So we're relying on these bozo's to help us get our CCW laws changed?.... I think I just lost all hope after this morning,

The opinion.

 

While I don't agree with the decision, the actual opinion is written using fairly sound logic. I urge everyone to read Roberts' portion of the opinion and you will see that he actually makes a good case for upholding the law, even if he does not agree with the law itself. It's an excellent commentary about how the courts should not legislate from the bench. Roberts' point is that if people don't like the law, then they need to call on their representatives to repeal it, but the individual mandate is constitutional under Congress' taxation power.

 

Now, having said that, I agree with Kennedy, who said in the beginning of his reading of the dissent, "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

Invalid.......................Politics, Politics, Politics.......they're gonna tax us now...?

Do we really need two threads on the topic?

 

Go here: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/37508-scotus-upholds-obama-care/page__fromsearch__1

Linky no worky...

 

 

I didn't see a previous thread.... my appologies if its a repost

Do we really need two threads on the topic?

 

Go here: http://njgunforums.c...__fromsearch__1

 

Can't get there unless you are a Premier Member...

 

Linky no worky...

 

 

I didn't see a previous thread.... my appologies if its a repost

 

You didn't see it for the same reason I didn't. It's under a hidden forum for Premier Members.

I'm not?.... i was... wonder what happend. I was getting charged $3 a month automatically. hmm.

I'm not?.... i was... wonder what happend. I was getting charged $3 a month automatically. hmm.

 

If you're still geting billed, pm j0n asap.

Thanks, I have to check my statement and see. But for a while I was being billed and didn't do anything to cancel.

 

Anyway this thread can be one for non-premium members i suppose.

Bah! The SCOTUS upheld damned Obamacare.

 

http://www.jeffhead....lagdistress.htm

 

The upside down U.S. flag is an official signal of distress. It is not meant to be, and is not officially recognized as any type of disrespect when so displayed for the right reasons. To the contrary, here is the relevant part of the US Code of Laws regarding how to fly the flag when in distress:

 

THE FLAG CODE

Title 36, U.S.C., Chapter 10

As amended by P.L. 344, 94th Congress

Approved July 7, 1976

§ 176. Respect for flag: No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

(a)

The flag should never be displayed with the union down,

except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

 

Most individuals who have served in the military service of our nation will (or should) recognize this signal. As a result of the many traitors and enemies we as a free people have, both foreign and domestic, as a result of the many unconstitutional acts, legislation and atrocities passed and/or committed against US citizens and their life, liberty and property, and as a result of policies that have allowed (and continue to allow) enemies of this nation to enter in large numbers through a porous border policy, I believe the life, liberty and property of US Citizens are in dire danger and distress.

I'm probably going to get roasted for just saying this, but what exactly is the problem people have with Obamacare?

I'm probably going to get roasted for just saying this, but what exactly is the problem people have with Obamacare?

 

The fact that it effectively institutes a tax on simply being alive, and forces taxpayers to engage in transactions with private companies or face a financial penalty.

The fact that it effectively institutes a tax on simply being alive, and forces taxpayers to engage in transactions with private companies or face a financial penalty.

Okay I'm just trying to understand this better. Is it the means (i.e. mandate and additional taxes) that people are mostly upset with or do they have a problem with the ends as well?

So we're relying on these bozo's to help us get our CCW laws changed?.... I think I just lost all hope after this morning,

 

Different animal.

 

I'm not a big fan of the provision that requires insurance, but the job of the court is to decide what is Constitutional, not what is right. There is a difference. Whether it is a good idea or not is up to you, the voter. I'm sure there are plenty of people who didn't think that Heller or McDonald and for that matter Roe was "right" but they grudgingly agree that it is constitutional.

Okay I'm just trying to understand this better. Is it the means (i.e. mandate and additional taxes) that people are mostly upset with or do they have a problem with the ends as well?

 

For me, personally, it's the means and the impression that the stated end result (affordable healthcare for all) won't actually be achieved.

 

Thought exercise: now that SCOTUS has ok'd the concept that you can be penalized for not transacting with a private company, what's to prevent the following scenarios?:

 

- If you don't scrap your current car and purchase an american made electric one, you'll have to pay a $5,000/year penalty to cover your cost of continuing to contribute to global warming.

 

- If you don't dispose of your current firearms and purchase new "smart" firearms, which are keyed to your biometrics, instead, you'll have to pay a $5,000/year penalty to cover the increased risk of misuse by family members/theft and subsequent use in a crime.

Okay I'm just trying to understand this better. Is it the means (i.e. mandate and additional taxes) that people are mostly upset with or do they have a problem with the ends as well?

 

I don't think that anybody has a problem with people getting affordable care. I certainly think that we need some kind of national health care, although it has to go hand in hand with Tort reform and an increase in General Practitioners. But I'm not a big fan of the Affordable Care Act.

 

The government can mandate car insurance: if you buy a car.

The government can mandate flood insurance: if you buy a house in a flood plane.

 

Those are all positive choices. You have to choose to do something before you pay for the insurance.

 

The prerequisite for the Affordable Care Act ... is being born. You can't opt out of being born.

 

I'm also not a big fan of the provision that keeps kids on their parents insurance until they are 26... it's almost like subsidizing bad career choices. It used to be that you became an adult at 18, and got full citizenship (alcohol... handguns) at 21. Now it's almost like we are pushing adolescence and adolescent irresponsibility forward five more years. Go on, major in LGBT Transgender 16th Century Literature even though you won't be able to get a good job with it. You are covered under your parents health care until you are 26, which is is plenty of time to find yourself.

Okay. Thanks guys! I'm most likely one of the few left-leaning guys here and it's helpful to see the other side. I think it's a real shame that neither side of the whole healthcare issue is representing themselves well and it's turned more into a pie-in-the-face competition than an actual discussion about an important issue.

Don't forget, Pelosi said this would be good for people who "want to pursue there wishes to be an artist, but can't afford to make a living at it". Now you and I can pay higher taxes and premiums so people can quit their jobs and become an artist, while we work and supply their healthcare coverage.

 

Total Bullsh*t.

Okay. Thanks guys! I'm most likely one of the few left-leaning guys here and it's helpful to see the other side. I think it's a real shame that neither side of the whole healthcare issue is representing themselves well and it's turned more into a pie-in-the-face competition than an actual discussion about an important issue.

 

Yeah, I'm kind of there with you. I even drive a hybrid and grew up in Hopewell, and yes even voted for Obama the first time. SCHIP and his Silence on the Gaza Flotilla changed my mind about him, though.

 

The prerequisite for the Affordable Care Act ... is being born. You can't opt out of being born.

 

 

This is true. I think that the argument posed by those in support, however, is that while purchasing a car is a positive choice and being born isn't. If you're alive, you can NOT opt out of health care. We are all steadily depreciating assets. Everyone gets sick, and everyone dies. I'd think the day they are allowed to turn away people from the hospital for inability to pay is the day that the case can be made that we're not in it together. If I am injured or fall ill without health insurance, I still go to the hospital. When my bill goes into collections and I say f*** it, I'm not paying...the rest of you get stuck with the bill. Hospitals raise fees, insurers raise rates.

 

So, you see unless you are a member of a religious sect that abstains from the use of modern medicine, you're participating in the commerce.

I am almost always against forcing somebody to do (or not do) something when not doing (or doing) it causes no harm to anyone else. There is no reason for control on those levels. That is the exact opposite of freedom.

I'm also a big fan of being able to read contradictions (or lies, depending on how you look at it) in the same decision. Good read. Glad they were able to mention broccoli 12 times in it.

 

That payment,which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A©. In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). Ibid.; 42 U. S. C. §18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes

 

So they acknowledge that it is a 'penalty', and not a tax.

 

The panel unanimously agreed that the individual mandate did not impose a tax, and thus could not be authorized by Congress’s

power to “lay and collect Taxes.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. A majority also held that the individual mandate was not supported by Congress’s power to “regulate

Commerce . . . among the several States.”

 

Well that is good, because the bill says it is a penalty, not a tax. And that is not authorized, phew, some common sense applied.

 

But wait a minute now...

 

Indeed, amicus’s earlier observation that the Code requires assessable penalties to be assessed and collected “in the same manner as taxes” makes little sense if assessable penalties are themselves taxes. In light of the Code’s consistent distinction between the terms “tax” and “assessable

penalty,” we must accept the Government’s interpretation:

 

Oh, so despite a clear distinction that we have already acknowledge, we are just going to accept the governments interpretation, and actually CHANGE the bill, because if we don't, it is illegal.

 

But nope, no legislation from the bench here. Look away. We wrote 193 pages quoting other cases, and putting a pretty convincing argument that it is UNconstitutional, and hope you might forget, we actually decided 5-4 that is IS constitutional.

 

Amazing.

I'm probably going to get roasted for just saying this, but what exactly is the problem people have with Obamacare?

they tax us for working: income tax

they tax us for buying: sales tax

they tax us for dying: estate tax

and now they tax us for living: Obamacare tax

 

and Obama said it was not a tax, but that is the technicality that got it passed...pretty ironic.

i actually think he was hoping it would not pass so he could point the finger given all the negative feelings toward the plan.

 

Okay I'm just trying to understand this better. Is it the means (i.e. mandate and additional taxes) that people are mostly upset with or do they have a problem with the ends as well?

 

From a constitutionality view, I don't like it. Taxing not doing anything is bad precedent. As far as the commerce clause goes, claiming interstate commerce for the individual mandate when the same law forbids that individual from buying across state lines seems sketchy.

 

As far as the ends being acceptable, making a kid 26 years old for insurance purposes has already made insurance cost more for me. As more features activate it will cost even more.

 

Worst though will be the hit to people just getting by. Realistically they have said you need to drop $4k+ on a policy or you get fined $2800. They don't care if that means you can't make the rent or feed the kids. If you choose to feed and shelter your family rather than paying the tax, you can have your kids taken and go to jail. For a very real segment of the population, it means $2800 less a year, and STILL no healthcare as well as less other necessities, or go to jail.

 

 

Donald Trump summed it up...

 

“Let me get this straight . . .

 

We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!! ‘What the hell could possibly go wrong?”

Great quote from Donald. He nailed it!

Someone must have had something on Chief Justice Roberts for him to do what he did.

Unfrickenbelievable.

Donald Trump summed it up...

 

“Let me get this straight . . .

 

We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!! ‘What the hell could possibly go wrong?”

 

Haha, that would be funny if it wasn't ironic. And then they also rule against the stolen valor act. I think they got mixed up.

A friend of mine who has really good health insurance for his employees, said under obama care he would be penalized and charged for having to good of health care....

Something has to give on this and i think a bunch of money passing this bill around will only increase the deficit and no one will end up insured..