(03-02-2014 07:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 07:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You don't have representation in congress?

The ACA was passed on a single party basis, without a single Republican vote for it. Interestingly, 34 Democrats also voted against the passage of the ACA.

The idea of a constitution, written or not, being interpreted as banning the levying of taxes without proper representation is the very idea the Sons of Liberty used in their logic to protest the Tea Act. Going back to the Bill of Rights of 1689, which established that long-term taxes could not be levied without the legislative body (Parliament), and other precedents said that the legislative must actually represent the people it ruled over, in order to "count".

When you have a proposed law which is vehemently and unanimously opposed by a solid group representing their constituents, and it is passed by an opposing side which does not represent any of those same constituents, which is itself fractured against their own side (the 34 Democrats who voted AGAINST the ACA), and when you live in a State which is represented by those on the opposing side to the anachorous legislation, it ceases to "count."

Otherwise, why are we not still singing "God save the Queen"? The American Revolution itself, as well as the individual actions by many of the colonists, was considered illegal by the very legislative body (Parliament) that was being acted against. Their authority was no longer recognized as legitimate and binding by the American Revolutionaries. Of course, they did have to suffer and fight for their position, but all of us today owe a great debt of gratitude that they chose to do so, even at their own peril.

Many people also conveniently forget that there existed at the time a large plurality of American colonists who opposed the American revolution, both in principle and in deed, and instead supported the tyranny of the King. The debate and disagreement among the colonists was very real, and not as cut and dried and one-sided as many of today's history books would lead you to believe. Many felt that the American Revolution was breaking the "social compact" of the time. The Americans who won our freedom 9well, what we have left of it) had to fight not only the British, but also had to go against many of their fellow colonists who disagreed with them quite strongly as well.

I'll ask again. Do you have a representative in the US House of Representative? Did you have an opportunity to vote in that persons election? Do you have two US Senators from your state? Did you have the opportunity to vote for or against them? Did congress pass the ACA bill and was it signed into law? Did the SCOTUS rule that the ACA was constitutional with the exception of the Medicaid change requirements for the individual states? This is nothing like the American Revolution.

(03-02-2014 08:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 08:17 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 07:41 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  So you are now trying to force responsible behavior.
This is a free country. No one is obligated to behave responsibly.

If you are so behind pushing responsible behavior, when are you going to start enforcing your responsible behavior belief by coming out against people having kids out of wedlock, against people living their lives on welfare, etc. When will you start pushing work requirements for those on welfare? Those are all acts of responsible behavior too.

In reply, I'll say this: I'll trade participation in the ACA for banning all divorce, banning all kids out of wedlock, and banning people living on welfare. That seems like a fair trade of rights to me. Which is what the ACA does, it unilaterally and unconstitutionally removes rights. Otherwise, no deal.

And before you say: 'But the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA was constitutional' let me point out that the court ruled on the basis that the ACA was not in fact a fine as had been argued by those in favor ofthe flawed legislation, but that it was in fact a tax. And the Supreme Court of the United States is famous for already getting decisions completely wrong. I refer you to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 1857, in which the United Sates Supreme Court asserted firmly and unequivocally that there was no difference between Mr. Scott and a piece of furniture. Which is ludicrous, wrong, etc... but it was the law of the land for quite a while until some people got together to resist and overturn it. Same thing needs to happen here.

As to your "parade of horribles" argument about what happens when people do not participate in ACA (which is NOT insurance), I submit that neither George Washington, nor their ancestors who colonized this country, nor many generations of their descendants carried such, and our country seems to have survived and prospered reasonably well enough for more than 200 years.

Forget the ACA for a minute. Are you saying that health insurance is unnecessary? There was health insurance before 2010 and most of us would die in the poor house years before our time without it.

The ACA is not heath care. It is health insurance. Let's keep some perspective. People are still going to get lousy heath care regardless of this law.

Anything that is based upon your "ability to pay"..which the ACA cleary states....is income redistribution and Socialist to the core. I hope we are happy.

(03-02-2014 08:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

what's the difference?...
if you opt out you might end up owing a doctor or a hospital if you get really sick.

If you take a subsidized plan, you are getting your health insurance paid for on the backs of other taxpayers so in essence you owe the taxpayers for their charity.

That is a big stretch.

If you don't get coverage and GOD forbid, are involved in an auto accident, contract cancer or some other major illness you are very likely to accumulate bills well beyond your means to pay. Even if/when you recover you life will be negatively affected for years to come.

Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

I agree everyone should carry insurance. I am not though prepared to put a gun to my neighbors head and make him do so...or...extract the fruits of his labors to pay for others.

No one is going to put a gun to anyone's head and make them do so. The only way the fine/tax is collected if you don't pay it is by withholding it from a tax refund if you happen to get one. Taxes are a fact of life. The fruits of our labors have always been taken and redistributed and always will be. The only way we can pick and choose is by voting out our representatives that favor that tax and put in representatives that will repeal it.

[quote='dawgitall' pid='10494784' dateline='1393811172']
[quote='EagleX' pid='10494532' dateline='1393807709']
I recommend that everyone drop their plans unless and until they get seriously ill, at which point the insurance companies are forced to accept them under the preexisting condition requirements. 10 or 12 million people doing that, and this whole thing goes splat in 6 months.

. . . sick people buying insurance aren't actually buying insurance. That demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what insurance actually is.
[/quote]
That is why you have to sign up by March 31st.[quote]

No. No, you don't.
[quote='dawgitall' pid='10494784' dateline='1393811172']
You can't just get sick and go buy a policy after the diagnosis. You would have to wait until the 2015 window opens up to buy a policy that would pay for your condition. Six months of Chemo can get very expensive. So can insulin vials if you suddenly discover you are diabetic.
[/quote]
If you have not had insurance, you are able to buy a policy anytime.

But you do not need to buy a policy at all if you pay the fine. THAT TAX is your premium. You will get whatever services you need. You cannot be refused. Now, you won't be getting a facelift or botox, but any of the life-threatening conditions you are using as scare tactics to be so afraid of will be fully treated. That's the law. It will also be the undoing of this terrible ACA. The only question is will enough people stand up soon enough to bring it down quickly, or will it take a few years. Either way, the economics of it do not hold up. It is fundamentally and mathematically flawed. 2+2 will never equal 5 no matter how much people scream for it to be so.

(03-02-2014 08:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'll ask again. Do you have a representative in the US House of Representative? Did you have an opportunity to vote in that persons election? Do you have two US Senators from your state? Did you have the opportunity to vote for or against them? Did congress pass the ACA bill and was it signed into law? Did the SCOTUS rule that the ACA was constitutional with the exception of the Medicaid change requirements for the individual states? This is nothing like the American Revolution.

Your argument is: You are a subject of the Kingdom of England. Do you not have a King? Are you not a colonist of the Crown? Did Parliament not pass these laws? Do you not have an obligation to follow them?

This is EXACTLY like the American revolution. What the Americans did WAS ILLEGAL by English law. They did it anyway.

(03-02-2014 09:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  [quote='dawgitall' pid='10494784' dateline='1393811172']
[quote='EagleX' pid='10494532' dateline='1393807709']
I recommend that everyone drop their plans unless and until they get seriously ill, at which point the insurance companies are forced to accept them under the preexisting condition requirements. 10 or 12 million people doing that, and this whole thing goes splat in 6 months.

. . . sick people buying insurance aren't actually buying insurance. That demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what insurance actually is.

That is why you have to sign up by March 31st.

Quote:No. No, you don't.

(03-02-2014 08:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You can't just get sick and go buy a policy after the diagnosis. You would have to wait until the 2015 window opens up to buy a policy that would pay for your condition. Six months of Chemo can get very expensive. So can insulin vials if you suddenly discover you are diabetic.

If you have not had insurance, you are able to buy a policy anytime.

But you do not need to buy a policy at all if you pay the fine. THAT TAX is your premium. You will get whatever services you need. You cannot be refused. Now, you won't be getting a facelift or botox, but any of the life-threatening conditions you are using as scare tactics to be so afraid of will be fully treated. That's the law. It will also be the undoing of this terrible ACA. The only question is will enough people stand up soon enough to bring it down quickly, or will it take a few years. Either way, the economics of it do not hold up. It is fundamentally and mathematically flawed. 2+2 will never equal 5 no matter how much people scream for it to be so.

You will not get coverage until the start of the new cycle. Of course you will get medical care but you will owe your doctors, the hospital etc etc. So you are advocating refusing to pay your bills. That is crazy talk.

(03-02-2014 09:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 08:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'll ask again. Do you have a representative in the US House of Representative? Did you have an opportunity to vote in that persons election? Do you have two US Senators from your state? Did you have the opportunity to vote for or against them? Did congress pass the ACA bill and was it signed into law? Did the SCOTUS rule that the ACA was constitutional with the exception of the Medicaid change requirements for the individual states? This is nothing like the American Revolution.

Your argument is: You are a subject of the Kingdom of England. Do you not have a King? Are you not a colonist of the Crown? Did Parliament not pass these laws? Do you not have an obligation to follow them?

This is EXACTLY like the American revolution. What the Americans did WAS ILLEGAL by English law. They did it anyway.

The colonists did not have representation in Parliament, thus "no taxation without representation." It is nothing like the American Revolution.

(03-02-2014 09:31 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You will not get coverage until the start of the new cycle. Of course you will get medical care but you will owe your doctors, the hospital etc etc. So you are advocating refusing to pay your bills. That is crazy talk.

Your position is crazy. Your "cycle" is an artificial illusion. And you are incorrect, according to your very law that you uphold so dearly. Here is why:

The law says that those who do not get the ACA insurance have to pay a penalty. The penalty is designed to cover the cost of the insurance they would have been forced to get. Therefore, they have effectively paid their premium, while avoiding participating in the fallacious legislation. I don't see what the problem is. They go and they get the services where they are rendered. And they deal with them in the exact same way they are dealt with by the other entities after the fact. That is totally consistent. But it does require a knowledge of the inherent lies built into the system. That misinformation, the very kind you are shouting to further confuse people, is the difference.

Also, no one is saying you can't pay for medical services you wish to procure out of your pocket instead, or negotiate a reasonable discount, as do the insurance companies, who regularly ignore the doctors bills and instead just tell them what they will pay for their services, and many times tell them they refuse to pay anything at all after the services are rendered. I have worked in the medical industry. I have actual experience with these very billing issues and see how they are handled, ignored and oftentimes dismissed by the government, Medicare and Medicaid, and Insurance companies big and small. My position is that an individual can thus act in the same manner (since businesses are deemed "persons' by the courts, then persons are also "persons", and can act consistently with their larger corporate or government "persons"). He can obtain the necessary services and the "balance bill" them as the insurance companies and the government already do. There is no difference, other than you cut the middleman out, thereby saving everyone unnecessary money.

The fundamental difference I have with your position is that medical services are a good, a service, and they cost money. They are not a right, they are a convenience. They are not a necessity, they are a luxury. A great luxury to have, but a luxury nevertheless. For thousands of years that has been the case, and it is no different now, despite this administrations and your feeble attempts to change that fact.

(03-02-2014 08:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Forget the ACA for a minute. Are you saying that health insurance is unnecessary? There was health insurance before 2010 and most of us would die in the poor house years before our time without it.

Are you equating the ACA with health insurance?

(03-02-2014 09:36 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 09:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 08:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'll ask again. Do you have a representative in the US House of Representative? Did you have an opportunity to vote in that persons election? Do you have two US Senators from your state? Did you have the opportunity to vote for or against them? Did congress pass the ACA bill and was it signed into law? Did the SCOTUS rule that the ACA was constitutional with the exception of the Medicaid change requirements for the individual states? This is nothing like the American Revolution.

Your argument is: You are a subject of the Kingdom of England. Do you not have a King? Are you not a colonist of the Crown? Did Parliament not pass these laws? Do you not have an obligation to follow them?

This is EXACTLY like the American revolution. What the Americans did WAS ILLEGAL by English law. They did it anyway.

The colonists did not have representation in Parliament, thus "no taxation without representation." It is nothing like the American Revolution.

Since it appears you did not read the answer to your question on this in post #12, I will repeat it here for you:

The ACA was passed on a single party basis, without a single Republican vote for it. Interestingly, 34 Democrats also voted against the passage of the ACA.

The idea of a constitution, written or not, being interpreted as banning the levying of taxes without proper representation is the very idea the Sons of Liberty used in their logic to protest the Tea Act. Going back to the Bill of Rights of 1689, which established that long-term taxes could not be levied without the legislative body (Parliament), and other precedents said that the legislative must actually represent the people it ruled over, in order to "count".

When you have a proposed law which is vehemently and unanimously opposed by a solid group representing their constituents, and it is passed by an opposing side which does not represent any of those same constituents, which is itself fractured against their own side (the 34 Democrats who voted AGAINST the ACA), and when you live in a State which is represented by those on the opposing side to the anachorous legislation, it ceases to "count."

Otherwise, why are we not still singing "God save the Queen"? The American Revolution itself, as well as the individual actions by many of the colonists, was considered illegal by the very legislative body (Parliament) that was being acted against. Their authority was no longer recognized as legitimate and binding by the American Revolutionaries. Of course, they did have to suffer and fight for their position, but all of us today owe a great debt of gratitude that they chose to do so, even at their own peril.

Many people also conveniently forget that there existed at the time a large plurality of American colonists who opposed the American revolution, both in principle and in deed, and instead supported the tyranny of the King. The debate and disagreement among the colonists was very real, and not as cut and dried and one-sided as many of today's history books would lead you to believe. Many felt that the American Revolution was breaking the "social compact" of the time. The Americans who won our freedom (well, what we have left of it) had to fight not only the British, but also had to go against many of their fellow colonists who disagreed with them quite strongly as well.


Your assumption about what "representation" is seems to be the problem for you. A representational government existed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, existed in Cuba under Castro, exists in China, exists in many countries around the world where it is anything but. Do not fall for the trap of the illusion of labels, look instead to see the actual actions taking place. There was no representation on this law. There was a clear and distinct illusion and manipulation. Some will see through that lie and wish to remain consistent to our Founding Fathers' principles.

As many (but certainly far from all) of the colonists did, they decided that the illusion presented to them was not in fact real. They decided to quit believing the illusion, and acted accordingly. Much as Ghandi did in India.

(03-02-2014 08:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Did the SCOTUS rule that the ACA was constitutional with the exception of the Medicaid change requirements for the individual states?

Sigh. I'm seeing a pattern here of you not reading the answers to your questions. Kind of like not reading the bill before passing it (where have we heard that one before?) I guess you at least are consistent with the fallacy you represent.

Post #15 again, for your benefit:
And before you say: 'But the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA was constitutional' let me point out that the court ruled on the basis that the ACA was not in fact a fine as had been argued by those in favor ofthe flawed legislation, but that it was in fact a tax. And the Supreme Court of the United States is famous for already getting decisions completely wrong. I refer you to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 1857, in which the United Sates Supreme Court asserted firmly and unequivocally that there was no difference between Mr. Scott and a piece of furniture. Which is ludicrous, wrong, etc... but it was the law of the land for quite a while until some people got together to resist and overturn it. Same thing needs to happen here.

As to your "parade of horribles" argument about what happens when people do not participate in ACA (which is NOT insurance), I submit that neither George Washington, nor their ancestors who colonized this country, nor many generations of their descendants carried such, and our country seems to have survived and prospered reasonably well enough for more than 200 years.

ACA is probably going to be gutted or struck down altogether by the courts. The law flat out states that the Feds can't subsidize plans in states that didn't set up their own exchanges -- which is most of them. The IRS chose to it ore that part of the law.

And if the penalty is really a tax, then all tax measures must originate in the house, which this thing, passed via reconciliation, did not. the "tax" has to be applied and collected before it can be challenged.

In spite of my opposition to the law I'm not silly enough to think it is going anywhere; it isn't.

It's the new reality, for better or worse, we live with and will live with.

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who else will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I am going to pay the tax but I have to correct you on one thing, it IS Constitutional. The Supreme Court said so.

(03-02-2014 11:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who else will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I am going to pay the tax but I have to correct you on one thing, it IS Constitutional. The Supreme Court said so.

The individual mandate only passed constitutional muster because the supremes rewrote part of the law. More challenges follow.

it's just a poorly crafted bill. Holes, flaws, errors, contradictions....

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

That's the kind of liberal thinking that got us in this ACA mess to begin with. It's not govt's job to tell us what is responsible or irresponsible. That kind of thinking is asinine.

(03-02-2014 09:01 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 08:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 07:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm sure there will be a few that go that route, but most people will get a policy of some kind. I just hope that all of those that take a stand on principle as you have will live up to their financial obligations should they find themselves in need of extensive medical care. Please don't walk away from debts to doctors and hospitals so that I and others have to carry you.

what's the difference?...
if you opt out you might end up owing a doctor or a hospital if you get really sick.

If you take a subsidized plan, you are getting your health insurance paid for on the backs of other taxpayers so in essence you owe the taxpayers for their charity.

That is a big stretch.

If you don't get coverage and GOD forbid, are involved in an auto accident, contract cancer or some other major illness you are very likely to accumulate bills well beyond your means to pay. Even if/when you recover you life will be negatively affected for years to come.

Whether you like the ACA or not, everyone should at least carry a minimal policy. To do otherwise is totally irresponsible.

I agree everyone should carry insurance. I am not though prepared to put a gun to my neighbors head and make him do so...or...extract the fruits of his labors to pay for others.

No one is going to put a gun to anyone's head and make them do so. The only way the fine/tax is collected if you don't pay it is by withholding it from a tax refund if you happen to get one. Taxes are a fact of life. The fruits of our labors have always been taken and redistributed and always will be. The only way we can pick and choose is by voting out our representatives that favor that tax and put in representatives that will repeal it.

Every law involves force. Without force and the threat of violence the government can not operate. This one is no different. I had nothing to do with any of this. I did not vote for anyone that supports this. I am simply being forced to comply with it.

I personally have no problem with purchasing insurance. I do it because it makes good sense to protect myself. I do however object to anyone forcing me to purchase ANYTHING. The ACA has set a precedent and the puszies in the SCOTUS allowed it. Now the next time the power mongers in Washington decide they need Americans to purchase something that they may or may not need?...They have a precedent set up to allow it. There will be consequences to this law down the road...just as there are to all of them. This one sets up the ultimate platform for the overtake of personal economic freedom. It is the single most dangerous law ever foisted upon the citizens. I will comply with it. I have no choice. I do not however approve of it and understand it what is at the core of it. Pure..unadulterated Socialism. It is the single most unAmerican piece of legislation ever conceived and enacted.

(03-02-2014 11:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who else will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I am going to pay the tax but I have to correct you on one thing, it IS Constitutional. The Supreme Court said so.

Yes...and it sets the precedent for the future. I can't wait until the Right foists upon the Left something they must purchase...that they don't want. Mark my word. It is coming.

(03-03-2014 06:39 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 11:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who else will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I am going to pay the tax but I have to correct you on one thing, it IS Constitutional. The Supreme Court said so.

Yes...and it sets the precedent for the future. I can't wait until the Right foists upon the Left something they must purchase...that they don't want. Mark my word. It is coming.

or change laws on the fly simply by calling a press conference. or using the IRS as a tool to handicap your political opponents. or politicizing the DoJ.

(03-03-2014 06:39 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 11:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-02-2014 06:06 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just wanted to know who else will actually stand up to this garbage with action, not just rhetoric.

As a self employed person, though I am eligible for full subsidies (read: handouts the bankrupt govt. cannot afford) I will not be signing up at all for this unconstitutional garbage.

Any other Americans out there?

I am going to pay the tax but I have to correct you on one thing, it IS Constitutional. The Supreme Court said so.

Yes...and it sets the precedent for the future. I can't wait until the Right foists upon the Left something they must purchase...that they don't want. Mark my word. It is coming.

A gun.