Government by deception

[Snaquebite]

Ever heard of a federal law 42 USC § 18115: Freedom Not to Participate in

Federal Health Insurance Programs?
I haven’t either.
But thanks to FOTM reader Joseph, now we all do!

This is how Cornell University Law School’s website describes 42 USC § 18115:


No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act(or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

More:
http://dcclothesline.com/2014/01/09/...can-penalized/

[ChuckG]

I believe that has been called the self-insurance loophole.

[Paslode]

That is an interesting loophole.

[Trapper John]

Very interesting in deed! If I understand this correctly, any person exercising their right to not purchase health care coverage would be put into a different tax category and subject to additional tax. And as Justice Roberts said in the majority opinion of the USSC - the ACA is a tax. Looks pretty clear to me.

So, if the ACA is a tax my question is - Didn't the ACA arise as a bill from the Senate? Doesn't the US Constitution stipulate that all taxes must arise from the House of Representatives (Origination Clause: Article 1, Section 7)? Ergo the ACA is unconstitutional.

Anyone know the status of any lawsuits alleging the unconstitutionality of the ACA as a tax arising in violation of the Origination Clause?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

.....So, if the ACA is a tax my question is - Didn't the ACA arise as a bill from the Senate?....

Tricky Dems. The Senate took a Bill from the House, stripped everything out, inserted the ACA and sent it back to the House where Nancy and the House passed it.

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by Pete

Tricky Dems. The Senate took a Bill from the House, stripped everything out, inserted the ACA and sent it back to the House where Nancy and the House passed it ...

.... Just to see what was in it.


Thanks for posting this Snaquebite. As an ACA/Insurance criminal, I'll be needing as much "ammo" as possible against this Bovine Scatology being pushed down my/our throats.
.

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by Pete

Tricky Dems. The Senate took a Bill from the House, stripped everything out, inserted the ACA and sent it back to the House where Nancy and the House passed it.

Yep, and what they replaced should really piss off a bunch of people as well.

On Dec. 24, 2009 the Senate approved similar health care reform legislation called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590), in a 60-39 party-line vote. HR 3590 began as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, a bill passed by the House on Oct. 8 that modified the homebuyers credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. In a procedural move, the Senate co-opted HR 3590, removed all existing language, and replaced it with the language of their health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. No Republican Senator voted for the bill. Some Republicans argued that the bill was unconstitutional, socialistic, too costly, and would increase health insurance costs for those who are already insured. This bill was estimated to cost $871 billion over 10 years, would require most Americans to have health insurance, and would extend coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans. The CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 2010-2019.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=003712

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Pete

Tricky Dems. The Senate took a Bill from the House, stripped everything out, inserted the ACA and sent it back to the House where Nancy and the House passed it.

Thanks for that clarification, Pete. Certainly makes the legal argument for unconstitutionality under the Origination Clause more difficult if not impossible.

So if the constitutionality issue is not a viable legal theory to challenge ACA what about a civil rights or proportionality of taxation legal theory? Obama has selectively exempted members of Congress and their staffs from compliance with ACA. Does this not raise a potential discrimination issue under the Civil Rights Act? I also have a recollection rattling around in the ol' noggin about unequal apportionment of tax. I seem to recall that the apportionment of tax issue was decided years ago and this may fit.

Any of you legal guys have a thought on this?

[pcfixer]

The reason for the deception.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/david-james/...ically-radical

“I said Friday, Obama is threatened by the industrious, independent, and successful. He said as much on Saturday. Because they demonstrate what is actually possible under current societal conditions. Achievement, happiness, fulfillment, which contradicts everything he says, everything he stands for, and endangers his utopian religion.

“This is an assault not only on our heritage, by on the entirety of Western civilization. The emancipation of the individual was the great spiritual revolution that led to the breakdown of tribalism and the rise of democracy, as Karl Popper put it.
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/blog/david-james/....UZKgkZLU.dpuf