And so starts the implosion.
In 2014 everyone has to pay a "tax" or buy health care insurance. Of course the new tax will be after the 2012 election. I don't know how this is going to work. Will the "tax" be cheaper than buying insurance? The congress power to tax is constitutional but will members be voted out of office? To get rid of Obamacare will not be easy if the majority of voters don't like it.
The way I understand it is that those 30 million will be paying a tax for not having insurance. Those of us who are able to afford health insurance are exempt from the tax.
Well, this is what happens when conservatives can't garner enough support to get Democrats out of power. Democrats just keep tacking on additional burdens to the American Taxpayer, knowing they will be there to keep it going.Maybe this will cause more people to vote..... Nah, they will just bitch about it in their comments.
9:33, The "tax" will be reasonable at first, but when government realizes that the costs of this program are billions higher than anticipated who knows.It is like buying a house out of your price range, in few years you will not be able to maintain it properly. Worst of all Obama bought this "house" when many of those who paid the mortgage were out of work.
Let's have Nancy Pelosi explain this to the American people. Do you think she has had enough time to see what's in it? Stup.... Bit...
On December 21 2012 Obama care will be cancelled.
Lol. I was waiting for that reply.
It is time for civil war.
Where do I send thischeck to Romney again?
Obama did lie as usual. I hope every Demoflop and Liberachi lose their jobs and is unable to get health insurance.
Mitt Romney just did a standing slow clap at the decision handed down by SCOTUS.And had a big ole grin while doing so.
I don't understand:1) People gripe about being forced to purchase health insurance don't gripe about mandated auto liability insurance;2) People w/o health insurance get medical attention @ ER, & the taxpayers cover the cost, so isn't this an improvement;3) This program creates a means by which primary care physicians will receive fair compensation by "bundling" their services and better managing the care provided;4) It allows an expansion of the number of citizens w/ access to resonably priced quality health based upon their financial means (see #2 above); and5) Why are so many opposed to any plan that attempts to address a system of "haves and have nots" which gives equal access to health care to a majority of the citizens?The plan is not perfect by any means, but total repeal for the sake of poitical expediency only divides the classes further. Let's work to fix the deficiencies, not throw the poor &/or unfortuantly afflicted under the perverbial bus.
Perhaps Sarah Palin could be the new dean of TAMU Law School?
now i am confused..
And you thought you knew us? SURPRISE!DF U. S. Supreme Courtstill pissing people off in 2012
My thoughts exactly. I'm not an Obama fan by any measure but I'm trying to approach this decision with an open mind. I think a lot of folk that voted for Obama expecting their health coverage will be provided for them at no expense are going to be disappointed with this decision. It seems now they are the ones that will be penalized for burdening the tax payers
The contributions to Mitt Romney's campaign are about to skyrocket!!!!
It's going to be funny to hear Obama explain his position.Afterall, HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY STATING IT WAS NOT A TAX.LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.
And SCOTUS strikes down the Stolen Valor Act in a 6-3 vote.My Other Brother Darryl
Obama lies, freedom dies, inky dinky donkey!Hey I am against Obamacare but that is what I hearing in my mind while reading Palin's comment.
Goob: A lot of unsubstantiated claims.1) People do gripe about having state-mandated auto insurance. 2) You illustrate that the people who Democrats claim are "uninsured" are not "without healthcare."3) Clarify how Obamacare will receive "fair compensation," in light of how Medicare payments will be slashed as of January 1, 2013.4) Why not provide that care without the additional baggage of 2,700 pages of legislation?5) Why should a family that does without fancy toys and gadgets so they can afford health insurance pay for their neighbors who squander their money, yet cry because they can't "afford" insurance? Why should a person who believes he has no need for insurance be forced to buy it?Obamacare is a monstrosity that should have been debated and discussed, rather than passed by Democrats in a last-minute reveal. Political expediency on their part is what has caused this mess.
Man, whether you like Ann Curry or whether you don't... Her farewell on the Today show absolutely brought a tear. You can see and hear her heart breaking :( I know some loser will make fun of this comment but it's all good. Have a heart!
Well I'll be. I kind of figured (hoped?) it would be upheld, but no way in hell did I see Roberts taking the lead on it. That guy actually earned some respect from me--just because you don't like a result, doesn't mean something is unconstitutional. I saw Jon Stewart too. Even he knew he had Christie beat down in a special way. Governor Christie is the perfect Republican. Fat, obnoxious, and his opinion blows with the wind. He is a true POS.Rage
Goober your name fits you doesn't it?You do not HAVE TO DRIVE A CAR therefore, you do not have to have mandated auto liability insurance now do you?
Yes they are 10:37
I forgot to mention that United Healthcare (and others) announced that even if Obamacare was struck down, they were going to keep several key provisions. I guess Obamacare makes good business sense, after all.Rage
I wonder why the stock market took a dive right after the ruling?
Goober,The difference between this and auto insurance is the fact that you are required to have auto insurance to have the privilege to drive a car around. You have a choice as to whether or not you want to drive a car.With Obamacare, the requirement to have health insurance is simply because you are alive. You don't have a choice in this, unless you want to die.
Beautifully written discussion of the separation of powers, and the role of SCOTUS in this (from today's opinion by Roberts, C.J.), and a great choice of quotes from Justice John Marshall:Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences oftheir political choices. Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176.In short he is saying: The law as written is constitutional. But if you don't like it, American people, use the power afforded you in the Constitution and vote in representatives who will repeal the law. That's how our government works. SCOTUS can't overturn something just because the majority doesn't like it. The majority has to VOTE to get people elected who will overturn it. This may be a victory for Dems today, but I'm pretty sure it hurts them in November.
Well said Goober.
Incidentally, the (currently) 10-12 million illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the individual mandate in Obamacare. Why not?
Rage, OF COURSE they would keep some of those provisions. If I can force my demand to increase then it equates to more revenue (and one would assume, more profits).
Why would Romney's contributions skyrocket? Are you telling me that you weenies who are so opposed to Obamacare were going to vote for Obama before it got upheld?Obama won't lose a single vote over this. Y'all wouldn't have voted for a black man anyway. Just ask BigTex. At least he's honest enough to tell what he really thinks. The rest of you think the same thing, you just don't voice it.I agree with wordkyle. It would have been nice to civilly debate such a big issue in American history. This issue deserved better that it got in Congress. For example, here are some select quotes from wordkyle's idols. This proves that all they wanted was a little calm discussion on the matter:– REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): Passage of health reform is “Armageddon” because the law will “ruin our country.” [3/20/2010] – FRMR. SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): Health reform “will destroy the country” because, “in the next year or so,” America will have to “dramatically cut the military because we can’t pay for it.” [10/23/2010] – SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): “There will be no insurance industry left in three years.” [10/12/2010] – REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): “On page 16, you can read for yourself that no new health insurance policies can be written once this federal plan comes into effect.” [7/17/2009] – GLENN BECK: “This is the end of prosperity in America forever … the end of America as you know it.” [11/19/2009] – SEAN HANNITY: “If we get nationalized health care, it’s over; this is socialism.” [11/2/2009] – REP. PAUL BROUN (R-GA): “That’s exactly what’s going on in Canada and Great Britain today…and a lot of people are going to die.” [7/10/2009] – REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): “I would hate to think that among five women, one of ‘em is gonna die because we go to socialized care.” [7/15/2009] – REP. VIRGINIA FOXX (R-NC): “The Republican plan will] make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.” [7/28/2009] – SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): “I have a message for you: you’re going to die soon…When you restrict the ability of the primary care givers int his country to do what is best for their senior patients, what you are doing is limiting their life expectancy.” [12/1/2009] – REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): “Socialized medicine is the crown jewel of socialism. This will change our country forever.” [11/3/2009] – HERMAN CAIN: “If ObamaCare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead.” [8/18/2011] – NEWT GINGRICH (R): “I think it is a disaster. I think, candidly, Governor Palin got attacked unfairly for describing what would, in effect, be death panels.” [10/11/2011] – RICK SANTORUM (R): “What got me into this race was Obamacare…I believe, final death knell will be to America of having government control that very critical aspect of our life, which is access to the care that we need to stay alive.” [12/13/2011]Rage
So if this is struck down then it will remain, how will we pay for the uninsured?As a community, we must take care of our neighbor. Say we repeal this and any type of government HC, will YOU pay for your neighbor?Right now, the government is just doing what we (community) are refusing to do, no matter how much we dislike it.
You all seem to miss the fact that Roberts outfoxed the libs, just traded off something he new he couldn't deem unconstitional, for limiting congressional powers through the commerce clause. Obama may have won this battle, but Roberts won the war.Roberts Opinion:Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”He just gutted the commerce clause, a trade I will take any day.
Rage, Playing the race card sure is getting old. To say Ya'll wouldn't have voted for a black man just proves that you are a racist. WE would have voted for Alan West, Thomas Sowell, or any other rational black man that wasn't a proven marxist, socialist that wanted to destroy this country. Go play the race card with your gay buddies and pack fudge till your nose bleeds.
Life expectancy at birth (years) Rank Country (State/territory) Overall Male Female 1 Japan 82.6 79.0 86.1 2 Hong Kong ( China) 82.2 79.4 85.1 3 Switzerland 82.1 80.0 84.2 4 Israel 82.0 80.0 84.0 5 Iceland 81.8 80.2 83.3 6 Australia 81.2 78.9 83.6 7 Singapore 81.0 79.0 83.0 8 Spain 80.9 77.7 84.2 8 Sweden 80.9 78.7 83.0 10 Macau ( China) 80.7 78.5 82.8 10 France (metropolitan) 80.7 77.1 84.1 10 Canada 80.7 78.3 82.9 13 Italy 80.5 77.5 83.5 13 United Kingdom 80.5 78.1 82.1 15 New Zealand 80.2 78.2 82.2 15 Norway 80.2 77.8 82.5 17 Austria 79.8 76.9 82.6 17 Netherlands 79.8 77.5 81.9 19 Martinique ( France) 79.5 76.5 82.3 19 Greece 79.5 77.1 81.9 21 Belgium 79.4 76.5 82.3 21 Malta 79.4 77.3 81.3 21 Germany 79.4 76.5 82.1 21 U.S. Virgin Islands ( US) 79.4 75.5 83.3 25 Finland 79.3 76.1 82.4 26 Guadeloupe ( France) 79.2 76.0 82.2 27 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) ( UK) 79.0 76.6 81.5 27 Cyprus 79.0 76.5 81.6 29 Ireland 78.9 76.5 81.3 30 Costa Rica 78.8 76.5 81.2 31 Puerto Rico ( US) 78.7 74.7 82.7 31 Luxembourg 78.7 75.7 81.6 31 United Arab Emirates 78.7 77.2 81.5 34 South Korea 78.6 75.0 82.2 34 Chile 78.6 75.5 81.5 36 Denmark 78.3 76.0 80.6 36 Cuba 78.3 76.2 80.4 38 United States 78.2 75.6 80.8 39 Portugal 78.1 75.0 81.2 40 Slovenia 77.9 74.1 81.5 41 Kuwait 77.6 76.0 79.9 42 Barbados 77.3 74.4 79.8 43 Brunei 77.1 75.0 79.7 44 Czech Republic 76.5 73.4 79.5 45 Réunion ( France) 76.4 72.3 80.5 45 Albania 76.4 73.4 79.7 45 Uruguay 76.4 72.8 79.9 48 Mexico And you think nothings wrong with our health care? STFU
Our only hope is Gov. Gary Johnson in 2012; Romney will not change anything.
No, I will not pay for my neighbor. I expect my neighbor to have fiscal responsibility for themselves. I do why not them?
11:53, Health care is not the problem according to your rating. Lifestyle is.
I'm enjoying the butt-hurt you ignorant, conservative dipshiates are expressing and feeling right now.
Get treatment at a hospital and you get a bill. If you do not pay, your credit is ruined. I'd rather be insured.
11:43, I think you're reading too much into that. Especially because the individual mandate compels commerce. People who were not insured now have to be. Rage
Hey Skippy, do you ever add comments annonymously? I think you should have a "Skippy's Corner" where you share your position on an important issue. You could start right now with an inaugural opinion on the latest Supreme courts decision. This blog could become more than yoyeuristic bikini babes and cut and paste news items pandering to the least common denominator (lawyers) and the endless supply of Jerry Springer watchers. Teach us Skippy! PLEASE!!!
Ok , for all you intelligent people out there , you're comparing auto insurance to health care, auto insurance is to cover costs of what you, if at fault, may damage of someone elses property, you're not required to carry comprehensive or collision unless there is a lien on your car. In that case , you are covering the banks property. If you have no health insurance , you can't hurt or damage someone elses person or property by getting sick therefore it's not even close.
11:53 If you want to increase life expectancy in the US try shutting down Mickey D's...Dumba$$
Here's my prediction: Since apparently not everyone will be forced to pay for this new insurance through taxes, someone will bring up the words "fair share" from those not paying the tax. They will then raise taxes on THAT group of people to make it "fair" (increased) taxation for everyone.This really stinks!gern blansten
12:36You are not as intelligent as you think.If someone gets sick and has no insurance, WE PAY FOR THEIR CARE THROUGH OUR TAXES. That does hurt me...in my wallet.
you can't hurt or damage someone elses person or property by getting sick therefore it's not even close.Wrong.You're 55. You're uninsured. You're a lifelong smoker, and you get cancer. You go to a hospital--the private one at first, but they send you to the county, which has to treat you. You are eating up taxpayer (mine) dollars by your decision to be uninsured. And there are millions of you out there.Rage
Am I right that even people on Welfare have to have it too or are they exempt?
Rage, Roberts simply ruled the individual mandate was permissable as a tax. He didn't vote that is was constitutional based on the Congress's power to "regulate Commerce." He is rewriting Congress' power to regulate. Should open the door to numerous future challanges.
12:42You obviously hven't traveled much. Mickey D's is in most of the countries that have a longer life span than ours. Try again.
Could we get some insurance that would fore ever close Words mouth...How much would it cost us?
Gern I think we should all demand our employers pay us under the table so no one has to pay taxes. lol
This is quite possibly the best day I have ever had reading this blog!The difference between Obamacare and Romneycare.......a black man proposed one, a white man installed the other....and by all accounts it works.The difference between Obamacare and that proposed by Gingerich and the Republicans to offset Hillarycare back in the 90's.....not much.It is always good to see hypocrits get their due.Good day indeed.
Mainstream media made the individual mandate the primary focus of this argument. The states sued because they would be forced to expand the medicaid system. The federal government "promised to re-imburse" for the additional cost of expanding medicaid but we all know how those promises generally turn out. The feds say if you don't expand your medicaid system, you lose federal funding for all medicaid and that is the portion struck down by SCOTUS. Chief Justice Roberts said in his opinion, the mandate is a tax which puts egg on the administration's face. The media and democrats may be claiming victory on TV but behind closed doors, the conservatives have to be jumping for joy. Rage...you left out a quote regarding Obamacare...We have to pass so we can read it and determine what is in it...Nancy Pelosi (paraphrased).
me likes me sum Goober !!df: rage
1:11, I still think you're mixing things up. I'll admit I haven't read the opinion (except for a few excerpts), but I don't think there is a big impact on the Commerce Clause. Although if there is I'm fine with that, too, because it has been used as the vehicle for 99% of the destruction of states' rights since the civil rights era. Now, they accomplished some very needed things with it, but hey, we're supposed to do those things in an honest way. End segregation at the state level because segregation is wrong. Don't end it because a black person can't spend his money in Georgia the same way he would in NYC. My understanding of what Roberts did here was to say "Hey, I don't like it and the majority of Americans may not like it. But we're not the elected officials. We don't make policy. We don't pass laws (HAR!). We don't change things because we don't like them. If you show us that a law is unconstitutional, that Congress exceeded its authority, we will overturn that law. But that hasn't been done here."And like I said I haven't read the opinion, so there may be much more discussion on the commerce clause. But the use of the commerce clause and the issues surrounding taxation are generally very different, which is why some of your statements are confusing to me.Rage
Let's repeal healthcare for dumbasses.End of the Republican party would be quickened.
Don't want to pay the taxes)? Find acreage (to squat on), quit your jobs, hunt your food, grow your veggies, and live happily-ever-after! If we lessened our dependency on the government, they would find fewer reasons to tax us. Yes, we all have some dependency on the government. We get loans from banks (which are regulated by the government)and we buy food that has to be monitored by the FDA, and send our children to public schools funded by the government, among other things. We get hit with taxes because we depend on the government to tell us what to do and how to do it. They expect to get paid for it and seem to continually look for other ways to get us to look to them for guidance and support. I am not speaking as a democrat or republican but as an individual who sees we want government help on certain things and we depend on it, but when something comes up that doesn't benefit us (Obamacare) we complain. Why is it okay for the government (whether state or federal) to control certain things (education, SSI), but not others (healthcare)?
Good try 12:46 but no cigar. People have to get sick and seek FREE medical care in order for it to "currently" hurt your pocket. You know just like if you don't drive a car you don't have liability ins.NOW EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE INSURANCE WHETHER THEY NEED IT OR NOT.
1:19 Not on every freakin' street corner. Nice try.
Since you Demoflops and Libarochies love you some feeling sorry for people have you adopted your homeless person yet?How are they going to pay for this $2,100.00 tax?
Muslims are exempt from the mandate and will not be taxed for not having insurance as are several other ethnic groups.If you have a really good healthcare plan at work, one your employer pays good money for, you will soon be taxed for that as well. The gov't will be treating that policy as income and you will be taxed at tax filing time for it.Ask yourself this, does the cost of ANYTHING go down when the government gets involved......NOPE.It is nice wish equal healthcare for all, equal everything for that matter but that is impossible and not fair as far as i see it. Take away the incentive to achieve and soon you will have no achievers.
funny thing, when I see SCOTUS I always first think SCROTUM
This is what happens when you have a generation that feels like it is "entitled"!!!! Congrats all you Obama lovers, you voted the evil guy in office. The fall of our country is your fault! I would like to apologize to all the brave Men and Women who have fought to keep our country free! Too many idiots that fell under Obama's Hope and Change crap just helped our country take a huge nose dive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Wake-up people before it's too late! Our country is taking on a socialist/dictator approach, and will never be the same!!!!!!!!!Decatur 90
Rage,Look carefully at Robert's opinion-he clearly sides with the republican wing. "The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” He makes it very clear that he believes that upholding the ACA under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the power to regulate what people "do not do". Maybe I am overreaching here, but I think his opinion is a step in rewriting Congress' powers to regulate.You are right, taxation and the commerce clause are very different, but that may be the point. I very well could be confused here, let's set back and see what the constitutional experts have to say.1:11
Rage is Mzchief
"The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce."I got it. He says this is not a Commerce Clause issue.But I don't think that means he's rolling back the Clause. After all, Congress isn't the one who has used the Commerce Clause the most broadly--the Supreme Court is. They're the ones that used it to incorporate the various post-war (Civil War, that is) amendments against the states, not Congress. Now they all abuse it, sure, but I just don't see it going that far. There are a lot of things I don't see, though, so who knows.And it seems that if an individual mandate is illegal, it's illegal no matter how it's funded. That's what four justices felt--that the individual mandate was just wrong, period. Four said it could be valid under either theory (tax or commerce clause) and Roberts said only as a tax. But I have to say, Roberts ain't all that smart. Whomever wrote that opinion for him is much smarter than he is and could have easily justified invalidating the AHA as a tax, too. Four other justices did, after all. So if he was on the Republican "side" he could have trashed the whole thing. He would have written the majority opinion no matter what his decision was.I don't know. I'm personally glad that it was upheld, because I think the greatest nation in the world should be able to make sure its citizens have health care. Texas in particular has an embarrassingly high number of uninsured children, and it's not like a kid born to a crack whore can go get a job and pay for his own insurance. We agree on one thing though--should be fun to see what everyone thinks. I still don't think this will hurt Obama in November. Opponents of Obamacare were already going to vote against Obama. This won't change their mind, it'll just make them more vitriolic, and has.Rage
wordkyle is Mzchief
Barry is Mzchief.
Rage -I am so glad you take the time to comment on this blog. I rarely do. However, I always enjoy your examples, logic, and responses (as well as BG's).And I also enjoy that you never respond to the hack that tries to push some buttons that you obviously don't have.I sincerely thank you.
Let see:Many have health care provided by their employers, tax free (that last parts needs to change)Many can afford to pay their ownMany pay part and their employer pays some tax freeThe elderly pay two-thirds of their Medicare premiums....only part A paid for thru deducts their entire working careers.Many are truely poor and are covered by MedicaidSo roughly 20 million not truely poor are choosing to roll the dice and not be covered....leaving us to pay for it when dice are not nice to them.I don't see a problem! Particularly since Obama care also corrects so many irregularities via insurance company greed, allows us to purchase across state lines, join collectives for lower premiums.This is good.PS. No one has ever paid my insurance including my Medicare nowand I don't want to continue to pay for those 20 mil who are rolling the dice.
Rage, I think you've made a major breakthrough today. Admitting that fact and logic are confusing you. At 12:49 you made reference to a 55 year old uninsured smoker. The system that we take care of the uninsured as of now is not the problem. Do not change what does work in the business sector but do open it up to where a company or private individual can buy his insurance from ANY company in the US. The state mandate currently implemented will not allow this to happen. The choice is anywhere from 5 to 8 insurance companies to choose from depending on what state you live in. By allowing one to choose from the hundreds of insurance companies would create competition and allow for rates to go down. Why are you bombarded on the dumb down device called TV to buy your car insurance from any Tom, Dick or Harry insurance company. They are competing for business which lowers rates. The private health insurance companies do not have to compete because they have that corner of the market sewn up by having the states mandate no buying your insurance from a company in another state. By changing that commerce clause would solve a lot of the problem of current costs of health insurance. A savings to you and your tax dollar still going to help pay for the uninsured like it does now. Thus a savings to you, not a TAX INCREASE under this debacle called Affordable Health ACT. You may not be able to wrap your pea brain around this logic but at least I tried to dumb it down for ya. Your welcome.
Just go to Parkland. I didn't have insurance and I couldn't pay the bill. They just wrote it off, I guess, because I haven't received any calls or letters. And it hasn't affected my credit score.
Post a Comment