active 1 day, 1 hour ago
-
Howard Rosenstein posted an update in the group National News 5 months, 3 weeks ago
Something is really bothering me about the Supreme Court decision that Obama Care is a tax rather than a penalty. I may be real stupid and I’m going to try to use logic and reason to sort this out. It seems to me the words tax and penalty are interchangeable and the Supreme court never addressed whether the Federal Government can force any individual in the United States to purchase anything including health insurance. It appears that they ruled ruled the penalty for not purchasing Health Insurance was the IRS withholding any tax return a citizen may be entitled to or garnishing wages. Does everybody understand so far? The Supremes never, ever, never, told anyone if the Federal Government can compel a citizen to buy anything they deemed necessary to purchase.
For the sake of my argument, I first have a question. Is the penalty for refusing to purchase health care confiscated taxes? Secondly, Since those that purchase the health insurance are not penalized, taxes have nothing to do with the law. Is that correct or am I wrong? The taxes are similar to the symptoms of a disease. To make my point, let’s say the Government forces you to purchase the Bubonic Plague which is the disease itself. If you don’t purchase the disease, the government will expose you to the Plague and your penalty will be a very high deadly fever (the tax penalty). I say the law is not tax at all. Rather the punishment is the tax, and the question remains. Could the government force you to buy something? Please, don’t use the stupid comparison to car insurance. You could always take a cab or take a bus.
Am I missing something? Did the Supreme Court address only the penalty (symptoms of the disease)? I am really convinced that the High Court never considered the Constitutionality of citizens being compelled to purchase a product or service. This is the real controversy in this debacle, not the penalties that arise from the law. If I am wrong, will one of the TTP members straighten me out? However, if I am correct, are there any influential attorneys within our TTP forces to take this on?
Thank you Mr. Sickler. It still sickens me. Our Founders are probably spinning in their graves right now. There are so many amendents needed to our Constitution to address the modern political hack. I don;t suggest changing the document, just enhancing it to actually trimming Federal Government to a much smaller size as our constitution mandates. One place to start is the commerce clause to define it as an absolute and prevent it’s misuse. Another one of my goals is to repeal the XXVII amendment allowing teenagers to vote. These empty headed kids are given the right to lead us into destruction. I don’t think so. I have been told that a Constitutional Convention would be a free for all and cause more harm than good. Didn’t we have only one in the 1700’s? How could people assume it would be bad if it occurred only once in the 18th century I say, ”LET’S GET IT ON” and ”GET READY TO RUMBLE”!