Individual Mandate Constitutional

[CJ]

Why would a company in this case choose to provide no coverage and pay a fine, rather than subsidize coverage at the rate they currently do (or at a rate equal to or lesser than the fine) and let the employees pay the difference?

Because, it costs them lets say $500 a month, or $6000 a year, and the penalty by the government is $500 per year. They drop you, save $5,500, and then send you to the government for healthcare. Just like the government wants them to do. The difference is if they drop you right now you have no coverage, and people won't want to work there. In 2014 if they drop you, you still get coverage (by the government) and they save a shitload of money. As designed.

[aggie97]

So, putting the pissing on the constitution, and my rights aside.... how about this.

I setup a dba as Aggie97's Health Insurance company. I'm providing my own private insurance. IRS...go fuck yourself.

whatchya think?

You are going to see a lot of "realized inflation" at the cash registers when the full weight of this hits the bottom line at ALL companies as the cost of health insurance benefits go up. To remain competitive, they will be forced to drop your benefits and you are left with the "state" option.

Also, how will the IRS police who I have insurance with? I am guessing if I have coverage through my employer, there will be a tick mark on my end of year W-2 that says "covered". If not, how do they know who with, what type or how much I am spending to buy a policy? Seems they are forcing the businesses to throw their hands in the air and release us all and fend for ourselves in the state system.

Sean...I'm with you man. If I weren't a citizen, I would not be paying taxes, would not be "deported" as long as I were non-violent, could get free health care ( I could now actually). Only problem would be giving up my right to own firearms.

When does it become open season on Libtards and Democrats?

In 10 years this country (if it survives) will be so divided by politics and RACE that its going to look like a warzone similar to detroit.

[Treasure Chest]

Because, it costs them lets say $500 a month, or $6000 a year, and the penalty by the government is $500 per year. They drop you, save $5,500, and then send you to the government for healthcare. Just like the government wants them to do. The difference is if they drop you right now you have no coverage, and people won't want to work there. In 2014 if they drop you, you still get coverage (by the government) and they save a shitload of money. As designed.

Except they tend to pay more along the lines of $1,200-3,000 per employee per month as it stands now, and if they have an aging workforce or a luxury policy, they will incur added penalties if they spend more than $2,700 per employee per month for healthcare costs. The theory behind this is that if employers pay less for healthcare, they will make up the difference in employee salaries, which will provide more of a taxable income base for the government....except history shows that profits are rarely passed along to the employees in this manner...

[CJ]

Except they tend to pay more along the lines of $1,200-3,000 per employee per month as it stands now, and if they have an aging workforce or a luxury policy, they will incur added penalties if they spend more than $2,700 per employee per month for healthcare costs. The theory behind this is that if employers pay less for healthcare, they will make up the difference in employee salaries, which will provide more of a taxable income base for the government....except history shows that profits are rarely passed along to the employees in this manner...

correct, I was just using that as a simple example. In your more realistic figures it makes even more sense. I was simply explaining the motivation for why you will get dropped.

[Treasure Chest]

correct, I was just using that as a simple example. In your more realistic figures it makes even more sense.

Sadly, the cost-benefit of paying the fines over providing affordable insurance for employees may easily be justified with the numbers dictated by Obama Care. I see this spiraling down hard and fast over the next few years.

[centexchick]

Sadly, the cost-benefit of paying the fines over providing affordable insurance for employees may easily be justified with the numbers dictated by Obama Care. I see this spiraling down hard and fast over the next few years.

by 2016 it will be a totally different country....

[CJ]

Sadly, the cost-benefit of paying the fines over providing affordable insurance for employees may easily be justified with the numbers dictated by Obama Care. I see this spiraling down hard and fast over the next few years.

All the figures show your healthcare will increase at least two fold, and the quality will drop substantially. It will turn this problem into a fucking disaster. The reason our healthcare costs are going through the roof is government intervention in the private sector. Since medicare/medicaid came into the picture healthcare costs have skyrocketed. When you have a customer that has no end to their pockets, you're going to charge more - it's just common sense. That's why you can't let the government into the private sector in any fashion - it ruins a capitalist system. Now, ALL healthcare will be paid for by an entity with no cost concerns with zero competition.

[Forever_frost]

http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/2012/06/chief-justice-john-roberts-is-genius.html

Chief Justice John Roberts is a Genius!
Before everybody burns the Chief Justice in effigy, it is important to see the genius behind the move the Chief Justice made with the decision by the Supreme Court.

Yes, it would have been nice and easy if the court had just struck down the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress and signed by the President. But the Chief Justice won the battle of the over powering Congress that has developed in the past years.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care through in the first place. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals preciselybecause they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Roberts have been on a vengeance ever since he became the Chief Justice of the court to take down Congress's ability to compel the American people to do certain actions they deem necessary. This is why he has been a member of the Federalist Society for a long time.
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
People in this country are too quick to pass judgement based on what they hear on the news. It is important to read what happened and see the logic behind a decision like this one. The Chief Justice did not commit treason, but rather he opened the door for a slew of challenges to the Congress' authority to control the American people.

[CJ]

http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/...is-genius.html

Chief Justice John Roberts is a Genius!
Before everybody burns the Chief Justice in effigy, it is important to see the genius behind the move the Chief Justice made with the decision by the Supreme Court.

Yes, it would have been nice and easy if the court had just struck down the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress and signed by the President. But the Chief Justice won the battle of the over powering Congress that has developed in the past years.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care through in the first place. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals preciselybecause they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Roberts have been on a vengeance ever since he became the Chief Justice of the court to take down Congress's ability to compel the American people to do certain actions they deem necessary. This is why he has been a member of the Federalist Society for a long time.
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
People in this country are too quick to pass judgement based on what they hear on the news. It is important to read what happened and see the logic behind a decision like this one. The Chief Justice did not commit treason, but rather he opened the door for a slew of challenges to the Congress' authority to control the American people.

Just an excuse, he fails to mention the fact the precedence has been set to force unlimited taxes on the people. It's now supreme case law. The commerce clause is now permanently obsolete.

If you guys want a good education, tune into 96.7 at 5pm and listen to Mark Levin discuss the ruling. He is a former assistant attorney general under Reagan and probably the leading constitutional attorney in the US. He will clarify a lot of your concerns and what this means for us as a country in the future. I know of no one more versed in constitutional law than him.

[talisman]

^That sounds all beautiful and shit, so why am I not convinced this was some gigantic chess board move?

[CJ]

^That sounds all beautiful and shit, so why am I not convinced this was some gigantic chess board move?

Because it isn't. If you have the time to tune in to Mark Levin I'd recommend it, he'll explain it in gruesome detail.

[Strychnine]

http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/...is-genius.html

Chief Justice John Roberts is a Genius!

So he gave Romney a tool to exploit (if he has the balls) and said that the gov can't make you buy anything via the commerce act...


but did you miss this part?

"Simply put, Congress... may tax and spend. This grant gives the federal government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate."

"The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid,or otherwise control."

The door is open for social engineering via taxation.

[YALE]

The door is open for social engineering via taxation.

In the sense that appropriated federal taxes were already constitutional, sure.

[CJ]

all of this is irrelevant, the case law is written, the government can apply any tax against your will. This bill was passed unconstitutionally, it was presented unconstitutionally. What people don't seem to understand is why are we even discussing constitutional law? We don't have a president that follows the constitution, the whole argument is.

[talisman]

Because it isn't. If you have the time to tune in to Mark Levin I'd recommend it, he'll explain it in gruesome detail.

I've been in a bad enough mood all day.