Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with the ruling about buying insurance. But that doesn’t mean I agree with the religious freedom aspect of Obamacare and its cost and tax increase, etc etc.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I have missed some posts, so if this is redundant, please forgive me.

I think a big part of why people hate Obamacare is that the whole thing was so deceptive. The legislators who passed it did so in ignorance of what it contained. Certainly, the general public didn’t know. Who in the world imagined that it would be a “club” with which to beat the Catholic institutions into supporting contraceptives, abortifacients, sterilizations and in vitro fertilization, and that the executive has the power to do almost anything with it?

So, for a lot of people, we’re just learning some of the taxes that are imposed with it. Worse than that, there are interactions that cannot be figured out. What, for example, really happens if a state doesn’t formulate an exchange? Well, the feds will formulate one for that state. But if the feds do that, does the employer who does not provide health insurance still have to pay the fine if the employer has an employee who goes to the fed exchange? Nobody seems to know.

But truly the worst part of it is the power it gives to the executive to rule health care in America by decree. Obamacare is full of “The secretary shall determine”, “The secretary shall determine”. That means “As Obama will determine.” He has the power to impose abortion coverage on Catholic institutions and employers, and no doubt about that. He just hasn’t done it yet. If he can mandate zero deductibles for abortifacients, he can mandate zero deductibles on anything. And we who are paying will have to pay for that.

And this business about how you can only be fined for not having coverage; that you can’t be put in jail for it. Is that even true? If the feds grab off your fine from what you have paid in in taxes (which they can do) leaving you short on your withholding or quarterly payments and you don’t pay in full, they most assuredly can jail you.

It’s like one huge bag of tricks.
Click to expand...
I agree, Pelosi saying, “We have to pass the bill so YOU can find out what is in it,” was very telling. I always think I’m on some other planet when no one even blinks twice at a statement like that. (Of course not Ms. Pelosi who is beyond blinking and has to pin her eyelids shut at night…)

The Founders would be horrified at what we’ve done to the government they worked so hard to give us…
 
_Abyssinia said:
I think John Roberts’ changing opinion is strange, but it has been done, it can not be taken back now. Elect Romney, ObamaTax repealed. That is where energy has to be focused on
Click to expand...
I don’t think we have a lock on that even if we do elect Romney. We need to take back the Senate AND elect Romney, AND stay fully engaged with our state representatives and the local ones too.

Don’t be afraid to “take out the trash,” as often as we need to, until we get this nation back on track.
 
There are so many ways to encourage people to buy healthcare but we keep it complicated. I will be honest I will NOT pay the penalty I will be jailed with many small business owners. Be one and ypu might just change your opinion on this…Give me liberty or 3 squares a day, a warm bed, and an opportunity to further my education to be a more productive member of society…MY CRY IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!
 
seekerz said:
It is bearing false witness to call taxation theft. That has nothing to do with the wrongness of abortion, but nice try though.
Click to expand...
If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one’s labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the State the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se. It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else.
 
_Abyssinia said:
I think John Roberts’ changing opinion is strange, but it has been done, it can not be taken back now. Elect Romney, ObamaTax repealed. That is where energy has to be focused on
Click to expand...
Imagine if Americans gave up after the Dred Scott decision.

Bad decisions can be changed or overruled by the Congress.
 
…but we still have those that feel that it is society’s responsibilty to take care of everything and that we as a whole have the right to another’s wealth. On this July 4ht may we seek to honor what was so hard fought for. It was for the right for each to achieve…
 
Tess15010 said:
…but we still have those that feel that it is society’s responsibilty to take care of everything and that we as a whole have the right to another’s wealth. On this July 4ht may we seek to honor what was so hard fought for. It was for the right for each to achieve…
Click to expand...
We went to war with Britain under the insane notion that every person has an inherent right to own himself/herself.
 
Rence said:
This mandate is trying to get more people to subscribe to insurance so that they don’t apply and get the free ride stuff.

So what you are saying is those who currently are without insurance either due to the inability to pay or due to simply not wanting to pay,will now be coerced into buying coverage or face a penalty. If they don’t comply,there are called"fee riders",where ,until up to now, they were called poor,underprivledged? So really nothing will change except in how we refer to these uninsured folks. Also,those of us who up until a few days ago,were able to purchase insurance,choose our doctors,will now have the same lousy coverage as those metioned above. The only ones not affected by this law are the very wealthy,who by the way includes the president,all of congress and senate…funny how that works…:mad:
Click to expand...
 
Those that I know that are without healthcare are not “poor or underprivledged”…they are middle income people, who own their own businesses and struggle to provide for their employees. How would you like to work in healthcare, own that business and have people call and tell you its your responsibility to take care of them…without compensation. Just how many that “like” Obamacare would work under those conditions? There are no “competative wages” in small, self-owned businesses.
 
Tess15010 said:
Those that I know that are without healthcare are not “poor or underprivledged”…they are middle income people, who own their own businesses and struggle to provide for their employees. How would you like to work in healthcare, own that business and have people call and tell you its your responsibility to take care of them…without compensation. Just how many that “like” Obamacare would work under those conditions? There are no “competative wages” in small, self-owned businesses.
Click to expand...
You missed my point my calling the uninsured "poor or unprivledged "is my repeating the mantra of the left. I agree that insurance is costly,particularily for the middle class. My husband and I are small business owners,we have always had private insurance. Costly indeed! The larger point being,when the left speaks of the uninsured,they are lumping together,folks that simply could purchase insurance,but choose to spend thier money on other thins.Young adults out of college,between jobs,etc. It isn’t as clear cut an issue as it is being made out to be.🤷
 
Jeanne_S said:
Rence;9467938:
This mandate is trying to get more people to subscribe to insurance so that they don’t apply and get the free ride stuff.

So what you are saying is those who currently are without insurance either due to the inability to pay or due to simply not wanting to pay,will now be coerced into buying coverage or face a penalty. If they don’t comply,there are called"fee riders",where ,until up to now, they were called poor,underprivledged? So really nothing will change except in how we refer to these uninsured folks. Also,those of us who up until a few days ago,were able to purchase insurance,choose our doctors,will now have the same lousy coverage as those metioned above. The only ones not affected by this law are the very wealthy,who by the way includes the president,all of congress and senate…funny how that works…:mad:
Click to expand...
Obamacare multiplies “free riders”. It doesn’t eliminate them. If one looks at the subsidies many are going to be getting, how can they not be called 'free riders"? So, who is going to pay those subsidies? Well, everybody, in one way or another. Taxpayers will. Those who actually have to pay fully for their insurance will. Everybody in the country will pay because it will increase the deficit, inflation, medical overutilization and, ultimately, interest rates.

Obamacare is “free rider heaven”.
Click to expand...
 
Jeanne, I am sorry I did not read your post more carefully…proves a point though…Obama is a great DIVIDER.
 
I never did say how I voted. After some deliberation, I said “no”. But in truth, my response is actually “yes” in a way.

Do I oppose Obamacare and wish it had been overturned? Yes.

If you narrow the question, though, to “was Roberts right”, I have to reluctantly say yes to that as well. As I read the Roberts opinion, he’s saying “it’s a tax”. But he’s also saying “You all voted these people into power, and this is what they did. Fix it politically or live with it.” Sobering as a judgment on the American electorate, but richly deserved.
 
Ridgerunner…and the chickens are coming home to roost, but will it make people SEE???
 
Ridgerunner said:
I never did say how I voted. After some deliberation, I said “no”. But in truth, my response is actually “yes” in a way.

Do I oppose Obamacare and wish it had been overturned? Yes.

If you narrow the question, though, to “was Roberts right”, I have to reluctantly say yes to that as well. As I read the Roberts opinion, he’s saying “it’s a tax”. But he’s also saying “You all voted these people into power, and this is what they did. Fix it politically or live with it.” Sobering as a judgment on the American electorate, but richly deserved.
Click to expand...
But that can be argued for every law that Congress has ever passed. If that is his argument, then it is a poor one, IMHO.
 
Ridgerunner said:
If you narrow the question, though, to “was Roberts right”, I have to reluctantly say yes to that as well. As I read the Roberts opinion, he’s saying “it’s a tax”. But he’s also saying “You all voted these people into power, and this is what they did. Fix it politically or live with it.” Sobering as a judgment on the American electorate, but richly deserved.
Click to expand...
Unless voters insist that our lawmakers & judges do not misrepresent the products that they are selling, then get used to living with bad law and slick legislators & judges.

The Robert’s Opinion by Fred Thompson
Again, some optimists say that, since the Court relied upon the government’s taxing power, we are protected as a practical matter, since Congress would always be reluctant to pass a huge new tax. However, in the future Congress can insist it’s not a tax, just as it did this time. One would think that it would be politically more difficult to pull this off again, but there is no legal constraint to keep the congressional leaders from trying — deny it’s a tax during debate and have the government argue in court later that it is a tax.
Click to expand...
Those who justify John Roberts’ opinion seem to be doing the same as the majority opinion on the SC…
But the majority opinion appears to be a result looking for a rationale, which is the antithesis of what I ever thought would be the approach of John Roberts. One of his new admirers described his opinion as “incoherent but brilliant.” That’s the most depressing thing I have read in a long time.
Click to expand...
 
Tess15010 said:
Ridgerunner…and the chickens are coming home to roost, but will it make people SEE???
Click to expand...
I’m not terribly optimistic about it.

I have continuously marveled that Obama’s voter favorability rating never goes below 40% and is often above 50%. If, indeed, more than 50%of the populace think they can profit by voting for redistribution of wealth, and are motivated to do it by greed or envy, then we’ll never come out of the socialist fever swamp. We’ll only sink in deeper.

A curious thing about Obamacare that a friend of mine pointed out. People earning the “average” American wage or below will all qualify for subsidies under Obamacare. Big ones. Many earning above the average will. For employers with more than 50 employees, if 31 employees qualify for the subsidy (which they can even if the employer has insurance for employees) he has to pay the penalty for all the employees exceeding 30.

So, let’s say an employer has 100 employees and 31 of them qualify for the subsidy. Then he has to pay a $2,000 penalty on all the rest of them (70) even if he provides insurance. So, in looking at his health insurance costs, if he finds that the cost of paying so much that no more than 30 qualify is greater than the $200,000 cost of the penalty for just dropping insurance entirely (which would almost always be the case) then he’ll drop insurance and try to find a way to minimize his fines by laying off employees.

Or, if his operation allows for it, he’ll do the “sensible” thing and simply move his operation to China or somewhere and shut down his American operation entirely.

Every time one looks at it, one realizes what a dirty trick this whole thing was on the American people.

And Obama is still blaming Bush for the fact that employment doesn’t improve. And polls show that people believe him.

No, I’m not optimistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top