
![]() |
2nd Light Forums | ![]() |


|
Topic Title: Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare Topic Summary: Created On: 06/29/2012 02:51 PM Status: Post and Reply |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
|
Topic Tools
|
|
|
|
|
no no no, no shooting before the surf off...after that...oh well another one bites the dust...hasta la vista repug.... ------------------------- So if you are a surfer I wish you the prosperity that allows you more time to pursue the salt water dream, and the true happiness that comes from warm water, clean waves and the companionship of your fellow surfers. If you are an internet troll just spewing bs then f off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them. It will be a short-lived celebration. Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS. Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be. Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law. Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it? Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases P.S--JDB you are in range! -------------------------
"The problems we face today exist because the People who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for their living." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax."
Really? The Republican nominee is Romney. This is what he said today: In awkward agreement, Mitt Romney backs President Obama's contention that health care mandate is not a tax http://www.boston.com/politica...dCsNIiFkoJ/story.html OMG, who are you going to vote for now? In a recent campaign ad for Romney he claims he never rose taxes as governor. If the penalty is considered a tax he better pull those ads before he is labelled a liar... ------------------------- surf forecast |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Romney is...is Obamalite.
We are all screwed. Take it to the bank. ------------------------- "Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it's important that you think carefully about the meaning - the true nature - of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here's what really occurred - payback. Yes, payback for Obama's numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can't compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said 'hey, a penalty or a tax, either way'. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land - beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states - 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in "national" health-care? Suddenly, it's not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases
P.S--JDB you are in range![IMG][/IMG] If everyone is insured (270 million currently are), there is no tax. Kinda shoots this theory all to hell, don't it kranky? ------------------------- "Born fine the first time." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone is insured (270 million currently are), there is no tax. Kinda shoots this theory all to hell, don't it kranky? We all know thats not happening Coleslaw. "Again, whatever you want to call it Alisyn, fines, taxes, penalties, but three quarters of those costs will fall on the backs of families who make less than $120,00 a year, so it's a big punch in the stomach to middle class families." ------------------------- "Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax." Really? The Republican nominee is Romney. This is what he said today: In awkward agreement, Mitt Romney backs President Obama's contention that health care mandate is not a tax http://www.boston.com/politica...FkoJ/story.html OMG, who are you going to vote for now? In a recent campaign ad for Romney he claims he never rose taxes as governor. If the penalty is considered a tax he better pull those ads before he is labelled a liar... The Romney campaign attempted Monday to clarify the candidate's position on what consequence Americans will face for failing to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, saying the candidate considers the fine an "unconstitutional penalty" rather than a tax. The campaign took the position despite efforts by some Republicans to label the controversial fine a tax -- after the Supreme Court took that position in its ruling last week upholding the law. The Romney campaign, though, also suggested President Obama was trying to have it both ways, by embracing the Supreme Court decision while continuing to call the fine a "penalty" in public. Mitt Romney's campaign challenged Obama to make a decision -- either call it an unconstitutional penalty or a "constitutional tax," but not both. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic...penalty/#ixzz1zWCTcycg ------------------------- "Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We are all screwed. "
Speak for yourself. Call it whatever you want, I'm calling it constitutional. Here read this: Mr. President, what's the rush? Obama could learn a thing or two about health care reform from Massachusetts. One, time is not the enemy. Two, neither are the Republicans. http://www.usatoday.com/printe...30/column30_st.art.htm ------------------------- surf forecast |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Romney is...is Obamalite. We are all screwed. Take it to the bank. ... you may as well take a vacation in early November. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone is insured (270 million currently are), there is no tax. It doesn't matter whether your payment goes to the government or to a private insurance company. If the government forces you to hand over your money, it's a tax. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone is insured (270 million currently are), there is no tax. It doesn't matter whether your payment goes to the government or to a private insurance company. If the government forces you to hand over your money, it's a tax. IRS penalties are a tax on a tax, or a fine for failing to pay your taxes? Are driving fines a tax? ------------------------- "Born fine the first time." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effectively, yes, both of them. SCOTUS distinguished between them before, but not now. See my other post quoting the dissenting opinion.
"Fines" on driving are fines for doing something, not for doing nothing. Don't drive and you'll never pay a fine. Don't work or make an income? You pay no income tax, Medicare tax, SS "withholding" -- all your choice. Don't go to the ER? Still pay the tax. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effectively, yes, both of them. SCOTUS distinguished between them before, but not now. See my other post quoting the dissenting opinion. "Fines" on driving are fines for doing something, not for doing nothing. Don't drive and you'll never pay a fine. Don't work or make an income? You pay no income tax, Medicare tax, SS "withholding" -- all your choice. Don't go to the ER? Still pay the tax. Own a car, never drive it, but neglect to get insurance - the state will revoke your license and you'll have to pay a fine to get it reinstated. Investments are taxed and you don't work for those. ------------------------- "Born fine the first time." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone is insured (270 million currently are), there is no tax. It doesn't matter whether your payment goes to the government or to a private insurance company. If the government forces you to hand over your money, it's a tax. IRS penalties are a tax on a tax, or a fine for failing to pay your taxes? Are driving fines a tax? None of those are something (a product) that you are forced to purchase...moron! ------------------------- "Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it is a tax... is it tax deductable??? Can I Not buy health insurance, pay the health insurance tax, deduct the amount paid from my taxes??? and still get free health care at the ER??? ------------------------- We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it is a tax... is it tax deductable??? Can I Not buy health insurance, pay the health insurance tax, deduct the amount paid from my taxes??? and still get free health care at the ER??? Priceless! ------------------------- "Me? 133 to 135 IQ depending on the test." Coleslaw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
???? changing your bet? Nervous about a surf off? Ok fine pistol target shoot? 2out of 3 ? Call it crank.... ------------------------- So if you are a surfer I wish you the prosperity that allows you more time to pursue the salt water dream, and the true happiness that comes from warm water, clean waves and the companionship of your fellow surfers. If you are an internet troll just spewing bs then f off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, Cotton Top, it looks like you need some schooling. Yes, you can deduct the cost of medical expenses, including the cost of insurance, but only that amount which is in excess of seven percent (7%) of your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). However, as to the "free" ER treatment: Depending on which plan you buy --really, you didn't think there'd be only a one-size-fits-all-plan, did you?-- you'll have both a co-pay and a deductible. Then, most likely, the policty will only cover eighty percent (80%) of the negotiated price (key word: negotiated), with you being responsible for the balance. Oh, and about that "negotiated" price: If you've paid attention to what doctors are saying, it doesn't look like many of them are going to jump at the chance to treat patients on the pay rates the government will negotiated (said to be less than now being paid them via Medicaid). But, don't worry your fuzzy little head just yet. There's still a long way to go before the plans are implemented. Who knows? You may win the Lottery and be able to buy the "A" Plan (that's the Golden one the rich people will all have). Yeah, right. Oh, and one other thing: There will be "free" insurance, but that'll only be for God's little poor children, and it'll be you, the great unwashed middle class majority, that'll be paying for it. So, free for them, not-so-free for you. -------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And you can still buy private insurance or if you are one of the lucky ones you can pay cash..there will still be private health insurance plans for those who want it. And yes, it's still along way off. Romney will repeal it on day one anyway so why be the victim crying about those mean old libs picking on you...I know, I know, Repubs love to live in fear...so you'll find something else to be afraid of soon when Mitt takes over..
------------------------- Ka'a'awa avocado |
|
|
|
|
2nd Light Forums
» N S R
»
Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
|
Topic Tools |
FuseTalk Basic Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2013 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.
dust.resin.water...... Get your copy from http://dustresinwater.com/