TexasCHLforum.com

BillT wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

BillT wrote:Yipeeeeeeee I'm beginning to think there is hope for this country!!! What a great day for America. So many children with very serious, life threatening diseases, and who don't know a thing about politics where just granted the opportunity of life. Maybe this country is beginning to find it's moral compass! For those of you that are upset by this I suggest you consider that we are not Human Beings having a Spiritual experience but that we are Spiritual beings having a Human experience...

I'm just going to flat out call shenanigans on your posting. You are trolling, and nothing more. That "think of the children" stuff you're spouting is bunk and you know it. Now, go back to wherever your little friends are and tell them how cool you are for spinning up folks on a gun forum...

Sorry friend, I'm not going away! This is entirely too much fun! As a firearms enthusiast all my life I have had to put up with the right wing extremism that is spouted by 60% of the people I encounter in the sport. I feel the obligation to try and enlighten folks just as you try and do. A bunch of right wing gun nuts aren't going to sway any national election. The issues are a lot bigger than what this forum is about. I'm just trying to give you guys a sporting chance in the next life you live! Take a blood pressure pill and relax, there's a ton of debate to be had between now and November. If I'm trolling, sorry if I snagged one of your nerves! That was not my intent. It would be a waste of my time. If you think there are not children affected by all of this your already living in denial. No one can help you with that. But have a nice day anyway....

Pathetic...

You don't seem to know much of anything about existing welfare state programs, including recent expansion of CHIP, do you?

Instead of calling a bunch of us "right wing gun nuts," why don't you stop embarassing yourself. Read this (link below) and tell me how you can live with yourself knowing that CHIP was there, and you did nothing to help....

BillT wrote:I have had many first hand experiences with children suffering and sometimes dying for lack of health care.

http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-P ... HIPRA.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

74novaman wrote:The liberals that are celebrating this decision aren't thinking this through very clearly. This is far more than just a decision on healthcare. This gives Congress a license to tax anything they want.

CJ Roberts wrote in his opinion "The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid,or otherwise control." So in a few years if there is a Republican POTUS and a Republican Congress, whats to stop them from taxing abortions at $1000 a pop? After all, they're not banning anything, they're merely taxing it.

Anyone who celebrates this massive increase in federal power isn't thinking through the consequences this decision will have for decades to come.

I keep hearing the Commerce Clause was strengthened. I also keep hearing twisted statements that Roberts applied extreme judicial restraint by finding a way to let the actions of congress stand. Pure idiocy - He applied extreme activism to redefine the taxing authority of congress.

What was clearly a penalty (punishment for not complying w/ a lawful* requirement) and NOT a tax for the Anti-Injunction Act, was found to be a tax under the taxing authority of congress. What kind of tax is it? Roberts can not tell you. The expansion of power granted by Roberts goes further than just a tax on activity the feds cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control, it grants the authority to require activity where there isn't any - how is that not unlimited regulatory authority on commerce, including regulatory authority in the abcense of commerce? Wickard was very bad, this is worse.

The taxing authority expanded by Roberts makes the commerce clause irrelevant, as a penalty for non-compliance with a government mandate that has the same power as unlimited commerce regulatory authority (including requiring subjects to engage in commerce), can now be viewed as a way to increase income taxes within the taxing authority of congress.

So, those who tell us to take our medicine, be good citizens, and support the expanded welfare state should be pleased - if you don't pay income taxes, it appears this new taxing authority won't punish you (but the road to serfdom will).

*which was deemed not lawful, as the individual mandate exceeded the authority provided under the Commerce Clause.

pinkpistol wrote:

Are you a doctor or health care professional? Even though we are participants in the health care system, we might not have the capability to understand the services rendered or the role of a third-party payer.

Yes, and Yes.

Sorry to offend, but it appears you all were already offended when I walked into the room. So I'll clarify and say that it is offensive to this American to read of talk of secessions, and rebellion and uprising. The America I was raised in, and which my family members fought for, suffered, and still serve today for, is worth the effort it takes to make this discourse respectable and civil. We owe it to ourselves, our country, each other, and our God.

Interesting, are you a DO, MD...? I will say you in no way remind me of my GP or AME (and it's not just opening up by saying "Jesus people" like a teenager).

Also, we get that YOU have taken offense and immediately chose to offer that we are not "good" citizens. May I also say.., based on your comments here, I would never want medical care from you. If you "read of talk of secessions, and rebellions and uprising" and only one of the three had been discretely mentioned (until you brought them up), I'm afraid of how you would practice medicine...

ETA - I thought you were going to tell us what we knew nothing about? Now that you are a self-proclaimed expert, I'm definitely interested in being enlightened by you.

pinkpistol wrote:Jesus, People. Good citizenship, anyone?
I practiced that the last Republican administration...

The problem today is pay-as-you-go politics... which is Bipartisan.

You all have missed the insurance (money) influence here. Insurance will love Obamacare, because there is a payor, and like Medicare, will seek to limit payouts based on a whole host of criteria. WHICH EXCUSE ME, MANY OF YOU CONSUMERS, NOT SUPPLIERS, OF HEALTHCARE, know nothing about.

I'm all ears. Please convey your superior wisdom to us lowly plebs. Many of are not doctors or health care providers and might not understand things like usual, reasonable & customary charges. Are you a doctor or health care professional? Even though we are participants in the health care system, we might not have the capability to understand the services rendered or the role of a third-party payer.

I'll admit, I don't really understand what you're trying to say - you lost me with your uncouth & objectionable opening line. Btw, so you're long on UNH, AET, etc.?

While Roberts claims the Obamacare penalty is not called a tax in statute and, as such, cannot be considered for the Anti-Injunction Act - he later flips and says it is a tax for consideration as to the individual mandate.

Here is his twisted logic (emphasis added) as to why the Obamacare penalty is not a penalty in regard to supporting the individual mandate (but it is still not a tax for the Anti-Injuction Act):

In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has explained that “if the concept of penalty means anything,it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission.” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996); see also United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931) (“[A] penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act”). While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.

So, I guess being required to make a payment to the IRS for not buying health insurance is not in any way a form of punshiment. However, if you pay the IRS money for not obtaining health insurance, you'll have fully complied with the law (and not be committing an unlawful act or ommision that would mean the government could impose a punishment)...

Reports that Roberts is not longer able to walk, as his body is contorted to an extreme state, have not been confirmed.

cbunt1 wrote:Although, to be completely fair, should it come as any surprise to anyone paying attention that it's been ruled a TAX? After all, it was clearly in the legislation that the Internal Revenue Service would be responsible for collecting the fines for failure to secure adequate health insurance.

This, by definition, makes it a TAX, since the sole purpose of the Internal Revenue Service is the collection (not levy) of TAXES...

So, while we've clearly been LIED to by our alleged leaders, we allowed the wool to be pulled over our eyes when they said it wasn't a tax...it was clear that the IRS would be responsible for the collection of the "fine".....

The PENALTY was never refered to as a tax by congress. The IRS imposes and collects penalties all the time (that ARE NOT by definition taxes).

The penalties are a punishment for failure to comply with something that is able to be upheld as legal (such as a direct income tax, allowed by the 16th Amendment - you don't pay your income taxes, penalties can/will be imposed).

The penalty was deemed a "tax" by the majority to effectively uphold the individual mandate, but the penalty is not subject to the Anti-Injunction Act (that prevents a suit against a tax until it is collected), since congress never refered to the penalty as a tax.

74novaman wrote:You know, as disappointing as the ruling was, far more disturbing to me is the number of friends/acquaintances on facebook and elsewhere downright cheering this massive federal power grab.

I fear for our future, if the people are truly happy about handing in freedom for benefits.

Let's see if they are still celebrating when their employers opt to pay the penalty, drop their health care options/benefits, and have them fend for their own health care policies (or they forego buying insurance and are forced to pay the Obamacare tax).

For our francophone friends: L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs

gdanaher wrote:When people are asked if they support the various aspects of the law, they support them. When the same people are asked if they support the affordable care act or Obamacare, they don't like it. It's all in how it is presented. The general public doesn't know enough about the detail to make a learned decision. I haven't read the entire law either, but I've waded through a digested version of about 200 pages. I doubt that anyone here including the attorneys have taken the time to read the whole thing. Time is money. But health care has been politicized beyond all reason, and the territory it covers isn't all that new if folks would just think for a moment. Someone mentioned they were concerned about being told what car to buy. You already are, and have been for years. It's called the gas guzzler tax for lack of the real name and taxes high consumption vehicles. If you can afford that Ferrari, you can afford the tax, right? Really, nothing new. And again, if anyone here really wants to be helpful in November, move to Florida. It looks like they can use the Republican votes.

Nevermind.

psijac wrote:Any expanse of power comes with an abuse of that power. Can gun owners now be taxed at 100% their income for owning a gun?

If the congress passes such a law and a president signs it, why not? Congress clearly has such taxing authority, based on today's decision. Instead of just a tax stamp (set tax amount), it appears a % of your income would be constitutional...imho, of course.

So, scotus ruled that the Commerce Clause doesn't give the congress the authority to force you into a market (buy health insurance), but Roberts sees it reasonable to consider the penalty for not buying health insurance an allowable "tax" within the power of congress - effectively giving congress the ability to force you into a market. Roberts was looking to establish his "legacy" at the expense of his ability to apply "logic." The Commerce Clause was made irrelevant today.

Looks like a win, win for Obama. He gets his Obamacare upheld and more government workers will be employed - including thousands of IRS agents to enforce the Obamacare individual mandate TAX.