Obamacare Upheld, Roberts Joins the Left

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp6d3JBLiAE

There's your misconceptions pal! No way I'm wrong, if you are working somewhere and insured through the employer (but barely making ends meet) and then decide to quit and move out of state or somewhere else guess what? You'll get fined for not having insurance right out the door and that is WRONG. It's no ones business who quits their job or why, and this law will make people stay in unjust environments and with employers that are assholes.

No, imagine your grandparents being forced to obey this law? I know so many that quit jobs and didn't have any benefits etc. during the time they looked for work. What a jokeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a Very astute observation Bells.

Given this court's record I think it is a bit premature to say that the Supreme Court is not a political body; if the court would have ruled against Obamacare it would have upset centuries of law and taken away the right of Congress to tax, subjugating every tax law to the approval of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would have been a massive and unprecedented rewriting of the Constitution and centuries of law. It is good to see Roberts was not willing to take that drastic step. The Constitution survives for now.

I am surprised that Roberts grew a pair and voted against his Republican colleagues. Up until today Roberts has been a follower and not a leader.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A campaign speech by Mitt Romney is not exactly a compelling source of factual evidence and legal analysis. You're pretty much advertizing the fact that you don't want to deal in independent facts, and are just playing craven political games.

This is bullshit, and if you aren't even going to try to support it then you need to stop repeating it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since you quoted a liar, that makes you the joke. If anything you are simply proving why MORE extensive legislation is required. ...Something like universal health care or a public option.

 

Wrong you're playing political games, there is NO JUST CAUSE to have everyone forced into buying healthcare, if anything better regulations on the industry would've been the only thing to consider. No one should be forced into buying anything, what brainwashed idealism are you living under. I call you old school thinkers because you can't see how impossible your old standards are to live up to in this modern society.

 

There is just cause, which is that everyone needs to get insurance in order to pay for those who are inherently less healthy. Otherwise private insurance doesn't cover those who need it most. It's really nothing more than a kind of tax.

 

If there was an iota of truth in Romney’s statements, you might have a case.

LOL, I am always amazed when I see statements like this, the author is totally oblivious to reality. I often wonder how such people can navigate their way through life. My bet is they don’t or don’t do it very well.

There is no fine for quitting your job under Obamacare. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. I know that evidence will never come. Without healthcare insurance what happens if you or your parents intentionally go without healthcare insurance and then get ill and receive healthcare and are unable to pay their bills? The answer is I and everyone else with healthcare pays their bill. Why should I be obligated to pay for your parent’s irresponsible healthcare decisions? Should we require proof of insurance or proof of ability to pay before emergency medical treatment is rendered?

Obamacare requires everyone to purchase affordable health insurance. If the healthcare insurance is too expensive, then your parents would receive a subsidy so healthcare becomes affordable to them.

Most grandparents get healthcare coverage through Medicare. So they are not covered by this law – one of them minor details again. When people quit their jobs today they have the opportunity to extend healthcare insurance for 18 months through COBRA.

Your argument seems to be that you want the right to force other folks to pick up the costs for your healthcare, your parents healthcare and your grandparents’ healthcare. If you want to quit jobs, fine. But that does not mean I should pick up your healthcare expenses. You should pay what you can afford towards your healthcare. And that is what Obamacare does. It guarantees access to affordable healthcare. Everyone pays what they can afford and no more.

 

Thus spake justice Roberts and the Left wing of the court, but if it is not constitutional to regulate inaction under the commerce clause, why is it Ok to tax inaction? Is a tax for not going to bed early and not saying your prayers constitutional? How about a tax for not buying one of President Obama's books or not donating money to the DNC?

 

Because inaction in this case affects interstate commerce. If people don't buy insurance, we all end up paying more.

 

The obvious question

Just a question in order to be certain I understand your point: Are we supposed to take those questions seriously?

 

he decided it was better to save the little integrity the courts have left rather than voting politically to hurt the citizens of the country

 

By the same logic homeless people can complain that's it's unfair to give you a mortgage deduction.

You do realize that the federal income tax is created under the 16th Amendment, and was ratified by 42 states.

You may not like the tax laws. I doubt anybody likes paying taxes. But think of it this way: suppose you take the personal exemption and dependent deductions, and mortgage deduction. The tax Leftists brought you these deductions, to cut you some slack, to level the playing field a bit. If you're behaving responsibly, not burdening society with your housing needs and support of your dependents, you get what? A reward? Or an incentive?

Now, suppose you act irresponsibly and go without insurance for yourself or your dependents. Now you are bringing risk to the what? The Leftist public entitlements. But you're a bad guy for doing that, because you can afford to protect yourself against medical costs whereas poor people can't. And we know you can afford it because you're bickering about the tax deduction you would otherwise get for compliance. It wouldn't matter if you were unemployed since there would be no taxes at stake, would there.

So where's the beef? Are going to insure yourself whenever you can afford to or not? And if you don't, how do you answer the Leftists who are trying to keep the public entitlements trimmed down to those who desperately need them? Specifically, how are you going to guarantee you won't end up in a public hospital, sucking from the teat of the public dole in that way?

There's no logic in simply lashing out at something that can't possibly harm you, and which is clearly aimed at containing the cost of entitlements.

 

You mean: where's the justice in the public having to support your costs of medical care, when something happens to you after you went uninsured, when you could have afforded the cost of premiums?

You mean, that's not self-evident?

"Everyone" is not forced. It will be an income tax decision. Pay me now or pay me later, or, if you're poor, no problem, you are covered.

So where's the beef? Explain where personal responsibility comes into play.

 

Dude, it's a tax penalty for people who try to free-ride on the healthcare system the rest of us responsible, hard-working Americans pay for. That's why it was invented by a right-wing think tank.

The spectacle of Republicans attacking their own idea, and denying their own values, and looking to a guy who himself promoted and implemented exactly this idea in his time as governor as a champion against such, is pretty hilarious. This idea is from no less a conservative bastion as the Heritage Foundation! It's really obvious that you guys are just playing the most craven politics here, without any regard for policy or the good of the country. If you won't get behind Obama even when he adopts your ideas, then how is anyone supposed to take any argument about principle from you guys seriously?

If I were you, I'd be running away from this issue as fast as possible. Every possible line of attack you have on it has a major, obvious weakness that Obama is guaranteed to pursue. I guess you all thought that the Court was going to do away with this for you, and so you doubled down - but now you're screwed!

 

I'd like to see conservatives follow through on their rhetoric and putative principles on this one, by demanding that we not only repeal Obamacare, but also change the laws so that anyone who shows up at a hospital without insurance gets left out on the sidewalk to die.

 

The tax code is a completely different chunk of law. All kinds of perks and penalties have been built into it, to encourage home ownership, entrepreneurship, investment, agriculture, trade, employment, staying healthy, protecting the environment, philanthropy, conserving energy, and on and on.

How is "staying away from public hospitals" constitutionally distinct from all of these? The precedent was established long ago. Why complain about it only now and only in terms of this particular incentive?

Congress is not limited to the division of powers under commerce. Tax law is a separate beast. Nor are other federal laws that incentivize compliance in other ways even on your mind here. You should also be aware that Feds reward and penalize states for their failure to comply with federal laws. As far as I know, there's been no public hoopla over that, nor any Supreme Court issues concerning its constitutionality.

So there is precedent for this.

 

That's a good point, and I do not really support any of that. I'd prefer a flat tax with zero deductions. Take away all the "special provisions" in tax law and you take away the incentive for a lot of mischief and outright corruption.

 

Or put them in detention centers left vacant after legalizing the strafing of illegals crossing over. They can make the signs warning aliens of their impending demise, getting first aid in exchange for doing some real work for once in their worthless lives.

It's all a red herring. The subtext is that poor people should go without public assistance - albeit a fairly convoluted incarnation of that theme.

If this had never invaded the public agenda, we might be talking about why federal appointments have been held up for years, or what other measures are being taken to protect the economy, education, the environment, social security, and the real issues of the day.

Instead we spent the better par of the last 3+ years talking about purely manufactured claims. And that's being conservative? What a crock.

 

Right, substitute incidental corruption for systemic oppression of the poor.

 

Amen to that!