Posted on 04/07/2010 9:36:45 PM PDT by Danae
Good article, but I noticed this “600$.” I have seen dollar amounts indicated this way on other websites too, but never saw it that way before the internet existed. It was always written with the dollar sign first, i.e.; “$600.” What do you suppose is going on?
Just where is a 19 year old going to get the 600$ a month to pay for their own health insurance on minimum wage (round that off to 9.25$ an hour for 40 hours a week and that’s 1480$ a month) for a single person?
_____________________________________________________
Aren’t they now on mommy and daddy’s insurance until 26?
I was wondering, who gets fined if they are 25 and without insurance?
Mom and Dad or the kid?
Also, will gov’t be extending insurance to military dependents until 26?
Perhaps some kind of automated translation system for news outlets in other countries (so it would show pounds sterling in England, euros in the EU, etc.)? But a little bit screwed up?
States rights are at issue here. This is a fight between our Dictatorship and our States (Sound familiar?), which the SCOTUS will ultimately rule on.
We knew the whole Obamacare bill was a craps game. Wheeee! What kind of surprises can we whisk into law now?
Publik edukashun.
Who cares if it’s Unconstitutional? If Emperor Obama wants it and the Liberal, ignorant, uninformed, demographic robots of America want it......well, what the hey, dude? Who shivs a git?
3 weeks ago... i walked into a state farm agency here in florida to find health insurance for a friend. she is 24 with no pre-existing conditions. what did the state farm offer up?
major medical, $2500 deductible (80/20) ... $85/mon
vision/ dental, $500 deductible (80/20) ... $15/mon
hospital income (about $250/day)... $15/mon
0bamacare will cost $600/mon? $7200/yr?! how is this an improvement?? (oh yea... the dems get to slosh around in the money...)
Unfortunately, in the sense of the worst case, Obamacare will retrace arguments used to uphold Social Security in the 1930s.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2482778/posts?page=100#100
The culprit is the 16th Amendment. That amendment is a curse.
Here are a couple of links on how to think about getting rid of that curse:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html
And here is a link discussing how our government can function with a new tax code in an era in which the 16th has been repealed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2488624/posts?page=133#133
The RATS can think more ‘’fees’’ and putting you in prison if you don’t have the money.
Insurance for a single 24 year old with no pre-existing conditions is far less than average.
I was paying more than $85/month as my share of the premium before I was laid off last year. The company was picking up about 75%. This was for a single person with an HSA, large deductible plan.
I think our individual rights are an issue. What this bill does in effect is to say that you have to pay to be a citizen.
bump that
But I think this, from the article you posted, is entirely incorrect and demonstrably untrue:
The founders believed that a monarch (or dictator or any sort of legislative body) should not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Of course this doesn’t apply to rules governing civil society such as criminal laws against things like rape or thievery, but we aren’t discussing that here. We are discussing being forced to buy something, possibly against your will. In other words, inactivity.
Specifically, The Second Congress, with George Washington as president, has previously required private citizens to purchase things, and as it was done in 1792, plenty of Founders were involved.
The Second Militia Act of 1792 provided for the organization of state militias, required all citizens between the ages of 18-45 to report for training twice a year, and required the purchase, at citizen expense, of the following:
While there may be many other legal arguments against the forced purchase of health care, I don't see how this can be one of them.
I remember Ollie North giving a speech where he said “promote the general welfare” doesn’t mean “promote welfare generally”.
Too many people are fighting a fire with snowballs.
My position is not truly against the Health care Act, its the package that basically gives Obama super powers to write in any whimsical law to enforce the people into this piece of historical crap.
He doesn’t care if people refuse to pay, or if its even repealed, his plan is the splitting of the nation to weaken it. He will keep egging on America, his army will keep on finding ways to play each side against each other, I swear its almost like a Star Trek re-run where the Klingons and Kirks crew battle each other over and over with rapid healing to just power and please an unseen entity.
Its been explained a hundred ways what Obamas strategies are, he has NO compassion for America, its just a boring process he will pick his nose thru.
Its time to tell him to Get Off Our Lawn.
Defense of the United States is a specifically enumerated role of the Federal Government.
“Health Care” is not.
Next case.
It most certainly is not "entirely incorrect and demonstrably untrue" - you're not acknowledging the order of things. Your quote says: "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with..." SO:
FIRST - comes the enrollment and notification.
THEN - comes the equipment provision requirement.
So really, this is not a requirement "for private citizens to purchase things," but rather those of a specific group who have first been enrolled in the militia to provide their own equipment. It was nothing less than a standing draft, with an equipment requirement attached and most clearly secondary - and dependent - upon the condition of enrollment. NOT mere existence. And once they were enrolled, they were not the same as mere "private citizens," but members of the government militia.
And note - "militia" had two meanings even back then. The first was that group of armed civilians that could be called out by the government as a de facto civilian standing army. The second was the existence of an armed populace which could defend itself against government tyranny, as was the intent of the Second Amendment. So cofnusing the second definition with the first is another mistake you are making.
All of this is vastly different, in legl standing, from the Obamacare requirement for everyone unilaterally to pay a tax for something they may or may not use, based on the mere requirement that they exist, with no other charge of responsibility or action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.