Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: "Obamacare"

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    "Obamacare"

    ""This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said."

    http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-...171829777.html

    I am excited for this to get to the Supreme Court of the United States. It appears this ruling is not specific enough. Did the panel write it this way on purpose? The question is: Is "Obamacare" Constitutional if the individual required to purchase the healthcare is not levied a penalty if they fail to purchase the mandated healthcare? I know, it begs the question, "what is the point in making a law that requires all individuals have insurance, while at the same time rendering the law without penalty if the individual decides to not have insurance?"

    Like I stated, I look forward to this whole issue making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    ""This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said."

    http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-...171829777.html

    I am excited for this to get to the Supreme Court of the United States. It appears this ruling is not specific enough. Did the panel write it this way on purpose? The question is: Is "Obamacare" Constitutional if the individual required to purchase the healthcare is not levied a penalty if they fail to purchase the mandated healthcare? I know, it begs the question, "what is the point in making a law that requires all individuals have insurance, while at the same time rendering the law without penalty if the individual decides to not have insurance?"

    Like I stated, I look forward to this whole issue making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
    As do I. I am also looking forward to November 7th 2012 with more delight everytime the moonbat messiah takes a vacation during a "crisis". It would be nice if all his leftist acolytes had a "kool aid" party along the lines of the last "great american" leftist messiah Jim Jones. It would be a lot of work cleaning up the mess but it would be worth it.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  3. #3
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Forcing someone to buy something like health care is .. bleh.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Ahem: "It's a stinging blow to Obama's signature legislative achievement, as most experts agree the requirement that Americans carry health insurance — or face tax penalties — is the foundation for other parts of the law."

    The previous denouncement of obamacare by the federal court in Florida was dead-on accurate. This court seconds the motion, at least on the point upon which the other provisions hinge. The only way SCOTUS could overturn it would be via a Constitutionally-blind twisting of jurisprudence.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    113

    Read Article One Clause Three of The COTUS

    Direct taxes must be apportioned.
    Exodus 21:12-14

    Click here for some Common Sense

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Striking down the individual mandate hamstrings the whole pos bill. It will go to the SC and they will affirm the 11th's decision. obooba can go back to being a ward healer on the South Side and tell his constituents in the crack houses who he used to be, come next Nov. This albatross will being hanging around his neck the whole time.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  7. #7
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    "albatros around his neck"

    ya got me dude!
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Striking down the individual mandate hamstrings the whole pos bill. It will go to the SC and they will affirm the 11th's decision. obooba can go back to being a ward healer on the South Side and tell his constituents in the crack houses who he used to be, come next Nov. This albatross will being hanging around his neck the whole time.
    It depends on whether the finding will have anything to do with a mandate + penalty if the individual does not abide by the mandate. I see the bill standing after all of this is over.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    It depends on whether the finding will have anything to do with a mandate + penalty if the individual does not abide by the mandate. I see the bill standing after all of this is over.
    Yeah, standing in the corner of a dumpster.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by gunslinger View Post
    yeah, standing in the corner of a dumpster.
    lol
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I know, it begs the question, "what is the point in making a law that requires all individuals have insurance, while at the same time rendering the law without penalty if the individual decides to not have insurance?"
    For one, while failure to comply may not be directly penalized, it can still be recorded and later used for denial of certain benefits, including military or government service...

    Like I stated, I look forward to this whole issue making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
    So do I, and I hope they throw the whole darn thing in the furnace where it belongs, as did the first federal court that ruled against it.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    113
    I'm guessing that some people on this fourm believe that they are entitled to health care at the expense of others. That whole idea seems pretty hypocritical to me, as this is a forum dedicated to an individual right. Why should some people be able to force others to pay their way? Are we not all created equal? Maybe that is the problem, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Or, are some not as fit as others to compeat on a level field?
    Exodus 21:12-14

    Click here for some Common Sense

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by SourKraut View Post
    I'm guessing that some people on this fourm believe that they are entitled to health care at the expense of others. That whole idea seems pretty hypocritical to me, as this is a forum dedicated to an individual right. Why should some people be able to force others to pay their way? Are we not all created equal? Maybe that is the problem, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Or, are some not as fit as others to compeat on a level field?
    Do you believe everyone's pension should be subject to reevaluation and curtailment at any given moment, that if a business, much less a country decides it's no longer in their best interests to pay what they promised to pay, those individuals who worked decades for that pension should be swept out into the streets, regardless of their age or ability to re-enter the workforce?

    Are you aware of the legal concepts involving contracts?

    The "level field", as you put it, consisted of a dismal selection rate (less than 20% of applicants), a 35% washout rate from basic, a further 30% washout rate from aviation training, and a further 50% attrition rate between that and retirement. That comes to just 4.55% of all initial applicants that made it through the hurdles to retirement. Keep in mind 100% of us joined, sweated, toiled, and teared as we buried our fallen friends (four in my case) while serving our country.

    A pension was promised before I signed up. The promise was re-iterated throughout my time in service. It has been provided since I retired.

    It's not enough to live on! I still have to work for a living to make ends meet. I still have a child for whom I'm saving up a college fund. I'd still like to earn enough money to buy some land so I can build a house instead of living in a one-bedroom apartment like I am now.

    I hope you're getting the picture. I'm in the top 4.5% of the military, yet my "retirement" means "barely scraping by."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Maybe once again Obama got his states confused, perhaps he was again thinking of his 57 Islamic states, not realizing the constitution of our states doesn’t allow for such BS law.

    He's first integration of some form of Shariah?
    Last edited by jbone; 08-18-2011 at 11:24 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by SourKraut View Post
    Direct taxes must be apportioned.
    Are you referring to Art.I, Sec 2, clause 3?

    If so, it was replaced with Sec.2 of the 14th Amendment, which was not legally ratified, but it reigns today anyway.
    Last edited by rodbender; 08-18-2011 at 02:02 PM.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by SourKraut View Post
    I'm guessing that some people on this fourm believe that they are entitled to health care at the expense of others. That whole idea seems pretty hypocritical to me, as this is a forum dedicated to an individual right. Why should some people be able to force others to pay their way? Are we not all created equal? Maybe that is the problem, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Or, are some not as fit as others to compeat on a level field?
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Do you believe everyone's pension should be subject to reevaluation and curtailment at any given moment, that if a business, much less a country decides it's no longer in their best interests to pay what they promised to pay, those individuals who worked decades for that pension should be swept out into the streets, regardless of their age or ability to re-enter the workforce?

    Are you aware of the legal concepts involving contracts?

    The "level field", as you put it, consisted of a dismal selection rate (less than 20% of applicants), a 35% washout rate from basic, a further 30% washout rate from aviation training, and a further 50% attrition rate between that and retirement. That comes to just 4.55% of all initial applicants that made it through the hurdles to retirement. Keep in mind 100% of us joined, sweated, toiled, and teared as we buried our fallen friends (four in my case) while serving our country.

    A pension was promised before I signed up. The promise was re-iterated throughout my time in service. It has been provided since I retired.

    It's not enough to live on! I still have to work for a living to make ends meet. I still have a child for whom I'm saving up a college fund. I'd still like to earn enough money to buy some land so I can build a house instead of living in a one-bedroom apartment like I am now.

    I hope you're getting the picture. I'm in the top 4.5% of the military, yet my "retirement" means "barely scraping by."
    Since,
    I think he's just talking about the healthcare law and I believe he's right. I'm not sure where you get your elaboration from unless this is continued on from some other thread? In any case, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying either, I'm just confused about where it all came from.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 08-18-2011 at 02:13 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by jbone View Post
    Maybe once again Obama got his states confused, perhaps he was again thinking of his 57 Islamic states, not realizing the constitution of our states doesn’t allow for such BS law.

    He's first integration of some form of Shariah?
    Well he did spend a few key formative years in the predominantly Muslim country of Indonesia...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Since,
    I think he's just talking about the healthcare law and I believe he's right. I'm not sure where you get your elaboration from unless this is continued on from some other thread? In any case, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying either, I'm just confused about where it all came from.
    It's indeed a bit of cross-talk from another thread discussing yet another media nut's article about the possibility of changing existing benefits for military veterans and retirees. My point was that's a drop in the bucket compared to the far larger drains on our budget.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •