Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The court just makes up its own laws these days and not congress.
The “tax/penalty” was ruled constitutional by Robert’s in 2013.
But the tax/penalty was removed in 2017/2018 by Congress. And set as zero.
But the original “budget” of the ACA to pay for the law budgeted in billions in proposed revenue generated by the tax/penalty.
So we have a Supreme Court who decides that it doesn’t matter what the proposed budget for the law was in 2009.
Gotta love lawyers and politicians.
Now let’s see what they say about the Harvard affirmative action lawsuit (which they try to punt back to the Biden administration). If people aren’t hurt by the ACA zero tax penalty
There are obviously people “hurt” by affirmative action policy.
What I’m really trying to say is the Supreme Court doesn’t do a good job following the laws these days. They just make up their own rulings based on how they feel.
The court just makes up its own laws these days and not congress.
The “tax/penalty” was ruled constitutional by Robert’s in 2013.
But the tax/penalty was removed in 2017/2018 by Congress. And set as zero.
But the original “budget” of the ACA to pay for the law budgeted in billions in proposed revenue generated by the tax/penalty.
So we have a Supreme Court who decides that it doesn’t matter what the proposed budget for the law was in 2009.
Gotta love lawyers and politicians.
Now let’s see what they say about the Harvard affirmative action lawsuit (which they try to punt back to the Biden administration). If people aren’t hurt by the ACA zero tax penalty
There are obviously people “hurt” by affirmative action policy.
What I’m really trying to say is the Supreme Court doesn’t do a good job following the laws these days. They just make up their own rulings based on how they feel.
This was obviously a back door attempt by the republicans to destroy the ACA having failed in the senate vote, third time around. Rather strange situation with the White House attacking the ACA rather than defending.
Quote:
Unlike the tense 5-4 ruling issued on the last day of the term in the NFIB case, the court’s decision on Thursday was not particularly close: Six justices joined Breyer’s opinion holding that neither the states nor the individual plaintiffs have standing to challenge the mandate. The individual plaintiffs, Breyer explained, contended that they are harmed, and therefore have a right to sue, because they have to pay each month for health insurance to comply with the mandate. The problem with that argument, Breyer reasoned, is that although the ACA instructs them to obtain health insurance, the Internal Revenue Service can no longer impose a penalty on taxpayers who fail to obtain insurance – and there is no other government action connected to the harm that the individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered, a key requirement for standing.
"The Affordable Health Care Act"?
Is that the one that was supposed to save the average American family $2500 a year? The one that was not a tax? The one where you could keep your Doctor? The one you could keep your insurance?
"Insurers' overhead, the largest category, totaled $275.4 billion in the U.S. in 2017, or 7.9% of all national health expenditures, compared with $5.36 billion in Canada, or 2.8% of national health expenditures."
There was no way SCOTUS would rule against O-care. Why? Because it has NOTHING to do with the constitution. It is authorized by voluntary consent, via FICA / Socialist InSecurity. If one is not a participant in that program, O-care doesn't apply . . . Look up the applications, etc. They only apply to enumerated socialists.
REmember, endowed rights are not taxable - only government privileges. And if the gubmint can penalize (tax) you for failure to comply, it can only apply to those who "consent."
You do know that FICA is 100% voluntary, right?
Don't believe me - go read the law. Or write to the admin of SocSec and ask 'em.
No matter which administration is in power, no president or Congress will ever act against national socialism.
This challenge was regarding the constitutionality since it required Americans to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine. Congress did away with the financial penalty as part of its 2017 Tax Reform package in 2017 so the argument was that since the provision was no longer a tax as spelled out in the ACA. Pretty clever move but it failed.
Time for the GOP to move on and work to resolve the problems in the ACA rather than generating court cases, been at this for 11 years.
This challenge was regarding the constitutionality since it required Americans to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine. Congress did away with the financial penalty as part of its 2017 Tax Reform package in 2017 so the argument was that since the provision was no longer a tax as spelled out in the ACA. Pretty clever move but it failed.
Time for the GOP to move on and work to resolve the problems in the ACA rather than generating court cases, been at this for 11 years.
"Insurers' overhead, the largest category, totaled $275.4 billion in the U.S. in 2017, or 7.9% of all national health expenditures, compared with $5.36 billion in Canada, or 2.8% of national health expenditures."
Some just can't comprehend number.
In Canada people wait months for procedures which are done on an urgent basis here.
You have to look at how overhead is calculated. For example there are US government agencies which report very low "overhead" but they do not include "overhead" functions which are done for them by other parts of the government. In fact government overhead is much higher than private businesses. If you just take what you are told for granted you are being manipulated.
There was no way SCOTUS would rule against O-care. Why? Because it has NOTHING to do with the constitution. It is authorized by voluntary consent, via FICA / Socialist InSecurity. If one is not a participant in that program, O-care doesn't apply . . . Look up the applications, etc. They only apply to enumerated socialists.
REmember, endowed rights are not taxable - only government privileges. And if the gubmint can penalize (tax) you for failure to comply, it can only apply to those who "consent."
You do know that FICA is 100% voluntary, right?
Don't believe me - go read the law. Or write to the admin of SocSec and ask 'em.
No matter which administration is in power, no president or Congress will ever act against national socialism.
So how does a state or individual claim they were harmed by the ACA since there is no penalty and joining the plan is optional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enough_Already
Obamacare was passed using dirty backroom deals against the will of the people.
The republicans participated in the development of the ACA for a year, there were congressional hearings with experts. Then the republicans decided they didn't want to pass this under a democratic president. All done in full view of the public.
Trump thought he hit the lottery with his 3 supreme court appointments, blame him.
Obamacare was passed using dirty backroom deals against the will of the people.
Isn't it interesting how Democrats are ALWAYS talking so passionately about "democracy" and the will of the majority, yet they defend this law just as passionately, despite the fact that the public was against it from its inception until Trump brought it up.
That was the first point in its entire history that the polling showed more support than opposition to it, and that was only accomplished because of the 24/7 anti-everything-Trump-says propaganda effort led by the legacy media.
What's truly pathetic is that they have people like many posting in this thread convinced that the People actually wanted this piece of crap law. Low information voters.
There should absolutely be some sort of competence or knowledge test involved with the right to vote. For instance, if you can't describe the basic structure of our government in your own words with reasonable accuracy, you shouldn't be issued a ballot. Something along those lines. 'Cuz what we have now is a populace that largely votes for whoever the TV tells them to vote for, and they can't even put into their own words why they do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
