Posted on 01/26/2017 11:21:45 AM PST by maddog55
Within four hours of becoming president of the United States, Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to limit immediately the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) in ways that are revolutionary.
With the stroke of a pen, the president assaulted the heart of the law that was the domestic centerpiece of his predecessor’s administration. How did this happen? How can a U.S. president, who took an oath to enforce the laws faithfully, gut one of them merely because he disagrees with it?
Here is the back story.
When ObamaCare went through Congress in 2010, all Democrats in Congress supported it and all congressional Republicans were opposed. The crux of their disagreement was the law’s command that everyone in the United States obtain and maintain health insurance -- a command that has come to be known as “the individual mandate.”
Republicans argued that Congress was without the authority to compel people to enter the marketplace by purchasing a product -- that such decisions should be freely made by individuals and that that freedom was protected from governmental interference by the Constitution. Democrats argued that the commerce clause of the Constitution, which permits Congress to regulate commerce among the states, also permits it to compel commercial activity on the part of individuals who make up a highly regulated component of interstate commerce.
To ensure compliance with the individual mandate, the law provided that the IRS would collect the fair market value of a bare-bones insurance policy from those who did not obtain and maintain one. The government would then take that money and purchase a health insurance policy for that individual who rejected the law’s command.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
PING!
Which is unconstitutional, no matter what any court claims.
We need to slash the IRS’s budget. Then they won’t have the resources to enforce the mandate or to harass Tea Party groups.
Feminism.
We need to eliminate the IRS entirely, along with its enabling amendment.
In a few interviews with our local 550am radio host here in Cincy, the Judge has said a few things I disagree with and at times, seems like a never Trumper...he gets squishy on conservatism sometimes.
“The government would then take that money and purchase a health insurance policy for that individual who rejected the law’s command.”
Right, that was from some alternate reality as I have never heard or seen such a thing to have occurred.
Maybe Trump has studied the Nixon history and won’t repeat those same foolish mistakes made by such an otherwise intelligent man.
They capitalize the interest by buying the property, adding a markup and on-selling it to the borrower with an installment plan.
The markup just happens to be based on the duration of the loan, the reliability of the borrower, the type of asset, etc, but they do some word play to pretend that it’s not interest but a market price based on the different market value of money received now versus in 10 years (i.e. interest). Typical time-wasting scheme to evade backwards religious restrictions.
Hahaha, right?
They thought they were gonna get some low energy Jeb Bush candidate that would take the high road and work with them at worst.
At best they thought that they would get Clinton and weaponize government even further.
Then Donald John Trump comes along with a wrecking ball with the keys to all those nice shiny weapons that Obama set the precedent by using.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I’d be pissed too.
Our founding principles, if they mean anything, came into being so that the God-given rights of individual citizens would be protected. Individual freedom is the single most important building block upon which our nation stands. We must not, we can't ever, lose sight of this.
How do you get them to loan you the money if you don’t have to pay any interest?
“To ensure compliance with the individual mandate, the law provided that the IRS would collect the fair market value of a bare-bones insurance policy from those who did not obtain and maintain one.”
Concerning repealing the nontax tax:
1. If Uncle Sam could purchase a bare-bones policy for anyone at, what was the penalty - $1500/yr?, then why has everyone been paying $1500 every two or three months to insurance companies for the same bare-bones policy?
2. What about those unemployed who were forced onto their state medical program under ‘income guidelines’ and then informed they would be personally liable for costs to the state (leins on estates)? Does that go away, also, and why aren’t those costs disclosed?
I can’t wait for Trump to dig deeper into Zerocare - or for the Attny General to dig deeper into what the states did with the ‘federal reimbursement’ money.
Amen Jim.
Amen
THAT is hilariously brilliant!
I agree with that. In the meantime, while that is being done, cripple it via the budget.
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.