Something the Dog Barfed up wrote: Further, the health care reform legislation does not require anyone to purchase insurance. If you are willing to forego the tax credit, then you can choose not to purchase insurance. You will be paying a higher tax though. Essentially, the legislation imposes a tax on everyone, and you receive an offsetting tax credit if you choose to purchase qualifying insurance or have it provided to you. You are not forced to purchase insurance however, nor will the government kill granny.
Nice Spin, is that you Nancy Pelosi? How do you get from Tax Penalty to Tax Credit. The Spin cycle here is going full tilt.
I can't believe that they buy into this crap and actually believe what they are saying. It is sad to see how our government has brainwashed so many of our citizens.
Viking, to go along with that google Fema Camps. I have reserched this, along with the two seperate operations and it gets real interesting. This has actually happened, and is in place. Homeland Secretary, Ms. Stupid, has control over this, and I quess veterans will be the first ones put in there since we are possible terrorists according to Ms. Stupid.
Most of the opinions of so called legal experts in articles I have seen have stated that this HC constitutional challenge has little chance of winning. And Colorado's opting out would probably be unwise, since residents will pay for HC reform anyway and get no benefits from it.
And the tax penalty is relatively small at first, and not going to be enforced by the IRS, so its doubtful anyone will have to purchase insurance if they really don't want to. They may keep your tax refund, but they won't pursue you for this penalty. My guess is the sickest, poorest people will be the only ones signing up the first year, creating an initial imbalance in the premium costs. We will just have to wait and see what happens.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Something the Dog Said wrote: That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service,
So clearly the original founding fathers did intend that Congress have the power to order citizens to purchase items.
Further, the health care reform legislation does not require anyone to purchase insurance. If you are willing to forego the tax credit, then you can choose not to purchase insurance. You will be paying a higher tax though. Essentially, the legislation imposes a tax on everyone, and you receive an offsetting tax credit if you choose to purchase qualifying insurance or have it provided to you. You are not forced to purchase insurance however, nor will the government kill granny.
No, it never says they must purchase it....it just says they must have it. While we can disagree about what the founding fathers intended....in your example, if I have a cousin who is a doctor, and agrees to provide my healthcare, do I still have to purchase Obamacare? Or will a letter from my cousin get the IRS and feds off my back?
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Something the Dog Said wrote: You mean just as the states ceded the responsibility in the Constitution, for setting the immigration policy of the states, individually and collectively, to the federal government? Your statement is a non sequitur, since the preemption of the defense of the state by the federal government would require that the federal government be responsible for providing the armament of the militia, not to put that burden onto an individual mandate to provide the armament. The allegation was that the Constitution forbade any mandate to require an individual provide anything, and clearly the founding fathers did not intend any such prohibition nor any did they provide any such prohibition.
Something the Dog Said (aka mtspike)
I knew that was you buddy. You have a style all your own that one would be hard pressed not to retecognize instantly.
Back to business -
The 1792 act was not a mandate to purchase such equipment by an individual, but rather one that he be in possession of said equipment when called upon by the federal government for exercise or service. "Provide himself" does not mean "purchase himself" - the two are not identical in content. And there is another factor that is missing - that of being obligated to service when called upon by the federal government. There is no mandatory participation edict, such as a draft, that establishes the federal government as the ultimate authority that can set the rules. The states did not cede to the federal government the authority to provide for the individual welfare of the citizens of their state as they did with their militias when they gave the federal government the authority to regulate and call forth the militias of the sovereign states.
Joe wrote: Most of the opinions of so called legal experts in articles I have seen have stated that this HC constitutional challenge has little chance of winning. And Colorado's opting out would probably be unwise, since residents will pay for HC reform anyway and get no benefits from it.
And the tax penalty is relatively small at first, and not going to be enforced by the IRS, so its doubtful anyone will have to purchase insurance if they really don't want to. They may keep your tax refund, but they won't pursue you for this penalty. My guess is the sickest, poorest people will be the only ones signing up the first year, creating an initial imbalance in the premium costs. We will just have to wait and see what happens.
That it exists at all is an affront to the liberty of the people. As Jefferson once so wisely stated, and I'm paraphrasing here, a government capable of providing all that you desire is capable of taking all your liberty as well.
PS, I agree and don't like the idea of forced government "qualified" insurance. But liberty requires responsibility too, so If you gamble by not buying insurance, you should have to pay up. And not use bankruptcy. I always found it interesting that taxes and gov't student loans cannot be erased thru bankruptcy, but most everything else can.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Whatevergreen wrote: I find that most of the people railing against the bill and calling it unconstitutional are Republicans. I also find that the most pro-corporate Surpreme Court in decades (e.g., the Roberts court) was constructed by Republicans.
Do you really think the Roberts court is going to deny private health insurance corporations a free lunch at the taxpayers expense?!? Hell no, that's laughable.
There is no way the Roberts court strikes this law down as Unconstitutional if for no other reason than it's pro-corporate.
Have fun reaping what you've sown Republicans...
There is no way that Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas, Alito or Scalia vote to uphold this heap of Bovine Scat. None. There is also no doubt that Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and (potentially) Kagan will cast a vote to overturn it. And you wish to lay the decision of the Robert's Court at the feet of corporatists? Whom exactly does the likely vote cast in that role again?
Joe wrote: PS, I agree and don't like the idea of forced government "qualified" insurance. But liberty requires responsibility too, so If you gamble by not buying insurance, you should have to pay up. And not use bankruptcy. I always found it interesting that taxes and gov't student loans cannot be erased thru bankruptcy.
And who was it that passed the law that stated someone unable to pay must be treated again? Why, the federal government interfering, yet again. And it is federal law under which bankruptcy is filed, not state law. Look, even the founders realized that there had to be a mechanism, bankruptcy, that allowed one to start fresh after digging themselves too deep of a financial hole to escape from. The ability to have your debts forgiven is essential to maintaining an entrepreneurial atmosphere in which to practice liberty. If the government would stay out of requiring institutions to advance credit based upon politics and then demonizing them when those mandates lead to financial instability before handing out the taxpayer's money like candy on Halloween, we might actually still have some semblance of financial responsibility in this nation of ours.
If you were a charity case, you went to a charity hospital where you didn't have a private, or even a semi-private room in which to recover. The charities that ran those hospitals charged those that could afford to pay and used the profits to treat those that couldn't. Doctors with privileges at the hospital knew those privileges came with a string attached that they would also use their talents to treat those for whom no, or little, compensation would be realized.
Now, of course, the federal government is the charity and the charity is not voluntarily supported any longer. People used to contribute to charities out of a sense of community responsibility. Today the sentiment is "That's what I pay taxes for" and even the charities themselves have become dependent upon the largess of the federal government.
Something the Dog Said wrote: You mean just as the states ceded the responsibility in the Constitution, for setting the immigration policy of the states, individually and collectively, to the federal government? Your statement is a non sequitur, since the preemption of the defense of the state by the federal government would require that the federal government be responsible for providing the armament of the militia, not to put that burden onto an individual mandate to provide the armament. The allegation was that the Constitution forbade any mandate to require an individual provide anything, and clearly the founding fathers did not intend any such prohibition nor any did they provide any such prohibition.
Something the Dog Said (aka mtspike)
I knew that was you buddy. You have a style all your own that one would be hard pressed not to retecognize instantly.
Back to business -
The 1792 act was not a mandate to purchase such equipment by an individual, but rather one that he be in possession of said equipment when called upon by the federal government for exercise or service. "Provide himself" does not mean "purchase himself" - the two are not identical in content. And there is another factor that is missing - that of being obligated to service when called upon by the federal government. There is no mandatory participation edict, such as a draft, that establishes the federal government as the ultimate authority that can set the rules. The states did not cede to the federal government the authority to provide for the individual welfare of the citizens of their state as they did with their militias when they gave the federal government the authority to regulate and call forth the militias of the sovereign states.
Nor does the health care legislation require one to purchase health insurance, only to possess it if the individual desires the tax credit. One may obtain health insurance from your employer, as well as from a patent if under age 25, or from a spouse.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
