Romney can repeal ObamaTax by executive waivers, repeal though budget reconciliation because it is a tax or Congress can get rid of it.
No doubt that vexes you.
I was here first discussing the charity of health care reform before you started challenging my beliefs without any reason or cause. I’m too busy to troll.
You aren’t. People like you were the REASON this law was supposed to be passed and it winds up that people like you are the most HURT by this law.
The point Roberts made was that the State doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to compel commerce even if the affected persons are engaging in directly linked transactions. The fact that driving is a privilege doesn’t change that. I don’t believe his line of logic is sound on this issue but it is the standard by which such things will be judged moving forward. Just because you possess a body that will inevitably require medical care doesn’t mean that the State can compel you to purchase medical insurance. Likewise, just because you possess a car and will inevitably drive it does not mean that the State can compel you to purchase car insurance.
I am not sure if the abortion rate has declined in the last 3 years.
As I said in the part you chose NOT to include, I do NOT believe that Romney is in any way a sure bet to repeal or even change this law. As such, I am concerned that much of that money may be wasted-and that would “vex” me when there are so many better uses for it. We have an empty food pantry at our church that needs filling.
Obama is a sure bet not to.As I said in the part you chose NOT to include, I do NOT believe that Romney is in any way a sure bet to repeal or even change this law. As such, I am concerned that much of that money may be wasted-and that would “vex” me when there are so many better uses for it. We have an empty food pantry at our church that needs filling.
It would be helpful if you provided the quote of Roberts, so we can see exactly what you are referring to.
Well, in theory you could get insurance from the exchanges that may be priced lower than what you pay otherwise.
I’m going with the National Right to Life’s data and they show 2008-2011 as flat-no increase, no decrease. I would assume that they would have been following such things rather closely.
Tell that to your pal Rush Limbaugh.
He didn’t legislate from the bench and the taxation argument is explained in the decision. Playing semantics over what to call it does not change the fundamental nature of what it actually is and what it is, is a tax. A percentage based on income and paid to the IRS under existing tax code regulations.
“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. . . . The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. . . . Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.” *
Tell what to “my pal” Rush Limbaugh? What does it have to do with Rush Limbaugh?