Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
No, I am NOT making that up!
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.
Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had never been confronted directly with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.
Theyre in the business, Sutton pushed back. Theyre told if youre going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, We now exit the business. Individuals dont have that option.
Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.
If were going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income, Kaytal said. So its a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. Its not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesnt need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at
Sutton interjected, That wasnt in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you dont like it is make a little less money.
The so-called hardship exemption in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.
Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.
Sutton said it would it be hard to see this limit in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word regulate in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. You dont put them in the market to regulate them, he said.
You HAVE to read this entire thing. It's scary as hell what these bastards intend for us:
Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money | Philip Klein | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
In that one statement "earn less money" was revealed the true intent of Obamacare, WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.
Obama wants to make as many people as possible poor and dependent on government for their very survival.
We have GOT to get these people out of office before they make it impossible to live any other way than under their socialist agenda.
This has got to be put to a stop.
I await the usual paid liberal stooges, who are hear to do nothing else but disrupt real debate, tell me Kaytal didn't say what he said.
This is nothing new. If you got a bad gall bladder ten years ago and did not feel like paying for it the trick was to earn less money and hide your assests.
I at least know one broke non working person who got their gall bladder removal paid for by you socialist tax payers who support the old system. At least if the new system was in place when the gal had a decent job she would have paid SOMETHING into some health insurance pool.
Oh well. We can go back to the free loader socialist Eisenhower era system if you prefer. Or let hospitals throw out folks who cant pay. Or make health nsurance mandatory. I dont see too many other choices.
And that is true. You don't have to drive. I await the explanation as to how one avoids being born.
As an American, we have the right to 'pursue happiness', and if that means monetary wealth, that is our right. No one has the right to penalize someone for earning money. Fucking socialists and their obsessional and irrational hatred of other people's money is embarrassing for decent Americans.
And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.
HeLLOOOOOOOOOOO! We are also FREE TO STOP SOCIALISM FROM RUINING THIS COUNTRY!
"Free to live in a society that supports one another."
How about free to stop SUCH WEALTH DISTRIBUTION.
Oh like now we have no choice? We live in "Obama's America" or we get out?
Guess again, Totalitarianist!
And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.
Life: the right to live.
Liberty: the right to live freely.
Pursuit of happiness: As defined by each individual.
Absolutely nowhere in the Constitution does it tell me that I have to support other people. Nowhere. Nada. Zip. Not one fucking word.
I choose to support others. I do not have to be forced. You are an irrational human being.... and irrationality makes you stupid.
Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.
You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.
And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. .
If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.
Life: the right to live.
Liberty: the right to live freely.
Pursuit of happiness: As defined by each individual.
Absolutely nowhere in the Constitution does it tell me that I have to support other people. Nowhere. Nada. Zip. Not one fucking word.
I choose to support others. I do not have to be forced. You are an irrational human being.... and irrationality makes you stupid.
Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.
You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.
There is nothing in the Constitution barring nuclear weapons, you moron.
And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. .
Contary to libturd belief, that doesn't mean moochers and tics are entitled to be supported by the taxpayers.
If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.
In other words, pay the extortion money to the moochers or get the hell out.
I just love the liberal turd conception of freedom.
How about if the moochers get the hell out?
Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.
You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.
There is nothing in the Constitution barring nuclear weapons, you moron.
The rest of your post is just as ridiculous, but I'll stick with this statement. You're right, there is nothing in the constitution barring nuclear weapons, just like there is nothing barring a health insurance mandate. Thanks for proving my point. How hypocritical can you be?
And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. .
Contary to libturd belief, that doesn't mean moochers and tics are entitled to be supported by the taxpayers.
If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.
In other words, pay the extortion money to the moochers or get the hell out.
I just love the liberal turd conception of freedom.
How about if the moochers get the hell out?
Hate moochers ya say? Then you should support the mandate. Require those "moochers" to finally pay something.
If you hate the concept of living in a civilized society and couldn't care less about your fellow Americans, you're free to leave. That's what makes this country great, no one is forcing you to stay.
There is nothing in the Constitution barring nuclear weapons, you moron.
The rest of your post is just as ridiculous, but I'll stick with this statement. You're right, there is nothing in the constitution barring nuclear weapons, just like there is nothing barring a health insurance mandate. Thanks for proving my point. How hypocritical can you be?
NICE TRY, BUT THE CONSTITUTION ALSO DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THE RIGHT TO MANDATE WE BUY INSURANCE!
The Constitutioon DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THAT POWER.
It's not that the Constitution is mum on the subject, IT DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THAT POWER.
Not even close, nitwit!
Contary to libturd belief, that doesn't mean moochers and tics are entitled to be supported by the taxpayers.
In other words, pay the extortion money to the moochers or get the hell out.
I just love the liberal turd conception of freedom.
How about if the moochers get the hell out?
Hate moochers ya say? Then you should support the mandate. Require those "moochers" to finally pay something.
If you hate the concept of living in a civilized society and couldn't care less about your fellow Americans, you're free to leave. That's what makes this country great, no one is forcing you to stay.
The mandate does not exercise personal responsibility. It is wealth distribution.
NOT EVEN CLOSE. It is NOT the same thing.
Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.
You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.
There is nothing in the Constitution barring nuclear weapons, you moron.
The rest of your post is just as ridiculous, but I'll stick with this statement. You're right, there is nothing in the constitution barring nuclear weapons, just like there is nothing barring a health insurance mandate. Thanks for proving my point. How hypocritical can you be?
There is nothing in the Constitution barring nuclear weapons, you moron.
The rest of your post is just as ridiculous, but I'll stick with this statement. You're right, there is nothing in the constitution barring nuclear weapons, just like there is nothing barring a health insurance mandate. Thanks for proving my point. How hypocritical can you be?
Any powers not given to congress by the constitution are given to the state. Congress has no authority to mandate health insurance, but states do.
And before pursuing happiness, there is that word Life that you conveniently skipped over. If you don't want to live in a society that supports one another, you're free to live in another country that better suits your needs. Your hatred for your fellow Americans is quite sad.
Life: the right to live.
Liberty: the right to live freely.
Pursuit of happiness: As defined by each individual.
Absolutely nowhere in the Constitution does it tell me that I have to support other people. Nowhere. Nada. Zip. Not one fucking word.
I choose to support others. I do not have to be forced. You are an irrational human being.... and irrationality makes you stupid.
Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.
You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.
The rest of your post is just as ridiculous, but I'll stick with this statement. You're right, there is nothing in the constitution barring nuclear weapons, just like there is nothing barring a health insurance mandate. Thanks for proving my point. How hypocritical can you be?
NICE TRY, BUT THE CONSTITUTION ALSO DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THE RIGHT TO MANDATE WE BUY INSURANCE!
The Constitutioon DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THAT POWER.
It's not that the Constitution is mum on the subject, IT DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THAT POWER.
Not even close, nitwit!
I'm using your "logic". You said the constitution doesn't bar Nuclear weapons. So, where does the constitution bar health insurance mandates?
Life: the right to live.
Liberty: the right to live freely.
Pursuit of happiness: As defined by each individual.
Absolutely nowhere in the Constitution does it tell me that I have to support other people. Nowhere. Nada. Zip. Not one fucking word.
I choose to support others. I do not have to be forced. You are an irrational human being.... and irrationality makes you stupid.
Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.
You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.
I'm for the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it state that the Government can force anyone to buy anything. If they choose not to buy insurance, that's their decision. Let them accept the consequences.
Every country in the world that has a 'single payer' system is collapsing under the weight of it. That's true. Research it. And by research, I mean you need to actually research, not google it and link to an MSNBC article.
Learn to think critically instead of accepting one side as fact and the other as bullshit.
Hate moochers ya say? Then you should support the mandate. Require those "moochers" to finally pay something.
If you hate the concept of living in a civilized society and couldn't care less about your fellow Americans, you're free to leave. That's what makes this country great, no one is forcing you to stay.
The mandate does not exercise personal responsibility. It is wealth distribution.
NOT EVEN CLOSE. It is NOT the same thing.
I get it now, you don't have insurance and are now upset that you will finally have to actually pay for your own healthcare.
NICE TRY, BUT THE CONSTITUTION ALSO DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THE RIGHT TO MANDATE WE BUY INSURANCE!
The Constitutioon DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THAT POWER.
It's not that the Constitution is mum on the subject, IT DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS THAT POWER.
Not even close, nitwit!
I'm using your "logic". You said the constitution doesn't bar Nuclear weapons. So, where does the constitution bar health insurance mandates?
No sorry, not even close.
The Powers given to Congress are not in the same part of the Constitution as the Military authority given the President.
That's not my logic, that's your non-logic.
The fact of the matter is, Congress has no such authority to mandate we buy ANYTHING, let alone health insurance, in the Constutiton.
Keep trying.
The rest of your post is just as ridiculous, but I'll stick with this statement. You're right, there is nothing in the constitution barring nuclear weapons, just like there is nothing barring a health insurance mandate. Thanks for proving my point. How hypocritical can you be?
Any powers not given to congress by the constitution are given to the state. Congress has no authority to mandate health insurance, but states do.
So states are allowed to have nuclear weapons?
The mandate does not exercise personal responsibility. It is wealth distribution.
NOT EVEN CLOSE. It is NOT the same thing.
I get it now, you don't have insurance and are now upset that you will finally have to actually pay for your own healthcare.
BWAHAHAHAAA!
This is what liberals do when they are losing.
They make up something about you and try to put you on the defensive.
The only thing we should be "getting" from the above is that you know you are losing, so you are pulling out that lame tactic.
Here we go again. You're obviously a "it must explicitly stated it in the constitution" person. Ok, then I assume you are against all nuclear weapons and the air force.
You can call me all the names you want, I know it's what you do. But do you ever step back and think that you're arguing against your own self interests by being against a mandate. If you truly are against freeloaders, you would be in favor of people being required to pay for insurance. But no, you're going to pretend like some sort of freedom is being taken away when in reality you're already paying for other peoples healthcare and you have no say in the matter. THAT would either be extreme short-sightedness or blatant ignorance, I'll let you pick.
I'm for the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it state that the Government can force anyone to buy anything. If they choose not to buy insurance, that's their decision. Let them accept the consequences.
Every country in the world that has a 'single payer' system is collapsing under the weight of it. That's true. Research it. And by research, I mean you need to actually research, not google it and link to an MSNBC article.
Learn to think critically instead of accepting one side as fact and the other as bullshit.
Just like nowhere in the document does it state we should be using nuclear weapons or an air force. Funny how you skipped over that part.
When people don't purchase insurance it's not them that suffers the consequences, it's the rest of us who pay higher rates to cover their care. Are you ignorant to that fact? Or are you of the opinion that if you can't afford care, you shouldn't receive it?
Learn to live in todays world.
