Healthcare bill

T

tsuke

New member
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SENATEHEALTHCARE.pdf

if anyone is interested. Im going thru it now.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5000A(c) of the Internal
8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—
9 (1) in paragraph (2)(B)(iii), by striking ‘‘2.5
10 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘Zero percent’’, and
11 (2) in paragraph (3)—
12 (A) by striking ‘‘$695’’ in subparagraph
13 (A) and inserting ‘‘$0’’, and

looks like individual mandate is out.
 
$15,000,000,000 for each of calendar years 2018
17 and 2019, and $10,000,000,000 for each of calendar
18 years 2020 and 2021, to the Administrator of the
19 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

looks like there is some sort of subsidy.
 
The "individual" mandate was truly the only objection to the act......who cares what type of healthcare bill is passed in congress as long the bill is formatted for those who voluntarily want and need the coverage and the act is written within the boundaries of the US Constitution? The way that Obama Care was presented is nothing short of a method to redistribute earned income. At first it was stated that it was "not a tax" which was another blatant lie much like the "you can keep your insurance and doctor of your choice" ...another lie. SCTOUS did not endorse Obama Care as being "constitutional" as written....it had to be re-calibrated as a TAX. Which is in and by itself "unconstitutional" as Congress is the only government body that is authorized to "levy a tax"......but that never stopped Judge Roberts from re-drafting the legislation from the bench void of any type of representation from THE PEOPLE. www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy

The real problem stemming from this act is not a Conservative approach of treating the symptoms of a cancerous disease as they attempt to cover up the cancer with a bandaid and say, "there...fixed it for ya"....the disease that is hurting this nation more than anything is a radical and runaway Judicial Branch of Government that self professes to be superior to the other branches of government...this type of progressive mentality has resulted in a nation that is run by an "Oligarchy" instead of being run by the actual owners of this free nation THE PEOPLE.

The worse that can happen with the end of Obama Care is a return to the status quo pre OBAMA.....then perhaps some real effort from both sides of the isle can actually place the voice of the people 1st....instead of allowing a hand picked and very political group of un-elected and non-representative civil servants continue to draft new law from the bench THE PEOPLE are watching....we shall see.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
The "individual" mandate was truly the only objection to the act......who cares what type of healthcare bill is passed in congress as long the bill is formatted for those who voluntarily want and need the coverage and the act is written within the boundaries of the US Constitution? The way that Obama Care was presented is nothing short of a method to redistribute earned income. At first it was stated that it was "not a tax" which was another blatant lie much like the "you can keep your insurance and doctor of your choice" ...another lie. SCTOUS did not endorse Obama Care as being "constitutional" as written....it had to be re-calibrated as a TAX. Which is in and by itself "unconstitutional" as Congress is the body that is authorized to "levy a tax"......but that never stopped Judge Roberts from re-drafting the legislation from the bench void of any type of representation from THE PEOPLE. www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy

The worse that can happen with the end of Obama Care is a return to the status quo pre OBAMA.....then perhaps some real effort from both sides of the isle can actually place the voice of the people 1st. THE PEOPLE are watching....we shall see.
Click to expand...

This would be the same mandate proposed by Heritage?
 
Ralph said:
The "individual" mandate was truly the only objection to the act......who cares what type of healthcare bill is passed in congress as long the bill is formatted for those who voluntarily want and need the coverage and the act is written within the boundaries of the US Constitution? The way that Obama Care was presented is nothing short of a method to redistribute earned income. At first it was stated that it was "not a tax" which was another blatant lie much like the "you can keep your insurance and doctor of your choice" ...another lie. SCTOUS did not endorse Obama Care as being "constitutional" as written....it had to be re-calibrated as a TAX. Which is in and by itself "unconstitutional" as Congress is the only government body that is authorized to "levy a tax"......but that never stopped Judge Roberts from re-drafting the legislation from the bench void of any type of representation from THE PEOPLE. www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy

The worse that can happen with the end of Obama Care is a return to the status quo pre OBAMA.....then perhaps some real effort from both sides of the isle can actually place the voice of the people 1st. THE PEOPLE are watching....we shall see.
Click to expand...


"The worse that can happen"


Let's hear it for home skulin.....
 
Ralph said:
The "individual" mandate was truly the only objection to the act......who cares what type of healthcare bill is passed in congress as long the bill is formatted for those who voluntarily want and need the coverage and the act is written within the boundaries of the US Constitution. The way that Obama Care was presented is nothing short of a method to redistribute earned income. At first it was stated that it was "not a tax" which was another blatant lie much like the "you can keep your insurance and doctor of your choice lie.

The worse that can happen with the end of Obama Care is a return to the status quo pre OBAMA.....then perhaps some real effort from both sides of the isle can actually place the voice of the people 1st. THE PEOPLE are watching....we shall see.
Click to expand...

Thinly veiled justification for the kind of right-wing greed that puts money not only above human misery and suffering, but above the misery and suffering of their fellow countrymen, women and children.

And the dumbest part of the rights position is that, insurance or not, eventually sick people will need to seek treatment. But because they lack insurance due to the unGodly expense, they'll wait until their illness gets so bad they have no choice but to go to ER's where treatment cannot be refused, and where the now, much more expensive bill they cannot afford to pay, will be passed on to the taxpayer anyway.

Too bad right-wing hatred, resentment and greed is too shortsighted to grasp that.

But then again, I guess the logical extension of your position is to get the laws to where even ER's can refuse treatment based on ability to pay and poor sick people would be told to go somewhere and die.

That's what you really want isn't it, right wing scum?
 
Racist white men don't want to pay for pregnancy or women's issues, but we pay for their Viagra.....lets just cut their little dicks off so they won't need the Viagra.

They actually think they can pick and chose healthcare as if ordering off a menu.

They are the most vile and disgusting people on the planet.
 
blackvegetable said:
This would be the same mandate proposed by Heritage?
Click to expand...

Its simple....just prove the "messenger" is not presenting the facts...its not rocket science, its simply the method used by liberals in attacking the messenger of the truth delivered instead of addressing the documented and testable evidence presented. LIBERAL DEFLECTION 101.....Saul Alinsky style. :)


FYI: TRUTH does not choose sides...what's truth for me is just as true for you, if not it was never true in the 1st place, its was just a subjective opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion even if its untrue, that's what makes the 1st amendment so grand a freedom...even liars can speak freely and prove to everyone what fools they actually are. What? Simply because you hate anything conservative...does that make the evidence presented "untrue" without you even once presenting any retort of evidence to the contrary? LMAO

And no....the article presented was not found at the Heritage foundation even though the foundation would certainly endorse the article as truth instead of attempting to deflect and the foundation presents nothing that can't be documented by Government agencies, the documented facts were presented by the LINK provided.
 
Last edited:
53_197083.jpg
 
signalmankenneth said:
53_197083.jpg
Click to expand...

I love the why the communist democrats attempt to portray a person as a thief when they simply keep what they have "earned" and don't pay taxes in order to redistribute their "EARNED INCOME". FYI: Not paying a tax is not comparable to the government GIVING anything away....its comparable to stopping the government from "taking" personal income and giving it to others...i.e., communism. Look it up as Archie Bunker used to say. :)

Enlighten us...just who is the "thief"...the government and its political cronies who make, manufacture or earn nothing, or the people who actually earn the income for labor, service or products provided by voluntary choice in a free market system? Everything the government has or ever will have must first be taken/seized or coerced under threat of prison. Now who supports freedom and representative democracy...those who demand the government seize personal wealth and redistribute it....or those who support a system with a "fair tax" where "everyone" pays equally?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top