USSC on ACA

I sincerely hope SCOTUS does not turn down Obama Health Care Bill.If this happens we are all in trouble.
 

Waiting for medical treatment can be painful, but waiting doesn't have to be- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ7uXX9K7Sk

Upheld.

Would love to see how Faux Noise is handling this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Upheld.

 

Would love to see how Faux Noise is handling this...

They are expressing surprise, obviously.  I am quite shocked at the outcome.  They decided the mandate stood under an argument (taxation) that Obama publicly rejected multiple times.  They then tried to argue that it was a tax in court.  Very disappointed.  

Pheww!

This will destroy the repubs and guarantee Obama is re-elected because Americans will now see all the substantial benefits for themselves. All the lying needs to end now. 

This is a terrible decision of course. I disagree it will "destroy repubs". In fact I actually see this helping them in this election year since it may get their base out stronger to take over Congress and repeal this stupid law.

Oh well. This kinda sucks...but ObamaCare supporters won't get that for several years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

They are expressing surprise, obviously.  I am quite shocked at the outcome.  They decided the mandate stood under an argument (taxation) that Obama publicly rejected multiple times.  They then tried to argue that it was a tax in court.  Very disappointed.  

Well Obama and his people are duplicitous, hypocritical liars. Their flip-flop approach is unsurprising. What is surprising is that the court was taken in by it apparently. Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor don't really surprise me here, but Roberts does. Their flip flop on not raising taxes should be laid bare during the coming election. So that's good.

One less bit of freedom in the US.

• 14.1 million: Children who received expanded coverage of preventive services, like well-child visits and flu shots, under the Affordable Care Act in 2011

• Up to 17 million: Children with pre-existing conditions who cannot be denied health insurance. Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could deny coverage to kids with medical conditions.

• Today, your insurance company has to justify any rate hike of 10 percent or more in front of a state or federal rate review program.

• 54 million Americans received expanded access to free preventive services, like checkups, vaccines, and cancer screenings.

• Over half of all insurance plans used to put lifetime limits on coverage. Now, 105 million Americans no longer have lifetime caps on their insurance policies.

• Working families are protected from losing their health care or being forced into bankruptcy when a family member gets sick or is in an accident. Families have the security of knowing their health insurance will be there when they need it most.

• Insurance companies are now required to justify rate hikes, and consumers have the ability to appeal to an independent third party when insurance companies refuse to cover services or care.

• Starting in 2014, all Americans will have access to affordable health insurance no matter their circumstances—whether they change jobs, lose their job, decide to start a business, or retire early. Purchasing private insurance in the new state-based health insurance exchanges could save middle-class families who can’t get employer-provided insurance thousands of dollars.

• Once fully implemented, the law will slow health care premium growth rates, adding another $2,000 to family savings by 2019.

• The law is expected to reduce the deficit by $127 billion from 2012 to 2021.

• ~ http://www.barackobama.com/record/on/health-care

Young adults are now eligible to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans as they enter the workforce, until they turn 26. Since the health care law passed, 2.5 million young adults—traditionally the group least likely to be insured—gained insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.

Oh good! Hands is giving us information from an unbiased and objective source.

This completely invalidates any arguments that a Romney presidency would ensure "conservative" justices are appointed to the Supreme Court if any vacancies arise.

The "conservative" Bush appointee Justice Roberts voted to uphold the mandate - and therefore expansion and growth of government.

From a libertarian perspective, the reasoning that it's not really a "mandate" but a "tax" makes it no more legitimate, as taxation is theft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Same difference 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

...Faux Noise...

This attempted insult of Fox News is amusing. Are you implying that the other news sources (e.g., CNN, MSNBC, et al) are real noise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

This completely invalidates any arguments that a Romney presidency would ensure "conservative" justices are appointed to the Supreme Court if any vacancies arise.

 

The "conservative" Bush appointee Justice Roberts voted to uphold the mandate - and therefore expansion and growth of government.

 

From a libertarian perspective, the reasoning that it's not really a "mandate" but a "tax" makes it no more legitimate, as taxation is theft.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional. The last thing we need in America is to impose our will over the constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Same difference 

Fascinating. You're saying that the SCOTUS and Barack Obama are the same thing? Or are you simply so dizzy with delight over this terrible decision that you cannot think straight?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Correct. And just because you (or even the present SCOTUS) think it is doesn't make it constitutional. You do realize they've been wrong before don't you?

I actually think this decision helps the Republicans this election year. Their supporters will be more inclined to turn out to regain a majority (even the Presidency) in an effort to repeal this law. Now that Obama has been exposed as a liar and hypocrite (again), that task could be easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

The last thing we need in America is to impose our will over the constitution.

Now that's downright hilarious (and ironic) come from an Obama supporter.

Romney just gave a very weak speech.

How many times did he say, "Obamacare"?  Naturally attacked the "Liberal Agenda" and at the end just slipped in something about jobs, which he likes to send overseas.

Took no questions.  How soon before he appears on Faux?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

...the "Liberal Agenda"...

You put that in quotes as if to imply there isn't one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

Romney just gave a very weak speech.

 

How many times did he say, "Obamacare"?  Naturally attacked the "Liberal Agenda" and at the end just slipped in something about jobs, which he likes to send overseas.

 

Took no questions.  How soon before he appears on Faux?

Now Bachmann is talking about a "black cloud over America". You can't make this stuff up! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Correct. And just because you (or even the present SCOTUS) think it is doesn't make it constitutional. You do realize they've been wrong before don't you?

 

I actually think this decision helps the Republicans this election year. Their supporters will be more inclined to turn out to regain a majority (even the Presidency) in an effort to repeal this law. Now that Obama has been exposed as a liar and hypocrite (again), that task could be easier.

 

 

 

Now that's downright hilarious (and ironic) come from an Obama supporter.

Stop pretending you always know better than the SCOTUS when it comes to the constitution. If it's constitutional then ALL parties are represented by the SCOTUS. If you have a better way of deciding tell us, but we won't like it if it's just your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Stop pretending you always know better than the SCOTUS when it comes to the constitution.

Stop begging the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

If it's constitutional then ALL parties are represented by the SCOTUS.

That's not true of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

If you have a better way of deciding tell us, but we won't like it if it's just your opinion.

Just because I don't have a better way to decide doesn't mean that the decisions that are being made are good and correct.

Ro(mney)Berts making the deciding vote in this O'RomneyCare bill has him in the firing line, even on Wikipedia-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Now Bachmann is talking about a "black cloud over America". You can't make this stuff up! 

Now Hands Sandon is seeing racism in any statement that uses the word black in a negative way. You can't make this stuff up.

Note to you: The expression "a cloud" or "a dark cloud" or "a black cloud" over something has nothing to do with racism.

Got two mailings form CNN.  The second one correcting the first.

Faux jumped the gun, too (but likely hadn't prepared for another possibility?).

CNN used to be good.  Now they are reaching for the same level as Faux?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

 

 

 

Just because I don't have a better way to decide doesn't mean that the decisions that are being made are good and correct.

In your opinion MJ1970. Get over yourself, please.

After reading more on this I'm convinced that this decision is even worse than I thought it could be. The worst I thought it could be is that they upheld the government's authority to make people buy things (like insurance). But it's worse in this way:

Basically what was decided is that this "penalty" for not buying insurance is basically a tax (no real argument there). But it is a tax on inactivity. Then the majority decision falls back to Congress's authority to tax. OK. But what they have effectively said is that there are no limits at all on Congress's taxing authority. Basically, it appears, this decision asserts that Congress's taxing authority is absolute and unlimited, including the authority to tax inactivity or non-action.

This becomes a new tool in our parental overlord's toolbox for conducting their national B.F. Skinner experiments with the populous.

Scary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

In your opinion MJ1970.

No. What I said was a logical certainty. Read it again:

Just because I don't have a better way to decide doesn't mean that the decisions that are being made are good and correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Get over yourself, please.

You get over yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Now Hands Sandon is seeing racism in any statement that uses the word black in a negative way. You can't make this stuff up.

 

 

Note to you: The expression "a cloud" or "a dark cloud" or "a black cloud" over something has nothing to do with racism.

Lighten up mj. If she didn't mean to stir support consciously or unconsciously by being racist, fine. At least see it as funny that that's what she'd offer up, when she must have known she'd only get a little airtime to get her views across. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

No. What I said was a logical certainty. Read it again:

 

Just because I don't have a better way to decide doesn't mean that the decisions that are being made are good and correct.

 

 

You get over yourself.

Yeah, they're all wrong unless they're all Libertarian opinions. We know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Lighten up mj. If she didn't mean to stir support consciously or unconsciously by being racist, fine. At least see it as funny that that's what she'd offer up, when she must have known she'd only get a little airtime to get her views across. 

Why don't you lighten up? You're the one that broached the subject and implied that she was making a racist statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

Yeah, they're all wrong unless they're all Libertarian opinions. We know.

You're confused. Re-read what I wrote and see if you can understand it.

The insurance companies and HMOs virtually wrote the law (Cigna, for example put in a year's worth of sweat equity in the creation of Obama"Care"), and the ultra-rught wing Heritage Foundation played a large part in consultancy and assembling the package.

Whats with all these conservatives who think Obama is a socialist, and why are there so many wide-eyed, blissfully unaware, slackjawed liberals who think that Obama is on their side? Is NewsSpeak becoming the new standard communication method?

Why are conservatives not rejoicing here? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

Why are conservatives not rejoicing here? 

Because mainstream conservatives have been duped into engaging in the contrived partisan debate. They believe and support the false dilemma created by The State to perpetuate and expand its power. They oppose Obamacare because they are told that's what they should do as conservatives, and they believe it.

Democrats are now rejoicing that the SCOTUS defended and upheld the Constitution, extolling the virtues of our system of government and the "rule of law", and expressing nationalistic pride. Republicans are outraged.

If the SCOTUS had struck down Obamacare, the Republicans would be rejoicing that they had defended and upheld the Constitution, extolling the virtues of our system of government and the "rule of law", and expressing nationalistic pride while the Democrats expressed outrage.

What neither side seems to be aware of is that the SCOTUS is essentially ruling this country by decree. 9 people in robes with lifetime terms are issuing edicts to the masses as we worship at the altar of government. The nation waits with hushed reverence for the next proclamation to be issued forth from our rulers. For with a mere word, they can declare what you must or must not do with your own property and body for the "good of society", and that is the law of the land.

I think Jazzy and some others have it right but rather than party platform or even political philosophy, I've come to believe this is still much more about the Boomers as a generation. It seems like no matter the belief system, they will sell it out as they loot the world and future generations for everything that can possibly be taken on their way out the door.

I could try to muster some rage or sense of injustice about this but this entire generation has been like this my entire adult life. They are one gigantic, colossal train wreck and the point is that whether they can realize they need to stop or even if the money somehow runs out, they will just tell some more lies, engage in the same actions and will continue on the same path until they are dead and buried because that is really the only way to stop their lies.

The mandate is a tax. The government can give you the money to pay the tax in the event you don't have the money to pay it. No one has the right to resist it period. The only form of resistance is basically being a looter. The depravity knows no bounds and the most selfish and entitled are the winners.

I'm off to ride my bike and enjoy the day. At this stage it really doesn't matter who wins and loses because the losers always win by their neediness and their victimization. The mob always wins because they will kill you rather than leave you alone.

Well down here in Texas we're talking secession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moe Luby 

Well down here in Texas we're talking secession.

Well secession would be fine, but there's an intermediate step: Nullification. It's a right the states have. Only a question of whether they have the balls.