"We Will Not Comply": Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

  • Thread starter Thread starter ACCT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ACCT

Guest
"We Will Not Comply": Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

June 28, 2012

Washington, DC - The United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 split decision this morning upholding Obamacare as constitutional as a tax. The Court also ruled that Congress can levy penalties on individuals with no health insurance.

“We will not comply with this socialistic and oppressive law that forces us to not only purchase insurance we may not want, but more importantly, forces us to violate our consciences and fund abortion coverage,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “We must demand that Congress change the law for the good of our nation. If Congress will not change it, we still will not comply.”
 
He needs to learn what “socialist” actually means.

The law needs repair, but it is not socialist.
 
Seeker1961 said:
He needs to learn what “socialist” actually means.

The law needs repair, but it is not socialist.
Click to expand...
You are correct, it is taxing someone for not doing what the government wants them to do. It is called fascism, or communism, if you prefer.
 
Seeker1961 said:
He needs to learn what “socialist” actually means.

The law needs repair, but it is not socialist.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I agree. The law does need repair but generally is a real step forward for our health care needs in this country

However, freedom of religion is endangered by both these laws,(although I really support the health care law and only object to the HHS ruling with respect to catholic institutions), because there really is a slippery slope here. If we do not have freedom of conscience clauses, then health care workers could be forced to act against their consciences or be severely penalized. as in losing their licenses, losing their jobs, etc. Heretofore, as a healthcare worker I was free to refuse to be part of a procedure or choice that I could not support out of my Caholicism. I am not so sure that waould any longer be permitted. In fact, there could be court challenges to workers who refused to participate and so violate their principles.

Might be a mass turning in of nursing, medical, and other registrations. And what about teachers.
 
My Webster’s Dictionary has these definitions:
socialistn.
**1. **an advocate or supporter of socialism

socialismn.
**1. **any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products.

2. a) a political movement for establishing such a system
b) the doctrines, methods, etc. of the Socialist parties

**3. **the stage of society, in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated: see COMMUNISM

The more control the government has, the more socialism.
 
Seeker1961 said:
He needs to learn what “socialist” actually means.

The law needs repair, but it is not socialist.
Click to expand...
The President has no authority whatsoever to compel the American people to buy any product or service.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The President has no authority whatsoever to compel the American people to buy any product or service.
Click to expand...
But the US Supreme Court ruled today that if you do not buy health insurance, the government, under this President’s health care law, CAN TAX YOU.
 
GratefulFred said:
But the US Supreme Court ruled today that if you do not buy health insurance, the government, under this President’s health care law, CAN TAX YOU.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court ruled that killing a child in the womb was a constitutional right.
It still is not. Neither a natural right, nor a right mentioned, or hinted at in the constitution.
 
I am all for health care reform but not in a way where there are thousands of pages and all kind of government mandates. There has got to be an simpler way. Not to mention, is this something we can afford as a nation?
 
LittleFlower378 said:
I am all for health care reform but not in a way where there are thousands of pages and all kind of government mandates. There has got to be an simpler way. Not to mention, is this something we can afford as a nation?
Click to expand...
Anything as complicated as health care, with all the variables is going to take a lot of pages.

And the question is, can we as a nation afford NOT to reform health care?

Honestly, my only real objection was paying for elective abortion and the lack of a conscience clause. I am all for Americans not being one serious accident or illness away from bankruptcy, forcing people to take responsibility and pay their premiums and forcing insurance companies to stop denying or canceling policies on people who dare to have pre-existing conditions.
 
Absolutely, although I am sure there will be those who accuse the bishops of “selling out” because of this position.
 
GratefulFred said:
My Webster’s Dictionary has these definitions:
socialistn.
**1. **an advocate or supporter of socialism

socialismn.
**1. **any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products.

2. a) a political movement for establishing such a system
b) the doctrines, methods, etc. of the Socialist parties

**3. **the stage of society, in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated: see COMMUNISM

The more control the government has, the more socialism.
Click to expand...
Your final statement does not follow from any of the definitions you quoted. The definitions refer to control over the means of production and distribution. The ACA exerts control over neither of these areas. In fact it is more free market than it could have been with a single payer system. At least you get to choose which private sector insurance company you buy from. That is not socialism according to the definitions you quoted.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Your final statement does not follow from any of the definitions you quoted. The definitions refer to control over the means of production and distribution. The ACA exerts control over neither of these areas. In fact it is more free market than it could have been with a single payer system. At least you get to choose which private sector insurance company you buy from. That is not socialism according to the definitions you quoted.
Click to expand...
Now, now…don’t bring facts into it…
 
Seeker1961 said:
He needs to learn what “socialist” actually means.

The law needs repair, but it is not socialist.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on this, please? I don’t understand how this could not be considered socialist.
LittleFlower378 said:
I am all for health care reform but not in a way where there are thousands of pages and all kind of government mandates. There has got to be an simpler way. Not to mention, is this something we can afford as a nation?
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, not as our current financial deficit stands. There is already a large percentage of Americans that do not pay federal tax as it is, and there is too much government money being pumped into less-than-productive areas (Dept of Education, foreign aid, etc). Perhaps it could be more affordable if we cut down unnecessary spending elsewhere, but our politicians don’t seem to be on that bandwagon.
Seeker1961 said:
And the question is, can we as a nation afford NOT to reform health care?

Honestly, my only real objection was paying for elective abortion and the lack of a conscience clause. I am all for Americans not being one serious accident or illness away from bankruptcy, forcing people to take responsibility and pay their premiums and forcing insurance companies to stop denying or canceling policies on people who dare to have pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...
I agree with some sort of reform as well, but it does not have to come to this. Is there a good reason insurance companies can’t compete across state lines, or offer more in the way of “catastrophe insurance” only? I think a lot of young and middle-aged people would like the option to buy emergency-only insurance and simply pay for any other doctor visits out-of-pocket, if they do not require regular visits. This bill is taking that choice away from people. I am now *forced *to purchase insurance, even if I never get sick.
 
If the plan were socialist, private insurance companies would not be involved. Government would have taken over United Healthcare, Blue Cross and every other private health insurance company and we would have single payer coverage. While all those companies are still making tidy profits for their shareholders and CEO’s you can’t call it socialism.

The happiest people in America today are the health care insurance companies. This law was created by and for them. Go back to the 1990’s and look at the original version of this law. It was created by the GOP in response to Hillary’s plan. How quickly everyone forgets!
 
GratefulFred said:
But the US Supreme Court ruled today that if you do not buy health insurance, the government, under this President’s health care law, CAN TAX YOU.
Click to expand...
True, but this is the first time ever that a Court has ruled that a person can be taxed just because they exist. That has nothing to do with commerce or property.
Seeker1961 said:
If the plan were socialist, private insurance companies would not be involved. Government would have taken over United Healthcare, Blue Cross and every other private health insurance company and we would have single payer coverage. While all those companies are still making tidy profits for their shareholders and CEO’s you can’t call it socialism.

The happiest people in America today are the health care insurance companies. This law was created by and for them. Go back to the 1990’s and look at the original version of this law. It was created by the GOP in response to Hillary’s plan. How quickly everyone forgets!
Click to expand...
Hospitals are happy, but insurance companies are not happy. Their stocks tanked today.

US Stocks Slump as Court’s Health-Care Ruling Speeds Declines
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top