welcome to a civilized world where hopefully 700,000 people won't go bankrupt every year due to medical bills. welcome to a civilized world where we don't have to keep putting our trust in the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies who have been ripping off people for years.
the current system is deplorable. an absolute disgrace. i welcome the governments involvement in a system that has been such a failure for so many years it would be laughable if it wasn't so damn pathetic. no one has come up with any working alternatives so far. lets try this and see how it pans out. i've worked in a country that has universal health care and one that doesn't, and i know what i prefer. government run health care is not without some problems either, but I've worked in a country that has universal health care and im working in a country that doesn't. so i have experienced both.
the one thing i will say about the Country that did have it....people that require urgent life saving non elective surgery are treated as a priority. the same thing does not happen here.
i hope that one day people realize that while they have been so hell bent on shouting down the public option, all they have been doing is lobbying to keep pouring money into the pockets of insurance companies who have been the ones rationing healthcare today. the health insurance companies do not give a shit about you. if they did they would not focus so much of their time trying to get out of paying claims and compromising yours and your families health.
i never did get that. such anger and animosity at the thought of the government having some control over your health? it's not like what we have now is working or anything special. people really preferred it when your Insurance company could get away with doing anything to decline coverage and decline benefits???
what good is having the best doctors in the world, when the people that need them the most can't get treatment?
i've said it before and i'll say it again. if you don't trust the government to look after your health, i trust you won't be a hypocrite and call government paid/run emergency service personnel, and their equipment when you get in a bad situation. we'd hate you to not trust us with your health, so don't bother. you can't pick and choose just because it suits YOU. i am so tired of selfish people who only think about themselves.
and you are selfish. you don't give a rats ass about your 45 million uninsured fellow americans. all you care about is yourselves. this whole debate has caused such anger and animosity. it's really divided the country, funny how the thought of your countryman finally having access to a basic human right, being timely and affordable health care, can actually cause such anger.
and why don't you care about the billions of dollars of our money that we send over to Israel each year to help fund their illegal occupation. why aren't you more vocal about that? and why don't you care about all the billions and billions of dollars that's being poured into Iraq and Afghanistan to fund those wars? money we can never get back. its gone forever. spent, and it doesn't look like stopping anytime soon.
seems to me some are ok with the government wasting all that money, but when it comes to your fellow americans having access to affordable and timely healthcare, you really don't give a fuck.
i see plenty of benefits for this and i'm sure there's still work that needs to be done to get it all working properly and fairly. but it's a start.
Just heard on Greta that up to 14 attorney generals are filing suit against the federal governments mandate act in the bill for being unconstitutional.
fucking lawyers. :roll:
oh...
...i do believe the correct term is attorneys general.
it will be a fruit effort and a waste of time and money, instead catching real crooks and corrupts folks
even if it went to the supreme court I doubt they would hear it
if that is the case they could sue against other mandates like taxes in general, including state taxes, social security and medicare all of which are taken out of my check without permission
I hope you are joking, $20 a month for the rest of your life to keep the bill collectors off you back... it is like paying the bully on the playground not to beat you up.
but again both incorrect, go hang out at a homeless shelter for a day and see if you still feel the same way about access to medical treatment and social programs
I think it's a good thing somebody is taking on health care reform. I think there are definite areas that could be improved. I don't think the United States was euthanizing the poor until 2 p.m. yesterday. I think that's an exaggeration.
again you are MISREPRESENTING
no one here said euthanize, I gave a legitimate example of cancer which you dismissed and took it to the extreme :roll:
:roll: I asked a legitimate question. It's a shame that your lack of understanding of and empathy for the lives of others keeps you from being able to contribute anything contrsuctive to the conversation. I guess some people's brains can only make sense of the world through stereotypes, like children do. (Though children still have more empathy.)
i gave a legitimate answer. there is no lack of understanding and or lack of empathy for others, who make logical and common sense decisions. i believe an important aspect a human can have is to fall on their face and get back up....dignity.
to address your comment about "stereotypes"....i base my comments on the sample space to which i am exposed. the individuals i see and work with are a direct correlation of the problems with our health care.
as for "shame"...no need to feel shame for me... i am enjoying a fresh pack of cigarettes.
Your implication that those who don't have an extra $20/month to spare don't have it because they decided to spend it on frivolous material things indicates to me a lack of understanding and empathy for the many, many people who live in poverty despite working hard and making common sense decisions. There is more to life and to this issue than just the sample space to which you are exposed.
incorrect. i made no implication about the poor. i stated a fact, with regards to the people around me who complain about the inability to obtain health insurance or the cost of health insurance. yet, they purchase unnecessary items and engage in cumulative behavior that will only increase their probability of contracting an illness/disease.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
Obama signing health care bill into law. I think this is an improvement, but I still don't think this will end the debate on health care. I still say the only way government will truly work for the people is ban all lobbyist. I do however hope this works out for my American neighbours.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The $940 billion health-care overhaul will take nearly a decade to roll out in full. A look at the key parts of the bill and when they go into effect.
2010
Coverage
Subsidies begin for small businesses to provide coverage to employees.
Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing illness.
Children permitted to stay on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
2011
Coverage
Set up long-term care program under which people pay premiums into system for at least five years and become eligible for support payments if they need assistance in daily living.
Taxes and fees
Drug makers face annual fee of $2.5 billion (rises in subsequent years).
2013
Taxes and fees
New Medicare taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000 a year.
Tax on wages rises to 2.35% from 1.45%.
New 3.8% tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest.
Excise tax of 2.3% imposed on sale of medical devices.
Cost control
Medicare pilot program begins to test bundled payments for care, in a bid to pay for quality rather than quantity of services.
2014
Coverage
Create exchanges where people without employer coverage, as well as small businesses, can shop for health coverage. Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing illness.
Requirement begins for most people to have health insurance. Subsidies begin for lower and middle-income people. People at 133% of federal poverty level pay maximum of 3% of income for coverage. People at 400% of poverty level pay up to 9.5% of income. (Poverty level currently is about $22,000 for a family of four.)
Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, expands to all Americans with income up to 133% of federal poverty level.
Subsidies for small businesses to provide coverage increase. Businesses with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000 receive tax credit of up to 50% of employer's contribution. Tax credits phase out for larger businesses.
Taxes and fees
Employers with more than 50 employees that don't provide affordable coverage must pay a fine if employees receive tax credits to buy insurance. Fine is up to $3,000 per employee, excluding first 30 employees.
Insurance industry must pay annual fee of $8 billion (rises in subsequent years).
Cost control
Independent Medicare board must begin to submit recommendations to curb Medicare spending, if costs are rising faster than inflation.
2016
Taxes and fees
Penalty for those who don't carry coverage rises to 2.5% of taxable income or $695, whichever is greater.
2017
Coverage
Businesses with more than 100 employees can buy coverage on insurance exchanges, if state permits it.
2018
Taxes and fees
Excise tax of 40% imposed on health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.
i gave a legitimate answer. there is no lack of understanding and or lack of empathy for others, who make logical and common sense decisions. i believe an important aspect a human can have is to fall on their face and get back up....dignity.
to address your comment about "stereotypes"....i base my comments on the sample space to which i am exposed. the individuals i see and work with are a direct correlation of the problems with our health care.
as for "shame"...no need to feel shame for me... i am enjoying a fresh pack of cigarettes.
Your implication that those who don't have an extra $20/month to spare don't have it because they decided to spend it on frivolous material things indicates to me a lack of understanding and empathy for the many, many people who live in poverty despite working hard and making common sense decisions. There is more to life and to this issue than just the sample space to which you are exposed.
incorrect. i made no implication about the poor. i stated a fact, with regards to the people around me who complain about the inability to obtain health insurance or the cost of health insurance. yet, they purchase unnecessary items and engage in cumulative behavior that will only increase their probability of contracting an illness/disease.
Whatever. We both know you're perpetuating a stereotype. And that is counter-productive to any real understanding of others or their siutations... and that's not at all constructive... and it's childish.
The more I learn about this bill the more I hate what this country has become. Very few people in power are good people who care about average citizens. What a shame that it has come to this and I find it extremely discouraging.
This bill is NOT a step towards single-payer. It is the opposite. It cements insurance companies into our government, while they continue to take advantage of people for disgustingly large profits.
I really hope that this bill is not upheld by the constitution.
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you state, but on what grounds specifically should this be unconstitutional? I mean if you feel it's infringement, then shouldn't people not have to get car insurance? If you feel the government doesn't have the authority, then shouldn't the FED, US National Bank, post office and others all be disbanded? My point is, unconstitutional doesn't mean you simply disagree or don't like something.
The more I learn about this bill the more I hate what this country has become. Very few people in power are good people who care about average citizens. What a shame that it has come to this and I find it extremely discouraging.
This bill is NOT a step towards single-payer. It is the opposite. It cements insurance companies into our government, while they continue to take advantage of people for disgustingly large profits.
I really hope that this bill is not held up by the constitution.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I don't necessarily disagree with everything you state, but on what grounds specifically should this be unconstitutional? I mean if you feel it's infringement, then shouldn't people not have to get car insurance? If you feel the government doesn't have the authority, then shouldn't the FED, US National Bank, post office and others all be disbanded? My point is, unconstitutional doesn't mean you simply disagree or don't like something.
Well I think there is an enormous difference between driving a car and simply being alive while you happen to live in America, and happen not to be Native American, and happen not to be religious.
I have health insurance and from my understanding this bill does not affect me at all.
But I think it is absolutely wrong to require someone to directly purchase something they do not want.
I'm under no requirement to purchase car insurance, UNLESS I want to drive.
I'm under no requirement to buy a stamp UNLESS I want a letter delivered.
Yet under this legislation many will be required to pay insurance companies for services they do not want (or in some cases do not need). What is their option? Honestly, what is their option? If they are alive they must pay insurance companies? Insane. And I'm no lawyer but it certainly doesn't sound constitutional to me.
But it sure sounds like a fine way to pick up a bunch of new customers for your business now doesn't it?
The more I learn about this bill the more I hate what this country has become. Very few people in power are good people who care about average citizens. What a shame that it has come to this and I find it extremely discouraging.
This bill is NOT a step towards single-payer. It is the opposite. It cements insurance companies into our government, while they continue to take advantage of people for disgustingly large profits.
I really hope that this bill is not upheld by the constitution.
Pelosis' aproval rating drops to 11%! HAHAHAHAH!!LOVE IT!LOVE IT!LOVE IT! I hope the door doesn't hit her in the ass on her way out. Actually......I hope it does, that would be funny.
This government has to learn that if you do not listen to the people you work for(US) your career is more than likely finished.
The more I learn about this bill the more I hate what this country has become. Very few people in power are good people who care about average citizens. What a shame that it has come to this and I find it extremely discouraging.
This bill is NOT a step towards single-payer. It is the opposite. It cements insurance companies into our government, while they continue to take advantage of people for disgustingly large profits.
Agreed.
I really hope that this bill is not upheld by the constitution.
DIsagreed.
Article I, Sec 8, US Constitution: 8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Whether or not you agree with the excise tax or the mandate/tax alternative, the Constitution expressly provides for it.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
The more I learn about this bill the more I hate what this country has become. Very few people in power are good people who care about average citizens. What a shame that it has come to this and I find it extremely discouraging.
This bill is NOT a step towards single-payer. It is the opposite. It cements insurance companies into our government, while they continue to take advantage of people for disgustingly large profits.
Agreed.
I really hope that this bill is not upheld by the constitution.
DIsagreed.
Article I, Sec 8, US Constitution: 8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Whether or not you agree with the excise tax or the mandate/tax alternative, the Constitution expressly provides for it.
Which is exactly why I said "I really hope"....and whether it's legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, I still believe it is wrong.
The more I learn about this bill the more I hate what this country has become. Very few people in power are good people who care about average citizens. What a shame that it has come to this and I find it extremely discouraging.
This bill is NOT a step towards single-payer. It is the opposite. It cements insurance companies into our government, while they continue to take advantage of people for disgustingly large profits.
Agreed.
I really hope that this bill is not upheld by the constitution.
DIsagreed.
Article I, Sec 8, US Constitution: 8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Whether or not you agree with the excise tax or the mandate/tax alternative, the Constitution expressly provides for it.
Which is exactly why I said "I really hope"....and whether it's legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, I still believe it is wrong.
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
Also, the 8th amendment clearly states this:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.
According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.
And.... isn't the power to levy taxes and excises and all that stuff specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution, as I poined out earlier?
Next question.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Also, the 8th amendment clearly states this:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The 8th amendment refers to matters of judicial proceedings, not legislative ones. "Bail", "fine" and "punishment" can only be meted out by the Judiciary, as per Article III of the Constitution.
Next question.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.
And.... isn't the power to levy taxes and excises and all that stuff specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution, as I poined out earlier?
Next question.
I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about the feds (IRS) forcing a fine on people for not purchasing something, as in ....making it against the law. Government has no right in my opinion.
And please do not come back with the "yyou have to buy car insurance bit" we both know that is completely diferent.
Your article 1 section 8 comment says nothing that clarifies what this administration is doing.
We all know they are going to have to collect taxes to pay for this....ALOT OF TAXES!!!!
Also, don't be so cocky with your "next question" it's realy not all that intimidating.
How many people are there that claim I don't want insurance compared to millions who do want it? If this is the discussion, then it really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Also, all of a sudden so many care about big government, budgets, debt, the corporate agenda and government ties... just a bunch of nonsense. There's been just as much funny business going on in government for decades, but all of a sudden people take notice... gimme a break.
Well I think there is an enormous difference between driving a car and simply being alive while you happen to live in America, and happen not to be Native American, and happen not to be religious.
I have health insurance and from my understanding this bill does not affect me at all.
But I think it is absolutely wrong to require someone to directly purchase something they do not want.
I'm under no requirement to purchase car insurance, UNLESS I want to drive.
I'm under no requirement to buy a stamp UNLESS I want a letter delivered.
Yet under this legislation many will be required to pay insurance companies for services they do not want (or in some cases do not need). What is their option? Honestly, what is their option? If they are alive they must pay insurance companies? Insane. And I'm no lawyer but it certainly doesn't sound constitutional to me.
But it sure sounds like a fine way to pick up a bunch of new customers for your business now doesn't it?
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress's power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.
And.... isn't the power to levy taxes and excises and all that stuff specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution, as I poined out earlier?
Next question.
I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about the feds (IRS) forcing a fine on people for not purchasing something, as in ....making it against the law. Government has no right in my opinion.
And please do not come back with the "yyou have to buy car insurance bit" we both know that is completely diferent.
Wrong. It's perfectly within the purvey of Congress as specifically defined in Article I Section 8 to impose duties, excises, levies, or whatever the hell you want to call it... to provide for the general welfare (in this case, health care).
Secondly, as far as the Commerce Clause, there's nearly 200 years of precedent where the Courts have been reluctant to limit the power of Congress here. Even Justice Scalia has stated, in Gonzales v Raich (2005), that Congress can regulate even non-economic activity if it has the ultimate purpose of regulating commerce.
Finally, the mandate won't kick in till 2014, and courts have traditionally refused to rule on matters until they become relevant.
But good luck convincing a Court of that. The only way these lawsuits will have a snowball's chance of succeeding is if the SCOTUS RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) start legislating from the bench again... and I seriously doubt even they would intrude upon the domain of Congress, especially since we're looking at 200 years of precedents.
Next question.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Yes, you're right IF....they wanted to make a single payer sysem and impose the taxes to pay for it.
BUT, what you are saying has nothing to do with the government(IRS) forcing us (THE PEOPLE) to make a purchase or else we will be punished for it by law. You can spin it any way you want, but I don't believe that if this didn't have a chance in court then all in only one day after passing 14 attorney generals pursuit to file a lawsuit against it. I believe the Attorney Generals know the law better then you or I.
By the way....I see no question marks in my comments...therefore, I am not asking any questions.
The attorney generals lawsuit is merely partisan politics and not necessarily a reflection of any legality. If you think our system has "law first" have a look back at the 2000 election, where partisan politics, dirty play and the Supreme court trumped the citizens finding out who really won an election.
Yes, you're right IF....they wanted to make a single payer sysem and impose the taxes to pay for it.
BUT, what you are saying has nothing to do with the government(IRS) forcing us (THE PEOPLE) to make a purchase or else we will be punished for it by law. You can spin it any way you want, but I don't believe that if this didn't have a chance in court then all in only one day after passing 14 attorney generals pursuit to file a lawsuit against it. I believe the Attorney Generals know the law better then you or I.
By the way....I see no question marks in my comments...therefore, I am not asking any questions.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Yes, you're right IF....they wanted to make a single payer sysem and impose the taxes to pay for it.
BUT, what you are saying has nothing to do with the government(IRS) forcing us (THE PEOPLE) to make a purchase or else we will be punished for it by law. You can spin it any way you want, but I don't believe that if this didn't have a chance in court then all in only one day after passing 14 attorney generals pursuit to file a lawsuit against it. I believe the Attorney Generals know the law better then you or I.
By the way....I see no question marks in my comments...therefore, I am not asking any questions.
First of all, it's not the IRS' job to make the law.
Secondly, I've already pointed out where the Congress has the right to impose the mandate/fine system.
Thirdly, so what if a bunch of right wing Republican AG's want to file suit? This is partisan politics, not legal jurisprudence. And one of them, the WA AG, has just been called out by the Governor there. I'd like to see all of them pursue the matter to the SCOTUS after months and months of litigation, inviting scorn from the irate taxpayers of their home states.
Lastly, the Department of Justice is defending the law, and they have a much more solid legal footing to stand on than the state AGs.
Like I said, good luck with that.
Next question.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Yes, you're right IF....they wanted to make a single payer sysem and impose the taxes to pay for it.
BUT, what you are saying has nothing to do with the government(IRS) forcing us (THE PEOPLE) to make a purchase or else we will be punished for it by law. You can spin it any way you want, but I don't believe that if this didn't have a chance in court then all in only one day after passing 14 attorney generals pursuit to file a lawsuit against it. I believe the Attorney Generals know the law better then you or I.
By the way....I see no question marks in my comments...therefore, I am not asking any questions.
First of all, it's not the IRS' job to make the law.
Secondly, I've already pointed out where the Congress has the right to impose the mandate/fine system.
Thirdly, so what if a bunch of right wing Republican AG's want to file suit? This is partisan politics, not legal jurisprudence. And one of them, the WA AG, has just been called out by the Governor there. I'd like to see all of them pursue the matter to the SCOTUS after months and months of litigation, inviting scorn from the irate taxpayers of their home states.
Lastly, the Department of Justice is defending the law, and they have a much more solid legal footing to stand on than the state AGs.
Like I said, good luck with that.
Next question.
It is now the IRS' job to enforce it!
Where have you pointed out in the constitution that congress has the right to impose the mandate/fine system? ( <
that is a question ) your just making shit up now.
Thirdly is a bunch of jibberish stuff.
Lastly, the department of justice is CREATING the law.
How many people are there that claim I don't want insurance compared to millions who do want it? If this is the discussion, then it really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Also, all of a sudden so many care about big government, budgets, debt, the corporate agenda and government ties... just a bunch of nonsense. There's been just as much funny business going on in government for decades, but all of a sudden people take notice... gimme a break.
Well I think there is an enormous difference between driving a car and simply being alive while you happen to live in America, and happen not to be Native American, and happen not to be religious.
I have health insurance and from my understanding this bill does not affect me at all.
But I think it is absolutely wrong to require someone to directly purchase something they do not want.
I'm under no requirement to purchase car insurance, UNLESS I want to drive.
I'm under no requirement to buy a stamp UNLESS I want a letter delivered.
Yet under this legislation many will be required to pay insurance companies for services they do not want (or in some cases do not need). What is their option? Honestly, what is their option? If they are alive they must pay insurance companies? Insane. And I'm no lawyer but it certainly doesn't sound constitutional to me.
But it sure sounds like a fine way to pick up a bunch of new customers for your business now doesn't it?
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Comments
it will be a fruit effort and a waste of time and money, instead catching real crooks and corrupts folks
even if it went to the supreme court I doubt they would hear it
if that is the case they could sue against other mandates like taxes in general, including state taxes, social security and medicare all of which are taken out of my check without permission
again you are MISREPRESENTING
no one here said euthanize, I gave a legitimate example of cancer which you dismissed and took it to the extreme :roll:
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The $940 billion health-care overhaul will take nearly a decade to roll out in full. A look at the key parts of the bill and when they go into effect.
2010
Coverage
Subsidies begin for small businesses to provide coverage to employees.
Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing illness.
Children permitted to stay on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
2011
Coverage
Set up long-term care program under which people pay premiums into system for at least five years and become eligible for support payments if they need assistance in daily living.
Taxes and fees
Drug makers face annual fee of $2.5 billion (rises in subsequent years).
2013
Taxes and fees
New Medicare taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000 a year.
Tax on wages rises to 2.35% from 1.45%.
New 3.8% tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest.
Excise tax of 2.3% imposed on sale of medical devices.
Cost control
Medicare pilot program begins to test bundled payments for care, in a bid to pay for quality rather than quantity of services.
2014
Coverage
Create exchanges where people without employer coverage, as well as small businesses, can shop for health coverage. Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing illness.
Requirement begins for most people to have health insurance. Subsidies begin for lower and middle-income people. People at 133% of federal poverty level pay maximum of 3% of income for coverage. People at 400% of poverty level pay up to 9.5% of income. (Poverty level currently is about $22,000 for a family of four.)
Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, expands to all Americans with income up to 133% of federal poverty level.
Subsidies for small businesses to provide coverage increase. Businesses with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000 receive tax credit of up to 50% of employer's contribution. Tax credits phase out for larger businesses.
Taxes and fees
Employers with more than 50 employees that don't provide affordable coverage must pay a fine if employees receive tax credits to buy insurance. Fine is up to $3,000 per employee, excluding first 30 employees.
Insurance industry must pay annual fee of $8 billion (rises in subsequent years).
Cost control
Independent Medicare board must begin to submit recommendations to curb Medicare spending, if costs are rising faster than inflation.
2016
Taxes and fees
Penalty for those who don't carry coverage rises to 2.5% of taxable income or $695, whichever is greater.
2017
Coverage
Businesses with more than 100 employees can buy coverage on insurance exchanges, if state permits it.
2018
Taxes and fees
Excise tax of 40% imposed on health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.
Whatever. We both know you're perpetuating a stereotype. And that is counter-productive to any real understanding of others or their siutations... and that's not at all constructive... and it's childish.
This bill is NOT a step towards single-payer. It is the opposite. It cements insurance companies into our government, while they continue to take advantage of people for disgustingly large profits.
I really hope that this bill is not upheld by the constitution.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I have health insurance and from my understanding this bill does not affect me at all.
But I think it is absolutely wrong to require someone to directly purchase something they do not want.
I'm under no requirement to purchase car insurance, UNLESS I want to drive.
I'm under no requirement to buy a stamp UNLESS I want a letter delivered.
Yet under this legislation many will be required to pay insurance companies for services they do not want (or in some cases do not need). What is their option? Honestly, what is their option? If they are alive they must pay insurance companies? Insane. And I'm no lawyer but it certainly doesn't sound constitutional to me.
But it sure sounds like a fine way to pick up a bunch of new customers for your business now doesn't it?
This government has to learn that if you do not listen to the people you work for(US) your career is more than likely finished.
Agreed.
DIsagreed.
Article I, Sec 8, US Constitution: 8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Whether or not you agree with the excise tax or the mandate/tax alternative, the Constitution expressly provides for it.
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
Also, the 8th amendment clearly states this:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
And.... isn't the power to levy taxes and excises and all that stuff specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution, as I poined out earlier?
Next question.
The 8th amendment refers to matters of judicial proceedings, not legislative ones. "Bail", "fine" and "punishment" can only be meted out by the Judiciary, as per Article III of the Constitution.
Next question.
I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about the feds (IRS) forcing a fine on people for not purchasing something, as in ....making it against the law. Government has no right in my opinion.
And please do not come back with the "yyou have to buy car insurance bit" we both know that is completely diferent.
We all know they are going to have to collect taxes to pay for this....ALOT OF TAXES!!!!
Also, don't be so cocky with your "next question" it's realy not all that intimidating.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Wrong. It's perfectly within the purvey of Congress as specifically defined in Article I Section 8 to impose duties, excises, levies, or whatever the hell you want to call it... to provide for the general welfare (in this case, health care).
Secondly, as far as the Commerce Clause, there's nearly 200 years of precedent where the Courts have been reluctant to limit the power of Congress here. Even Justice Scalia has stated, in Gonzales v Raich (2005), that Congress can regulate even non-economic activity if it has the ultimate purpose of regulating commerce.
Finally, the mandate won't kick in till 2014, and courts have traditionally refused to rule on matters until they become relevant.
But good luck convincing a Court of that. The only way these lawsuits will have a snowball's chance of succeeding is if the SCOTUS RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) start legislating from the bench again... and I seriously doubt even they would intrude upon the domain of Congress, especially since we're looking at 200 years of precedents.
Next question.
BUT, what you are saying has nothing to do with the government(IRS) forcing us (THE PEOPLE) to make a purchase or else we will be punished for it by law. You can spin it any way you want, but I don't believe that if this didn't have a chance in court then all in only one day after passing 14 attorney generals pursuit to file a lawsuit against it. I believe the Attorney Generals know the law better then you or I.
By the way....I see no question marks in my comments...therefore, I am not asking any questions.
But what the hell....next answer please
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
First of all, it's not the IRS' job to make the law.
Secondly, I've already pointed out where the Congress has the right to impose the mandate/fine system.
Thirdly, so what if a bunch of right wing Republican AG's want to file suit? This is partisan politics, not legal jurisprudence. And one of them, the WA AG, has just been called out by the Governor there. I'd like to see all of them pursue the matter to the SCOTUS after months and months of litigation, inviting scorn from the irate taxpayers of their home states.
Lastly, the Department of Justice is defending the law, and they have a much more solid legal footing to stand on than the state AGs.
Like I said, good luck with that.
Next question.
Only time will tell. Personaly it doesn't affect me much. My premiums are protected through my union. I'm just gonna ride it out and see what happens.
It is now the IRS' job to enforce it!
Where have you pointed out in the constitution that congress has the right to impose the mandate/fine system? ( <
that is a question ) your just making shit up now.
Thirdly is a bunch of jibberish stuff.
Lastly, the department of justice is CREATING the law.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I was correcting the fact that he made it sound like (I) said "it's there job to MAKE the law" which I didn't....that's all.