Friday, September 28, 2012

ObamaCare (PPACA) decision (finally posting)

(This post was stuck in the ether for months)

What a convoluted mess that decision was. Roberts ruled that in two ways the mandate was unconstitutional and a third that it could stand. The most insane part was that for the case to have standing, the mandate was ruled not a tax before ruling, then ruled a tax during the ruling. Huh?
So, for the case to have standing, the mandate is not a tax, but the mandate is a tax therefore the legislation is legal because congress can tax? Huh?
So now all congress has to do to get us (Americans) to do anything is to create a penalty collected by the IRS with our taxes. Getting too fat? Go to the gym or pay the penalty. Smoking? Stop or pay a penalty. Not eating enough (insert vegetable of the week), pay a penalty.
Some say that by ruling in this manner, Roberts limited the commerce clause. I call bullshit on that. He negated the commerce clause. The House and Senate can now ignore it by creating a penalty collected by the IRS, or, simply creating punitive taxes...which is illegal under Article I, Section 9. "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." 
The link in the above quote from the constitution is left intact to show that only income taxes are free from the rules set forth in Section 9. This tax, created by Roberts, will never be in proportion, there are too many exclusions and exceptions to the individual responsibility section of the PPACA.   Now, there is the little matter of failing to pay this tax resulting in no criminal penalties, a favorite of my friends on the left. That leaves the civil penalties wide open folks, meaning that fines and fines and fines will be heaped upon those who do not pay the mandate tax. 
Oh, and for those who are under the impression that this is a small tax, go read the text I linked above. The 'small penalty' bandied about by President Obama in his speeches is $695 PER MONTH, per taxpayer over 18. For those under 18 it is only $350 per month. So, a husband and wife with two teenagers who work (taxpayers) would be penalized $2085 per month for each month they don't carry the amount of private insurance that the government decides they must have.  
And that, right there, is the problem folks. What happens when the Republicans take the Presidency, the Senate and the House? All the leftie's out there claim we republicans are in the pockets of big business, including the insurance companies, so why wouldn't the government simply force a family of 4 to buy $2000 of insurance every month? Sure, right now, a family of 4 can get insurance for less than $1000, but if the idea is to make money for the insurnance companies (as the lefties say), then the Republicans are going to kill us all, right?
Nope...look at the money in 2008, more to R than to D, but it was close. Thie year, however, it is leaning R. I say because the insurance companies see the R's winning and they want this mandate to live, to fatten the coffers of the Insurance companies. 
Oh, and just for fun, President Obama received twice the money from Healthcare industries as did Senator McCain in 2008, and D's got more overall as well.

This whole thing is a mess, designed to put Americans on a so-called single payer system. That system is more unfair than that system we have now, it's just that it is more unfair to more people, which is why the democrats I know like it. 
This is all about punishing success, it always has been with the democrats.

Insanity and language

"The package will recoup 30 billion euros ($39 billion) for the public purse with a goal of narrowing the deficit to 3.0 percent of national output next year from 4.5 percent this year - France's toughest single belt-tightening in 30 years." 

The above is from this article: in which raising taxes to an incredibly insane percantage is considered belt tightening.

What? Oh, that's right, so they can 'recoup' 30 billion dollars.

Let's think about those two phrases. Recoup is "to regain something lost." for this to be the case one must start with the premise that all money belongs to the government, no matter what you do to earn it for your self. The work you do is simply done to borrow for a short time the money that the government someday might need to reclaim.

Secondly, belt tightening is defined by the free dictionary dot com ( as increased thrift and frugality, a reduction in spending.

Raising taxes is not reducing spending, and the money a citizen earns does not belong to the government to be recouped. The problem is, we allow our news media, our governments, to talk to us like this.

And we lose freedoms.

Every day.