Joint Committee on Taxation Confirms that ObamaCare Does Not Enforce Individual Mandate
by Morgen RichmondOne of the more controversial elements of ObamaCare is the mandate for most individuals to purchase insurance beginning in 2014. There is really no precedent for a federal mandate of this scale requiring individuals to purchase a product or service. So not surprisingly a number of state Attorney Generals have indicated they will be filing suit questioning the constitutionality of this provision.
Of course the individual mandate is also very risky from a political standpoint, as the Democrats who orchestrated the passage of this bill are mandating not only that the young and healthy obtain insurance, but also that even their most fervent liberal constituents must purchase this coverage from the “evil”, private insurance industry.
Republicans for their part have focused on the fact that this mandate will be enforced via threat of a financial penalty (or tax), with the added assumption that it is the dreaded IRS which will be enforcing this. And sure enough, it’s already been reported that the IRS anticipates hiring possibly in excess of 15,000 additional personnel to deal with the collection of the individual mandate, and other tax related provisions within the bill.
However, it turns out that the Democrats who crafted this bill significantly – and I mean significantly – hamstrung the ability of the IRS or any other federal agency to enforce or collect on this mandate. Here is what the federal Joint Committee on Taxation had to say about this issue in a report released earlier this week:
Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage in 2016 are subject to a penalty equal to the greater of: (1) 2.5 percent of household income in excess of the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year over the threshold amount of income required for income tax return filing for that taxpayer under section 6012(a)(1);67 or (2) $695 per uninsured adult in the household. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee for an adult. The total household penalty may not exceed 300 percent of the per adult penalty ($2,085). The total annual household payment may not exceed the national average annual premium for bronze level health plan offered through the Exchange that year for the household size…
The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.
According to a footnote in the report, “subtitle F of the Code” is the portion of the tax code which grants the IRS the authority to assess and collect taxes. In other words, as the law is written the federal government has no legal authority to enforce this mandate, nor will it have any recourse to collect any penalties that go unpaid!
This issue was actually the subject of a very amusing exchange between Rep. Anthony Wiener and Bill O’Reilly on Wednesday. While the facts seem to vindicate Rep. Wiener who argued repeatedly that the bill would not criminalize non-compliance with the individual mandate, this is actually the worst possible news for those who believe in the merits of the mandate and the bill in general.
Because without an effective mechanism of enforcing the individual mandate, the entire system is likely to collapse. (The individual mandate is the “third leg of the stool” as many a liberal has been pointing out for months.) Given that the bill also bans insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, WHY WOULD ANYONE OBTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE PRIOR TO NEEDING IT? This was already going to be a problem with the relatively low cost of the penalty, but take away any meaningful enforcement of it and it is a complete and total joke.
The net result will be an ever increasing shift of healthcare costs on to those who remain in the insurance system (or to tax payers), and possibly even the bankruptcy of the insurance industry. Given all the double-talk the past year over the public option, and the demonizing of private insurers, it is hard not to wonder whether this was by design. But let’s give our Democratic friends the benefit of the doubt, in which case this represents an inexcusable level of incompetence from the people we have just entrusted with overseeing one-sixth of the economy. Nice job guys.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
766 Comments
So, the whole point of this useless bill, was NOT health care. but taxes…?? If there is no way to enforce the mandates of this mess, WHY hire the thousands of IRS agents???
I understand that this administration has every intention of putting the insurance company's out of business, so that will make the government take over easier…If these idiots think for one minute that the American people will just be quiet and let them take over our country we have a really big surprise for them!!!
OK…So what happens after a few years of non compliance and monthly fines being assessed? You owe the govt 10s or even 100s of thousands in fines and they decide to change the code to make these now due and payable.
What the man forgets to say, the IRS may penalize you in the following ways … they are authorized to withhold this penalty from your taxes … i.e. you file taxes, and don't have the 'proper' insurance, they add it to your tax 'liability.' Don't worry, they also can get to your bank account, savings accounts, or pay check … you will pay. Only way out is not having to file taxes ~ know anyone in that category?
And Oh, don't tell them you do when you don't because they are connected right back to HHS, and it is a Federal Crime to lie … which is different and punishable by a different law.
Could some explain the difference between a democracy and a republic? Is the U.S. a republic or a democracy? And how is this related to the Constitution?
rckmom
Remember the phrase created saved err funded. LOL even queen Nancy said the bill will create jobs little did we know she meant IRS jobs.
I don't understand why there are still so many people that believe and support this administration. Truly they are the most pathetic, corrupt or stupid of all individuals.
This bill is such a complicated mess.
I want to go back to the old system where I dealt with my family doctor directly with no expensive middleman, either private insurer or government. Now we have both.
Thank you democrats for turning something as basic and vital as medical care into a nightmare.
Bob – the US is a "representative republic" and not a true democracy. A true democracy would require the residents to vote on everything that the government does. Instead, we elect representatives to the government tobe our voice. The word "democracy" describes a form of government and the word "republic" describes how the states are connected to form a larger political body. We could remain a republic and have a communist form of goverment. Some would say that we already do. So its a mischaracterization when people say that we're a democracy just like its a mischaracterization to say that the USSR was communist.
Bob ~ a democracy is direct one man one vote (Simple votes up and down). A Republic is a 'Representative' government were groups vote and they send a representative to Congress ~ it is designed to protect the minority group from the tyranny of the mob.
A democracy is two wolves and sheep talking about what's for lunch … A Republic is four wolves and three sheep and the discussion about what's for lunch is tied up in cloture, i.e. the common man (or sheep) has a chance. Republic protects the minority more than direct one on one democracy.
No they won't. The majority of Americans will continue to blindly follow the MSM, believe the inaccurate reporting of great things happening right before election day and continue to elect these people. It's why we're in the situation we are in now.
The US is a democratic republic. We elect representatives (democracy) to handle the affairs of government. In a pure democracy, every issue of government would be decided by a vote of the people. In a city state, such as the ancient Greek city states, pure democracy (or at least a form of it) was practiced.
The Constitution is the governing document of the republic. It sets forth the powers and duties of each branch of government. Those powers were intended to be limited to the matters set forth in the Constitution and any powers not specifically granted to the federal government were reserved to the states. Of course, this has been perverted over the years, primarily through the use of the Commerce Clause.
They have been working on this for a long, long, time. While I think the majority of Democrats in Congress are sub-par intellectually (and corrupt to the core) it's pretty clear that the people who wrote the bill (namely Andy Stern) knew exactly what they were doing. Remember what Obama said (quite testily, I might add) in the Bret Baier interview: "Yes, it's 1/6 of the economy. But we're not transforming 1/6 of the economy in one fell swoop." A very telling and chilling admission from the President. (Fell: "very destructive: deadly." Swoop: "a single concentrated and quickly effective effort.") Private health insurance will disappear because Obama and the majority Socialists in Congress have intentionally legislated it so.
America (used to be) a representative republic. If it was a true democracy "we the people" would vote on everything with a majority wins system. Instead we have a democratic election process to elect the people who represent "we the people" and vote for us. That's how it should work anyway…
They had to have a reason to tax us. Maybe most frequent guest Andy Stern needs dues money to keep the raided pensions going? Maybe my neighbor that bought a 900k home is making too much as a gov't employee and the pension he was promised wouldn't have been there otherwise? Maybe it will be the people's fault when it fails when the person that couldn't afford it before, is now having it taken out of her account anyway? Healthcare goes away, taxes are here to stay.
The more news comes out, the more Beck is proven right over his Cloward and Piven views. If a system like this doesn't collect the money required from private citizens, companies will go bankrupt, the government will have to make-up the shortfall and the system will collapse in on itself from the debt load. This bill needs to be stripped from law as soon as possible.
I've been saying for years we should go back to when you could pay your doctor in chickens (wasn't that on Little Hose on the Prairie?).
A democracy is rule by the majority which eventually becomes "mob rule". I.E. Witness what our country has become to date. The U.S. is supposed to be a constitutional republic. This means we elect people to represent us in accordance to the Constitution. That's what the House is supposed to be doing. Representing the people of their districts. However, re-districting has bastardized this process by making districts that favor democrat electors. Senators were originally appointed by the States. Somewhere along the way, this process was lost and now we elect Senators as well. This allows Senators to be elected that don't necessarily reflect the governance of the States.
Con't: The US is a Constitutional Republic … related to the Constitution because that say how the government is designed, what powers they have, and not much else… it is the 'Basic Law.'
There are two views of the Constitution … one is Newtonian, the other is Darwinian. Newtonian's read, know, and adhere to the words AND Principles of it ~ supported by written papers and documents in support to it. Darwinians believe the Constitution is great starting place, but then through 'case law' morph it into something else. i.e 'grow' it. Usually Darwinians do not know the original meaning of the Constitution, Bill or Rights, or Declaration of Independence ~ they don't care because these are "old documents" and what do they have to do with modern times.
Never mind the founders went to every governmental document in the known world at that time … incorporated the good parts, and excised out the poorly written or though out parts … and made the Constitution to have a hard part to change (to modernize) but with the majority it could/can be done. Slower process, but a doable process.
Federal Student loans use to be collectable only through normal collection means UNTIL they retroactively changed it in the mid to late seventies
And they say this guy is stupid,……………..not hardly.
Single payer, government run heath care from A to Z is final version of Obama Care,……….One has to,…………..
applaud the Democrat Party for such deceitful cunning,……………all under the auspice of the law too,…………….
but Democrat Party deceitfulness is not anything new,……………….a Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat,…..
What totally pisses me off is the inneptness of the Republican Party,…………….Even after the bill was passed,……..
Weiner still out foxed O'Reilly,…………didn't his F__KIN staff read the bill in order for this idiot to be able to discuss it intelligently.
MESSAGE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY:
This April 15 the Tea Party is gathering across the country,………..YOU HAD BETTER LISTEN TO US,……………..
Because we are counting on you to stop being so STUPID.
Thanks, Jason. It's a good thing we're a republic instead of a democracy. Take health-care reform for example. Healthcare reform passed because it was voted on by our elected representatives. If we were a democracy then the majority of the people would have voted against healthcare reform. I'm glad that healthcare reform passed, as it was badly needed. I wouldn't want to be tyrannized by the "majority" of the people.
Senators were changed to a democratic one-man-one vote of the people under Amendment the 17, during the progressive era of Woodrow Wilson. Original intent was that the States (and their legislatures) were directly represented by the Senators (ie. states representation) which allowed for recall or replacement by the State legislatures and a representation of States' desire (as a whole) ~ progressives, morphed that into a 'Democratic' one man one vote style, and today the Senate is no more than a slimmed down house of Representatives… that amendment needs to be canceled.
Re-districting: I talked to several people about doing a Cartesian grid system (i.e. ten mile squares, the entire nation), seems that the Supreme court has ruled under the "Equal protection Clause" contained in Amendment the 14 (and having nothing to do with this subject) every district must be of equal types of voters … i.e. democrat or republican. A total 'perversion' of the law ~ they morphed it into something it is not, and allows for gerrymandering of the worse type..
Obama and the progressive Dems will bask in the glory of this victory for the next 3 years. He doesn't care what the ramifications of this bill are. He doesn't even know what's in it… none of them do. He just wants to make a name for himself and further his poilitcal career.
His goal is to bankrupt America and force our great nation to it's knees and then to join the European Nations in a new world order, which he will naturally declare himself the leader of. The Preseidency is only a stepping stone for this wanna be dictator…beware America, this man is ambitious and ruthless and will do anything and everything to get his way.
As Lenin once said (John not Vladimer) on his application for citizenship to the US "If I'd lived in Roman times, I'd have lived in Rome. Where else? Today America is the Roman Empire and New York is Rome itself." Until of course it burns down.
And according to Beck, collapse into what? Socialism!! The take over of everything by the gov.
That's right, Guest. This has definitely been perverted over the years. Take military spending, for example. The Constitution states that the government should provide for national defense. But nowhere does the Constitution state that the government should provide for illegal international wars of aggression, like our military invasions and occupations of Vietnam or Iraq. But today, our government spends the majority (54%) of our tax dollars to feed the war machine.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Maybe we should try to change politics so that it more accurately reflects our Constitution?
Obama is not the anti-Christ – he is the anti-Moses. He is leading us OUT of the land of milk and honey. I, for one, will not follow him.
Bob I wouldn't be too glad if I were you. Jason forgot to mention that as a Republic our representatives are bound by the Constitution. The Dems have passed this "reform" by unconstitutional means, changing the rules as they went along, and therefore the separation of powers will kick in. The Supreme Court will have a say, and the 10th Amendment is the final safe-gaurd for states who see this as a breech of the Constitution. As a Republic, states only survive together by mutual consent to abide by the Constitution, break the Constitution, as the Dems have done, and all bets are off. Next step is to fight it in court, state by state. Contitnue to ignore the people, and the Fed will reap the whirlwind of what they have done…they have acted as if we are a Socialist Monarchy…you do the math.
Bob said "I wouldn't want to be tyrannized by the "majority" of the people. "
So for you the majority doesn't rule??
Is it that you think you belong to a special class of people??
What would make you think this way??
Please explain
If they can't enforce the collection of the tax money, what's the point of hiring the extra IRS agents?
Plus why purchase weapons for them?
What is really going on?
I certainly don't trust anything these people are doing!!!!!
BTW—-This was sent to me— it can be considered a prayer for us to obamao—-Psalm 109 vs. 1-8
Check it out!!!
Stalin, Castro, Chavez, NObama…
Ok. Let's look at that. We can start by getting rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a host of other programs. Those are not included in the Constitution. Do you really want to go down this road?
As for you assertion of illegal international wars, we went into Vietnam under Kennedy and increased our involvement under Johnson (Democrats as I recall of course I was still very young at the time). Nixon/Ford (Republicans) got us out of Vietnam. As for Iraq, didn't Congress vote in favor of military action against Iraq. A Congress that included many Democrats who voted in favor of the authorization of military action. So, if Congress, which has the authority under the Constitution to declare war, voted to authorize military action, how is it illegal?
The point of the bill is (1) to control the people; (2) to bankrupt the insurance industry; (3) shift everyone to welfare state mentality.
Leaving out enforcement is either (a) completely incompetent; or (b) completely purposeful and devious. Either way, how can we trust these fools?
Bob a great book on the Founders , The constitution, and why they chose to move us towards a Republic is the "5000 year Leap". Unfortunately , and it's not your fault, your question shows the utter weakness of the educational system in the US today.
Mr. beyondthepale, oh I didn't know that. Thanks. What unconstitutional means were used? What rules were changed?
merrygale, wow I didn't know that! I sure wish that Senators weren't elected to office.
Bob, a democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Wrong analogy Bob due to the fact that many in congress (both House and Senate) were against portions or all of the health reform act until they were paid off. If the likes of Mary Landrieu (received $300 Million for Louisiana), Ben Nelson (permanent Medicaid cap for Nebraska), Max Baucus (extended benefits to over-exposed asbestos Medicaid patients in Montana), Bernie Sanders ($10 Billion for community health centers in Vermont) were so for health care reforms why the pay-offs?
Aside from all of this explain to us exactly how the health care reform bill that recently passed is going to help the supposed uninsured masses dying in the street before 2014? (You do realize that it doesn't start until then right?) Even children, whom for liberals everything seems to be done in the name of, were left to "fend for themselves" thanks to somebody in congress forgetting to add in the necessary lines to have them immediately covered under insurance regardless of pre-existing condition as it was touted that it would. Children won't be mandatory cover until after September.
Dear Guest,
For an explanation of how the U.S.'s violent military invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq was (and is) illegal, please see:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/iraqwar...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-17770699...
The Democrats have crafted a cunning array of stunts.
Their minds are reminiscent of a bunch of cunning runts.
A virtual track team of sheep eating their own dip.
They have taken away the hope in my soul.
Soon enough we will be paying those premiums with a phony buck.
Our health care system will be anorexic, starved for substance.
Yet the IRS holds the key to ruining the private insurance industry to make way for One Payer take over.
Crafty but stupid.
Oh! Now I get it! If legislation is passed that I don't agree with, then I should claim that the elected officials who voted for the legislation were paid off. That makes sense, because whenever my favorite sports team loses, I think it's because the referees were paid off to fix the contest. Thanks for putting things into perspective.
exactly, Miguel– that is in fact how it will be enforced– through our lovely federal form 1040– they will simply calculate the amounts on a monthly basis– in addition to the current income tax bracket tables– so each year at tax time (April 15), as they have it written currently, until it is repealed or changed again, it will show up in the 1040 form that only people who are required to file a tax return will be required to document the insurance coverage (or lack thereof) on a monthly basis of the tax year in question at the time– therefore payments that each person makes that has gone towards federally approved health insurance premiums will act as deductions that would go towards reducing the extra tax burden that's produced from the monstrosity that the Dems pushed through last weekend……
Not that it will do any good, but that is the authorization I was talking about. Congress, including many Democrats, authorized military action.
Bob you are playing the dummy role fantastic,….to bad Jason took your question as sincere,……
"What unconstitutional means were used? What rules were changed?",…………WOW,……..
"Congress shall pass no laws…………………:"
ah forget it.
"Only way out is not having to file taxes ~ know anyone in that category?"
Charlie Rengel?
Tim Geitner?
Drug dealers?
Pimps and prostitutes?
Illegal aliens?
Inmates?
Cradle to Grave government,……….that what makes this idiot think this way there OLJ
Criminals and traitors to the constitution. They usurp the will of the people. Incessantly lie and then when the people get angry they blame WE THE PEOPLE. These rats caused this mess and the day they no longer INFEST
our government will be ONE GREAT DAY for this country. They can all rot in thier own excrement.
Government is raising more cash cows to replace the ones they have already bled to death. The elites have a hefty cash requirement for themselves and buying votes to stay on the gravy train.
The rule change that was passed by the rules committee before the bill was passed to the president, by the senate, to be signed into law, before House and Senate agreed—a bill has to be agreed upon by both houses in order to be given to the president to sign. Not signed into law and THEN jammed together by house and senate. But this is all a mute point to trolls like yourself, who have come here with you oh-so-innocent questions, as if you can teach us by inquiry…you sir are obvious in your attempts.
It may be that there is no "enforcement provision" but if there is an IRS form that has to be filled out then the IRS is going to reduce your refund to cover the amount "owed". If no refund is due they are going to add the amount to the bottom line. What percentage of people are not going to pay up when it's on their tax form? A small percentage perhaps but the IRS is going to keep asking you for the money so the vast majority of people are going to pay up. Additionally, it won't be before the Dems realize this and pass a bill with enforcement authority for the IRS that includes penalties and interest.
What I get out of this article is three things:
1. The Democrats put an unprecedented condition of citizenship on all citizens in this law.
2. The Democrats are so incompetent they forgot to make it enforcable.
3. It is still unconstitutional and needs to go.
Answer the question there Bobby,……………we answered your dopey questions.
My God,…….we have been talking to a robot all this time,………..goodbye
Changing the code would change the law. I don't believe you can retro a mandate as that would fall under ex post facto?
"There is really no precedent for a federal mandate of this scale requiring individuals to purchase a product or service. So not surprisingly a number of state Attorney Generals have indicated they will be filing suit questioning the constitutionality of this provision."
How about Social Security?
Such a very good point there Bob. Thanks for highlighting the relevant sections.
The UN regulations put forth to Iraq had mandated that they see evidence of the removal and disposal of weapons of mass destruction. Now we know that they had those as Saddam decided to use them on his own country. They blocked UN inspectors from coming into the country to look at the evidence. Therefor they were NOT compliant. 1 Point Bush, -1Bob
Now according to (b)(2) this states that "aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." The terrorists fled to Iraq. Their was terrorist training facilities. That works for me. oh and 1 Point Bush, -1 Bob
Looks like we have a legit war according to the documentation that you laid forth. Thanks for helping me find that.
Dear Mr. Guest and WindyCity Ralph, my questions have nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats.
I am interested in what is or what is not Constitutional. Based on what Mr. Guest says, if something is authorized by Congress, then by definition it is Constitutional (even if it contradicts the Constitution). So based on Mr. Guest's logic, the healthcare reform authorized by the Congress is Constitutional.
the military invasion and occupation of Iraq– is legal
Great example Meguel. I'm going to have to remember this one.
A pure democracy is one that has no executive branch, no judicial branch– only legislative– they get to vote on all matters, whether civil or criminal– in other words, the definitions of what is civil versus criminal can change with the wind as determined by the voters– a lot more dynamic, but a lot more volatile as well– consider the old classic definition: "Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner"
sorry—moot and your—a little early in the morning.
Bob
You must have eaten Mercury laden Sushi, keep it up. Happy trolling.
Merrygale, if we are ruled by the mob (i.e., the majority) then how did healthcare reform pass? Isn't the majority of the people (i.e., the mob) is against healthcare reform? Geez, politics can be so darn confusing sometimes.
But you can read the bill yourself. We're all 'created equal" in America, right? So why do Louisianians, Nebraskans, etc get breaks when Wisconsinites, North Carolinians and Texans don't?
"Truly they are the most pathetic, corrupt or stupid of all individuals."
Are you talking about the administration or the people that believe and support them? This description applies to both groups.
I agree! They had better pay attention to what WE THE PEOPLE have to say, or they will be gone, too!!!!
Dear luilui, I'm glad I ate that Mercury laden Sushi after the healthcare legislation passed, rather than before. Now I don't have to travel to another country to receive medical care. I can get it right here in the U.S. of A!
You're wasting your time. "Bob" only came here to pretend he was an idiot, until he opened his mouth and removed all doubt.
The hiring of extra auditors has nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare legislation. The proof of that is that the hires were considered before the law was enacted. Hard to blame it on legislation which stood a good chance of not even being passed. Conservatives who whine about waste in government while saying nary a word about tax frauds and scofflaws are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Add another item to the list of nincompoop conservative inconsistencies.
Maybe part of this comes in to play-The company I work for [pretty big company], it is a "condition of employment" to have insurance. The company provides it as part of the compensation package. Or you get $50, if you can prove that you have insurance another way. Therefore, most of us have it through the company. This new law will control how much of our compensation is used to 'pay' for our insurance. We will have only 2 choices, both of which will be government controlled.
I think it is safe to assume that most of the companies, that offer this insurance to their employees, have a similar set up.
Presumably "we the people" had their say at the voting booth in 2008, as well. That ever occur to you as you mull over your conspiracy fantasies?
Mr. Sc0ttW, now I get it. The people who were afraid of Saddam Hussein because they thought that he was somehow related to 9-11 are the same people who are afraid of healthcare reform. I wonder what the common denominator is. Is there some political group that is fanning the flames of fear in this country?
rckmom, the bill was written by criminals. Criminals don't pay their taxes. So they wrote the bill with weak enforcement in order to protect their own criminality.
They're relying on the honest and the gullible to willingly comply, while they themselves will never have to.
Not so bright Bob
No treatment reverses the mental damage, sorry about your problem.
Isn't it cool that they wrote this in such a way that the CBO could include the "income" from the "mandate" in their score and give temporary political cover to those that needed it, all at the same time?
"Don't worry, it's not really enforceable". …for now.
Ya think?!
Moot point
I have to ask why you think you need all these things? The entire credit system is a sham and a large part of what got us into this mess in the first place. Save your money, pay down your debt, don't live above your means… It's a pretty simple formula to freedom and sanity
I am sorry too. My bad … as they say
Consitutional Amendments are the solution.
In authorizing the action in Iraq, Congress was acting within the authority granted specifically to it by the Constitution. Tell me where the Constitution contains any authority for Congress to mandate that a US citizen purchase insurance. It is not there. The preversion of the Constitution is evidences by the healthcare legislation. Congress is attempting to vastly broaden the Commerce Clause by arguing that they are entitled to require the purchase of insurance as regulation of Commerce. Requiring an individual to purchase something is not regulation of commerce between the states. What's next? Requiring American's to purchase only GE lightbulbs? GM cars?
I know. Let's require people to get abortions. New children affect interstate commerce. Let's have a policy like China. One child per family. Any subsequent pregnancy, report down to the local Planned Parenthood office for your government mandated abortion.
What is the difference on the effect on a person's rights?
Mr. Richmond, you are far too kind to ever give the dems 'the benefit of the doubt' – history has shown exactly what is in their hearts (if they have one) and minds – this was a sneaky crafty way to avoid being able to answer exactly how they willl enforce this transparent take over – exhibit 1. Weeener aka Whinnnner, can't answer because it is so decadent he couldn't possibly expose that on tv –
Hey all you happy oblivious trolls, here's a question for you – what method did germany use to 'control' the masses? One guess and only one -
I will give him the benefit of the doubt ~ still it is an exercise of stating verbally what it 'is.' Words have meaning, and sometimes it easy to misunderstand or be wrong in thought of what 'it' is.
"Say what you mean ~ mean what you say ~ and stand for what you believe."
Right there luilui,……….hey Bob,……….hold that thought,…………..till 2014
Sorry, buddy. In my mind, "We the People" does NOT include thousands of dead people, Dallas Cowboy clones and Mickey Mouse. Vote early and vote often!! (rolls eyes)
No need to lower the conversation to such social vulgarities as "my bad" . That simply degrades us all…hehehe
just read your link. not a thing in there that would indicate the war is illegal. you need to read ALL of the provisions. the war would be authorized simply based on Saddam's abysmal human rights records. the fact that he had some of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world is also a qualification under this authorization. remember, WMD's includes chemical weapons.
"I wouldn't want to be tyrannized by the "majority" of the people"
Very apparent, with the passage of MaoBamaCare, that we the majority are being tyrannized by the minority.
Here we go again. Who do you think picks up the tab for the uninsured? Hmmm. Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? No. Try again. It is the persons with insurance and Uncle Sam. You see, the hospitals pass down their non-paying customers to their customers who pay. I simply can not understand how someone can call themselves a "conservative", does not understand this concept. Rule No. 1 of economics is there is not such thing as a free lunch and the uninsured have a free lunch. I also can not understand how someone can vilify a welfare mama for passing the costs of her children to society is not mad as a hornet because the uninsured do the same thing. Please do not give me the song and dance about making the healthy pay for insurance. You have insurance because you never know what can happen to you. So you really, really, want to repeal mandatory insurance laws, then at least be consistent. Repeal the law which forces hospitals to give care to the critically ill. Come on now. Show some intestinal fortitude and put your money where your mouth is.
How many of those who,………… "had their say at the voting booth in 2008" are now,………..
a part of my,……….."conspiracy fantasies?",……………….if that is what you want to call,…………
the totally visible Tea Party movement there Fairy.
From 64% approval to 46% in one short year,…………damn these American people and their,……..
never ending conspiracies,……….
this what they want to collapse the system and get rid of insurance companies altogether so the Fed is running everything.
Progressivism = Totalitarianism
It was ALWAYS about POWER and CONTROL! It was NEVER about healthcare. The marxist (aka Democrat) Party has been trying to take over this country since the turn of the last century. With this bill, along with the takeover of the banks and manufacturing, Obama has succeeded in moving us closer to becoming North Venezuela, and himself into Hugo Chavez II. This must NOT stand.
“In The Phantom Public, Walter Lippmann took a hard and realistic look at the role played by the American people in government decision-making. He portrayed citizens as relatively uninformed, disinterested, and ritually haphazard in their views. Opinions emerge only in time of crisis, and they fade quickly. Many people do not participate at all.”
"It is our Republic to lose." Do nothing, and its basically over. Dr. Franklin was asked this simple question, "What do we have Dr. Franklin? To which he replied, "A Republic, IF you can keep it."
The key here is to read, (both sides ~ even if it hurts), watch, listen, be involved, talk to your friends and family … help them/or you understand, be directly involved with you representatives, suggest good ideas ~ ask questions.
"I love my country, but fear my government" is not what any American should ever think or say.
Bob… let my troll address your troll. First: It is a 235 year old constitutionally protected fundamental right for individuals to freely enter into contracts. This bill forces me to enter into 3rd party contract against my will thus is unconstitutional. Second: you can not have a communist republic because…. communism is virtually identical to a pure democracy. You can't have representatives in a communism. You are right on one thing though: the USSR wasn't a communism. They were a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics… because you can have a socialist republic! As a constitutional republic we have a base line (the constitution) that the lawmakers can not cross. The government only has the powers described. While we are certainly moving towards a socialist republic this is also unconstitutional. Why? Because "socialism" requires the subjugation of the individual for the collective… this is unconstitutional because the rights described in the constitution are INDIVIDUAL rights… see point number one. Get it? I am not holding my breath.
The extra auditors were tied to the Health care bill but their hiring had nothing to do with the Health care bill? If they were needed for standard enforcement why not pass a separate bill to hire them instead of risk not getting them because they're tied to a bill "that stood a good chance of not getting passed".. Your logic is, as usual, illogical.
Conservatives have said a great deal about tax cheats and scofflaws…Tim Geithner and The Honorable Representative Charlie Rangel.
I never thought of that before and it's perfect! (And painfully true.) AND, it's more effective than calling him the anti-Christ because it doesn't allow the Left to label it extremism. It just tells it like it is. Bravo!!!
More pathetic, corrupt, and stupid than the previous administration? Really?
Rot in their own excrement? That's not very nice.
Total and complete BS. It was legal…the UN authorized it and most of the world participated in it. You,sir, are a douche bag Communist with delusions of elitism. Were we having this conversation in a bar, you would already be lying on the floor unconscious with your teeth in your pocket.
Don't. It's up to you. Just don't OD on the milk and honey.
You must be logged in to post a comment.