need some answers on ACA opinion

[Jarod]

as I had asked earlier then, how are we the people supposed to know what the law says, so that we may comply, unless the words of the law actually mean something? or are we supposed to know what their intent is?

before this ruling, did we not have the right to determine what we buy and what we do not buy?

then the mandate really doesn't mean anything if it doesn't mandate the purchase for all, does it?

1) By simply reading it, the words do mean things, it is just that in this case, "penalty" is synonyms with "tax" and anyone with a basic education could read it and understand that. It was clear even before the Supreme Court pointed it out.

2) We still do. We have the right to buy health insurnace or pay a penalty, we also have the right to buy or not buy many other things. We dont have the right to buy Marajuana, Cocaine, Nuclear Weapons, and many more things. We also are required to buy basic care items and health care for children and those in our care. In many areas we are required to buy sanatation services where we live.

3) Sure it does, it requires the purchase for some, thats what it means.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes, the words of the law mean something but the Supreme Court decides if the words of the law fall within the scope of the terms of the Constitution.

Let's try it this way. Pretend that Congress writes a law that said that all "boomsticks" are illegal and defines "boomsticks" to include any firearm imaginable. On review, the Court is well within its powers to say that the term "boomsticks" falls within the meaning of the term "arms" for purposes of testing the constitutionality of the anti-boomstick law. It wouldn't say that the Constitution doesn't mention "boomsticks" so Congress is free to regulate them as it wishes.

So like when Congress says something is a "penalty," the Court is well within its powers in saying that the "penalty" falls within the meaning of "tax" for purposes of testing the statute's constitutionality.

so in my earlier example, the court would be well within its power to then say that when the legislature uses the term 'handgun', they actually meant 'guns', therefore congress could then regulate all guns including rifles and shotguns as it wishes?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1) By simply reading it, the words do mean things, it is just that in this case, "penalty" is synonyms with "tax" and anyone with a basic education could read it and understand that. It was clear even before the Supreme Court pointed it out.

by simply reading it.......as in a 'well regulated militia' was synonymous with the national guard and that anyone with a basic education could read and understand that?

2) We still do. We have the right to buy health insurnace or pay a penalty, we also have the right to buy or not buy many other things. We dont have the right to buy Marajuana, Cocaine, Nuclear Weapons, and many more things. We also are required to buy basic care items and health care for children and those in our care. In many areas we are required to buy sanatation services where we live.

and again, prior to this ruling, we were never penalized for NOT buying something because we had the right not to buy it, but now we no longer have the right to NOT buy something because we'll be penalized if we don't. so how is that not removing our right to choose again?

3) Sure it does, it requires the purchase for some, thats what it means.

a law with exemptions, how 'equal protection under the law' that seems.

 

[Jarod]

so in my earlier example, the court would be well within its power to then say that when the legislature uses the term 'handgun', they actually meant 'guns', therefore congress could then regulate all guns including rifles and shotguns as it wishes?

No, that is not what he said, if Congress says you cant own "Guns", the Court would say that "Guns" fall under the defination of "Arms" in this statute and "Arms" are protected. Even though Congress did not prohibit the use of "Arms" in the statute, "Guns" are Arms. Just like in the ACA opinion "penalties" are "taxes".

 

[Jarod]

by simply reading it.......as in a 'well regulated militia' was synonymous with the national guard and that anyone with a basic education could read and understand that?

and again, prior to this ruling, we were never penalized for NOT buying something because we had the right not to buy it, but now we no longer have the right to NOT buy something because we'll be penalized if we don't. so how is that not removing our right to choose again?


a law with exemptions, how 'equal protection under the law' that seems.

1) Well, thats why we have a Supreme Court to determine if "a well regulated militia" is synonyms with "national guard" or not. I guess in some cases, interperation becomes necessary, but in the case of the ACA, it was clear that the "penalty" was a tax.

2) Sure you were penalized for not buying something prior to this ruling, if you did not buy your children food, you would go to jail.

3) Almost all laws have exceptions. "Equal Protection" means that all classes of people will be treated the same way. So regardless if you are black, white, male or female, from Texas or Alabama, if you are poor you are exempt. It does not prohibit the law from having degrees and exceptions, just so they are not based on type of person you are born as. Poverty, at least thus far, can be changed. Where you were born cannot.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, that is not what he said, if Congress says you cant own "Guns", the Court would say that "Guns" fall under the defination of "Arms" in this statute and "Arms" are protected. Even though Congress did not prohibit the use of "Arms" in the statute, "Guns" are Arms. Just like in the ACA opinion "penalties" are "taxes".

ok, that makes somewhat better sense, but we're still left trying to decide whether words mean something or not. if 'arms' are protected, how can congress then prohibit the manufacture, sale, or possession of machine guns to non governmental entities? are machine guns not 'arms'?

 

[Bonestorm]

Also, too, SF, you're basically arguing against any effort to prospectively reduce government spending since future Congresses can always just change the law, which also happens to be directly at odds with your position with respect to the debt ceiling last August (i.e. that raising the debt ceiling should be contingent on a deal for future cuts).

 

[Jarod]

ok, that makes somewhat better sense, but we're still left trying to decide whether words mean something or not. if 'arms' are protected, how can congress then prohibit the manufacture, sale, or possession of machine guns to non governmental entities? are machine guns not 'arms'?

I agree or how about Nuclear Arms....

There need to be some limits in our modern socity and I am sure the founders did not contemplate Nuclear Arms when they wrote the Second. That is the Supreme Courts job to determine where these limits are... otherwise you would be faced with amending the Constitution on a yearly basis, and its so hard to Amend the Constitutiton (rightfully so) that it would not happen. You would end up with groups legally purchashing Nuclear Weapons in the United States.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1) Well, thats why we have a Supreme Court to determine if "a well regulated militia" is synonyms with "national guard" or not. I guess in some cases, interperation becomes necessary, but in the case of the ACA, it was clear that the "penalty" was a tax.

not according to the administration or the legislature when they drafted and argued the case. so how is that 'clear'? how can a 'well regulated militia' be synonymous with 'national guard' when the guard did not exist at the time of the ratification?

2) Sure you were penalized for not buying something prior to this ruling, if you did not buy your children food, you would go to jail.

but we're talking about a crime now, not a tax. Unless being sentenced to jail is now taxation.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I agree or how about Nuclear Arms....

There need to be some limits in our modern socity and I am sure the founders did not contemplate Nuclear Arms when they wrote the Second. That is the Supreme Courts job to determine where these limits are... otherwise you would be faced with amending the Constitution on a yearly basis, and its so hard to Amend the Constitutiton (rightfully so) that it would not happen. You would end up with groups legally purchashing Nuclear Weapons in the United States.

again, in a time when the founders distrusted central government, how can you reconcile trusting government with what our limits are?

 

[cancel2 2022]

#1. The ACA is not a tax. The insurance mandate is. If you don't purchase the minimum requirement for health insurance and your income is above 133% of the poverty line then the IRS will collect a penalty tax from you.
#2. It's a penalty tax for being an irresponsible freerider.
#4. If a families household income is less that 133% of the poverty line for a family of that size there will be subsidies to assist them in paying for health insurance.

I actually thought STY knew all this already, I shall have to find something that explains it for three year olds, apparently five is setting the bar too high!!

Bob: Hi, insurance company. I’d like to buy some health insurance.
Insurance company: No. You had cancer when you were 3 years old, and the cancer could come back. We’re not selling you health insurance.
Bob: It’s not my fault I got cancer when I was three! Besides, that was years ago!
Insurance company: If we sell insurance to you, we’ll probably lose money, and we’re not doing it.
Bob: But I need insurance more than anyone! My cancer might come back!
Insurance company: We don’t care. We’re not selling you insurance.
Obama: Hey, that’s totally not fair. Bob is right, he does need insurance! Sell Bob some insurance.
Insurance company: If we have to, I guess.
Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it.
Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I’m going to stop paying for health insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The insurance company won’t be able to say no, because Obama’s told them they have to sell it to anyone who needs it!
Dave: that’s a great idea! I’m not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick.
Insurance company: Hey! If everyone stops paying for insurance, we’ll go bankrupt!
Obama: Oh come on Sam and Dave, that’s not fair either.
Dave: I don’t care. It saves me money.
Obama: Oh for god’s sake. Sam, Dave, you have to keep paying for health insurance, and not wait until you’re sick. You too, Mary and Bob.
Mary: But I’m broke! I can’t buy insurance! I just don’t have any money.
Obama: Mary, show me your piggy bank. Oh, wow, you really are broke. Ok, tell you what. You still have to buy insurance, but I’ll help you pay 95% of the cost.
Mary: thank you.
Obama: I need an aspirin.
Insurance company: We’re not paying for that aspirin.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

1). I can agree that it is strange that they can pull the change of wording out of thin air. To come to the conclusion that the fine can be imposed "as a tax" seems to me to be the way they could keep the ACA in tact and not send it back to the drawing board altogether. With this I do not agree.

2). I think they look at it from the standpoint that eventually everyone will need the service. Again, I do not agree.

3). This is where the government kicks in. If they can't afford it the government (taxpayers) will foot the bill.

I don't know if you have read some of the threads but I am for helping the poor people get coverage in some way....and by the way, many of them have it through state sponsored programs. I know they do in Oklahoma. My big worry with this .... At this time .... Is that we as a nation can't afford it.

Obama could have changed all this, with a lot less grandstanding.
The Governments idea of what stands for a poverty level, is asinine.
If the bottom standard had been raised, it would have helped a lot more people; plus the Government could have made it possible for an individual to cross State lines to purchase their insurance.
These two moves would have not only helped those earning the least amount and being able to "shop" for coverage, would have forced the insurance companies to look at the prices of their policies.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There is nobody alive that will never need healthcare.

You get a subsidy in order to help you purchase insurance. Having done that, you don't pay the penalty for not purchasing insurance.

1. There have been plenty reports of older people who have died, who were never sick a day in their life and never went to a doctor.
2. Where is the money going to come from, for this subsidy?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

He's probably got Medicare with Part B and a supplemental policy. The supplemental policy is what's ripping him off. It's for profit and at their age, they have preexisting conditions, so they're paying through the roof. Obamacare will fix that in 2014.

Yep. It's going to make him not only pay for his insurance; but also for those he doesn't even know.