Skip to comments.Court rejects Obamacare challenge by Christian college
Posted on 07/11/2013 2:21:50 PM PDT by Perdogg
A U.S. appeals court on Thursday rejected a Christian university's challenge to President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul, which the school said unconstitutionally imposes costly burdens on large employers and infringes religious liberty.
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.reuters.com ...
But Muslims can opt out no prob, right?
I think that the answer for faith-based organizations is to give up health care entirely and pay the penalties. As I understand it, the penalties are $2000 per employee, which is dramatically less than what employers are paying for insurance now. My former employer in 2011 was paying $10,500 and I was paying $2,500, which I thought was ridiculous. (It’s the fact that some people have “insurance” that makes medicine expensive. Not he fact that some people don’t have it.)
“Supremes”. Sure. Supreme Idiots.
That is what everyone is forgetting when they talk about the high costs run up by ObamaCare. You nailed it. The employers and every single citizen can ignore getting insurance and simply pay penalties.
In terms of their health care, it doesn’t matter because they’re still covered by the government health care plan. Their penalty is their payment.
Right now it’s much smaller than the cost of a policy, but only to the individual/employer. The nation will get gob-smacked with a huge, huge expense that is only now being admitted to by the power elite.
Excellent post, GB!
Actually, they can't.
They should not pay the penalty either, otherwise they are essentially paying a tax in order to exercise their religious freedom.
An unjust law is no law at all. Disobey it.
The Extreme Court will probably uphold it.
“An unjust law is no law at all. Disobey it.”
It’s not realistic or practical to simply disobey the law. The IRS can come down like the hammer of God and seize your assets and put you out of business. That is what they really want to do. We must obey the law until we elect conservatives who will change the law.
Yes, our Framers included "rational basis," the "heads the government wins, tails you lose" clause in the constitution.
That damnable excuse for despotism emanates directly from the laughable 1942 Wickard v. Filburn Scotus decision.
In turn, Wickard flows from the popular election of senators. The 17th Amendment must go.
I don’t trust SCOTUS to uphold the First Amendment...
We have to change the politicians in charge....starting in 2014, and then in 2016.
If thousands of Christian institutions and business owners across the country disobeyed it, that puts the regime in a completely untenable position. Arresting owners or putting these institutions out of business en masse is not something they want to be doing. Correction: they want to do it, but they won’t because of the public reaction to it.
In generations past, tax collecting was a hazardous occupation. Today, some pink skinned toad in an IRS basement can f*ck you and your family without fear.
As for elections, like Venezuela, we will always conduct them to confirm our oppressors.
“If thousands of Christian institutions and business owners across the country disobeyed it, that puts the regime in a completely untenable position. Arresting owners or putting these institutions out of business en masse is not something they want to be doing. Correction: they want to do it, but they wont because of the public reaction to it.”
I worked for Honeywell. The GAO sent in an auditing team which spent a year and found nothing. The GAO was embarrassed. So, they trumped something up and threatened to send a VP to prison. (I was friends with the VP’s son.) They literally extorted several hundred thousand dollars out of Honeywell. But the negotiations took almost a year. The VP was harassed and very uncomfortable.
The government is the Mafia only legal. They can and they will freeze thousands of bank accounts. They really don’t care what anybody thinks. It would ruin all of those businesses all at once. What you’re suggesting simply won’t work. I understand that you think people won’t stand for it. But other than their occasional vote, “people” don’t have any standing in this issue.
Section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a religious exemption only for people who are covered by Internal Revenue Code section 1402(g)(1). That section, in turn, creates an exemption to paying Social Security taxes for certain narrowly-defined religious communities. The only religious communities that have ever won exemptions from paying Social Security Taxes under section 1402(g)(1) are the Old-Order Amish and the Mennonites; no Molsem has ever won exemption from Social Security taxes under that section.
I’ve wondered about that, because it is a “tax”, not a penalty, as ruled by the Supreme Court.
So, if the college is tax-exempt, would they have to pay the tax for not having health insurance coverage? I wonder if they wrote the law appropriately to cover that?
But this administration would simply NOT enforce the law against most of them, and then pick one high-profile case, and go after THAT one. And when they were done, they’d pick ANOTHER high-profile case.
All the rest would have to fall in line for fear of being singled out eventually.
It is the power of the dictator, to selectively enforce the laws.
“So, if the college is tax-exempt, would they have to pay the tax for not having health insurance coverage? I wonder if they wrote the law appropriately to cover that?”
I suspect that the organization is tax exempt on the income it makes. But they are not exempt from other, non-income taxes.
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.