Obamacare Stands/Insurance Mandate, er, Tax Upheld

Archer, I think you volunteered your personal info on healthcare and pine-grass was just responding and asking questions/adding suggestions. I've met both of you and thought you both seemed like reasonable people. I didn't think he meant it in a bad or presumptuous way.

Someone earlier called me a free-loader because I said I would take the free subsidized Obamacare that is forced on me, instead of the cheaper plan I voluntarily buy now, that will no doubt become obsolete soon.
Whatever, I don't care much what people think.

Even left brained logical thinkers have been known to post something offensive in their haste to prove someone wrong. If I misunderstood pine I'm sorry, but his post sounded a lot like "I think you are lying because I did the research". The only way to respond to that was to give him more info than I was comfortable with. There's a tendency on the part or many posters on the right to call liberals liars until proven otherwise.

There also seems to be a tendency to presume that people haven't done their OWN research into what is best FOR THEM, instead of calling them liars because some generic Google-search turned up something that does not fit the situation of the person in-question.

It's also too bad you felt you had to "give him more information than you were comfortable with" just to defend against a charge that somehow "you were wrong" about your own situation.

I got a kick out of this: a bunch of dimwits who say they're so upset with the prospect of health care reform that they're moving to....

Canada! rofllol

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-m ... -obamacare

Raees wrote: I got a kick out of this: a bunch of dimwits who say they're so upset with the prospect of health care reform that they're moving to....

Canada! rofllol

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-m ... -obamacare

That's good stuff right there.

Raees wrote: I got a kick out of this: a bunch of dimwits who say they're so upset with the prospect of health care reform that they're moving to....

Canada! rofllol

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-m ... -obamacare

Can we assume then that it isn't the law that bothers them as much as the fact it was passed by Democrats and Obama?????

Wanna bet most will benefit one way or another from the AFA, but will still be griping about it 10 years down the road!

Democracy4Sale wrote: There also seems to be a tendency to presume that people haven't done their OWN research into what is best FOR THEM,

Progressives really crack me up sometimes.

I don't think I need to research what is best for me anymore. The new healthcare plan is determined by the government, and the HHS secretary will tell me exactly what new benefits I will have in my mandatory, one size fits all, IRS qualified insurance plan. Life will be a dream, no worries!

Like Forrest Gump says - one less thing to worry about.

archer wrote: Even left brained logical thinkers have been known to post something offensive in their haste to prove someone wrong. If I misunderstood pine I'm sorry, but his post sounded a lot like "I think you are lying because I did the research". The only way to respond to that was to give him more info than I was comfortable with. There's a tendency on the part or many posters on the right to call liberals liars until proven otherwise.

I just got back from a movie and would like to respond.

It was never my intent to question you in order to prove you wrong, and I certainly did not intend to suggest you were lying. My question wasn't even related to the ACA. I was just curious to know if you had looked into CoverColorado in the past since you mentioned a pre-existing condition, and if so, was there a reason you didn't go with them because the price is lower. I did not just do a Google and discover CoverColorado simply to be a pest. I've had several civil discussions about it going back over two years ago at PC. Not everyone is familiar with it.

One reason I asked if you had looked into CoverColorado was because I've had individual health insurance for the last several years and I know a fair amount about it, as do you. I'm on a group policy now, but there is a chance I'll have to go back on individual (though I could go on Cobra if necessary). I've been researching companies, and Rocky Mountain Health seems to have the lowest rates. CoverColorado is associated with them and they cover the high risk cases. I do not have a pre-existing condition, but realize it's always a possibility, so I do look into CoverColorado. They both claim to have an out of state network, but they aren't clear at their web sites about how it works. Your reply confirms that there may be issues with their out of state support, and normally I'd of asked more about it. But things are kind of heated here right now so I'll back off on that.

I did not intend to ask for any personal information. You are free not to reply, or simply state that CoverColorado did not offer the service you needed out of state, or provide whatever details you wish. I guess I'll just give Rocky Mountain a call some time to learn more about it.

pineinthegrass wrote:

archer wrote: Even left brained logical thinkers have been known to post something offensive in their haste to prove someone wrong. If I misunderstood pine I'm sorry, but his post sounded a lot like "I think you are lying because I did the research". The only way to respond to that was to give him more info than I was comfortable with. There's a tendency on the part or many posters on the right to call liberals liars until proven otherwise.

I just got back from a movie and would like to respond.

It was never my intent to question you in order to prove you wrong, and I certainly did not intend to suggest you were lying. .............

Pine, I just wanted to say that your intent was quite clear to me. I consider you one of the best most well reasoned and informed posters here. BZ.

I am only 30 pages into the opinion so there might be more info in it that I haven't read.

But two questions come to mind. First question.
Article 1 (edited to change from 3 to 1) Sec 8 of the US Constitution 1st clause states: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Based on this clause about being uniform throughout the US isn't Const. violated when exemptions have been made for some corporations, groups, etc. but not for others?

Second question.
Article 1 (edited to change from 3 to 1) Section 7 of the US Const. states: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendements as on other bills.

Isn't this a violation of the Constitution?

Thoughts?