Why are Constitutionalists such wimps? And not suing over the ACA mandates?

[Timmy]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

Dear Timmy: Before the mandates, people had the freedom to pay for health care through charities, through business plans, through insurance, or directly etc. without being penalized for free choice.

After the mandates, suddenly "free choice" is regulated by govt and/or penalized.

But the citizens who lost our liberty never got to vote on this measure, didn't go through due process to PROVE any crime or abuse was committed and "which people owe govt for what costs."

As for me Timmy, in order to restore the freedom I had before, and to be exempted from ACA all together, I had to pay $45 a month to join a RELIGIOUS organization as one of the few approved by govt.

So basically Timmy, the govt required me to PAY TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP in order not to be under a law that violated my beliefs.

This was the cheapest and LEAST imposing way I found to restore the original freedom I had to fund health care provisions according to my beliefs which are based on FREE CHOICE, not force of law against people's beliefs, which is against my Constitutional beliefs.

I was required to
(A) pay $45 a month as the cheapest alternative to be exempt f rom this bill I still hold as unconstitutional in violating my Constitutional beliefs
(B) join a RELIGIOUS health share ministry that qualified for exemption

Timmy, before ACA I was NOT required to pay or join a religious group in order to have free choice of how to pay or provide for health care.

AFTER ACA I had to do both A and B and these were the LEAST imposing and MINIMAL ways I found to be exempted in order to exercise my beliefs in free choice I had BEFORE this bill was passed.

Emily,

I do not have a child . So I am forced to pay higher taxes because I can not claim a dependent .

That means the government mandates I have a kid ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind that the GOP planned in whichever of their Trumpcares to give people tax breaks to buy insurance,

which is the same as the mandate in the ACA, in principle.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

You do know that there are a shit ton of lawsuits against the Fed because of the AHCA ? The Mandate is a big reason why, as it is unconstitutional.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

the left wipes its ass with anything that isnt the second amendment, and anything that IS the second amendment.

Bull . Name a right and we'lol discuss . If you can even name a non 2nd right .

The right to have healthcare determined by individuals and the states and not the federal government. Also known as the tenth amendment

The Aca leaves the control to the states . Have you noticed red states have the most issues ? Cause they sabotage the Aca .

GOP hates State rights. They are targeting pot even though all these states are legalizing .

" hey States, do what we tell you"

"See the States have control!"

 

[emilynghiem]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

Dear Timmy: Before the mandates, people had the freedom to pay for health care through charities, through business plans, through insurance, or directly etc. without being penalized for free choice.

After the mandates, suddenly "free choice" is regulated by govt and/or penalized.

But the citizens who lost our liberty never got to vote on this measure, didn't go through due process to PROVE any crime or abuse was committed and "which people owe govt for what costs."

As for me Timmy, in order to restore the freedom I had before, and to be exempted from ACA all together, I had to pay $45 a month to join a RELIGIOUS organization as one of the few approved by govt.

So basically Timmy, the govt required me to PAY TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP in order not to be under a law that violated my beliefs.

This was the cheapest and LEAST imposing way I found to restore the original freedom I had to fund health care provisions according to my beliefs which are based on FREE CHOICE, not force of law against people's beliefs, which is against my Constitutional beliefs.

I was required to
(A) pay $45 a month as the cheapest alternative to be exempt f rom this bill I still hold as unconstitutional in violating my Constitutional beliefs
(B) join a RELIGIOUS health share ministry that qualified for exemption

Timmy, before ACA I was NOT required to pay or join a religious group in order to have free choice of how to pay or provide for health care.

AFTER ACA I had to do both A and B and these were the LEAST imposing and MINIMAL ways I found to be exempted in order to exercise my beliefs in free choice I had BEFORE this bill was passed.

Emily,

I do not have a child . So I am forced to pay higher taxes because I can not claim a dependent .

That means the government mandates I have a kid ?

Dear Timmy
If the mandate had been written where you get to DEDUCT anything you pay for insurance or health care from your taxes, that would be the same as a deduction.

Adding a fine UNLESS YOU BUY INSURANCE is like the govt saying
We will * ADD FINES * AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED FROM YOUR INCOME/RETURN
UNLESS YOU SHOW PROOF THAT YOU ARE EXEMPTED DUE TO HAVING KIDS.

Do you think people would have approved such a tax bill that said that?
**ADDING** FINES and FORCED ADDED PENALTIES
unless the taxpayer meets certain requirements for exemptions
(whether insurance or religious health share membership,
or in the case you bring up, having children that count for deductions/exemptions)

Timmy do you understand the difference between
* getting costs SUBTRACTED AS A DEDUCTION FROM TAXES
* ADDING FINES IN ADDITION to what taxpayers ALREADY PAY
AS A DEDUCTION FROM THEIR INCOME OR TAX REFUNDS

one is charging LESS in taxes if someone declares an exemption for something
THEY ALREADY AGREE TO PAY FOR (IE HAVING CHILDREN IS WHAT THEY CHOSE
AND WASN'T FORCED ON THEM BY GOVT)
the other is charging MORE -- UNLESS someone BUYS or PAYS for something
THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY NORMALLY AGREE TO in order to get an exemption
(IE HAVING TO BUY INSURANCE in order NOT to pay MORE in fines to govt
is NOT SOMETHING THAT PERSON AGREED TO DO)

Do you understand the difference?

A. Deductions vs. added fines
1. the dependent child policy DEDUCTS from taxes people already pay
2. the ACA mandates ADDED fines ***IN ADDITION*** to what people already pay

Do you understand the difference between SUBTRACTING costs and ADDING costs?

B. people agreeing to pay the cost that qualifies for exemption/deduction
vs. people NOT AGREEING to pay an ADDED COST

1. the dependent child policy applies AFTER people already chose to have sex and/or have kids and pay for a dependent. They can freely choose NOT to have kids and this *DOES NOT ADD* TO THE TAXES THEY ALREADY PAY.

2. the mandates ADD fines/penalties if people don't buy insurance/religious memberships THEY DID NOT AGREE TO PAY FOR

is that more clear?

 

[OKTexas]

I hear Constitutionalist arguments on the radio, from Mark Levin to Josh Blackman, ARGUING that the ACA mandates were clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that Justice Roberts made a mistake in ruling otherwise. I believe this, too, and so do a number of my colleagues. (Even my Democrat/Green friends who believe in Single Payer denounce the mandates that benefit corporate for-profit insurance which is the opposite of providing health care on a nonprofit basis.)

But none of these people who claim to be Constitutionalists are WILLING TO SUE.

???

* I checked with Jon Roland of the Constitution Society who argues that ACA is Constitutional by how it was passed through Congress and through Courts. ???
How can the content of a bill be UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face, but just because it was pushed through the procedures this magically makes it Constitutional? Despite the conflicts, which make it unconstitutional, that it never resolved?

* Josh Blackman who wrote books on Obamacare and Constitutional arguments also said today "it would be a hard sell" that "probably wouldn't work" to try to argue that the mandates violate political beliefs while establishing or favoring other such beliefs.

So what if it is a hard argument to explain and win?
So was the battle to end slavery, when estates and economy depended on slave labor at the time.

What has happened to our hard fighting Constitutionalists?
Have they all sold out and wimped out because the majority is going with this BELIEF that govt has to manage health care in order to reform it globally?

I have found INDIVIDUALS who believe the mandates are unconstitutional, and willing to sue.

But no lawyers because they "assume" the courts and govt won't change.
What happened to principles?

Even a former leader with the Constitution party said you can't find lawyers willing to fight these Constitutional battles anymore. Have they all retired out and left the courts and bars to people who tolerate liberal philosophies of big govt and courts ruling and controlling everything? Because the politicians make money in a monopoly over courts, govt and the legal profession?

Have they bought out our legal system completely where there aren't Constitutionalists willing to stand up, speak out and fight for principles? But they only pimp the issues for money now?

I'm ready to launch a campaign anyway.
And hope that as individuals stand for our Constitutional beliefs that were violated,
then maybe we will find lawyers willing to argue, and party leaders willing to lobby for change
that would RESPECT these individual beliefs, regardless which party members believe what.

I am arguing that each party should fund its own beliefs, and not impose those on taxpayers.
And give taxpayers a choice of which tracks to fund, so ALL beliefs are protected equally.

Why is that so hard to imagine or change on our tax forms?
Choices A, B, C, D or E.
If you believe in directing your taxes to fund:
(A) the ACA mandates as passed originally
(B) the reform bills pushed recently
(C) none/neither and you want free market choices outside govt mandates and forced taxation
(D) you want health care managed through your state
(E) you want health care managed through your party

Then if any group has a surplus while other groups can't cover the demands of their members agreeing to fund them, then these groups can borrow and lend between them where they agree on the terms of donating, investing, borrowing or lending. And not force any programs on taxpayers who don't agree to pay for those policies.

Give it a little time, we now have a DOJ that won't defend the law. That would make it easy the get it declared unconstitutional despite previous rulings.


.

 

[emilynghiem]

Rand Paul wants 'two bill solution' in health care dispute

Rand Paul comes close to the separate funding I think is going to solve this problem.

Collins and the other moderate to liberal Republicans also wanted to keep ACA "as a choice" for states to offer or not.

So instead of a total ban or removal, why not hold those supporters and taxpayers responsible for paying for the govt programs they believe in developing?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

Dear Timmy: Before the mandates, people had the freedom to pay for health care through charities, through business plans, through insurance, or directly etc. without being penalized for free choice.

After the mandates, suddenly "free choice" is regulated by govt and/or penalized.

But the citizens who lost our liberty never got to vote on this measure, didn't go through due process to PROVE any crime or abuse was committed and "which people owe govt for what costs."

As for me Timmy, in order to restore the freedom I had before, and to be exempted from ACA all together, I had to pay $45 a month to join a RELIGIOUS organization as one of the few approved by govt.

So basically Timmy, the govt required me to PAY TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP in order not to be under a law that violated my beliefs.

This was the cheapest and LEAST imposing way I found to restore the original freedom I had to fund health care provisions according to my beliefs which are based on FREE CHOICE, not force of law against people's beliefs, which is against my Constitutional beliefs.

I was required to
(A) pay $45 a month as the cheapest alternative to be exempt f rom this bill I still hold as unconstitutional in violating my Constitutional beliefs
(B) join a RELIGIOUS health share ministry that qualified for exemption

Timmy, before ACA I was NOT required to pay or join a religious group in order to have free choice of how to pay or provide for health care.

AFTER ACA I had to do both A and B and these were the LEAST imposing and MINIMAL ways I found to be exempted in order to exercise my beliefs in free choice I had BEFORE this bill was passed.

Emily,

I do not have a child . So I am forced to pay higher taxes because I can not claim a dependent .

That means the government mandates I have a kid ?

Dear Timmy
If the mandate had been written where you get to DEDUCT anything you pay for insurance or health care from your taxes, that would be the same as a deduction.

Adding a fine UNLESS YOU BUY INSURANCE is like the govt saying
We will * ADD FINES * AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED FROM YOUR INCOME/RETURN
UNLESS YOU SHOW PROOF THAT YOU ARE EXEMPTED DUE TO HAVING KIDS.

Do you think people would have approved such a tax bill that said that?
**ADDING** FINES and FORCED ADDED PENALTIES
unless the taxpayer meets certain requirements for exemptions
(whether insurance or religious health share membership,
or in the case you bring up, having children that count for deductions/exemptions)

Timmy do you understand the difference between
* getting costs SUBTRACTED AS A DEDUCTION FROM TAXES
* ADDING FINES IN ADDITION to what taxpayers ALREADY PAY
AS A DEDUCTION FROM THEIR INCOME OR TAX REFUNDS

one is charging LESS in taxes if someone declares an exemption for something
THEY ALREADY AGREE TO PAY FOR (IE HAVING CHILDREN IS WHAT THEY CHOSE
AND WASN'T FORCED ON THEM BY GOVT)
the other is charging MORE -- UNLESS someone BUYS or PAYS for something
THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY NORMALLY AGREE TO in order to get an exemption
(IE HAVING TO BUY INSURANCE in order NOT to pay MORE in fines to govt
is NOT SOMETHING THAT PERSON AGREED TO DO)

Do you understand the difference?

A. Deductions vs. added fines
1. the dependent child policy DEDUCTS from taxes people already pay
2. the ACA mandates ADDED fines ***IN ADDITION*** to what people already pay

Do you understand the difference between SUBTRACTING costs and ADDING costs?

B. people agreeing to pay the cost that qualifies for exemption/deduction
vs. people NOT AGREEING to pay an ADDED COST

1. the dependent child policy applies AFTER people already chose to have sex and/or have kids and pay for a dependent. They can freely choose NOT to have kids and this *DOES NOT ADD* TO THE TAXES THEY ALREADY PAY.

2. the mandates ADD fines/penalties if people don't buy insurance/religious memberships THEY DID NOT AGREE TO PAY FOR

is that more clear?

You described a distinction without a difference.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

Dear Timmy: Before the mandates, people had the freedom to pay for health care through charities, through business plans, through insurance, or directly etc. without being penalized for free choice.

After the mandates, suddenly "free choice" is regulated by govt and/or penalized.

But the citizens who lost our liberty never got to vote on this measure, didn't go through due process to PROVE any crime or abuse was committed and "which people owe govt for what costs."

As for me Timmy, in order to restore the freedom I had before, and to be exempted from ACA all together, I had to pay $45 a month to join a RELIGIOUS organization as one of the few approved by govt.

So basically Timmy, the govt required me to PAY TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP in order not to be under a law that violated my beliefs.

This was the cheapest and LEAST imposing way I found to restore the original freedom I had to fund health care provisions according to my beliefs which are based on FREE CHOICE, not force of law against people's beliefs, which is against my Constitutional beliefs.

I was required to
(A) pay $45 a month as the cheapest alternative to be exempt f rom this bill I still hold as unconstitutional in violating my Constitutional beliefs
(B) join a RELIGIOUS health share ministry that qualified for exemption

Timmy, before ACA I was NOT required to pay or join a religious group in order to have free choice of how to pay or provide for health care.

AFTER ACA I had to do both A and B and these were the LEAST imposing and MINIMAL ways I found to be exempted in order to exercise my beliefs in free choice I had BEFORE this bill was passed.

Emily,

I do not have a child . So I am forced to pay higher taxes because I can not claim a dependent .

That means the government mandates I have a kid ?

No, Timmy, you are not forced to pay higher taxes than you normally would.

(Someone else paying lower taxes than they normally would does not
mean you are paying more COMPARED TO WHAT YOU NORMALLY PAY.)

You can also deduct taxes by investing in business.
You are not penalized because you chose to get your deductions from business
instead of deductions from dependents.

But by ACA mandates, if you choose to provide for health care 'other ways besides insurance"
such as charity hospitals or nonprofit businesses
THIS IS STILL FINED AND PENALIZED.

You did not have other options for getting exempted.
Only things that govt approved (such as buying insurance, enrolling in federal registries,
or buying a membership in pre-approved religious ministry health shares).
Paying for a charity hospital or funding organizations such as Doctors Without Borders
were not choices for exemption and would still incur tax penalties for "not buying insurance."

 

[emilynghiem]

Why doesn't the left respect the Constitution?

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

Dear Timmy: Before the mandates, people had the freedom to pay for health care through charities, through business plans, through insurance, or directly etc. without being penalized for free choice.

After the mandates, suddenly "free choice" is regulated by govt and/or penalized.

But the citizens who lost our liberty never got to vote on this measure, didn't go through due process to PROVE any crime or abuse was committed and "which people owe govt for what costs."

As for me Timmy, in order to restore the freedom I had before, and to be exempted from ACA all together, I had to pay $45 a month to join a RELIGIOUS organization as one of the few approved by govt.

So basically Timmy, the govt required me to PAY TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP in order not to be under a law that violated my beliefs.

This was the cheapest and LEAST imposing way I found to restore the original freedom I had to fund health care provisions according to my beliefs which are based on FREE CHOICE, not force of law against people's beliefs, which is against my Constitutional beliefs.

I was required to
(A) pay $45 a month as the cheapest alternative to be exempt f rom this bill I still hold as unconstitutional in violating my Constitutional beliefs
(B) join a RELIGIOUS health share ministry that qualified for exemption

Timmy, before ACA I was NOT required to pay or join a religious group in order to have free choice of how to pay or provide for health care.

AFTER ACA I had to do both A and B and these were the LEAST imposing and MINIMAL ways I found to be exempted in order to exercise my beliefs in free choice I had BEFORE this bill was passed.

Emily,

I do not have a child . So I am forced to pay higher taxes because I can not claim a dependent .

That means the government mandates I have a kid ?

Dear Timmy
If the mandate had been written where you get to DEDUCT anything you pay for insurance or health care from your taxes, that would be the same as a deduction.

Adding a fine UNLESS YOU BUY INSURANCE is like the govt saying
We will * ADD FINES * AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED FROM YOUR INCOME/RETURN
UNLESS YOU SHOW PROOF THAT YOU ARE EXEMPTED DUE TO HAVING KIDS.

Do you think people would have approved such a tax bill that said that?
**ADDING** FINES and FORCED ADDED PENALTIES
unless the taxpayer meets certain requirements for exemptions
(whether insurance or religious health share membership,
or in the case you bring up, having children that count for deductions/exemptions)

Timmy do you understand the difference between
* getting costs SUBTRACTED AS A DEDUCTION FROM TAXES
* ADDING FINES IN ADDITION to what taxpayers ALREADY PAY
AS A DEDUCTION FROM THEIR INCOME OR TAX REFUNDS

one is charging LESS in taxes if someone declares an exemption for something
THEY ALREADY AGREE TO PAY FOR (IE HAVING CHILDREN IS WHAT THEY CHOSE
AND WASN'T FORCED ON THEM BY GOVT)
the other is charging MORE -- UNLESS someone BUYS or PAYS for something
THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY NORMALLY AGREE TO in order to get an exemption
(IE HAVING TO BUY INSURANCE in order NOT to pay MORE in fines to govt
is NOT SOMETHING THAT PERSON AGREED TO DO)

Do you understand the difference?

A. Deductions vs. added fines
1. the dependent child policy DEDUCTS from taxes people already pay
2. the ACA mandates ADDED fines ***IN ADDITION*** to what people already pay

Do you understand the difference between SUBTRACTING costs and ADDING costs?

B. people agreeing to pay the cost that qualifies for exemption/deduction
vs. people NOT AGREEING to pay an ADDED COST

1. the dependent child policy applies AFTER people already chose to have sex and/or have kids and pay for a dependent. They can freely choose NOT to have kids and this *DOES NOT ADD* TO THE TAXES THEY ALREADY PAY.

2. the mandates ADD fines/penalties if people don't buy insurance/religious memberships THEY DID NOT AGREE TO PAY FOR

is that more clear?

You described a distinction without a difference.

Dear NYcarbineer
???
1. Not having children did not force me to pay more than I already did.
Instead of deducting for that, I deduct for business expenses I am paying for costs of community
development instead of having kids. So I have equal choice to deduct to pay for business expenses as someone else who deducts for kids.

2. but not buying insurance DID force me to pay for something
I normally did not agree to ON TOP OF WHAT I ALREADY PAY

I had to pay an extra $45 a month I couldn't afford
or else I would be forced under a mandate against my beliefs
that would require insurance, federal enrollment, or fines

I was NOT forced to pay $45 a month to be exempt from
fines "for not having kids" but for "NOT BUYING INSURANCE"

Do you get this at all?
NYcarbineer Timmy
where in the dependent deductions are people getting fined if they don't have kids

If you want these to be "without difference" they'd both have to be clearly:
A. people have free choice to have kids, and if they do, they can deduct
certain costs or credits from their taxes as a deduction. (and they can also choose
to pay for businesses instead of kids, and still deduct those costs from taxes)
IE TAXPAYERS HAVE FREE CHOICE of more than one way to get deductions

B. people have free choice how to pay and provide for health care,
and what they spend, they can deduct from taxes
(they can choose to invest in insurance, medical charities, schools or businesses
that provide health care services)
IE TAXPAYERS HAVE FREE CHOICE of more than one way to get deductions

However, B is NOT WHAT THE ACA mandated.
People ONLY had the choices of (1) insurance that met federal requirements (2) enrollment in federal programs (3) paid membership in religious organizations approved by federal govt

WE DID NOT HAVE FREE CHOICE OF HOW TO GET EXEMPTIONS/DEDUCTIONS.
AND IF WE DIDN'T CHOOSE ONE OF THE ABOVE, WE HAD FINES *ADDED TO OUR TAXES*

 

[PredFan]

I don't know about constitutionalist private citizens, but the politicians who claim to be constitutionalist are fucking liars.

not all
Amash
Lee
Paul

I used to think that too. The thing is that they are constitutionalist only as long as they have no chance of ever getting their way. They are a microcosm of what happened with the GOP. When they had no power, there were plenty of constitutionalists. Now that they have power, they aren't there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lol! That's rich . The right wipes it's ass with anything not called the 2nd amendment .

So what does the mandate violate ? You get a tax hit if you don't have insurance.

Dear Timmy: Before the mandates, people had the freedom to pay for health care through charities, through business plans, through insurance, or directly etc. without being penalized for free choice.

After the mandates, suddenly "free choice" is regulated by govt and/or penalized.

But the citizens who lost our liberty never got to vote on this measure, didn't go through due process to PROVE any crime or abuse was committed and "which people owe govt for what costs."

As for me Timmy, in order to restore the freedom I had before, and to be exempted from ACA all together, I had to pay $45 a month to join a RELIGIOUS organization as one of the few approved by govt.

So basically Timmy, the govt required me to PAY TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP in order not to be under a law that violated my beliefs.

This was the cheapest and LEAST imposing way I found to restore the original freedom I had to fund health care provisions according to my beliefs which are based on FREE CHOICE, not force of law against people's beliefs, which is against my Constitutional beliefs.

I was required to
(A) pay $45 a month as the cheapest alternative to be exempt f rom this bill I still hold as unconstitutional in violating my Constitutional beliefs
(B) join a RELIGIOUS health share ministry that qualified for exemption

Timmy, before ACA I was NOT required to pay or join a religious group in order to have free choice of how to pay or provide for health care.

AFTER ACA I had to do both A and B and these were the LEAST imposing and MINIMAL ways I found to be exempted in order to exercise my beliefs in free choice I had BEFORE this bill was passed.

Emily,

I do not have a child . So I am forced to pay higher taxes because I can not claim a dependent .

That means the government mandates I have a kid ?

Dear Timmy
If the mandate had been written where you get to DEDUCT anything you pay for insurance or health care from your taxes, that would be the same as a deduction.

Adding a fine UNLESS YOU BUY INSURANCE is like the govt saying
We will * ADD FINES * AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED FROM YOUR INCOME/RETURN
UNLESS YOU SHOW PROOF THAT YOU ARE EXEMPTED DUE TO HAVING KIDS.

Do you think people would have approved such a tax bill that said that?
**ADDING** FINES and FORCED ADDED PENALTIES
unless the taxpayer meets certain requirements for exemptions
(whether insurance or religious health share membership,
or in the case you bring up, having children that count for deductions/exemptions)

Timmy do you understand the difference between
* getting costs SUBTRACTED AS A DEDUCTION FROM TAXES
* ADDING FINES IN ADDITION to what taxpayers ALREADY PAY
AS A DEDUCTION FROM THEIR INCOME OR TAX REFUNDS

one is charging LESS in taxes if someone declares an exemption for something
THEY ALREADY AGREE TO PAY FOR (IE HAVING CHILDREN IS WHAT THEY CHOSE
AND WASN'T FORCED ON THEM BY GOVT)
the other is charging MORE -- UNLESS someone BUYS or PAYS for something
THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY NORMALLY AGREE TO in order to get an exemption
(IE HAVING TO BUY INSURANCE in order NOT to pay MORE in fines to govt
is NOT SOMETHING THAT PERSON AGREED TO DO)

Do you understand the difference?

A. Deductions vs. added fines
1. the dependent child policy DEDUCTS from taxes people already pay
2. the ACA mandates ADDED fines ***IN ADDITION*** to what people already pay

Do you understand the difference between SUBTRACTING costs and ADDING costs?

B. people agreeing to pay the cost that qualifies for exemption/deduction
vs. people NOT AGREEING to pay an ADDED COST

1. the dependent child policy applies AFTER people already chose to have sex and/or have kids and pay for a dependent. They can freely choose NOT to have kids and this *DOES NOT ADD* TO THE TAXES THEY ALREADY PAY.

2. the mandates ADD fines/penalties if people don't buy insurance/religious memberships THEY DID NOT AGREE TO PAY FOR

is that more clear?

You described a distinction without a difference.

Dear NYcarbineer
???
1. Not having children did not force me to pay more than I already did.
Instead of deducting for that, I deduct for business expenses I am paying for costs of community
development instead of having kids. So I have equal choice to deduct to pay for business expenses as someone else who deducts for kids.

2. but not buying insurance DID force me to pay for something
I normally did not agree to ON TOP OF WHAT I ALREADY PAY

I had to pay an extra $45 a month I couldn't afford
or else I would be forced under a mandate against my beliefs
that would require insurance, federal enrollment, or fines

I was NOT forced to pay $45 a month to be exempt from
fines "for not having kids" but for "NOT BUYING INSURANCE"

Do you get this at all?
NYcarbineer Timmy
where in the dependent deductions are people getting fined if they don't have kids

If you want these to be "without difference" they'd both have to be clearly:
A. people have free choice to have kids, and if they do, they can deduct
certain costs or credits from their taxes as a deduction. (and they can also choose
to pay for businesses instead of kids, and still deduct those costs from taxes)
IE TAXPAYERS HAVE FREE CHOICE of more than one way to get deductions

B. people have free choice how to pay and provide for health care,
and what they spend, they can deduct from taxes
(they can choose to invest in insurance, medical charities, schools or businesses
that provide health care services)
IE TAXPAYERS HAVE FREE CHOICE of more than one way to get deductions

However, B is NOT WHAT THE ACA mandated.
People ONLY had the choices of (1) insurance that met federal requirements (2) enrollment in federal programs (3) paid membership in religious organizations approved by federal govt

WE DID NOT HAVE FREE CHOICE OF HOW TO GET EXEMPTIONS/DEDUCTIONS.
AND IF WE DIDN'T CHOOSE ONE OF THE ABOVE, WE HAD FINES *ADDED TO OUR TAXES*

The ACA increased taxes. Having insurance allows people to avoid that tax.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Timmy: Before the mandates, people had the freedom to pay for health care through charities, through business plans, through insurance, or directly etc. without being penalized for free choice.

After the mandates, suddenly "free choice" is regulated by govt and/or penalized.

But the citizens who lost our liberty never got to vote on this measure, didn't go through due process to PROVE any crime or abuse was committed and "which people owe govt for what costs."

As for me Timmy, in order to restore the freedom I had before, and to be exempted from ACA all together, I had to pay $45 a month to join a RELIGIOUS organization as one of the few approved by govt.

So basically Timmy, the govt required me to PAY TO JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP in order not to be under a law that violated my beliefs.

This was the cheapest and LEAST imposing way I found to restore the original freedom I had to fund health care provisions according to my beliefs which are based on FREE CHOICE, not force of law against people's beliefs, which is against my Constitutional beliefs.

I was required to
(A) pay $45 a month as the cheapest alternative to be exempt f rom this bill I still hold as unconstitutional in violating my Constitutional beliefs
(B) join a RELIGIOUS health share ministry that qualified for exemption

Timmy, before ACA I was NOT required to pay or join a religious group in order to have free choice of how to pay or provide for health care.

AFTER ACA I had to do both A and B and these were the LEAST imposing and MINIMAL ways I found to be exempted in order to exercise my beliefs in free choice I had BEFORE this bill was passed.

Emily,

I do not have a child . So I am forced to pay higher taxes because I can not claim a dependent .

That means the government mandates I have a kid ?

Dear Timmy
If the mandate had been written where you get to DEDUCT anything you pay for insurance or health care from your taxes, that would be the same as a deduction.

Adding a fine UNLESS YOU BUY INSURANCE is like the govt saying
We will * ADD FINES * AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED FROM YOUR INCOME/RETURN
UNLESS YOU SHOW PROOF THAT YOU ARE EXEMPTED DUE TO HAVING KIDS.

Do you think people would have approved such a tax bill that said that?
**ADDING** FINES and FORCED ADDED PENALTIES
unless the taxpayer meets certain requirements for exemptions
(whether insurance or religious health share membership,
or in the case you bring up, having children that count for deductions/exemptions)

Timmy do you understand the difference between
* getting costs SUBTRACTED AS A DEDUCTION FROM TAXES
* ADDING FINES IN ADDITION to what taxpayers ALREADY PAY
AS A DEDUCTION FROM THEIR INCOME OR TAX REFUNDS

one is charging LESS in taxes if someone declares an exemption for something
THEY ALREADY AGREE TO PAY FOR (IE HAVING CHILDREN IS WHAT THEY CHOSE
AND WASN'T FORCED ON THEM BY GOVT)
the other is charging MORE -- UNLESS someone BUYS or PAYS for something
THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY NORMALLY AGREE TO in order to get an exemption
(IE HAVING TO BUY INSURANCE in order NOT to pay MORE in fines to govt
is NOT SOMETHING THAT PERSON AGREED TO DO)

Do you understand the difference?

A. Deductions vs. added fines
1. the dependent child policy DEDUCTS from taxes people already pay
2. the ACA mandates ADDED fines ***IN ADDITION*** to what people already pay

Do you understand the difference between SUBTRACTING costs and ADDING costs?

B. people agreeing to pay the cost that qualifies for exemption/deduction
vs. people NOT AGREEING to pay an ADDED COST

1. the dependent child policy applies AFTER people already chose to have sex and/or have kids and pay for a dependent. They can freely choose NOT to have kids and this *DOES NOT ADD* TO THE TAXES THEY ALREADY PAY.

2. the mandates ADD fines/penalties if people don't buy insurance/religious memberships THEY DID NOT AGREE TO PAY FOR

is that more clear?

You described a distinction without a difference.

Dear NYcarbineer
???
1. Not having children did not force me to pay more than I already did.
Instead of deducting for that, I deduct for business expenses I am paying for costs of community
development instead of having kids. So I have equal choice to deduct to pay for business expenses as someone else who deducts for kids.

2. but not buying insurance DID force me to pay for something
I normally did not agree to ON TOP OF WHAT I ALREADY PAY

I had to pay an extra $45 a month I couldn't afford
or else I would be forced under a mandate against my beliefs
that would require insurance, federal enrollment, or fines

I was NOT forced to pay $45 a month to be exempt from
fines "for not having kids" but for "NOT BUYING INSURANCE"

Do you get this at all?
NYcarbineer Timmy
where in the dependent deductions are people getting fined if they don't have kids

If you want these to be "without difference" they'd both have to be clearly:
A. people have free choice to have kids, and if they do, they can deduct
certain costs or credits from their taxes as a deduction. (and they can also choose
to pay for businesses instead of kids, and still deduct those costs from taxes)
IE TAXPAYERS HAVE FREE CHOICE of more than one way to get deductions

B. people have free choice how to pay and provide for health care,
and what they spend, they can deduct from taxes
(they can choose to invest in insurance, medical charities, schools or businesses
that provide health care services)
IE TAXPAYERS HAVE FREE CHOICE of more than one way to get deductions

However, B is NOT WHAT THE ACA mandated.
People ONLY had the choices of (1) insurance that met federal requirements (2) enrollment in federal programs (3) paid membership in religious organizations approved by federal govt

WE DID NOT HAVE FREE CHOICE OF HOW TO GET EXEMPTIONS/DEDUCTIONS.
AND IF WE DIDN'T CHOOSE ONE OF THE ABOVE, WE HAD FINES *ADDED TO OUR TAXES*

The ACA increased taxes. Having insurance allows people to avoid that tax.

NYcarbineer
Do you believe in "no taxation without representation"
if the people being charged these extra taxes don't agree
with the terms, how can we be charged without our consent?

Do you understand the spirit of the CONTRACT?

Would you agree to business people signing your name to a contract and making you pay more for things without your consent YOU DIDN'T AGREE TO BE FORCED INTO?

That's not how laws work, especially not taxation.

The reason tax revenue bills have to originate in the House is to come from the people's representatives by district, not the Senate that represents people by State. And if you look at the votes, they have always been split nearly 50/50 every time, including the Supreme Court vote that was 4/5.

That's because half the nation believes like liberals to run health care through govt and half the nation believes in free market health care and free choice outside govt controls.

So the fairest way to protect and REPRESENT all taxpayers equally is to respect their individual BELIEFS and let people fund the policy of their choice.

Sorry if that threatens you NYcarbineer to actually respect the consent of taxpayers in what policies to fund under what terms.

This bill happened to cross over into political BELIEFS.
half the nation believes in FREE CHOICE to participate or not.
NOT IN MANDATES THAT PENALIZE FREE CHOICE.

sorry NYcarbineer but what you are saying is like
Christians voting in Congress to make all citizens pay
for "right to life" programs and PENALIZING "prochoice" citizens
who refuse to comply.

Maybe you are like the Christians who wouldn't mind
as long as the vote is in their favor?

What is the difference between Congress voting by majority rule to make all citizens pay for "right to life" programs even if these are against their beliefs in free choice, or PAY FINES IF THEY PREFER TO FUND PROCHOICE options instead of the LIMITED OPTIONS approved by Congress?

So you are saying as long as Congress votes to raise taxes
and only exempt people who pay for "right to life" programs
and not exempt people who want to pay for "pro choice" programs?

As long as majority rule decides it, then taxpayers are forced to pay?

Wouldn't YOU challenge such a tax if YOU were a prochoice believer
and didn't believe in paying higher taxes that prolife people were exempt from?
Wouldn't YOU argue that is BIASED by BELIEFS, and govt should separate
such BELIEFS from govt?

 

[debbiedowner]

I hear Constitutionalist arguments on the radio, from Mark Levin to Josh Blackman, ARGUING that the ACA mandates were clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that Justice Roberts made a mistake in ruling otherwise. I believe this, too, and so do a number of my colleagues. (Even my Democrat/Green friends who believe in Single Payer denounce the mandates that benefit corporate for-profit insurance which is the opposite of providing health care on a nonprofit basis.)

But none of these people who claim to be Constitutionalists are WILLING TO SUE.

???

* I checked with Jon Roland of the Constitution Society who argues that ACA is Constitutional by how it was passed through Congress and through Courts. ???
How can the content of a bill be UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face, but just because it was pushed through the procedures this magically makes it Constitutional? Despite the conflicts, which make it unconstitutional, that it never resolved?

* Josh Blackman who wrote books on Obamacare and Constitutional arguments also said today "it would be a hard sell" that "probably wouldn't work" to try to argue that the mandates violate political beliefs while establishing or favoring other such beliefs.

So what if it is a hard argument to explain and win?
So was the battle to end slavery, when estates and economy depended on slave labor at the time.

What has happened to our hard fighting Constitutionalists?
Have they all sold out and wimped out because the majority is going with this BELIEF that govt has to manage health care in order to reform it globally?

I have found INDIVIDUALS who believe the mandates are unconstitutional, and willing to sue.

But no lawyers because they "assume" the courts and govt won't change.
What happened to principles?

Even a former leader with the Constitution party said you can't find lawyers willing to fight these Constitutional battles anymore. Have they all retired out and left the courts and bars to people who tolerate liberal philosophies of big govt and courts ruling and controlling everything? Because the politicians make money in a monopoly over courts, govt and the legal profession?

Have they bought out our legal system completely where there aren't Constitutionalists willing to stand up, speak out and fight for principles? But they only pimp the issues for money now?

I'm ready to launch a campaign anyway.
And hope that as individuals stand for our Constitutional beliefs that were violated,
then maybe we will find lawyers willing to argue, and party leaders willing to lobby for change
that would RESPECT these individual beliefs, regardless which party members believe what.

I am arguing that each party should fund its own beliefs, and not impose those on taxpayers.
And give taxpayers a choice of which tracks to fund, so ALL beliefs are protected equally.

Why is that so hard to imagine or change on our tax forms?
Choices A, B, C, D or E.
If you believe in directing your taxes to fund:
(A) the ACA mandates as passed originally
(B) the reform bills pushed recently
(C) none/neither and you want free market choices outside govt mandates and forced taxation
(D) you want health care managed through your state
(E) you want health care managed through your party

Then if any group has a surplus while other groups can't cover the demands of their members agreeing to fund them, then these groups can borrow and lend between them where they agree on the terms of donating, investing, borrowing or lending. And not force any programs on taxpayers who don't agree to pay for those policies.

Why don't you bring a lawsuit, you'll find a lawyer who wants to make a name for themselfs.

 

[emilynghiem]

I hear Constitutionalist arguments on the radio, from Mark Levin to Josh Blackman, ARGUING that the ACA mandates were clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that Justice Roberts made a mistake in ruling otherwise. I believe this, too, and so do a number of my colleagues. (Even my Democrat/Green friends who believe in Single Payer denounce the mandates that benefit corporate for-profit insurance which is the opposite of providing health care on a nonprofit basis.)

But none of these people who claim to be Constitutionalists are WILLING TO SUE.

???

* I checked with Jon Roland of the Constitution Society who argues that ACA is Constitutional by how it was passed through Congress and through Courts. ???
How can the content of a bill be UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face, but just because it was pushed through the procedures this magically makes it Constitutional? Despite the conflicts, which make it unconstitutional, that it never resolved?

* Josh Blackman who wrote books on Obamacare and Constitutional arguments also said today "it would be a hard sell" that "probably wouldn't work" to try to argue that the mandates violate political beliefs while establishing or favoring other such beliefs.

So what if it is a hard argument to explain and win?
So was the battle to end slavery, when estates and economy depended on slave labor at the time.

What has happened to our hard fighting Constitutionalists?
Have they all sold out and wimped out because the majority is going with this BELIEF that govt has to manage health care in order to reform it globally?

I have found INDIVIDUALS who believe the mandates are unconstitutional, and willing to sue.

But no lawyers because they "assume" the courts and govt won't change.
What happened to principles?

Even a former leader with the Constitution party said you can't find lawyers willing to fight these Constitutional battles anymore. Have they all retired out and left the courts and bars to people who tolerate liberal philosophies of big govt and courts ruling and controlling everything? Because the politicians make money in a monopoly over courts, govt and the legal profession?

Have they bought out our legal system completely where there aren't Constitutionalists willing to stand up, speak out and fight for principles? But they only pimp the issues for money now?

I'm ready to launch a campaign anyway.
And hope that as individuals stand for our Constitutional beliefs that were violated,
then maybe we will find lawyers willing to argue, and party leaders willing to lobby for change
that would RESPECT these individual beliefs, regardless which party members believe what.

I am arguing that each party should fund its own beliefs, and not impose those on taxpayers.
And give taxpayers a choice of which tracks to fund, so ALL beliefs are protected equally.

Why is that so hard to imagine or change on our tax forms?
Choices A, B, C, D or E.
If you believe in directing your taxes to fund:
(A) the ACA mandates as passed originally
(B) the reform bills pushed recently
(C) none/neither and you want free market choices outside govt mandates and forced taxation
(D) you want health care managed through your state
(E) you want health care managed through your party

Then if any group has a surplus while other groups can't cover the demands of their members agreeing to fund them, then these groups can borrow and lend between them where they agree on the terms of donating, investing, borrowing or lending. And not force any programs on taxpayers who don't agree to pay for those policies.

Why don't you bring a lawsuit, you'll find a lawyer who wants to make a name for themselfs.

Exactly debbiedowner that's what I've been asking help to do since this was passed.

But again, I only find more people who can't find lawyers willing to sue.

I even found Constitutionalists who justify why lawyers aren't willing to sue.

I
I was already working nonstop to educate fellow
liberals and Democrats on why this is unconstitutional.
Now I'm finding out even the Conservatives who oppose
ACA are teaching that it is constitutional and giving up trying
to teach or change it otherwise. So it's worse than I thought!

 

[danielpalos]

I hear Constitutionalist arguments on the radio, from Mark Levin to Josh Blackman, ARGUING that the ACA mandates were clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that Justice Roberts made a mistake in ruling otherwise. I believe this, too, and so do a number of my colleagues. (Even my Democrat/Green friends who believe in Single Payer denounce the mandates that benefit corporate for-profit insurance which is the opposite of providing health care on a nonprofit basis.)

But none of these people who claim to be Constitutionalists are WILLING TO SUE.

???

* I checked with Jon Roland of the Constitution Society who argues that ACA is Constitutional by how it was passed through Congress and through Courts. ???
How can the content of a bill be UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face, but just because it was pushed through the procedures this magically makes it Constitutional? Despite the conflicts, which make it unconstitutional, that it never resolved?

* Josh Blackman who wrote books on Obamacare and Constitutional arguments also said today "it would be a hard sell" that "probably wouldn't work" to try to argue that the mandates violate political beliefs while establishing or favoring other such beliefs.

So what if it is a hard argument to explain and win?
So was the battle to end slavery, when estates and economy depended on slave labor at the time.

What has happened to our hard fighting Constitutionalists?
Have they all sold out and wimped out because the majority is going with this BELIEF that govt has to manage health care in order to reform it globally?

I have found INDIVIDUALS who believe the mandates are unconstitutional, and willing to sue.

But no lawyers because they "assume" the courts and govt won't change.
What happened to principles?

Even a former leader with the Constitution party said you can't find lawyers willing to fight these Constitutional battles anymore. Have they all retired out and left the courts and bars to people who tolerate liberal philosophies of big govt and courts ruling and controlling everything? Because the politicians make money in a monopoly over courts, govt and the legal profession?

Have they bought out our legal system completely where there aren't Constitutionalists willing to stand up, speak out and fight for principles? But they only pimp the issues for money now?

I'm ready to launch a campaign anyway.
And hope that as individuals stand for our Constitutional beliefs that were violated,
then maybe we will find lawyers willing to argue, and party leaders willing to lobby for change
that would RESPECT these individual beliefs, regardless which party members believe what.

I am arguing that each party should fund its own beliefs, and not impose those on taxpayers.
And give taxpayers a choice of which tracks to fund, so ALL beliefs are protected equally.

Why is that so hard to imagine or change on our tax forms?
Choices A, B, C, D or E.
If you believe in directing your taxes to fund:
(A) the ACA mandates as passed originally
(B) the reform bills pushed recently
(C) none/neither and you want free market choices outside govt mandates and forced taxation
(D) you want health care managed through your state
(E) you want health care managed through your party

Then if any group has a surplus while other groups can't cover the demands of their members agreeing to fund them, then these groups can borrow and lend between them where they agree on the terms of donating, investing, borrowing or lending. And not force any programs on taxpayers who don't agree to pay for those policies.

Congress is delegated the social Power to Tax, for the objects enumerated in our federal Constitution. Providing for the general welfare, means ensuring access to health care.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I hear Constitutionalist arguments on the radio, from Mark Levin to Josh Blackman, ARGUING that the ACA mandates were clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that Justice Roberts made a mistake in ruling otherwise. I believe this, too, and so do a number of my colleagues. (Even my Democrat/Green friends who believe in Single Payer denounce the mandates that benefit corporate for-profit insurance which is the opposite of providing health care on a nonprofit basis.)

But none of these people who claim to be Constitutionalists are WILLING TO SUE.

???

* I checked with Jon Roland of the Constitution Society who argues that ACA is Constitutional by how it was passed through Congress and through Courts. ???
How can the content of a bill be UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face, but just because it was pushed through the procedures this magically makes it Constitutional? Despite the conflicts, which make it unconstitutional, that it never resolved?

* Josh Blackman who wrote books on Obamacare and Constitutional arguments also said today "it would be a hard sell" that "probably wouldn't work" to try to argue that the mandates violate political beliefs while establishing or favoring other such beliefs.

So what if it is a hard argument to explain and win?
So was the battle to end slavery, when estates and economy depended on slave labor at the time.

What has happened to our hard fighting Constitutionalists?
Have they all sold out and wimped out because the majority is going with this BELIEF that govt has to manage health care in order to reform it globally?

I have found INDIVIDUALS who believe the mandates are unconstitutional, and willing to sue.

But no lawyers because they "assume" the courts and govt won't change.
What happened to principles?

Even a former leader with the Constitution party said you can't find lawyers willing to fight these Constitutional battles anymore. Have they all retired out and left the courts and bars to people who tolerate liberal philosophies of big govt and courts ruling and controlling everything? Because the politicians make money in a monopoly over courts, govt and the legal profession?

Have they bought out our legal system completely where there aren't Constitutionalists willing to stand up, speak out and fight for principles? But they only pimp the issues for money now?

I'm ready to launch a campaign anyway.
And hope that as individuals stand for our Constitutional beliefs that were violated,
then maybe we will find lawyers willing to argue, and party leaders willing to lobby for change
that would RESPECT these individual beliefs, regardless which party members believe what.

I am arguing that each party should fund its own beliefs, and not impose those on taxpayers.
And give taxpayers a choice of which tracks to fund, so ALL beliefs are protected equally.

Why is that so hard to imagine or change on our tax forms?
Choices A, B, C, D or E.
If you believe in directing your taxes to fund:
(A) the ACA mandates as passed originally
(B) the reform bills pushed recently
(C) none/neither and you want free market choices outside govt mandates and forced taxation
(D) you want health care managed through your state
(E) you want health care managed through your party

Then if any group has a surplus while other groups can't cover the demands of their members agreeing to fund them, then these groups can borrow and lend between them where they agree on the terms of donating, investing, borrowing or lending. And not force any programs on taxpayers who don't agree to pay for those policies.

Why don't you bring a lawsuit, you'll find a lawyer who wants to make a name for themselfs.

Exactly debbiedowner that's what I've been asking help to do since this was passed.

But again, I only find more people who can't find lawyers willing to sue.

I even found Constitutionalists who justify why lawyers aren't willing to sue.

I
I was already working nonstop to educate fellow
liberals and Democrats on why this is unconstitutional.
Now I'm finding out even the Conservatives who oppose
ACA are teaching that it is constitutional and giving up trying
to teach or change it otherwise. So it's worse than I thought!

Give us a ballpark estimate.

How many times will you have to be told that the mandate was already challenged in court and the challenge failed?

 

[radical right]

Do you understand the spirit of the CONTRACT?

What contract did I sign when I was born making me register with the selective service on my 18th birthday?

 

[The Original Tree]

America is dead.

We are officially under a Marxist State.

That's exactly what Nationalizing 1/6th of the economy means and then mandating the entire country to purchase a product they can't afford to use.

We have corruptioni. Every corner of government. FBI, DOJ, IRS, The Senate.

 

[danielpalos]

Do you understand the spirit of the CONTRACT?

What contract did I sign when I was born making me register with the selective service on my 18th birthday?

Informed consent; that is why you get to vote.