Author Topic: Affordable Care Act  (Read 1864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim Nunziato

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 182
  • Gender: Male
Affordable Care Act
« on: February 11, 2014, 11:17:39 AM »

I was wondering if anyone has tried to actually READ the "Affordable  ???  Care Act."

Well, if you'd like to give it a whirl, I wish you luck.

Here is a link to the certified Full Text Version, and here is a link to the certified full text version to its reconciliation.  Love or loathe it, it is now the law of the land.

So, my question is, if this is now the law of the land, and in this country, we're all covered equally under the laws, why are there so many exemptions from it and so many subsidies to people so they can abide by it?  If this law is so great, why are the very people who implemented it, exempt from it?  The executive branch of our Federal Government is charged with executing the laws. Why is the executive branch making so many changes to it without involving the legislative branch?

Oh, I'm sorry... That's three questions...
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."  Thomas Jefferson

If Hillary was the answer, then it must have been a really stupid question!

Offline Jim Nunziato

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 182
  • Gender: Male
Re: Affordable Care Act
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2016, 06:01:08 PM »
Donald Trump is now "President Elect" Donald Trump. I have to admit, it was a pleasant surprise to me. As much as I wanted it, I never thought it would ever happen. Prayer does work.

This thread is about the "Affordable" Care Act, or more commonly known as "obamacare." One of Trump's major campaign promises was to repeal and replace it as soon as he took office. I am already hearing great pressure from the left, and even a bit from the right, to just "modify" it. I say, "NO!!!"

Every word of it must be repealed, and here's why.

1. It's unconstitutional. Period. I know there are those who will claim that it has already been challenged, and the Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional. Well, not exactly. The Supreme Court ruled that under the "commerce clause," it is unconstitutional, because the Federal Government cannot create commerce, it can only control that which already exists. Forcing someone to purchase something they may not wish to purchase creates commerce, and that is unconstitutional. The Federal Government has no authority to force anyone to purchase anything, period.

2. It is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court had no authority to change the word "penalty" in the law to "tax." They ruled that since Congress, (specifically the House of Representatives) does have the power to "lay and collect taxes," if the "penalty" was changed to a "tax," then the law would be "constitutional."  Will someone please show me where in the Constitution, the Supreme Court is granted the authority to change the wording of any law upon which a case is being argued before them? We have a Legislative branch of our Federal Government which writes bills, which the Executive Branch then signs into law. It was totally unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to CHANGE the wording of the law so the penalty became a tax. And once more, can someone please show me in the Constitution where the Federal Government can tax you for NOT purchasing something? ANYTHING??? 

Here is an excerpt from the certified reconciliation text which was signed into law.
PUBLIC LAW 111–152—MAR. 30, 2010 124 STAT. 1067

          ‘‘(i) the amount of the covered entity’s fee under this section for the calendar year the Secretary determines should have been paid in the absence of any such understatement, over ‘‘(ii) the amount of such fee the Secretary determined based on such understatement.

          ‘‘(B) UNDERSTATEMENT.—For purposes of this paragraph, an understatement of a covered entity’s net premiums written with respect to health insurance for any United States health risk for any calendar year is the difference between the amount of such net premiums written as reported on the return filed by the covered entity under paragraph (1) and the amount of such net premiums written that should have been reported on such return.

          ‘‘(C) TREATMENT OF PENALTY.—The penalty imposed under subparagraph (A) shall be subject to the provisions of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that apply to assessable penalties imposed under chapter 68 of such Code.

Notice that the bill, as it was written, reconciled by both chambers of Congress, and signed into LAW, it was a PENALTY!

3. It is unconstitutional because we have a Legislative Branch which WRITES bills, which the Executive Branch then signs into law. The Legislative Branch writes the laws, and the Executive makes sure they are enforced. The Executive branch is not supposed to WRITE laws. The "Affordable" Care Act was (unconstitutionally) written in such a way that the Executive Branch makes up or writes the law as it goes along, and as it sees fit.  How? Through the creation of a "Secretary." And who appoints, and to whom does this "Secretary" report? Why, the head of the Executive branch.

Look in either or both the original certified text, and / or in the certified reconciliation text in the links above, (and in the highlighted excerpt above) and tell me how many times you find references to the "Secretary":

          ...(as defined by the Secretary)...
          ...specified by the Secretary...
          ...until the Secretary implements...
          ...If the Secretary determines...
          ...and such other terms as the Secretary determines...
          ...the Secretary may develop and impose appropriate penalties for non-compliance with such requirements.

        (Whoa! There's that PENALTY!)
         ...the Secretary may provide for exceptions...
         ...such percentage shall be adjusted to the extent the Secretary determines...


Have I made my point? Who is this Secretary? Does anyone know?

Is anyone aware that the "Affordable" Care Act also took over regulation of Student loans? It's right there in the table of contents:
          Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds.
Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to take control of Student loans?

So, these are only a few reasons why every word of the ACA must be repealed and replaced with more sensible health care laws. Before obamacare, we had the best health care in the world. Was it perfect? No. Did it need some tweaking and a few adjustments? Absolutely. But we didn't need to scrap the entire system and replace it with the abomination we have. Which, by the way, was forced upon us without one single republican vote in Congress. This is completely the work of the democrats.

So, what do we replace it with? I've already heard the fear stories from the left that we will go back to being enslaved by unregulated insurance companies, and preexisting condition exclusions or unaffordable premiums. I'm not a legislator, but with just a teeny smidgen of common sense, I think a law could be written which would establish that health care would be a personal contract between an individual and his insurance provider. No government involvement is needed, except to establish the "playing field." All insurance companies would be able and encouraged to operate across state lines, and individuals would be free to search out the best deal from any insurance company. Competition would be the drive the prices, and individuals would be able to negotiate whatever deals they can. Since it would be a private contract with the insurance company, it would not matter where you worked or lived, and you would be free to take your health care with you wherever you moved or worked. As a bargaining chip, your employer may elect to pay your premiums as a benefit of employment. If you have a preexisting condition, or develop a serious condition, no insurance company would be able to gouge you with unaffordable premiums, deny (drop) coverage to you, or raise your deductible to unreasonable limits, but like auto insurance companies, if you become an unsafe driver, they should be allowed to put you into a "higher risk" category, and charge you a SLIGHTLY higher premium. They would NOT be able to gouge with unreasonable premiums, or keep raising premiums on a time schedule. If you have good health, you should have lower premiums. No one would be forced to purchase health care insurance if they didn't want it. That's a gamble you take, and if you choose to not purchase health care insurance, and some day you need it, you're on your own. You rolled the dice, and you take full responsibility for your own actions (or NON-actions). If you were poor and couldn't afford it, but needed it, well, that would have to be worked out. But, like I said, I'm not a legislator, and these are just a few of my ideas. I believe that with a little common sense, things can be worked out that will benefit all, with the least amount of government control and intervention.

If you are a veteran and need to see a doctor, if you can't get taken care of by the VA, you should be able to go to any doctor, and send the bill to the government. Our vets deserve no less.

So, these are a few of my thoughts on repealing obamacare. There are a lot of hidden nuggets that were "baked into the cake," which we don't even know about, but they are still the law. That's why I feel that EVERY WORD of it must be repealed.

 
   
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."  Thomas Jefferson

If Hillary was the answer, then it must have been a really stupid question!