Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[t_host1]

 The way I understand it, the latest point of order by the judge who ruled "unconstitutional", the entire act, the fed has 7 days to appeal his decision, if the fed does not, the 26 states who filed, are free from all requirements imposed by the new & improved health bill of 2010.

sovereigndeeds.com   
it's our move

[t_host1]

  God has forbidden the 26 filing states freedom. He filed an appeal, yesterday. As the VP said, ‘this is a big f**k’en deal… that is “Houston we got a problem”. In the end, the 2010 health-care law will collapse, freedom will never be buried. Article II, of the Sovereign Deeds Act is the only solution for the liberty of ones health here in the USA.

  Related RTR: as of 3.8.11, the governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe (D)  has in his possession an 8 page document from Washington, an Obama sign-off, Secretary Sebelius go, that he, Gov. Beebe subvert all constitutional legislative means and implement at once “episode of care” policies. The discussions live at the capital, Little Rock, with state Senators and Rep’s, completely blind sides there positions because the widow for legislative action, bills introduce, has just closed.  The just of “episode of care” is a fixed dollar amount for each prognosis. As always more questions of problems rather than resolve have arisen.   

aside ?  When Obama killed the horizon, who's, future did he win?

[t_host1]

 God has forbidden the 26 filing states freedom. He filed an appeal, yesterday. As the VP said, ‘this is a big f**k’en deal… that is “Houston we got a problem”. In the end, the 2010 health-care law will collapse, freedom will never be buried. Article II, of the Sovereign Deeds Act is the only solution for the liberty of ones health here in the USA.

  Related RTR: as of 3.8.11, the governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe (D)  has in his possession an 8 page document from Washington, an Obama sign-off, Secretary Sebelius go, that he, Gov. Beebe subvert all constitutional legislative means and implement at once “episode of care” policies. The discussions live at the capital, Little Rock, with state Senators and Rep’s, completely blind sides there positions because the widow for legislative action, bills introduce, has just closed.  The just of “episode of care” is a fixed dollar amount for each prognosis. As always more questions of problems rather than resolve have arisen.    

aside ?  When Obama killed the horizon, who's, future did he win?

Shouldn't you be concentrating on your defense in the Giffords shooting rather than posting online from your cell?

Thank you for the reminder, it has been bugging me for awhile... How come there is going to be a trial?! Where in the hell was the cover!!! Arizona is an open carry state! da** it!

Oh' and you're right, all prison budgets for computers & internet will be eliminated, at once..
thank you

[t_host1]

  God has forbidden the 26 filing states freedom. He filed an appeal, yesterday. As the VP said, ‘this is a big f**k’en deal… that is “Houston we got a problem”. In the end, the 2010 health-care law will collapse, freedom will never be buried. Article II, of the Sovereign Deeds Act is the only solution for the liberty of ones health here in the USA.

  Related RTR: as of 3.8.11, the governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe (D)  has in his possession an 8 page document from Washington, an Obama sign-off, Secretary Sebelius go, that he, Gov. Beebe subvert all constitutional legislative means and implement at once “episode of care” policies. The discussions live at the capital, Little Rock, with state Senators and Rep’s, completely blind sides there positions because the widow for legislative action, bills introduce, has just closed.  The just of “episode of care” is a fixed dollar amount for each prognosis. As always more questions of problems rather than resolve have arisen.   

aside ?  When Obama killed the horizon, who's, future did he win?

  I haven't heard if a check was included with the Obama/Sebelius directive but, if it did, does the gov. get to keep it with a nice try/pat on the back or does Obama want his money back?

 Ar. Leg. just could not find a place in the budget to implement.

so, for now, Arkansas survives health-care reform while

a couple use the

[t_host1]

Nope, the Supreme Court say's simply, 'you figure it out - we go'n on vacation'.

 It's actually a good thing that they do not fast track this. States that try to implement will find it compared to having sowed poizen oak.

 It's just my humble opinion, standing on the side of the street mining my own business, of coarse.

It's best that this issue be settled in the trenches of the budgets and the election.

[t_host1]

 According to Big Wing Radio the opponents to the Obamacare beat the WH in a filing procedure, meaning that, that there is a better chance of getting on this years docket. This spring I guess would be their hearing - this is the one with the 28 states winning the mandate as unconstitutional, however, said the balance of the law is OK. Then there's the severability issue.

 The tactic I soppose is for SCOTUS to decided this, I'd prefer the electorate decide this issue of who controls life and the maintenance of it. If the Dem's win another term and SCOTUS refuses to accept or upholds the mandate as constitutional, then the state(s) that refuse the Fed law and SCOTUS will be the growth state(s) where the resistant (legal and civil) will began, the new era in this here USA.

 Which state could or get prepared to be cutoff from the fed, have self sustaining energy and capital needs, political and military strength to capture what is now known as the US Constitution? If none, then submission to the dark side is the future, the completed reversal of the powers to the Obama Islamic-Marx doctrine.

 

[t_host1]

 If upheld, a counter measure I see developing. Like being required to be certified in the field of your expertise or licensed, bonded and insured in the various over the road, equipment use and legal type jobs, an individual seeking employment will be required prior to being employed, to be medically insured in order to fill their respective position. No different than some jobs requiring physicals or testing for substance abuse. 

[t_host1]

Barack Hussein Obama can now be officially named the emperor of all tax and spend governments of the world.
Bill Clinton and Jimmy cater gotta be just setting back and saying “man, this guy is good!”
Thumbs up to the Chief Justice, he kept intact the correct tools for the people.

[t_host1]

Beet is vindicated. The mandate is a tax!  Who knew?    Yes, it is not appealing to put something into a different box for a lawyer when the economics is exactly the same. In this case, Roberts stripped away the label to get to the substance. SOCTUS did however surprisingly toss out the Act's stick that states lose all their medicaid subsidies if they don't expand their programs, presumably because it was viewed as unduly coercive. That sounds rather fuzzy to me.  

Justice Roberts' majority opinion was not completely signed on to by any other justice. I wonder if that's kind of rare. Anyways, the fuzziness was what Roberts felt like doing.

..well, I find it oddly comforting that the sum of all wisdom and power comes down to the Chief Justice, taking the American people back to school, reminding them, the terms and definition of a 3 integer word, T A X.  


a_troll

[t_host1]

'Taxed to Death' just seems to have a more relative meaning today. go figure...

[t_host1]

'Taxed to Death' just seems to have a more relative meaning today. go figure...

Yeah, Americans are oppressed to death by taxes.  You should live in another country where even middle-class people pay far higher provincial and consumption taxes, and still live a decent life in exchange for the benefits they get in return, and see what you think then.

 Would that be the one that's debt free, open borders and they're own military defending that decent life? It can't be the one(s) that just where promised another bail out today.

[t_host1]

Would that be the one that's debt free, open borders and they're own military defending that decent life? It can't be the one(s) that just where promised another bail out today.

But now we're changing the subject and talking about spending decisions and how they're financed.  I'm talking about the oft-expressed political sentiment in America that, if there is any one thing that ruins our lives, it's taxes.  I certainly understand that upward adjustment of tax rates makes things harder for businesses.  But I've had family members run businesses and worked in one of them when I was younger, and of the ones that failed, taxes, even when they were much higher than they are now, really weren't the death blow, not even close to it.  I'm saying that, once one factors everything in, Americans pay far less in taxes than most other citizens do in a vast majority of industrialized countries.  But we also seem to complain more bitterly about taxes than almost anyone else.    

The reason why Americans’ paid fewer taxes was because it had a vast land of opportunity to create wealth that, to which, many more people paid taxes, at a much lower rate. An example, let’s say you and a bunch of your buddies’ decide to go out to the pub as a group, each puts up first $20 for all expenses, the drunk and fat one fulfill their wants at a much better price than ones that primarily are enjoying the company of friends.  Enter Obama Care [Affordable Care Act], which does seem to have a unique meaning for my above example, back to my point, the difference with Obama care is; first, he is an uninvited quest who is insisting on being paid first for managing how and what you drink and eat tonight. Secondly, you must provide sufficient proof you need not provide more than the $20. Thirdly, the most relevant provision of ObamaCare, is, you must provide him and his staff (IRS, GSA…) for life, expenses and pensions, so to keep and maintain your next gathering.
Anvi, as to your decent life; is that the one that is given and allowed or the one that is purposely pursued to fulfill or not?

[t_host1]

Good luck with the above anvi. It will be interesting to see how you respond. 

I haven't looked at this board for about a week and just saw the reply above.  So, Torie, are you daring me?    Well, I'll probably fail, but I can't just leave an emoticon like that stand there.

First, t_host1, if you agreed with your buddies that you would put up $20 for everyone's initial expenses, but when you got to the bar and decided not to drink yourself, would you ask for your money back just because your friends were doing the drinking?  If that's so, I don't think anyone else will have to have make up rules for your future drinking parties; you're buddies will stop asking you to come along pretty soon.
Secondly, is Obama really an uninvited guest who is insisting on managing your habits?  In 2008, he got almost 70 million invitations from your other drinking buddies do to administrative work. If you and they want to un-invite him in November, that's totally fine.  But if someone hired you and then told you you weren't ever hired in the first place, I'd say it was the guy doing the hiring that was being unfair.
As far as the last part of your analogy with paying Obama's pension, looks to me like that's done when you go to bar too!  Maybe go to a volunteer bar, if you can find one.
I'm not sure what you're asking with your last question.  If it's a question about me, then...I got the gift of life from my parents.  And no matter how hard I work and purposely pursue happiness through my own efforts, I've always needed help from others.  If you're experience is different, then I'll wait to read your autobiography, because that would be quite unique.  If you're talking about debt-burdened countries instead, well, the U.S. is hardly in a position to point fingers.  The fact that we put so little in is related to how much we seek from others.

Anvi, I was not required (mandated) to go to the pub or pay the $20. And, it’s not initial, expectations are known to be limited and fixed-(a separate and detailed discussion). Your point to ones character among friends and foe; we, are different.  I may be out numbered by those that want to aggrandize my health and aspirations for its constitutional order has diseased. Submission will always be resisted; it is the only medicine that works every time.