ObamaCare Upheld.

scottspfd82

scottspfd82

New member
Dec 29, 2006
1,496
68
0
Supreme Court upholds Obamacare 5-4 - CNN.com

I had a little faith in the SCOTUS.

take-my-money.jpg
 


Not really up to speed on the specs of Obamacare (I know it's shit though), but I'm curious about something.. Let's say your family makes above the threshold in which you can get government assistance/free healthcare, but you have a family member with a condition which in the past prevented them from receiving healthcare.. Now that ins. companies can't deny people with pre-existing conditions, does that mean you might be forced to pay for a plan that costs a lot to pay for that person?
 
dreamache said:
Not really up to speed on the specs of Obamacare (I know it's shit though), but I'm curious about something.. Let's say your family makes above the threshold in which you can get government assistance/free healthcare, but you have a family member with a condition which in the past prevented them from receiving healthcare.. Now that ins. companies can't deny people with pre-existing conditions, does that mean you might be forced to pay for a plan that costs a lot to pay for that person?
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that because everyone is forced to get insurance that they will have a sane price. Currently I'm "uninsurable" according to the health insurance companies and I'll be pissed if I'm forced to pay several thousand dollars a month. What's wrong with me isn't even life threating, but will eventually require surgery if I want to walk when I'm 60.
 
dreamache said:
Not really up to speed on the specs of Obamacare (I know it's shit though), but I'm curious about something.. Let's say your family makes above the threshold in which you can get government assistance/free healthcare, but you have a family member with a condition which in the past prevented them from receiving healthcare.. Now that ins. companies can't deny people with pre-existing conditions, does that mean you might be forced to pay for a plan that costs a lot to pay for that person?
Click to expand...

What Happens If I Don't Get Insurance Under Obamacare?
 
Ameirica, the land of the freeloaders. The max tax penalty is 2.5% of income. When my insurance exceeds this, I'm cancelling my health insurance. Fuck Obamacare!
 
Dunno what the big problem is, just print some moar money.

That's what we're doing in Euroderp and it's working out swell according to what they tell me on TV.

zimbabwe-currency-1.jpg
 
BTW, now is a good time to consider getting a solo 401k. Use it to reduce your taxable income and to buy property overseas and gold. Plan your escape now. This guy pioneered solo 401k's and is a Campaign for Liberty supporter.

Nabers Financial
 
I post the following to press a specific point: don't place too much faith in the constitution, SCOTUS, etc. Although they seem to exist for your protection, they are the tools used by the state to rob, rape, and coerce you. With that in mind...

From the SCOTUS opinion regarding the individual mandate (Syllabus - page 3):

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to "lay and collect Taxes."
Click to expand...

From the SCOTUS opinion regarding the individual mandate (Opinion - page 5):

This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power. The Constitution authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Our precedents read that to mean that Congress may regulate “the channels of interstate commerce,” “persons or things in interstate commerce,” and “those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Morrison, supra, at 609 (internal quotation marks omitted). The power over activities that substantially affect interstate commerce can be expansive. That power has been held to authorize federal regulation of such seemingly local matters as a farmer’s decision to grow wheat for himself and his livestock, and a loan shark’s extortionate collections from a neighborhood butcher shop. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942); Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 (1971).

Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Congress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.
Click to expand...

A relevant passage from Hans Hoppe's Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis:

The establishment of a ruling class over an exploited one many times its size by coercion and the manipulation of public opinion, i.e., a low degree of class consciousness among the exploited, finds its most basic institutional expression in the creation of a system of public law superimposed on private law. The ruling class sets itself apart and protects its position as a ruling class by adopting a constitution for their firm's operations. On the one hand, by formalizing the internal operations within the state apparatus as well as its relations with the exploited population, a constitution creates some degree of legal stability. The more familiar and popular private law notions are incorporated into constitutional and public law, the more favorably disposed will be the public to the existence of the state. On the other hand, any constitution and public law also formalizes the immune status of the ruling class as regards the homesteading principle. It formalizes the right of the state's representatives to engage in non-productive and non-contractual property acquisitions and the ultimate subordination of private to public law.
Click to expand...

A few of you understand how this works. You see the state for what it is. (I have no interest in having a forum discussion with those of you who do not.)
 
To add to Jake's post....

The Constitution, being a 'living document", could never protect the people indefinitely.
 
Well, most people older than 20s agree that some kind if health care change was needed. It's just too bad the republican leadership because of their dislike for Obama "got huffy" and refused to participate in good faith. Perhaps the reform could have been better.
 
mikecarquote said:
Well, most people older than 20s agree that some kind if health care change was needed. It's just too bad the republican leadership because of their dislike for Obama "got huffy" and refused to participate in good faith. Perhaps the reform could have been better.
Click to expand...
I don't care if 90% of people agree that a healthcare mandate was needed, a majority consensus doesn't remove the gun from my back.
 
mikecarquote said:
Well, most people older than 20s agree that some kind if health care change was needed. It's just too bad the republican leadership because of their dislike for Obama "got huffy" and refused to participate in good faith. Perhaps the reform could have been better.
Click to expand...

Most people forget what health care was like before government started "fixing it".

An interesting question to ask someone is, why can't a doctor work exclusively for something like fraternal organizations where membership in said organization came with the benefits of that doctors services at no extra charge?

Or why a hospital cannot purchase new equipment if there are long waiting lists for current equipment?
 
"What happens if I don't get coverage?

Essentially what the law states is that you either show that you have the minimum coverage from a qualified plan or you pay an annual tax penalty. New IRC code § 5000A states the penalty as equal to or greater of the following:
  1. 2.5% of the amount by which the taxpayer’s household income for the tax year exceeds the threshold amount of income required for income tax return filing under section 6012(a) OR
  2. $695 per uninsured adult in the household.
This penalty will be phased in from 2014 through 2016. In 2014, the penalty will only be 1% or $95 per uninsured adult. In 2015, it will be 2% or $325 per uninsured adult. In 2016, it will be the full penalty. If you are low income and can show hardship, then you may be exempt per IRS rules.
One very interesting part of the new IRC code § 5000A is that the act specifies that liens and seizures are not authorized to enforce this penalty and non compliance will not be subject to criminal penalties. That's right, the IRS can't enforce the non-payment of this penalty as the law is currently written. It will apparently be considered a subordinated tax. It may be subject to civil penalties or enforcement similar to unsecured debt. Check with a qualified legal professional for more information on noncompliance."


So while they won't throw you in jail (as its written right now; of course that can change) they will fuck up your credit, which can fuck up your job, your ability to find an apartment/buy a home, buy a car, etc.


It's a gun to your head. There's no redeeming quality to this shit at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom