Losing our rights

Losing our rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Paladin9 -> Losing our rights (10/3/2013 10:01:49 AM)
I know this will not get out to many people, but its about time to examine the PPACA and what it really does. Its not about health "care" or even health insurance, its about power and control. A few days ago, I was looking for the $95 first year penalty for not having health insurance, so I could pin down the fact it also says its either $95 or 1% of adjusted gross income, whichever is greater. Instead, I came across a section I had read before and it was... well, scary doesnt even begin to describe it. What did I read? In the PPACA, they set a "limit" of what you would have to pay, out of pocket, for health insurance. Beyond the limit, you would be exempt from having to purchase insurance coverage. This number, then, was set at 8%. Its now, just a few years later and before the law is really even in effect, at 9.5%. Who did this? Well according to the PPACA, that decision rests in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is not an elected position, but rather a position appointed by the President. Does anyone remember the phrase "taxation without representation"? Well, there you go. Essentially, with the passage of this law, you've put one of if not the largest total expense and the portion you must pay towards it (tax) in the hands of ONE PERSON, and that person is the President of the United States. Sorry, but you may as well just throw that incorrect term out the window and call it what it is, the King of the United States. No, I'm not joking. Things dont stop there, though. A couple of years ago, in the much debated and discussed NDAA 2012, a significant change and shift was made in the framework of the carbon copy NDAA that has been passed just about every year dating back to Eisenhower. Previously, it took the decision of 10-15 people to take the actions defined in the NDAA for indefinite detention, martial law, and the like. The problem is the power has been centralized to a single person the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who is, again, an appointee of the President of the United States. So now they've taken two major powers, that of taxation and policing power, and placed it directly in the hands of ONE person, the President of the United States. As with any Presidentially appointed position, if he does not like the answer he gets when he gives an order, he just replaces that person until he does. This is no longer the United States of America.

mnottertail -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 10:06:23 AM)
I find both of your points ludicrously inaccurate and wholly unfactual.

DomKen -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 10:08:24 AM)
LOL Do you know how much of American law is written with stuff like, "the Secretary will determine such and such?" Lots of it. Pick any part of the US code that deals with policy stuff and you'll such stuff everywhere. Long before the policing power and taxation rested in the hands of the President. The entire executive branch reports ultimately to the President and that includes the FBI and the IRS.

mnottertail -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 10:09:50 AM)
Thats sorta why they call it the executive branch, they execute the laws.

Phydeaux -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 10:11:55 AM)
I agree with Ken, that there are many instances of this. May it be a wake up call to you to report on the things you have found to your friends and family. May it guide your voting and your discussions. I don't agree that its constitutional. I believe it will be challenged. But it can only fundamentally be fixed if you and those you care about wake up and spread the word.

Owner59 -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 10:12:21 AM)
Oh the "government takeover" argument...... Let`s let 30 million Americans go uninsured to salve their paranoia.

Owner59 -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 10:16:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I agree with Ken, that there are many instances of this. May it be a wake up call to you to report on the things you have found to your friends and family. May it guide your voting and your discussions. I don't agree that its constitutional. I believe it will be challenged. But it can only fundamentally be fixed if you and those you care about wake up and spread the word. It is legal,has been challenged over forty times and was deemed constitutional by the folks who decide what is and what is not constitutional....the SCOTUS. Btw,you don`t get to agree or disagree with what is constitutional. It either is or it is not, as decided by the SCOTUS.

DomKen -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 10:36:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I agree with Ken, that there are many instances of this. May it be a wake up call to you to report on the things you have found to your friends and family. May it guide your voting and your discussions. I don't agree that its constitutional. I believe it will be challenged. But it can only fundamentally be fixed if you and those you care about wake up and spread the word. How is it not constitutional? In detail. Which section of which article prohibits such?

JeffBC -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 11:13:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladin9 So now they've taken two major powers, that of taxation and policing power, and placed it directly in the hands of ONE person, the President of the United States. As with any Presidentially appointed position, if he does not like the answer he gets when he gives an order, he just replaces that person until he does. Wait... Obama is a power-hungry player in the game of thrones? Whodathunkit? Didn't this guy openly say he wanted to "restore the power of the office" or somesuch like that? Now... Let's try to remember that in the case of the NDAA that bill was passed with a HUGE freakin majority of congress. I hold every single one of them who voted in favor of it to be treasonous. You can't really lay that at the door of Obama in his sole person. And let's not forget the ever-popular patriot act. Regarding the ACA, that bill also was passed by a majority of congress although in that case the Republicans can quite reasonably wash their hands of the blame part. Don't get me wrong, the republicans failed to support it for... again... game of thrones reasons. But no matter their motives I don't see how I can hold them responsible for anything In other words, I definitely share your ire on the NDAA and if I can fact check your points on the ACA I agree there also. But I trust you won't be voting either democrat or republican in upcoming elections, right? Otherwise, your points are just so much political spinning... one moreso than the other.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 12:27:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladin9 I know this will not get out to many people, but its about time to examine the PPACA and what it really does. Its not about health "care" or even health insurance, its about power and control. A few days ago, I was looking for the $95 first year penalty for not having health insurance, so I could pin down the fact it also says its either $95 or 1% of adjusted gross income, whichever is greater. Instead, I came across a section I had read before and it was... well, scary doesnt even begin to describe it. What did I read? In the PPACA, they set a "limit" of what you would have to pay, out of pocket, for health insurance. Beyond the limit, you would be exempt from having to purchase insurance coverage. This number, then, was set at 8%. Its now, just a few years later and before the law is really even in effect, at 9.5%. Who did this? Well according to the PPACA, that decision rests in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is not an elected position, but rather a position appointed by the President. Does anyone remember the phrase "taxation without representation"? Well, there you go. Essentially, with the passage of this law, you've put one of if not the largest total expense and the portion you must pay towards it (tax) in the hands of ONE PERSON, and that person is the President of the United States. Sorry, but you may as well just throw that incorrect term out the window and call it what it is, the King of the United States. No, I'm not joking. Huh?8% or 9.5% of what? Above that you would be exempt from having to purchase coverage? What are you talking about?

Phydeaux -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 12:46:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I agree with Ken, that there are many instances of this. May it be a wake up call to you to report on the things you have found to your friends and family. May it guide your voting and your discussions. I don't agree that its constitutional. I believe it will be challenged. But it can only fundamentally be fixed if you and those you care about wake up and spread the word. It is legal,has been challenged over forty times and was deemed constitutional by the folks who decide what is and what is not constitutional....the SCOTUS. Btw,you don`t get to agree or disagree with what is constitutional. It either is or it is not, as decided by the SCOTUS. Try not to be so patently absurd. Of course I get to agree whether or not its constitutional or not. Its called an opinion. As for its constitutionality being decided more than 40 times - I'm curious what in the hell you are talking about. You seem to lack understanding of how the supreme court works. Two aspects of the law were brought to the court. The part of whether the congress could enact a tax, under the guise of calling it a penalty, was ruled constitutional. The naked expropriation of Medicare was ruled unconstitutional. It looks as if one more aspect will make it to the supreme court in the near future. The constitutionality of that aspect is uncertain. Regardless of how any one aspect is decided, it does not prevent further suits from being brought, on the same or different points. And while stare desis is supposed to prevail the court has reversed itself on many occasions.

Phydeaux -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 12:55:54 PM)
As to what I think the constitutional question in this instance is: The supreme court takes a dim view of one branch of government abrogating the prerogatives of the other branch, either voluntarily or involuntarily. While the executive branch may certainly set incidental fees, it is the prerogative of congress to set taxes. Congress may not, even voluntarily, give to the executive the power to set taxes. It has been established .that congress has the right to set what the taxes should be under obamacare. However, Congress does not have the right to cede that discretion to the executive branch. In other words, Congress may act to change the tax rate in Obamacare; the secretary of health and human services may not. Now, to be fair, it could be that the courts will rule that this is incidental. The court may rule that this does not rise to the level of requiring redress. So, yes, while I feel that this is clearly not constitutional, I would think that this challenge would only have a 20% chance of prevailing.

mnottertail -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 12:59:31 PM)
That would be a a frivolous lawsuit and wont be heard along those lines for any reason. If the PPACA (a law passed by congress and signed by the president into law) states that the Secretary shall determine . . . yadda yadda yadda, like the non-credited nothingness said it does.....then congress set the tax.

Nosathro -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 1:08:48 PM)
Tell me does anyone care that those members of Congress and such get free health care for life? No premiums, no out of pocket, no deductibles, all paid for by the tax payers.

TreasureKY -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 1:09:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Oh the "government takeover" argument...... Let`s let 30 million Americans go uninsured to salve their paranoia. There's still 30 million Americans who will go uninsured after the ACA goes into effect. The big difference now is that we all have a new tax. [;)]

mnottertail -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 1:10:53 PM)
No the big difference is many will be insured that are not now.

joether -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 2:08:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Oh the "government takeover" argument...... Let`s let 30 million Americans go uninsured to salve their paranoia. There's still 30 million Americans who will go uninsured after the ACA goes into effect. The big difference now is that we all have a new tax. [;)] I feel there should be an amend item to the ACA. That when someone who doesn't get a health plan and instead the fine but later needs the plan due to a sudden health problem. That the can still get access to a health plan to help cover expenses (as they will increase rapidly without health care cover), BUT, they also get a tattoo across their forehead in big letters that says "MORON". That way we'll know how was really against it before they were for it. The big difference is as mnottertail states above, those that were not insured, could not be insured, or insured at an absurd rate, can now have it at a reasonable level without a difference (more or less) in coverage. What you might not realize is that, when your suffering from something REALLY BAD, you WILL sign away all your rights just to have some measure of relief if you don't have health coverage. That would be a devastating effect on our liberties. I know this one guy in my life. Really good guy. So he's been a conservative Republican for a number of years. An he's bashed the Affordable Care Act for the first few years. This summer, he had to place both of his parents into hospitals for a staggering array of health problems that have been manifesting over time (in the last few months things took turn for the worst). He unwitting supported Republicans in doing everything to water down the ACA. An now, he's realize the stuff he supported has made his task of getting his parents good health treatment to be exceedingly challenging. I helped him get coverage for his parents in the exchange in his state, and will try to help him navigate the legal material so that he understands the situation clearly. I think he had an epiphany at some point of just how wrong and foolish he has been. And before you say it, NO, I will not behave 'all told you so!' towards him. Its been a really hard lesson for him to lose as I like the guy and his folks. Wish them the best!

graceadieu -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 2:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Huh?8% or 9.5% of what? Above that you would be exempt from having to purchase coverage? What are you talking about? Employers can't expect you to pay an insurance premium that's more than 9.5% of your income, IIRC. I don't know what on Earth the rest of that was about, though. (Edited for clarity.)

Lucylastic -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 2:15:55 PM)
from the CBO ESTMATION PDF http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade, leaving 30 million nonelderly residents uninsured by the end of the period (see Table 3, at the end of this report). Before the Supreme Court’s decision, the latter number had been 27 million. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance is projected to rise from 82 percent in 2012 to 92 percent by 2022. According to the current estimates, from 2016 on, between 23 million and 25 million people will receive coverage through the exchanges, and 10 million to 11 million additional people will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP as a result of the ACA. Between 4 million and 6 million fewer people are estimated to have coverage through an employer, compared with coverage in the absence of the ACA. That number did not change significantly as a result of the Court’s decision. The changes in coverage in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision depend importantly on whether individuals who will no longer become eligible for Medicaid coverage instead become eligible for exchange subsidies and whether they enroll in coverage through those exchanges. By CBO and JCT’s estimates: • Of the 6 million people who will not have Medicaid coverage in 2022 as a result of the Court’s decision: • About three-quarters would have been newly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA as estimated prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, and • About one-quarter would have been eligible for Medicaid or CHIP under pre-ACA rules and, prior to the Court’s decision, would have been expected to enroll in one of those programs—but, with fewer expansions of eligibility, will be less likely to become aware of and sign up for either program.18 • Among the people who would have been newly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA before the Court’s decision, about one-third will have income between 100 percent and 138 percent of the FPL, and about two-thirds will have income below 100 percent of the FPL. Most people with income between 100 percent and 138 percent of the FPL in states that do not expand or defer expanding Medicaid will be eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchanges.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Losing our rights (10/3/2013 2:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I feel there should be an amend item to the ACA. That when someone who doesn't get a health plan and instead the fine but later needs the plan due to a sudden health problem. That the can still get access to a health plan to help cover expenses (as they will increase rapidly without health care cover), BUT, they also get a tattoo across their forehead in big letters that says "MORON". That way we'll know how was really against it before they were for it. The big difference is as mnottertail states above, those that were not insured, could not be insured, or insured at an absurd rate, can now have it at a reasonable level without a difference (more or less) in coverage. What you might not realize is that, when your suffering from something REALLY BAD, you WILL sign away all your rights just to have some measure of relief if you don't have health coverage. That would be a devastating effect on our liberties. I know this one guy in my life. Really good guy. So he's been a conservative Republican for a number of years. An he's bashed the Affordable Care Act for the first few years. This summer, he had to place both of his parents into hospitals for a staggering array of health problems that have been manifesting over time (in the last few months things took turn for the worst). He unwitting supported Republicans in doing everything to water down the ACA. An now, he's realize the stuff he supported has made his task of getting his parents good health treatment to be exceedingly challenging. I helped him get coverage for his parents in the exchange in his state, and will try to help him navigate the legal material so that he understands the situation clearly. I think he had an epiphany at some point of just how wrong and foolish he has been. And before you say it, NO, I will not behave 'all told you so!' towards him. Its been a really hard lesson for him to lose as I like the guy and his folks. Wish them the best! So, you won't tell your friend "I told you so" as long as you get to tattoo "MORON" on his forehead?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125