was a New bill, and not recognizable enough to be the previous bill reformed

(3) either way, the bill does NOT reflect the consent of the taxpayers affected either by
a. no taxation without representation as shown above
b. not depriving citizens of liberty without due process to show what crime has been committed that justifies loss of freedom to govt requirements, especially ones that were not prescribed by law in advance of this change
c. also related to no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime
d. separation of federal govt from rights reserved to the states or to the people, where a Constitutional amendment is required first before granting new powers to govt at the level that ACA created new roles
e. not establishing a religion, as in favoring the belief in the "right to health care" over "states rights" and by regulating exemptions on the basis of religion and creed, where only govt-sanctioned programs are legally recognized and other choices of individuals or groups are fined if these are not proven and recognized first.
f. violating equal protection of the laws by discriminating on the basis of creed, by exempting citizens from taxes who comply with beliefs in federally mandated health care requirement while penalizing citizens with taxes for exercising their beliefs in freedom of choice to pay for health care in other ways that are not crimes.

Perhaps you should read that post again.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ironic that some voted for the fraud believing that he was some sort of constitutional scholar...and he would uphold the Constitution.


13. "The federal government has assumed great responsibility to tax and provide for our citizens under the interpreted authority of the general welfare clause in the Constitution. Our Departments of Transportation, Education, Agriculture, and Interior are all justified by the general welfare clause. Most recently one of the main justifications of the Healthcare Act is that Congress has authority to create such a law because of the general welfare clause.



But how Constitutional is this assumed authority? What would our founders say about this current view of federal power?


Since James Madison is called the Father of our Constitution, it makes sense that we would look to him for clarification on this point. Madison discussed this very issue in an argument he was making against subsidizing a cod fisherman in 1792.

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792


Madison was very simply explaining that the clause “common defense and general welfare” was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries."
The General Welfare Clause Justification for Obamacare - Liberty First





The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. The [powers of the federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. Fed. 45


And certainly wasn't intended to include medical insurance.

Dear PoliticalChic:
I thought the Conservatives counted it a victory that the Supreme Court struck down this argument about the ACA and the "general welfare" clause.

The controversy is that it was argued as a tax, and that is the argument that was ruled constitutional.

The problem being
(1) it was not argued and passed through Congress as a tax, or it would be struck down; because it was argued as a public health bill, presumably under the general welfare duty of federal govt, there was understanding this would not get past the Supreme Court and sure enough it did not -- under that format.

So the bill STILL did not pass both through the Congress and the Courts as either a
a. tax -- where this passed through the Court but was never voted on as a tax through Congress
b. general welfare application -- where this passed through Congress, but was struck down by the Court
but passed as a hybrid that changed form in midstream

(2) even if it were counted as a tax, this is debatable whether it originated in the House or not
a. some argue that since the ACA was a REVISED version of a previous bill, then the ORIGINAL form did originate in the House
b. others argue that it was changed too much, adding much more to it that was not there before,
and therefore it was a New bill, and not recognizable enough to be the previous bill reformed

(3) either way, the bill does NOT reflect the consent of the taxpayers affected either by
a. no taxation without representation as shown above
b. not depriving citizens of liberty without due process to show what crime has been committed that justifies loss of freedom to govt requirements, especially ones that were not prescribed by law in advance of this change
c. also related to no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime
d. separation of federal govt from rights reserved to the states or to the people, where a Constitutional amendment is required first before granting new powers to govt at the level that ACA created new roles
e. not establishing a religion, as in favoring the belief in the "right to health care" over "states rights" and by regulating exemptions on the basis of religion and creed, where only govt-sanctioned programs are legally recognized and other choices of individuals or groups are fined if these are not proven and recognized first.
f. violating equal protection of the laws by discriminating on the basis of creed, by exempting citizens from taxes who comply with beliefs in federally mandated health care requirement while penalizing citizens with taxes for exercising their beliefs in freedom of choice to pay for health care in other ways that are not crimes.

Perhaps you should read that post again.

Thanks PoliticalChic

1. RE: The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax. Supreme Court upholds individual mandate ObamaCare survives Fox News

Sorry, you're right I cited it wrong:
the ACA was uphold under govt power to TAX vs. the COMMERCE CLAUSE (not the general welfare clause)."

2. What I've noticed, PC, whether we argue based on
"States' rights" or "involuntary servitude/deprivation of liberties without due process" etc.
as long as we UNITE and enforce the common argument that ACA mandates
violate CONSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS IN GENERAL and that these are a PROTECTED CREED under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, then we AREN'T required to AGREE or to prove "which points are right or wrong" or which belief or interpretation is correct. No proof is necessary in order to defend the right to exercise your beliefs, or that would be regulating religion. There doesn't have to be ONE unified denomination of Christianity before we defend our right to exercise that without being penalized for it by federal govt.

3. Instead of getting tied up in debate over "right to health care" vs. "states' rights" (and which interpretation should prevail) we go ahead and claim our right to our Constitutional beliefs the same as "religion" and govt has NO AUTHORITY to discriminate against, penalize us with taxes while exempting those whose beliefs are favored by the ACA, and also no right to REGULATE on the basis of creed, to determine which religious practices qualify for exemption or not, which is govt regulating religion.

Note: the Tax itself can be argued as punitive and discriminatory by creed by govt regulating
the exemptions by religion, and not considering the belief in states' rights as a political religion that cannot be penalized.

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

^ I would argue this tax is discriminatory, because it is a valid belief that federal govt has no authority to regulate the free choices left to people and to states to pay for health care without federally mandated insurance. It's not just the insurance that is the focus of the religious beliefs, but the belief that federal govt has the authority to penalize choices it regulates."