ACA Subsidies ruled illegal

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cloward-Piven is just the latest propaganda term being used in certain circles....just like Saul Alinsky, chicago-style politics and illegal alien invader. It's hard to take people seriously when they keep parroting the MSM talking points.


I don't think health care should be a for profit business.

If healthcare is not for profit, then it would not a business anyways, it would be a charity.

dbl

I think the only way for some republicans to see why the ACA subsidies are needed, is for one of their relatives to die, from not being able to afford the cost of care...I'll call it "blunt force trauma clarity"

a reply to: starfoxxx

If healthcare is not for profit, then it would not a business anyways, it would be a charity.

I don't know about that. I don't think the people of Canada, UK, Spain, the Netherlands, etc. think that they're accepting charity by using their health care system.

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cloward-Piven is just the latest propaganda term being used in certain circles....just like Saul Alinsky, chicago-style politics and illegal alien invader. It's hard to take people seriously when they keep parroting the MSM talking points.


I don't think health care should be a for profit business.

If healthcare is not for profit, then it would not a business anyways, it would be a charity.

I don't think that is entirely accurate. A charity receives funding through donations - they don't charge for their services. A not-for-profit company does charge for their services -- they just don't make a profit.

a reply to: Libertygal

In a country like America that the Federal government has become the whole executor of laws disregarding the states right to individuality, is not democracy, passing ACA was not democracy it was an order, a bill of these magnitude was to be take by the individuals states and put for voting by the citizens of the states.

That was bypassed and a big reason why the supreme court gave the right to the states to opt out of ACA, without penalties, but gave the federal state the right to use commerce to push the mandatory part of it by itself

Sadly in America people doesn't understand anymore the right of the states against the Federal centralized government.

The opt out is going to kill ACA, remember ACA is a scam.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: starfoxxx

If healthcare is not for profit, then it would not a business anyways, it would be a charity.

I don't know about that. I don't think the people of Canada, UK, Spain, the Netherlands, etc. think that they're accepting charity by using their health care system.

They pay in higher taxes for the healthcare they receive though, everyone pays a bit in the pot, and anyone can get what they need out of that. If someone did not pay for it under that system then I guess we could call it a type of welfare program for them from the government, but it is really the tax dollars of everyone else. The people receiving without paying anything are getting a form of charity.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Libertygal

In a country like America that the Federal government has become the whole executor of laws disregarding the states right to individuality, is not democracy, passing ACA was not democracy it was an order, a bill of these magnitude was to be take by the individuals states and put for voting by the citizens of the states.

That was bypassed and a big reason why the supreme court gave the right to the states to opt out of ACA, without penalties, but gave the federal state the right to use commerce to push the mandatory part of it by itself

Sadly in America people doesn't understand anymore the right of the states against the Federal centralized government.

The opt out is going to kill ACA, remember ACA is a scam.

the federal government does this to make sure a person that moves from one state to another has the same coverage...this is the whole reason for federalizing laws, above and beyond, states rights....so there is consistency in laws no matter what state you live in, move to, or visit. didn't anyone take a government class in school?

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Libertygal

In a country like America that the Federal government has become the whole executor of laws disregarding the states right to individuality, is not democracy, passing ACA was not democracy it was an order, a bill of these magnitude was to be take by the individuals states and put for voting by the citizens of the states.

That was bypassed and a big reason why the supreme court gave the right to the states to opt out of ACA, without penalties, but gave the federal state the right to use commerce to push the mandatory part of it by itself

Sadly in America people doesn't understand anymore the right of the states against the Federal centralized government.

The opt out is going to kill ACA, remember ACA is a scam.

the federal government does this to make sure a person that moves from one state to another has the same coverage...this is the whole reason for federalizing laws, above and beyond, states rights....so there is consistency in laws no matter what state you live in, move to, or visit. didn't anyone take a government class in school?

Obviously you didn't because by Federal Law, you cannot sell health insurance across state lines. Unlike car insurance, Federal law prevents selling health insurance across state lines so it is the federal ruling that makes this a mess and reduces competition and the size of pools.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government mandated that the laws are consistent throughout the states and if you said is true, why do everything from speed limits to the drinking age to self defense rules all can vary state to state?

a reply to: jimmyx

so there is consistency in laws no matter what state you live in, move to, or visit. didn't anyone take a government class in school?

I am thinking someone didn't.
The US Constitution enumerates certain duties of the three branches of government... anything not enumerated is up to the individual states.

So to have consistency in laws, shouldn't I get fined for watering my grass in Pennsylvania if I would get fined for it if I lived in California? Or should Californians be able to flaunt the law there because I wouldn't be fined for the same thing in PA? We need consistency from state to state...right?

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cloward-Piven is just the latest propaganda term being used in certain circles....just like Saul Alinsky, chicago-style politics and illegal alien invader. It's hard to take people seriously when they keep parroting the MSM talking points.


I don't think health care should be a for profit business.

If healthcare is not for profit, then it would not a business anyways, it would be a charity.

I don't think that is entirely accurate. A charity receives funding through donations - they don't charge for their services. A not-for-profit company does charge for their services -- they just don't make a profit.

Not-for-profit healthcare your talking about would be a charity not a business

The big difference is in giving, and if the donator can use that to write it off their own business or personal taxes. non-profit/not-for-profit/charity's best interest would be in getting a 501(c)(3)

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, cooperating association or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.[14][15] There are also supporting organizations—often referred to in shorthand form as "Friends of" organizations.[16][17][18][19][20]

Another provision, 26 U.S.C. § 170, provides a deduction, for federal income tax purposes, for some donors who make charitable contributions to most types of 501(c)(3) organizations, among others. Regulations specify which such deductions must be verifiable to be allowed (e.g., receipts for donations over $250).

en.wikipedia.org...(c)_organization
So we just call everyone working in the medical field a 'volunteer', and they are receiving a 'donation' as salary?
What difference would that make?

a reply to: jimmyx

That is a nice way to put things but the Federal government is more than that, when it comes to laws and stepping on individual states rights, when it comes to people and their rights, that is the beauty of moving from one state to another without been penalized, you don't like what your state does, by all means move to another, right?

This is a bit of history about how the centralized government became to be and actually rule over the Republic.

The de-facto United States Corporation was unlawfully established by the forty-first congress in 1871 by deceptive means and without proper consent from “We the People”. The American people were placed under involuntary servitude by a “Legal” system of laws that have continually violated the “Constitution for the united States of America”, “Bill of Rights” and the “Declaration of Independence”. The corporate constitution was changed from the original form, wherein Amendments were unlawfully added and removed without the people’s consent.

What is the Republic?

www.republicoftheunitedstates.org...

Like I say, is interestingly how the supreme court will let the OPT out but allow the federal government to impose ACA by force only in the states that will allow ACA.

Don't you think is interesting?

a reply to: starfoxxx

--------------------------
They pay in higher taxes for the healthcare they receive though, everyone pays a bit in the pot, and anyone can get what they need out of that. If someone did not pay for it under that system then I guess we could call it a type of welfare program for them from the government, but it is really the tax dollars of everyone else. The people receiving without paying anything are getting a form of charity.
-------------------------


so what do you call it when just about everyone except the very poor pays into the pot but many of the ones paying can't get what they need from the pot??

The American Healthcare System...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: starfoxxx

--------------------------
They pay in higher taxes for the healthcare they receive though, everyone pays a bit in the pot, and anyone can get what they need out of that. If someone did not pay for it under that system then I guess we could call it a type of welfare program for them from the government, but it is really the tax dollars of everyone else. The people receiving without paying anything are getting a form of charity.
-------------------------


so what do you call it when just about everyone except the very poor pays into the pot but many of the ones paying can't get what they need from the pot??

The American Healthcare System...

The ACA just gives the government a way to double do us, with the insurance company jumping in to triple doing us.
At least giving to a 501 3c can be written off, and no one is forced to give in the first place..
Might as well just have universal and everyone pays in the pot, I believe that's the end goal anyways.

a reply to: starfoxxx

I believe that is right, the end result is the collapsing of ACA as it stands to be replaced with a universal version that actually was the first choice before the big interest money and lobbying change all that.

How sure can we be of that?

Very simple, look at how ACA will be dissected and challenged piece by piece in courts, as is been happening now, we all knew that the abortion and reproductive rights were to be challenged, we also knew that the subsidies were also to be challenged, see, for the states that are opting out of the ACA Medicaid expansion, those that will not be included in Medicaid will have to go into the exchanges if no state exchange are offered they will go to the government, these individuals were the ones that would qualify for the subsidies because the insurance would have been to high for them (is not such thing as affordable), but now that subsidies are challenged and rule unconstitutional the very same people that "supposedly" ACA is to cater are still uninsured.

Does the insurance companies care? hell not, as long as is a big fish that they can leech out there, who cares about the poor.

a reply to: starfoxxx

The ACA just gives the government a way to double do us, with the insurance company jumping in to triple doing us.

Well, when the Federal Govt is involved, there is never a shortage of us getting 'did'.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: starfoxxx

--------------------------
They pay in higher taxes for the healthcare they receive though, everyone pays a bit in the pot, and anyone can get what they need out of that. If someone did not pay for it under that system then I guess we could call it a type of welfare program for them from the government, but it is really the tax dollars of everyone else. The people receiving without paying anything are getting a form of charity.
-------------------------


so what do you call it when just about everyone except the very poor pays into the pot but many of the ones paying can't get what they need from the pot??

The American Healthcare System...

You can't even get a subsidy from the ACA if your not working at all..
They direct you to apply for Medicaid, and you can't get that being single with no children anyways.
So what good does the ACA do for those uninsured? Nothing, just fines them money they don't have in the first place.
Its ludicrous.

a reply to: starfoxxx

Well, apparently there is already a 501(c)(29) set up specifically for Qualified Nonprofit Health Insurance Issuers. So just force all insurance companies to be nonprofit - there's already IRS infrastructure to handle it.

www.journalofaccountancy.com...

Ha - like the insurance companies are just going to lay down and do that. They've gotten too rich and powerful, and they've got too many politicians in their pocket. The joys of capitalism...

a reply to: starfoxxx
ya even massechusetts mandated healthcare programs did this
if you couldn't afford the insurance it directed you to the medicaid which then turned you down no matter how little you made if you didn't either have a disability or dependents. except of course pregnant women!

I don't think you will have to pay a fine though.
I think, mind you I doubt if I know anything about how this all will end but
I think you will be exempt if the cost of the available insurance options are more than a certain percentage of your income and you cannot obtain the medicaid..
but still you more than likely will be paying taxes somehow that will end up being used for the healthcare system..
not much but when you don't have much that not much can seem like alot!

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Libertygal

In a country like America that the Federal government has become the whole executor of laws disregarding the states right to individuality, is not democracy, passing ACA was not democracy it was an order, a bill of these magnitude was to be take by the individuals states and put for voting by the citizens of the states.

That was bypassed and a big reason why the supreme court gave the right to the states to opt out of ACA, without penalties, but gave the federal state the right to use commerce to push the mandatory part of it by itself

Sadly in America people doesn't understand anymore the right of the states against the Federal centralized government.

The opt out is going to kill ACA, remember ACA is a scam.

the federal government does this to make sure a person that moves from one state to another has the same coverage...this is the whole reason for federalizing laws, above and beyond, states rights....so there is consistency in laws no matter what state you live in, move to, or visit. didn't anyone take a government class in school?

Obviously you didn't because by Federal Law, you cannot sell health insurance across state lines. Unlike car insurance, Federal law prevents selling health insurance across state lines so it is the federal ruling that makes this a mess and reduces competition and the size of pools.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government mandated that the laws are consistent throughout the states and if you said is true, why do everything from speed limits to the drinking age to self defense rules all can vary state to state?

it's easy for individuals to change the speed of their cars in individual states. same for drinking age, and self-defense.... however, having health insurance change from state to state could endanger your life simply by crossing a state line...let's say you lived in one state, you got a job in another state, and you had to start the new job in one week,...so you spend that time packing up, moving, getting into some other place to live, but at the exact point in which you cross the state line, you lose your health insurance coverage due to different state laws....don't you see the problem with this?