obama care ruling

[acorn54]

supreme court upholds obama care
so there you have it

[ceejay]

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

source: http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

[acorn54]

chief justice roberts was the swing vote that saved obama care

[boxcar]

chief justice roberts was the swing vote that saved obama care

Did I call this shot or what a couple of months ago with this guy?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Fox and CNN both reported the Mandate was struck down at first. MSNBC reported it was upheld. Then Fox and CNN changed their stories.

[ArlJim78]

Obama was adamant that it wasn't a tax, but Roberts says no it is a tax therefore ok. unreal

[Saratoga_Mike]

Obama was adamant that it wasn't a tax, but Roberts says no it is a tax therefore ok. unreal

I don't want to upset Box, but I think John Roberts is a brilliant justice...whether you agree with him here or not.

[ArlJim78]

I don't want to upset Box, but I think John Roberts is a brilliant justice...whether you agree with him here or not.
do you agree with him here? was this a brilliant decision? I mean even Kennedy voted it down.
how did he find that this was a tax when none of the lower courts did?

[Valuist]

For the first time in 3 months, Obama's Intrade number rose. Now at 55.8%.

[HUSKER55]

guys and gals, I guess I don't understand. It seems to me that if this is considered a tax, and the court over ruled the president when he said it was not a tax, then pandora's box has been opened.

[Tom]

In his wildest dreams, Osama Bin Laden could never have done this damage to our economy.

Justice Roberts to America - Go F yourselves.

Clearly a bought and paid for traitor.
Benedict Arnold has been replaced.

RIP America.

[so.cal.fan]

I think you are correct, Huckster.
This is a temporary win for Obama. It's going to backfire, just like the Health Care bill his congress and senate pushed through, then suffered huge losses in the 2010 election.
Obama has repeatedly lied to the people. He is arrogant and it's becoming very troubling to a lot of people, many who originally supported him.
This man thinks he is an emperor.
If Mitt Romney can be a strong leader type, he should be able to win the election in November, I am not convinced he can, but hope he does.
Obama is a very bad president. This country has gone too far to becoming a "social justice"....otherwise known as Marxist state.

The voters can only blame themselves if this bad president is re-elected in Nov. The damage will be almost :( irreversable if the inept voters also give the Senate and Congress a Democrat party majority. It will be very bad.

[ArlJim78]

justice kennedy - “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”

thanks a bunch Roberts for joining the circus freaks to uphold this mess.
<golf clap sound>

[Robert Goren]

The Supreme Court said it was constitutional, which it clearly was. You can argue whether it is good policy or not. Not every bad policy is unconstitutional. It is no secret I like this law from a personal experence in dealing with a health care company.

This will be a major issue, but not the only one. The fall elections will decide whether the law is repealed or not. The republicans will have to get at least 60 senators to get it repealed. I feel that is unlikely even if by some off chance Romney wins but in an election anything is possible.

[Greyfox]

A huge feather in Obama's cap.
A blow to Romney's aspirations.
His threat to repeal it will be perceived as hollow.
Paying attention to it will take him off the economy and jobs.
Although ultimately it will be at the center of economy and jobs.
The cost of this in light of the National Debt is going to mean a weakening of the military industrial complex.
A huge step forward for socialism and Obama's agenda to change America.

[boxcar]

A huge feather in Obama's cap.
A blow to Romney's aspirations.
His threat to repeal it will be perceived as hollow.
Paying attention to it will take him off the economy and jobs.
Although ultimately it will be at the center of economy and jobs.
The cost of this in light of the National Debt is going to mean a weakening of the military industrial complex.
A huge step forward for socialism and Obama's agenda to change America.

Yes, this is a huge step. For all practical intent and purposes, we are now a socialist country. There is nothing the federal government cannot force us to do. They control our health care. They control our energy. They control our private property (through the income tax). They control our real property (through the EPA). Now they're they've sets their sights increasingly on our food. The only nail left to stick in our coffin is to nullify or at least neutralize (gut) the 2nd Amendment. This will be very, very high on libs' agenda.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

While I'd like to find a silver lining in that a majority of the court held that Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not unlimited, the effect is the same. Roberts found a cowardly way out by upholding the mandate under taxing power.

To those who oppose this assault on liberty, there is only one thing to do. Strike. Give the mosty's and goren's exactly what they want. Withdraw your efforts from our tyrannical government and let the looters and moochers attempt to survive on their own. They can't. Eventually it will all come crashing down. Any nation where the unearned is celebrated and the earned is condemned is a nation doomed to failure. Speed that failure along and be ready to step in when the time is right. For now, do nothing to support the evil coming from Washington.

[BlueShoe]

I'm going to try and look for a silver lining to this disaster and predict that this could be a very costly victory for Obama and the Democrats. The right wing of the GOP and the Tea Party will be absolutely galvanized. Undecided voters that were opposed to Obamacare could now go for Romney. GOP candidates for the House and Senate vowing to overturn and repeal Obamacare may pick up votes. If Romney wins and the Republicans at least hold onto the House Obamacare is gone. If they should also win the Senate it will be gone even faster. The November election could be 2010 all over again.

[Saratoga_Mike]

do you agree with him here? was this a brilliant decision? I mean even Kennedy voted it down.
how did he find that this was a tax when none of the lower courts did?

I haven't read the opinion yet, but I'm not going to let one decision change my opinion of him. Once I've read the opinion, I'll let you know if agree with the reasoning (not that it matters what I think).

[ArlJim78]

A huge feather in Obama's cap.
A blow to Romney's aspirations.
His threat to repeal it will be perceived as hollow.
Paying attention to it will take him off the economy and jobs.
Although ultimately it will be at the center of economy and jobs.
The cost of this in light of the National Debt is going to mean a weakening of the military industrial complex.
A huge step forward for socialism and Obama's agenda to change America.
i see it quite differently. I think this helps Romney a lot.
Having the court strike it down was always plan B, and considered up until recently a longshot.
The energy to repeal it will only grow now, it will energize the right, they will dig in now because of what is at stake.
This is a big part of what is wrong with the economy. Obamacare is the largest tax hike in history.
No it's not over.
I'd rather the court scrapped it entirely now, but in a perverse way it might turn out better in the end.
I'm telling you if Romney keeps vowing to kill it once elected it won't ring hollow, in fact it might be just the thing he needs to take him over the top.

[Saratoga_Mike]

In his wildest dreams, Osama Bin Laden could never have done this damage to our economy.

Justice Roberts to America - Go F yourselves.

Clearly a bought and paid for traitor.
Benedict Arnold has been replaced.

RIP America.

As Scalia has said "just because a law is stupid, that doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional."

[Saratoga_Mike]

i see it quite differently. I think this helps Romney a lot.
Having the court strike it down was always plan B, and considered up until recently a longshot.
The energy to repeal it will only grow now, it will energize the right, they will dig in now because of what is at stake.
This is a big part of what is wrong with the economy. Obamacare is the largest tax hike in history.
No it's not over.
I'd rather the court scrapped it entirely now, but in a perverse way it might turn out better in the end.
I'm telling you if Romney keeps vowing to kill it once elected it won't ring hollow, in fact it might be just the thing he needs to take him over the top.

I agree with you for slightly different reasons - I think this fires up the base---big time!

[Robert Goren]

A question for you penny pinching conservatives, Are you mad at your state AGs for wasting your taxes?

[ArlJim78]

I haven't read the opinion yet, but I'm not going to let one decision change my opinion of him. Once I've read the opinion, I'll let you know if agree with the reasoning (not that it matters what I think).
same here, I'm waiting to read it.
I had always considered him brilliant, but this one really puzzles me.
They're saying that the Scalia dissent actually reads like it was supposed to be the majority opinion. If thats true what happened? who got to Roberts?

did they bring in some relative from the old country like in godfather II?:lol:

[ArlJim78]

A question for you penny pinching conservatives, Are you mad at your state AGs for wasting your taxes?
no. it wasn't a waste, it was entirely necessary to get the courts ruling.
you have no chance of winning the case if you don't bring it.
They money is a non issue as I'm sure you are aware.
fyi, the states had somewhat of a victory on medicaid.
the feds cannot penalize them now if they choose not to expand medicaid. how much is that worth?

[toetoe]

Can we stay focused on the important stuff, please ? Ann Curry is out as the 'Today' anchor, okay ? :D

[DJofSD]

For those of you happy about the ruling, how do you plan to pay for your government mandated health insurance?

[Tom]

As Scalia has said "just because a law is stupid, that doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional."

This ruling is unconstitutional.
Nowhere is the constitution does the SC have the power to impose taxes.
Only Congress can do that. They did NOT do that with this law. In fact, the Obama scoundrels went to great lengths to declare this was NOT a tax. The extend of the SC power was to decide and either decide if it stood, or sent it back for revisions. They chose to impose a tax that was never voted on by elected representatives.

The Constitution died today and with it, America is now dead.
The only direction I support now is wholesale secession of the states.
The USA no longer is a nation of the people, by the people and for the people.

btw. the court's decision went to press today. Yo can order a copy now, it comes in either 2 ply or 4 ply.

[Tom]

For those of you happy about the ruling, how do you plan to pay for your government mandated health insurance?

Welfare and food stamps.
I see no reason to continue to have a job - it is pretty stupid to be one of the ones working and paying. Jobs are for suckers.

[so.cal.fan]

"judas" Roberts was either intimidated, paid off or the smartest son of a bitch on the SC.
He's given Romney the ammunition to win this election.
TAXES.
Anyone hear that part of this Obamacare bill will raise our capital gains taxes another 6%?
It's isn't all about "THE ECONOMY STUPID", it's now about the TAXES STUPID, yes, that is what it is now about.

Romney and Republicans win if they push this.
People care about their wallets. This hurts everyone's wallet.
The "progressive-socialist-marxist" government/economy is:

UNSUSTAINABLE.

[Greyfox]

i see it quite differently. I think this helps Romney a lot.
.....
I'm telling you if Romney keeps vowing to kill it once elected it won't ring hollow, in fact it might be just the thing he needs to take him over the top.

1. Romney, if elected, likely doesn't have enough power as President to kill it.

2.Republicans can scream all they want about this will "galvanize" the base, yada, yada, yada, but unfortunately this Supreme Court decision is going to likely give Obama another 4 years in power.

He's been terrible so far, but it sure looks like he's going back in.

[boxcar]

I'm going to try and look for a silver lining to this disaster and predict that this could be a very costly victory for Obama and the Democrats. The right wing of the GOP and the Tea Party will be absolutely galvanized. Undecided voters that were opposed to Obamacare could now go for Romney. GOP candidates for the House and Senate vowing to overturn and repeal Obamacare may pick up votes. If Romney wins and the Republicans at least hold onto the House Obamacare is gone. If they should also win the Senate it will be gone even faster. The November election could be 2010 all over again.

The repeal of laws involves the same process as passing them. Both houses are needed, so 60 votes will be needed in the senate.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Welfare and food stamps.
I see no reason to continue to have a job - it is pretty stupid to be one of the ones working and paying. Jobs are for suckers.
I am one step ahead of you.

Seriously, I am now reviewing options to sell a business and, depending upon how the different states react to the opt-out clause, moving out of CA or going to Mexico.

Call my bluff, liberals.

[bigmack]

this Supreme Court decision is going to likely give Obama another 4 years in power.
How in the world does one come to that conclusion?

[newtothegame]

A question for you penny pinching conservatives, Are you mad at your state AGs for wasting your taxes?
lol penny pching...ANOTHER (of the many) baseless claims you trot out here....
:lol:

[Greyfox]

For those of you happy about the ruling, how do you plan to pay for your government mandated health insurance?

To me, the only way that Obama can pay for this is downsizing America's Milary Industrial complex.
This has been his goal from the "getgo."
Anyone who doesn't see that his agenda is to weaken America's power standing in the world, isn't seeing what I'm seeing.

[Greyfox]

How in the world does one come to that conclusion?
a. An election spent arguing this issue will distract from jobs, economy, and National debt.
b. Romney will be relabelled as a "Scrooge" - besides he supported it in Mass.
c. 33 million lower class potential votes will go to Obama.
d. without the ruling Obama's popularity was still holding (how I don't know.)

[bigmack]

a. An election spent arguing this issue will distract from jobs, economy, and National debt.
b. Romney will be relabelled as a "Scrooge" - besides he supported it in Mass.
c. 33 million lower class potential votes will go to Obama.
d. without the ruling Obama's popularity was still holding (how I don't know.)
33 million lower class potential voters were just taxed. Most of them don't even know what taxes are but they will now. Normally, taking money from people doesn't garner votes.

[ArlJim78]

this is how badly things are going for Mitt based on today's ruling.



Update, 1:28 ET: The RNC’s
communication team now says the combined Romney and RNC Victory funds have raised over $1 million since the court’s decision

[BlueShoe]

Can we stay focused on the important stuff, please ? Ann Curry is out as the 'Today' anchor, okay ? :D
Decision coming later on the Holder contempt of Congress matter.

[Tom]

To me, the only way that Obama can pay for this is downsizing America's Milary Industrial complex.
This has been his goal from the "getgo."
Anyone who doesn't see that his agenda is to weaken America's power standing in the world, isn't seeing what I'm seeing.

He has turned Gitmo into Club Med
He has helped bring down the peace between Egypt and Israel
He has helped empower the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist group
He has thrown open the border in Arizona


I warned about his agenda from the git go - he is a terrorist and his plan is obvious. Bin Laden Part Deux.

[lamboguy]

1. Romney, if elected, likely doesn't have enough power as President to kill it.

2.Republicans can scream all they want about this will "galvanize" the base, yada, yada, yada, but unfortunately this Supreme Court decision is going to likely give Obama another 4 years in power.

He's been terrible so far, but it sure looks like he's going back in.why would Romney kill this bill?

he is getting plenty of campaign contributions from the company's that are benefiting the most from health care insurance reform.

plus look at Romney's past performance lines, he introduced this type of reform to america to begin with. he is not about to get rid of this plan in a million years. he's just lucky that the supreme court didn't overturn it in case he gets elected.

[lsbets]

Sort of good news - because the mandate is a tax, the bill can be repealed using reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes, not 60. Of course that would still require 51 Senators to vote to repeal, and a President to sign the repeal.

[bigmack]

Sort of good news - because the mandate is a tax, the bill can be repealed using reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes, not 60. Of course that would still require 51 Senators to vote to repeal, and a President to sign the repeal.
Shouldn't be a problem and certainly throws a wrench in the incessant drone from Boxcar about its Herculean effort to repeal.

[Bettowin]

Patrick Gaspard, the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted the news at 10:19 a.m. Thursday, responding to a fight that has raged along partisan lines since 2009.





Patrick Gaspard @patrickgaspard it's constitutional. Bitches.

28 Jun 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite


LOL not very smart.

And a few more.............

Greg Greene, the DNC new media outreach director, offered “sad trombone” sounds to the Republicans: “Anyone have a trombone? The folks at @GOP need someone to lend them one.”

According to conservative Michelle Malkin’s site Twitchy, which took a screenshot, Greene deleted another tweet that suggested a high level of boisterousness in the office: “Overheard in the office: "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!!"



Isn't social media great?

[Shelby]

Patrick Gaspard, the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted the news at 10:19 a.m. Thursday, responding to a fight that has raged along partisan lines since 2009.





Patrick Gaspard @patrickgaspard it's constitutional. Bitches.

28 Jun 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite


LOL not very smart.

And a few more.............

Greg Greene, the DNC new media outreach director, offered “sad trombone” sounds to the Republicans: “Anyone have a trombone? The folks at @GOP need someone to lend them one.”

According to conservative Michelle Malkin’s site Twitchy, which took a screenshot, Greene deleted another tweet that suggested a high level of boisterousness in the office: “Overheard in the office: "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!!"



Isn't social media great?


Good Lord. And I've been worrying about the future leaders of our country. How old is this guy? 12?

[boxcar]

Shouldn't be a problem and certainly throws a wrench in the incessant drone from Boxcar about its Herculean effort to repeal.

I mentioned this months ago. Try to keep up. It was Newt who came up with this idea when he was still a candidate. Rom didn't think of it. Newt did.

Now, will the real Rom please stand up? Will this newly converted small government conservative who has suddenly found the religion of Conservatism make good on his "incessant drone" of pushing for repeal? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Frank DeMartini]

Here is my new article on Obamacare

http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/06/a-rallying-cry-for-romney/ (http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/06/a-rallying-cry-for-romney/)

[mostpost]

I am one step ahead of you.

Seriously, I am now reviewing options to sell a business and, depending upon how the different states react to the opt-out clause, moving out of CA or going to Mexico.

Call my bluff, liberals.
Who needs you. What was that old conservative refrain? "Love it or leave it." Clowns like you that only support the country when it meets your narrow standards are not needed.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I mentioned this months ago. Try to keep up. It was Newt who came up with this idea when he was still a candidate. Rom didn't think of it. Newt did.

Now, will the real Rom please stand up? Will this newly converted small government conservative who has suddenly found the religion of Conservatism make good on his "incessant drone" of pushing for repeal? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Box, Newt was for the mandate before he was against it. You know that, I'm sure, so maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly. Did you support Newt? That would surprise me. I can't see you supporting some of his character.

[DJofSD]

Who needs you. What was that old conservative refrain? "Love it or leave it." Clowns like you that only support the country when it meets your narrow standards are not needed.
Fine, you're entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to my money or my son's future.

Up yours.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to my money or my son's future.

Up yours.

What type of business do you run (not looking for specifics), just looking for the real world implications of the ruling?

[boxcar]

Box, Newt was for the mandate before he was against it. You know that, I'm sure, so maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly. Did you support Newt? That would surprise me. I can't see you supporting some of his character.

Virtually everyone was for the mandate before they decided to swing the other way. What else is new?

And, yes, I'm on record on this forum as having voted for Newt in the Swampland primary. And I explained why. And I also explained that primaries aren't general elections. My singular goal in the primary was to beat Rom, who I cannot stand. (But I think you know this, right? :D )

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Virtually everyone was for the mandate before they decided to swing the other way. What else is new?

And, yes, I'm on record on this forum as having voted for Newt in the Swampland primary. And I explained why. And I also explained that primaries aren't general elections. My singular goal in the primary was to beat Rom, who I cannot stand. (But I think you know this, right? :D )

Boxcar

I don't think that's true.

Actually I was off the forum during the fall, so I honestly didn't know your position on Newt. I left right when people thought Perry had a shot - laughable and I said it at the time. I'm very surprised you supported some of Newt's character.

[DJofSD]

What type of business do you run (not looking for specifics), just looking for the real world implications of the ruling?
A small, family owned housing rental business.

[Greyfox]

Here is my new article on Obamacare

http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/06/a-rallying-cry-for-romney/ (http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/06/a-rallying-cry-for-romney/)

Good article Frank. In it you state:

"Well, now the 60% of the population that doesn’t want Obamacare has another reason to rally against the Democratic party. It will take a flip of approximately 5-6 seats in the Senate and a hold in the House to get rid of it. But, most importantly, it will take a win by Mitt Romney to sign the Congressional repeal. Obama, will not sign it and we will not have the required votes to override a veto. Accordingly, whether you agree with Romney, like Romney or otherwise, this should be the rallying cry in the election. The only way Obamacare will go is if Romney wins."

Two small problems here:
a. "if" Romney wins
b. Romney's credibility in this area is suspect. He led the charge for this type of bill in Mass. How does he get around that problem when he debates Obama?

[Saratoga_Mike]

A small, family owned housing rental business.

How many employees?

I can understand if you don't want to answer, but it would nice to get a real-world example of the potential implications from the ruling.

[DJofSD]

It is not near the magic number of 50.

[dartman51]

Who needs you. What was that old conservative refrain? "Love it or leave it." Clowns like you that only support the country when it meets your narrow standards are not needed.

I'm glad to see you are staying consistent. That's the same thing you told George Clooney, Babs Strisand, and a few other Hollywood elites, that BOLDLY declared that would move out of the country, if W won a second term. Oh...NO...wait a minute, you didn't do that. My bad. :rolleyes:

[lsbets]

How many employees?

I can understand if you don't want to answer, but it would nice to get a real-world example of the potential implications from the ruling.

The problem with this ruling goes far beyond obamacare. Essentially the court has said the government has unlimited powers to take what is yours. Dj should sell his business and stop sanctioning the evil, immoral conduct of our government. He is currently allowing himself to be a victim.

[mostpost]

I'm glad to see you are staying consistent. That's the same thing you told George Clooney, Babs Strisand, and a few other Hollywood elites, that BOLDLY declared that would move out of the country, if W won a second term. Oh...NO...wait a minute, you didn't do that. My bad. :rolleyes:

I was not even on this board in 2004. But if I was and if they were, I would have told them the same thing I told DJofSD.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The problem with this ruling goes far beyond obamacare. Essentially the court has said the government has unlimited powers to take what is yours. Dj should sell his business and stop sanctioning the evil, immoral conduct of our government. He is currently allowing himself to be a victim.

I think you're looking at the ruling way too broadly. To me, the mandate is no different than the Medicare tax. I said this yesterday in another thread. In fact, if Obamacare had just called it a tax, the case wouldn't have gone anywhere. So if one opposes ObamaCare, one should also oppose Medicare, imo. Yet, I rarely see anyone on here call Medicare socialized medicine. It is, imo.

[lsbets]

Who needs you. What was that old conservative refrain? "Love it or leave it." Clowns like you that only support the country when it meets your narrow standards are not needed.

Who needs him?

You do. Without people like dj you would have no one to steal from and your corrupt, evil system would collapse. If enough people like dj withdrew their sanction from this system, you would be begging him to return.

[Steve R]

Yes, this is a huge step. For all practical intent and purposes, we are now a socialist country. There is nothing the federal government cannot force us to do. They control our health care. They control our energy. They control our private property (through the income tax). They control our real property (through the EPA). Now they're they've sets their sights increasingly on our food. The only nail left to stick in our coffin is to nullify or at least neutralize (gut) the 2nd Amendment. This will be very, very high on libs' agenda.

Boxcar
How does a Heritage Foundation idea, written into law by corporate lobbyists, that gives to the parasitic private insurance companies (the real "death panels" that contribute nothing to the cost or quality of health care) tens of millions of unwilling new customers and increased profits constitute "socialism"? This decision is a corporatist's wet dream, and realized by a tax increase on those least able to afford it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Who needs him?

You do. Without people like dj you would have no one to steal from and your corrupt, evil system would collapse. If enough people like dj withdrew their sanction from this system, you would be begging him to return.

The private sector's doing just fine...we need more public sector jobs!

[lsbets]

I think you're looking at the ruling way too broadly. To me, the mandate is no different than the Medicare tax. I said this yesterday in another thread. In fact, if Obamacare had just called it a tax, the case wouldn't have gone anywhere. So if one opposes ObamaCare, one should also oppose Medicare, imo. Yet, I rarely see anyone on here call Medicare socialized medicine. It is, imo.

I'm on my iPhone, so my ability to go in depth is limited, but...

The law was not written as a tax. The administration was adamant that it was not a tax. The court essentially rewrote the law to let it stand and has said congress can do just about anything as long as they call it a tax.

As far as medicare goes, I think it should be abolished. Along with Medicaid, social security, snap, the department of education, HUD, dept of education, dept of energy, student loans, and most other goveremt programs and departments that are born of the best intentions with disasterous results.

[elysiantraveller]

The sky is certainly falling in here today.

I'm still not sure how a mandate that required people to go buy a product from one of several different private companies is socialism.

There is a lot of rhetoric on here with very little real understanding of the law.

[ArlJim78]

I'm on my iPhone, so my ability to go in depth is limited, but...

The law was not written as a tax. The administration was adamant that it was not a tax. The court essentially rewrote the law to let it stand and has said congress can do just about anything as long as they call it a tax.

As far as medicare goes, I think it should be abolished. Along with Medicaid, social security, snap, the department of education, HUD, dept of education, dept of energy, student loans, and most other goveremt programs and departments that are born of the best intentions with disasterous results.
AMEN brother!:ThmbUp:

people act like these programs/departments are indispensible and do such great things for the country. the truth is they are killing us.

[mostpost]

The problem with this ruling goes far beyond obamacare. Essentially the court has said the government has unlimited powers to take what is yours. Dj should sell his business and stop sanctioning the evil, immoral conduct of our government. He is currently allowing himself to be a victim.
There are so many things wrong with that statement that is hard to know where to begin. The court says that Congress has the right to impose taxes. That is in the Constitution. Article one Section eight. Nothing new there. Congress does not have unlimited powers to take what is yours and the court did not say that. Congress does have the right to compel compliance with legislation it has legitimately passed.

Congress can prescribe penalties for failing to abide by those laws. If Congress decides that you have to pay a penalty for not having health insurance, how is that any different than your local community saying you have to pay a fine for not stopping at a stop sign?

Both the requirement to stop at the stop sign and the requirement to have health insurance, have their basis in the good of the community as a whole.

[ArlJim78]

The sky is certainly falling in here today.

I'm still not sure how a mandate that required people to go buy a product from one of several different private companies is socialism.

There is a lot of rhetoric on here with very little real understanding of the law.
Do you consider Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas amongst those with little "real understanding" of the law?

[badcompany]

How does a Heritage Foundation idea, written into law by corporate lobbyists, that gives to the parasitic private insurance companies (the real "death panels" that contribute nothing to the cost or quality of health care) tens of millions of unwilling new customers and increased profits constitute "socialism"? This decision is a corporatist's wet dream, and realized by a tax increase on those least able to afford it.

The proper term would be "Interventionism," or you would probably be more comfortable with "Crony Capitalism." It's the same difference: politicians and business colluding to stick it to the consumer. The end game for Interventionism is Socialism as the initial intervention invariably backfires requiring further state intervention. The vicious cycle continues until the state controls everything.

What it's not is the Free Market. That's for damn sure.

[elysiantraveller]

Do you consider Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas amongst those with little "real understanding" of the law?

I wasn't talking about supreme court justices I was referring to the chicken littles in PA OT.

[mostpost]

Who needs him?

You do. Without people like dj you would have no one to steal from and your corrupt, evil system would collapse. If enough people like dj withdrew their sanction from this system, you would be begging him to return.

By his own admission DJofSD employs nowhere near the number of people needed to be required to provide coverage. So what is he complaining about? That he has to buy insurance for himself? He is a fool if he does not have it.
He does have the right to be a fool, but since his being a fool would negatively impact me, he ought to pay for it.

I am ignoring this stupid comment you made, "Without people like dj you would have no one to steal from."

[ArlJim78]

I wasn't talking about supreme court justices I was referring to the chicken littles in PA OT.
We're discussing their decision though. You're claiming that people on here are seeing the sky as falling and have little understanding of the law, when in fact some of us are just agreeing with the four dissenters on the supreme court, that the law is an outrageous over-reach and should have been overruled.

[badcompany]

AMEN brother!:ThmbUp:

people act like these programs/departments are indispensible and do such great things for the country. the truth is they are killing us.

Liberals don't look at the totality of the effects caused by these programs. If "Cash for Clunkers" causes a short-term pop in auto sales, that's all that counts. Nevermind the cost or the long-term effect on demand.

The same with entitlement programs. If old people get their little checks every month, it's a success. Nevermind the effects on real savings and economic growth which could've made these same people much wealthier in their old age.

[elysiantraveller]

We're discussing their decision though. You're claiming that people on here are seeing the sky as falling and have little understanding of the law, when in fact some of us are just agreeing with the four dissenters on the supreme court, that the law is an outrageous over-reach and should have been overruled.

This isn't socialism. It's corporatism at its finest. It's a lobby group who has been offering a bad product getting a government sanctioned mandate that not just some people but EVERYONE buy their product.

Socialists absolutely hate the ACA.

Most people that understand the ACA don't like it because it hurts employers and does nothing to curb insurance costs.

Most of the claims on here are much ado about nothing.

[Steve R]

The proper term would be "Interventionism," or you would probably be more comfortable with "Crony Capitalism." It's the same difference: politicians and business colluding to stick it to the consumer. The end game for Interventionism is Socialism as the initial intervention invariably backfires requiring further state intervention. The vicious cycle continues until the state controls everything.

What it's not is the Free Market. That's for damn sure.
I agree it's not a free market when any organization, government or otherwise, forces individual citizens to buy commercial products against their will. However, it could easily be a step toward fascism as well if state control is the end game. The biggest surprise to me is that although the far left justifiably despises Obamacare because it sets back the cause of single payer, the impotent American liberal movement (an apt phrase used by political activist Chris Hedges to disparage phony liberals like Maddow and Moore) embraces this disaster without even understanding the long-term damage it has done to their ultimate health care objectives. I've been a social democrat (small d) my entire adult life and to me Obamacare is a social disaster. Beyond that I consider Obama an active supporter of the corporate agenda and by far the worst president of my lifetime (I was born in the last days of the Roosevelt administration (Franklin, not Teddy ;-)) when it comes to the destruction of civil liberties and the abandonment of the poor and the middle class. That's basically why I reject any allusion to "socialism" with regard to Obama. I think he's easily to the right of either Nixon or Reagan.

[boxcar]

This isn't socialism. It's corporatism at its finest. It's a lobby group who has been offering a bad product getting a government sanctioned mandate that not just some people but EVERYONE buy their product.

Socialists absolutely hate the ACA.

Most people that understand the ACA don't like it because it hurts employers and does nothing to curb insurance costs.

Most of the claims on here are much ado about nothing.

Go back and listen to a speech that Obama gave I think in '07 to some union guys and he fully supported single payer but told the unions that they'd have to be patient because it can't happen overnight -- but in about 10 to 15 years or so. All this is very well planned out. Single payer is the ultimate goal and it has always been.

And yeah, many socialists hate anything that isn't pure Marxism today -- right now -- in fact...YESTERDAY!

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

As far as medicare goes, I think it should be abolished. Along with Medicaid, social security, snap, the department of education, HUD, dept of education, dept of energy, student loans, and most other goveremt programs and departments that are born of the best intentions with disasterous results.

You are consistent in your opinions...unlike some others.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Go back and listen to a speech that Obama gave I think in '07 to some union guys and he fully supported single payer but told the unions that they'd have to be patient because it can't happen overnight -- but in about 10 to 15 years or so. All this is very well planned out. Single payer is the ultimate goal and it has always been.

And yeah, many socialists hate anything that isn't pure Marxism today -- right now -- in fact...YESTERDAY!

Boxcar

So to clear Box, you believe ObamaCare is creeping toward socialized medicine, but is not socialized medicine itself, correct??? As you know, about 30 mm additional people will be covered, half with Medicaid (existing socialized medicine) and the balance with subsidies to buy insurance from the private sector (not socialized medicine). I just don't see NEW socialized medicine here, but I appreciate your slippery slope argument, which I believe you're making??? If anyone sees NEW socialized medicine here, please explain it to me.

[boxcar]

So to clear Box, you believe ObamaCare is creeping toward socialized medicine, but is not socialized medicine itself, correct??? As you know, about 30 mm additional people will be covered, half with Medicaid (existing socialized medicine) and the balance with subsidies to buy insurance from the private sector (not socialized medicine). I just don't see NEW socialized medicine here, but I appreciate your slippery slope argument, which I believe you're making??? If anyone sees NEW socialized medicine here, please explain it to me.

See my #78. How is it not "socialized medicine" when everyone is forced to participate and the rules for the coverage and so are set by the federal government? Just because it isn't a single payer system right now doesn't mean that this interim hybrid system isn't government-controlled and mandated healthcare.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Flashback Video: ‘Absolutely Reject That’ — Obama, HHS Sec., & Budget Director All Say Mandate Not A Tax

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/flashback-video-absolutely-reject-that-notion-obama-hhs-sec-budget-director-all-say-mandate-not-a-tax/

[Greyfox]

See my #78. How is it not "socialized medicine"
Boxcar

Exactly. :ThmbUp:
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....it's a.....
How does it differ from socialized medicine??

[Tom]

Who needs you. What was that old conservative refrain? "Love it or leave it." Clowns like you that only support the country when it meets your narrow standards are not needed.


You gonna pick up the slack, because it people like HIM who carry this country.
Your precious anchor dems are in for a rude awakening when THEY have to start
paying for stuff because the right has been tapped out of left.
You know 1 trillion dollars just got ripped out of the economy. You know jobs are not going to be created and million will be lost. you know the quality and availability of HC in this country is going to diminish greatly.

Being a union leech, you have no idea what it means to have to be responsible for yourself. I hope your pension is one of the first ones to disappear.

[elysiantraveller]

See my #78. How is it not "socialized medicine" when everyone is forced to participate and the rules for the coverage and so are set by the federal government? Just because it isn't a single payer system right now doesn't mean that this interim hybrid system isn't government-controlled and mandated healthcare.

Boxcar

You, personally, aren't forced to participate.

Secondly, aside from Boxcar who doesn't have insurance, who is commenting on this thread that doesn't have major medical coverage of some sort?

[CryingForTheHorses]

See my #78. How is it not "socialized medicine" when everyone is forced to participate and the rules for the coverage and so are set by the federal government? Just because it isn't a single payer system right now doesn't mean that this interim hybrid system isn't government-controlled and mandated healthcare.

Boxcar

Im wondering if this is the same thing that Canada has for its people?.I havent followed this much but I do know the people in Canada do have healthcard issued from the goverment.I havent been there for about 15 years so I dont really know their system anymore.

[Saratoga_Mike]

See my #78. How is it not "socialized medicine" when everyone is forced to participate and the rules for the coverage and so are set by the federal government? Just because it isn't a single payer system right now doesn't mean that this interim hybrid system isn't government-controlled and mandated healthcare.

Boxcar

Because much of it is achieved through the private sector and rules of coverage are already governed by each state's insurance commission (with the exception of a few states).

It is mandated hc, no one can't argue with you on that point, imo. As for govt control, it really isn't much more than the existing system. As for rationing, if the govt is paying for something (or subsidizing it), yeah I want it rationed. If you want to pay for something yourself, consume as much as you like.

Again, I didn't support ObamaCare as it does nothing to control costs - I think it will do the opposite, but I don't think it's socialized medicine (that would be Medicare and Medicaid [I guess you can call the Medicaid piece socialized medicine]).

[Saratoga_Mike]

Im wondering if this is the same thing that Canada has for its people?.I havent followed this much but I do know the people in Canada do have healthcard issued from the goverment.I havent been there for about 15 years so I dont really know their system anymore.

Not even close. There will not be a single payor system under ObamaCare as currently constructed. Could go there, but that isn't how it's set up.

[Tom]

So does it apply to the 800,000 stinking illegals the POS just gave amnesty to?
Or do we just foot the full bill for them?

How about the people who don't pay taxes now because they make too little - do they get a pass and we get to carry them some more, too?

Remember, no matter what Obama tells you he is a proven liar......no one can argue that.

Any family making under $250,000 will not see any form of tax increase - not a single dime.

I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski,


I am not a crook.

What an embarrassment of presidents we have elected.

[Saratoga_Mike]

you know the quality and availability of HC in this country is going to diminish greatly.

.

I think this is a great point and hasn't been discussed much. We'll have 30 million additional people with health insurance. Now some already consume hc and just don't pay anything for it, but the additional covered lives will weigh on the system, at least initially.

[Tom]

We will end up as bad as hcap thinks we have been.
Now, speaking of hcap, the government can now force everyone to buy carbon credits. Just call it a tax. They can force us to buy electric cars.
Obama can now force us to fulfill his lifelong dream - to destroy the USA.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Everyone has to have the insurance. No one can be turned away. Since the industry was already on 2% margins, that means prices MUST go up. WAY up.

Still have no idea if we have to pay to keep everyone alive to the point of their satisfaction or not.

Yeah, I need the insurance, but won't be able to afford it. And I already work a full-time job. Pay isn't great vs other things, but ok for what I do. Strugglin industry, had to take cuts as it was to keep the job, and was removed from 'employee' status to 'contractor' status to avoid the goodie-goodies to force companies to pay for insuarnce, which would likely promt the company to close.

Give it time. It WILL be a DISASTER overall. The needy will benefit for a while until the whole ecompany and health care plan crashes and burns.

[ElKabong]

For those of you happy about the ruling, how do you plan to pay for your government mandated health insurance?

Given the circumstances of the libs that actually do post here, you and everyone else pays for the majority of them.....think about who the libs are here, what their employment status is, etc.

[ElKabong]

same here, I'm waiting to read it.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Beginning on pg 13 on, it gets pretty interesting.....if you're poor, the IRS won't come after you. You skate. Are you a native American? No reason to pay.

This is a tax on the middle class, plain and simple

[ElKabong]

33 million lower class potential voters were just taxed. Most of them don't even know what taxes are but they will now. Normally, taking money from people doesn't garner votes.

Nope. Read the decision. Those 33 million will largely have FREE health insurance now. No enforcement from the IRS on those below the poverty line. For those above the poverty line that decide to sit it out, the IRS comes at you with both barrels.

Class warfare president, we have

[ElKabong]

I'm still not sure how a mandate that required people to go buy a product from one of several different private companies is socialism.

There is a lot of rhetoric on here with very little real understanding of the law.

(answer to 1rst paragraph) Because the 30+million w/o health insurance will now have it at the expense of the middle class. That angers us. Socialism? At this point I don't think the nomenclature matters. It's a bad bill that shouldn't have gone this far

(2nd paragraph) I read the decision. There will be many freeloaders at the expense (again) of the middle class. Much of the originally proposed funding won't go thru, such as 4% tax on real estate transactions. There's not a congressman alive that will walk that bill around with their name on it....it all falls on the shoulders of taxpayers. Once again, the income challenged individuals in society leech off the middle class

[Robert Fischer]

Sure, a group of "isolated" individuals in the middle class on up will take a hit.

But for those in the middle class on up who are (and for those who like to think of themselves as) participating in the economy, it is better for business when there is a program like this in place.

[elysiantraveller]

(answer to 1rst paragraph) Because the 30+million w/o health insurance will now have it at the expense of the middle class. That angers us.

No they won't. People that had pre-existing conditions and weren't eligilble for insurance coverage can now go out and buy it. To offset that, and make it fair for insurance companies, everyone is now being told to go buy insurance.

As far as the "lazies" that can't afford it... you were already paying for them anyway so why does it matter?...

Either they are A) already on medicaid and you pay for them through your taxes or B) they just didn't pay for care period and you made up for it when you went and got your checkup...

Look I hate this bill just like the next but this isn't class warfare or socialism this is a giant cost-saving measure by the government.

But don't let me get in the way of everyone's anti-socialist RAGE!!!

:)

[horses4courses]

pDcKucuRJx0

[ElKabong]

Why capitalize "rage" ? My "rage" will show up at the voting booth. Not a moment before.

But it makes you feel better, so.....

and as for the "lazies", you're wrong again. If you think we're paying their insurance now, wait till they clog up doc ofc's all over with sniffles an the like. Think pricing won't go thru the roof? And who pays for it? (read the Decision and educate yourself)

[ElKabong]

pDcKucuRJx0

This will be me after the election, when the Obamacare fiasco goes in the toilet :lol:

[bigmack]

Look at goofs like this Horses4Courses. Like a little kid he is.

The likelihood of the main portion of this heap coming into play is 100-1.

See what happens to it come Sunday, January 20, 2013. Monday at the latest.

[ArlJim78]

This opinion comes the closest to mine. I guess it's only appropriate that such a horrible law should be accompanied by a horrible SC decision. Sorry, but the court just can't rewrite the law and declare it ok.


Obamacare Ruling: Pure Fraud and No Due Process (http://Yet this is essentially what Chief Justice Roberts & Co. did today. They said the American people are not entitled to an honest legislative process, one in which they can safely assume that when Congress intentionally uses words that have very different meanings and consequences — like tax and penalty — and when Congress adamantly insists that the foundation of legislation is one and not the other, the Court will honor, rather than rewrite, the legislative process. Meaning: if Congress was wrong, the resulting law will be struck down, and Congress will be told that, if it wants to pass the law, it has to do it honestly.)



Yet this is essentially what Chief Justice Roberts & Co. did today. They said the American people are not entitled to an honest legislative process, one in which they can safely assume that when Congress intentionally uses words that have very different meanings and consequences — like tax and penalty — and when Congress adamantly insists that the foundation of legislation is one and not the other, the Court will honor, rather than rewrite, the legislative process. Meaning: if Congress was wrong, the resulting law will be struck down, and Congress will be told that, if it wants to pass the law, it has to do it honestly.

Just as an appeals court may not legitimately rewrite an indictment and revise what happened at a trial, neither may it legitimately rewrite a statute and fabricate an imaginary congressional record. But today, the Supreme Court rewrote a law — which it has no constitutional authority to do — and treated it as if it were forthrightly, legitimately enacted. Further, it shielded the political branches from accountability for raising taxes, knowing full well that, had Obama and the Democrats leveled with the public that ObamaCare entailed a huge tax hike, it would never have had the votes to pass.

[elysiantraveller]

Why capitalize "rage" ? My "rage" will show up at the voting booth. Not a moment before.

But it makes you feel better, so.....

and as for the "lazies", you're wrong again. If you think we're paying their insurance now, wait till they clog up doc ofc's all over with sniffles an the like. Think pricing won't go thru the roof? And who pays for it? (read the Decision and educate yourself)

I'm trying to tell you we are already paying for it! :lol:

If you get bored sometime google medicare/medicaid abuse/fraud...

This was always meant to be a giant government cost-saving measure. In implementation of course it won't be, but that was always the intent.

It was meant to get money out of:

Consumer's
Poor People
Businesses
States
Medicare
Rich People
etc.
etc.
etc.

It was meant to solve sick and poor people not being involved in any sort of cost-sharing program. In its essence, it addresses that.

You can't see it for what it is thought because to you and most on here Obama is a socialist and couldn't possibly attempt to pass legislation that was meant to do anything other than bring about end of America.

RAGE! may now resume...

[newtothegame]

I'm trying to tell you we are already paying for it! :lol:

If you get bored sometime google medicare/medicaid abuse/fraud...

This was always meant to be a giant government cost-saving measure. In implementation of course it won't be, but that was always the intent.

It was meant to get money out of:

Consumer's
Poor People
Businesses
States
Medicare
Rich People
etc.
etc.
etc.

It was meant to solve sick and poor people not being involved in any sort of cost-sharing program. In its essence, it addresses that.

You can't see it for what it is thought because to you and most on here Obama is a socialist and couldn't possibly attempt to pass legislation that was meant to do anything other than bring about end of America.

RAGE! may now resume...
And what point you are not getting from elk and others is you ARE NOT paying for it YET. Sure, you are paying for what is ALREADY in the system. But what about all those who cant pay and didnt go to the clinic? What about all the illegals who didnt go? THEY WILL NOW GO AND IT WILL GREATLY ADD TO THE COST...(since you like capital letters).
All day long I have seen mayn programs and interviews with DR's and almost without fail, they all say prices will SKY ROCKET for the middle class.
There is already a shortage of DR's across the country...add 30 mil more patients and what will that do to your wait time? How about to your care?
We have already discussed people that beat the system...with this new ruling and the addition of those who "cant afford to pay", don't you think more people will find ways to beat the system?
Look at D of S ...great guy who is doing his part in this country with a small family business....he mentioned earlier why not just throw it all away and joing the club in essence. What is there to prevent him from dong this? NOTHING!
Add in the fact of the immigration ruling this week and its a bucket full of Sh!t quite frankly.
What about the businesses who will willing take the penalty phase versus maintaining higher cost for the employees?
Listen, we all wanted healthcare reform.....but not at this expense. This did NOTHING except add to the insurance companies dreams. THEY GET MORE PEOPLE FORCED TO THEM. And without the ability to pay, SOMEONE has to pay for it....hint, this will be the higher cost passed along in yours and my premiums.

[boxcar]

We will end up as bad as hcap thinks we have been.
Now, speaking of hcap, the government can now force everyone to buy carbon credits. Just call it a tax. They can force us to buy electric cars.
Obama can now force us to fulfill his lifelong dream - to destroy the USA.

The feds could also levy a tax on anyone who exceeds the birth rate of one child per family. They could levy a yearly tax up until the child is....hmm...say 26 of age.

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

Ellie Fields.,

If you think we're paying for the freeloaders now, you haven't seen anything yet. Read boards, listen to interviews. People not availed to HCI before on a regular basis are about to overload the system in 2014. The cost will go from bad to MUCH WORSE


Inability to understand one's post may now resume.

[newtothegame]

Ellie Fields.,

If you think we're paying for the freeloaders now, you haven't seen anything yet. Read boards, listen to interviews. People not availed to HC before on a regular basis are about to overload the system in 2014. The cost will go from bad to MUCH WORSE


Inability to understand one's post may now resume.
yeah thats what I said right above you Elk...Elysian thinks they are ALREADY in the system, there are TONS yet to hit the system!! Wait...its coming!!!!!
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

You, personally, aren't forced to participate.

Secondly, aside from Boxcar who doesn't have insurance, who is commenting on this thread that doesn't have major medical coverage of some sort?

Don't worry about what you think I have or don't have. Boxcar takes care of Boxcar. Eventually I will be forced to participate or pay the "penalty" -- or would that be a tax? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Because much of it is achieved through the private sector and rules of coverage are already governed by each state's insurance commission (with the exception of a few states).

It is mandated hc, no one can't argue with you on that point, imo. As for govt control, it really isn't much more than the existing system. As for rationing, if the govt is paying for something (or subsidizing it), yeah I want it rationed. If you want to pay for something yourself, consume as much as you like.

Again, I didn't support ObamaCare as it does nothing to control costs - I think it will do the opposite, but I don't think it's socialized medicine (that would be Medicare and Medicaid [I guess you can call the Medicaid piece socialized medicine]).

So remind me, again, please, what those 2,700+ pages are all about since "it really isn't much more than the existing system".

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

yeah thats what I said right above you Elk...Elysian thinks they are ALREADY in the system, there are TONS yet to hit the system!! Wait...its coming!!!!!
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

When exactly is it coming?!?

People with pre-existing conditions have been allowed access now for two full years... what have your premiums done? gone up like normal?

As for people who are free-loaders... they are already free loading. This is an attempt at getting money out of them.

You people have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I don't need to read boards or listen to interviews... I work in the damn field... its nothing on here but "blah...socialism...blah...bad..."

In another thread on this forum a person said that they would pay for about 1/3 of their insurance cost... they currently have no coverage... Under current system that person does nothing until they get really sick and we pay for 100%. Under new system person contributes a 1/3 of their healthcare cost we pay 2/3's or is subject to IRS penalty so when they get sick at least we got some money out of them first...

So let me ask you gentlemen... what would you rather pay 2/3s or 3/3s? :faint:

[elysiantraveller]

Don't worry about what you think I have or don't have. Boxcar takes care of Boxcar. Eventually I will be forced to participate or pay the "penalty" -- or would that be a tax? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Not if you are on medicare... you don't have to do anything... I think your decision to abstain from medical expense coverage is not the best but in regards to this law you, personally, don't have to do anything.

[ElKabong]

When exactly is it coming?!?

People with pre-existing conditions have been allowed access now for two full years... what have your premiums done? gone up like normal?

As for people who are free-loaders... they are already free loading. This is an attempt at getting money out of them.

You people have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I don't need to read boards or listen to interviews... I work in the damn field... its nothing on here but "blah...socialism...blah...bad..."

In another thread on this forum a person said that they would pay for about 1/3 of their insurance cost... they currently have no coverage... Under current system that person does nothing until they get really sick and we pay for 100%. Under new system person contributes a 1/3 of their healthcare cost we pay 2/3's or is subject to IRS penalty so when they get sick at least we got some money out of them first...

So let me ask you gentlemen... what would you rather pay 2/3s or 3/3s? :faint:

It's like I'm looking at a merry-go-round, reading your posts. We give answers, you come back with the same old loop

re: next to last paragraph in your wordy post above...It's obvious you did not / have not read the decision (i posted the link). People like jognlope DON'T HAVE TO PAY A DIME in this ACA system if they're under a certain income level

[elysiantraveller]

It's like I'm looking at a merry-go-round, reading your posts. We give answers, you come back with the same old loop

re: next to last paragraph in your wordy post above...It's obvious you did not / have not read the decision (i posted the link). People like jognlope DON'T HAVE TO PAY A DIME in this ACA system if they're under a certain income level

AND THEY DON'T NOW!

I don't agree with the bill, it isn't going to work, but you people calling this socialism, and anti-middle class aren't reading it or are too busy pulling the party line.

The fact is nothing is more expensive than the current system we have in place and there are parts of this 2,700 page thing that can be worked into something effective. Ultimately though if we want to just call something socialist and eviscerate it nothing will be accomplished.

[ElKabong]

I haven't called it socialism. In fact I stated the nomenclature was not important at all. The content, is.

Inability to understand one's post may now resume.

[jognlope]

Oh Elkalong, your comment "people like jognlope" you mean people who work 6 days a week? Explain Elkalong what are "people like Elkabong" like? And why aren't you clapping that the working poor can now afford health insurance? You want to know how many gallbladder attacks I had to go through before getting surgery? Is that what you want?

So what are "people like Elkabong" like? Other than bitter and lacking in the power of analytic thinking?

[acorn54]

elysiantraveller, you come with a refreshing objectivity to the discourse.
unfortunately in american society this is rare, most seem to see the present political climate as a power struggle.
jim rogers left with his family because he said america was in decline due the fact americans were not addressing the nations problems.

[jognlope]

By the way, Scalia broccoli argument, as I said before, is bogus. We do not have a situation in this country of one third of the country is stealing and not paying for broccoli, while the other two thirds pays for it at a higher cost. Unless you know of someone in your neighborhood who put some broccoli under his shirt and ran out of the grocery store....

With health care, up to 1/3 are using services without paying for them....ergo

[ElKabong]

Obviously people like me pay for people like you. It's NOT MY FAULT your earning power is less than what you'd like it to be. The fact is "people like you, live off people like me".

If you were a little more into things, you'd know this pipe dream crap of "make the 1% pay for this expense" is never going to happen. It always falls on the middle class

Mystery solved, off you go.

[lsbets]

Oh Elkalong, your comment "people like jognlope" you mean people who work 6 days a week? Explain Elkalong what are "people like Elkabong" like? And why aren't you clapping that the working poor can now afford health insurance? You want to know how many gallbladder attacks I had to go through before getting surgery? Is that what you want?

So what are "people like Elkabong" like? Other than bitter and lacking in the power of analytic thinking?

Don't people like ElKabong pay your heat bill? Or am I thinking of another poster? If that wasn't you, then I apologize.

[Greyfox]

You people have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I don't need to read boards or listen to interviews... I work in the damn field... its nothing on here but "blah...socialism...blah...bad..."

:faint:

I never said whether or not socialism was good or bad.
What's your problem with denying what it is - socialism?
I asked: If it's not socialism, what is it?

[jognlope]

Yes I know you're trying to rattle me. That's okay. Yes I use HEAP. I fail to see what's wrong with using a program and honestly reporting my income in doing so. I think the question would be do I dishonestly report my income and the answer is no. So what other argument is there? Are you saying no one should use a government program? If so, then tell me, do you plan to forego Medicare? Social Security? Nice try...

[ElKabong]

elysiantraveller, you come with a refreshing objectivity to the discourse.
unfortunately in american society this is rare, most seem to see the present political climate as a power struggle.
.

Actually, some of us have read the decision, and the fact is, a good # of people that don't have HCI now, won't have to pay for their soon to be expanding costs b/c of easier access to it.

Yes, we know we're paying now for their lack of cov'g...No one said we aren't (although that seems to make a poster feel better by posting it). But what we'll pay in the future is going to skyrocket......Easier access +Don't have to pay out of pocket => not a good scenario for cost control

[NJ Stinks]

Chief Justice Roberts sure surprised me today!

This healthcare bill is a big step in the right direction IMO. Will parts of it have to be amended down the road? Most likely - especially because it does not adequately adress the cost of healthcare services in this country.

But the bottom line is the Democratic party has actually tried to do something about the healthcare issues that have plagued this country for a long time. In stark contrast, Republicans did nothing and never would have done anything to address the healthcare issue if history means anything.

[jognlope]

Isbets? Answer?

[bigmack]

I never said whether or not socialism was good or bad.
What's your problem with denying what it is - socialism?
I asked: If it's not socialism, what is it?
Don't you get it?

Elysian is enraged that he believes some people are filled with rage. :rolleyes:

Ah, by the bye, Ely; being a Farmers agent, or whatever your gig is, doesn't necessary make you the authority on all things insurance.

[jognlope]

No it's not my fault that I make the income I do. I can't put a gun to my boss' head and make her give me a raise. I make just about the top line rate right now. Other than a union being organized nationally or statewide, not much I can do about that. Look just give it up, okay?

[ElKabong]

Chief Justice Roberts sure surprised me today!

This healthcare bill is a big step in the right direction IMO. Will parts of it have to be amended down the road? Most likely - especially because it does not adequately adress the cost of healthcare services in this country.

But the bottom line is the Democratic party has actually tried to do something about the healthcare issues that have plagued this country for a long time. In stark contrast, Republicans did nothing and never would have done anything to address the healthcare issue if history means anything.

Interesting take, but look at it this way....One of these days we'll have one of those nasty, evil repugs in oval office & the senate and
house will be full of those rethuglicans ;) .....

What's to keep these evildoers from making stiff, punitive fines and jail time as part of this bill and take away the escape clause for low income earners? After all it's out of the hands of the court...right?

The decision left a lot open to interpretation, not only for ACA (which should NOT have the word "affordable" in the title imho) but a lot of things hanging out in DC

[ElKabong]

No it's not my fault that I make the income I do. I can't put a gun to my boss' head and make her give me a raise. I make just about the top line rate right now. Other than a union being organized nationally or statewide, not much I can do about that. Look just give it up, okay?

Pretty much what I expected.

Nope, not giving it up...., being cash, or the fact I want this POS overturned

[lsbets]

Yes I know you're trying to rattle me. That's okay. Yes I use HEAP. I fail to see what's wrong with using a program and honestly reporting my income in doing so. I think the question would be do I dishonestly report my income and the answer is no. So what other argument is there? Are you saying no one should use a government program? If so, then tell me, do you plan to forego Medicare? Social Security? Nice try...

I'm not trying to rattle you, but it is people like ElKabong who pay your heating bill so that you can then use your money to pay for things like internet access.

Until you decide to pay for life's necessities with your own money, don't spout off on ways to spend other people's money. Nobody requires internet access in their home. Use that money to pay for your heating bill and stop counting on ElKabong to take care of you.

[lsbets]

No it's not my fault that I make the income I do. I can't put a gun to my boss' head and make her give me a raise. I make just about the top line rate right now. Other than a union being organized nationally or statewide, not much I can do about that. Look just give it up, okay?

Take responsibility for your life and stop counting on others to take care of you. Once you accept responsibility for your own well being, you'll find a way to earn more.

[lsbets]

Yes I know you're trying to rattle me. That's okay. Yes I use HEAP. I fail to see what's wrong with using a program and honestly reporting my income in doing so. I think the question would be do I dishonestly report my income and the answer is no. So what other argument is there? Are you saying no one should use a government program? If so, then tell me, do you plan to forego Medicare? Social Security? Nice try...

Now its been a few years, and you said use in the present sense, so I think it is safe to assume you are still on the program. So in your case it wasn't temporary help to get you through a rough patch, you expect it year after year. The noble gesture of others helping you out has created a culture of dependency where you not only expect, but demand that they do, and are not willing to take responsibility for yourself.

[elysiantraveller]

Don't you get it?

Elysian is enraged that he believes some people are filled with rage. :rolleyes:

Ah, by the bye, Ely; being a Farmers agent, or whatever your gig is, doesn't necessary make you the authority on all things insurance.

No I find it idiotic that people are so quick to tow certain party lines without attempting to think even slightly critically. As I have said before this bill was designed to cut cost for the government. No one is refuting that point because its true. They tried to raid absolutely everyone's pocket.

The fact is the guy you vehemently support endorsed a plan that was pretty similar to this. The main difference being his implementation was accompanied with a variety of tax cuts to make it palatable.

I'm not a Farmer's Agent but I'm much more of a authority on the subject than 90% of everyone we hear on TV with their ideological agenda.

The system we have is broke and the haves already pay for all the have-nots. I know some on here would love to just leave them dying in the street but that isn't happening anytime soon. My opposition on this Bill is well documented and my family's personal financial impact of ACA is, I would gather, greater than anyone else's on here. That doesn't however change the fact the majority of you seem to think this bill affects you in ways it simply doesn't.

Finally, the reason why it wasn't struck down today is that it isn't unconstitutional when interpreted as a tax.

[newtothegame]

Elysian,
you can say what you want, but you cant find anywhere in this thread where I called it socialism either.
All I have addressed is the point that cost WILL sky rocket!
And if the ACA says that people under a certain income do NOT have to pay, I can promise you this that DR's and insurance companies will NOT forgive that debt because thety are nice guys. SOMEONE will ultimately pay for those services. And you can say all you like those people are already in ths system. I know reality. And reality is this....this country now has a participation in food stamps like no other years previously. Why do I bring this up you ask? Good question...because there are more and more people in the lower levels of income. Which means more and more people who do NOT have to pay for health services/. Which means I DO PAY MORE! What part of that are you not understanding??????
Its basic math...add more people into a system, cost go up. Less people to pay means fewer people (which are able to pay) pay more.
Look no further then the teachers. They say they need more money as classes sizes increase. Or, they say larger class sizes means less in the way of "learning".
Anytime you add more to something, you dilute that which once was.
And yes jog, like it or not, everyone else who does not receive government assistance pays FOR YOU. That's not to say you dont need the help. Thats not to say that you dont deserve the help. What it does say is that if more and more people were on HEAP, what would it do to the cost of those who are paying for it?????
We truly have become an entitlement society. It's being promoted everywhere you look. They even have television commercials promoting it. It all translates to ONE THING...votes!
So I am all for what D of S mentioned earlier......if he choses to sell out his business and get government assistance...god bless him!! Sooner or later there will be enough of these programs that they can NOT SUSTAIN themselves.
Almost all of the government programs are going broke...more people taking out then paying in.
I'm with LS on this one too......want to break the system, I say lets break the MF quickly and get back to the path where citizens go out and earn the best they can and pay for themselves!! Not everyone needs a cell phone....not everyone needs 100 plus channels of cable.....not everyone needs to eat filet nightly.
Live with in our means. Neighbors helping neighbors, not the government telling me how to live and what to do.

[wisconsin]

Now its been a few years, and you said use in the present sense, so I think it is safe to assume you are still on the program. So in your case it wasn't temporary help to get you through a rough patch, you expect it year after year. The noble gesture of others helping you out has created a culture of dependency where you not only expect, but demand that they do, and are not willing to take responsibility for yourself.

The crux of the entire entitlement society. I could not have said it better. When we enable, we, in a sense, disable.

[newtothegame]

Now its been a few years, and you said use in the present sense, so I think it is safe to assume you are still on the program. So in your case it wasn't temporary help to get you through a rough patch, you expect it year after year. The noble gesture of others helping you out has created a culture of dependency where you not only expect, but demand that they do, and are not willing to take responsibility for yourself.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: That beloved sense of entitlement.....
I know not many people want to hear this....but can't actually blame Jog. It's the system and culture we have allowed to be created.

[newtothegame]

No I find it idiotic that people are so quick to tow certain party lines without attempting to think even slightly critically. As I have said before this bill was designed to cut cost for the government. No one is refuting that point because its true. They tried to raid absolutely everyone's pocket.

The fact is the guy you vehemently support endorsed a plan that was pretty similar to this. The main difference being his implementation was accompanied with a variety of tax cuts to make it palatable.

I'm not a Farmer's Agent but I'm much more of a authority on the subject than 90% of everyone we hear on TV with their ideological agenda.

The system we have is broke and the haves already pay for all the have-nots. I know some on here would love to just leave them dying in the street but that isn't happening anytime soon. My opposition on this Bill is well documented and my family's personal financial impact of ACA is, I would gather, greater than anyone else's on here. That doesn't however change the fact the majority of you seem to think this bill affects you in ways it simply doesn't.

Finally, the reason why it wasn't struck down today is that it isn't unconstitutional when interpreted as a tax.
So after Obama himself stated this was NOT a tax, why would the SC turn around and change it to a Tax?

[iceknight]

Would the government cover flesh wounds?
Let's lighten up folks. Anyway the world is ending in December, zKhEw7nD9C4

[elysiantraveller]

Elysian,
All I have addressed is the point that cost WILL sky rocket!
And if the ACA says that people under a certain income do NOT have to pay, I can promise you this that DR's and insurance companies will NOT forgive that debt because thety are nice guys. SOMEONE will ultimately pay for those services. And you can say all you like those people are already in ths system. I know reality. And reality is this....this country now has a participation in food stamps like no other years previously. Why do I bring this up you ask? Good question...because there are more and more people in the lower levels of income. Which means more and more people who do NOT have to pay for health services/. Which means I DO PAY MORE! What part of that are you not understanding??????
Its basic math...add more people into a system, cost go up. Less people to pay means fewer people (which are able to pay) pay more.

Thats why I am telling you that this system was meant to fight that by pulling money from those people... will it? probably not...

It was also supposed to pull $500 billion from medicare... will it? probably not...

Its also supposed place penalties on employers for not offering plans and penalizing them if they aren't competitive enough... will it? I sure hope not...

They also planned to force insurance companies to operate within fixed, federally mandated, loss ratios... will it? probably not...

Alot of whats going on though is people are trying to distort this discussion into yet another class warfare have/havenot argument when the reality is this whole program was intended to solve these issues.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote about living within means btw.

[Robert Fischer]

Until you decide to pay for life's necessities with your own money, don't spout off on ways to spend other people's money. Nobody requires internet access in their home. Use that money to pay for your heating bill and stop counting on ElKabong to take care of you.

I think you guys are missing the point.

-This is assuming that you vote Republican.(vs. some outside the box alternative)

The leaders of the republican party, as much as they may use a topic such as this to rally support, - do not want all the "jognlopes" to be without internet access or completely out of the economy.

It is in their best interest that a jognlope is online and part of the economy.

It's the same with healthcare.

It's bad for business when people drop out of the economy because of basic needs or healthcare.

They want you to rally behind this stuff, but they're not going to change it.

[elysiantraveller]

So after Obama himself stated this was NOT a tax, why would the SC turn around and change it to a Tax?

Because Obama is a politician... and Roberts was proactive in his interpretation of the law not referring to framer's intent. Its largely irrelevant though because you do realize that striking only the mandate and leaving the rest of the bill intact would be worse for you, elk, tom's, and others position right?

[lsbets]

I think you guys are missing the point.

-This is assuming that you vote Republican.(vs. some outside the box alternative)

The leaders of the republican party, as much as they may use a topic such as this to rally support, - do not want all the "jognlopes" to be without internet access or completely out of the economy.

It is in their best interest that a jognlope is online and part of the economy.

It's the same with healthcare.

It's bad for business when people drop out of the economy because of basic needs or healthcare.

They want you to rally behind this stuff, but they're not going to change it.

I normally do not vote Republican.

Its worse for business when people who produce drop out of the economy because they are tired of being victimized by the looters and the moochers.

[wisconsin]

It's bad for business when people drop out of the economy


Huh? If my money stays with me, I assure you it goes into the economy. I just like to control it, as opposed to being taxed and having the money going to another. By the time it trickles down to someone entitled to it, my dollar is no longer a dollar because of the cost of administrating the programs in the first place.

[Robert Fischer]

I normally do not vote Republican.

Its worse for business when people who produce drop out of the economy because they are tired of being victimized by the looters and the moochers.

true

[Robert Fischer]

Huh? If my money stays with me, I assure you it goes into the economy. I just like to control it, as opposed to being taxed and having the money going to another. By the time it trickles down to someone entitled to it, my dollar is no longer a dollar because of the cost of administrating the programs in the first place.

the corporations that make the rules would rather you not control it.

[wisconsin]

the corporations that make the rules would rather you not control it.


I love just these straw arguments. Which corporations are making the rules?

[ElKabong]

As for people who are free-loaders... they are already free loading. This is an attempt at getting money out of them.

You people have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I don't need to read boards or listen to interviews... I work in the damn field... its nothing on here but "blah...socialism...blah...bad..."

In another thread on this forum a person said that they would pay for about 1/3 of their insurance cost... they currently have no coverage... Under current system that person does nothing until they get really sick and we pay for 100%. Under new system person contributes a 1/3 of their healthcare cost we pay 2/3's or is subject to IRS penalty so when they get sick at least we got some money out of them first...

So let me ask you gentlemen... what would you rather pay 2/3s or 3/3s? :faint:

For someone like you who is an industry insider, it must be embarrassing to have an outsider show you text where your scenario is wrong.

Below is text from today's Decision (i posted the link earlier). The system relies on people to pay in. If they don't pay in, the IRS comes calling....but if there's nothing for the IRS to take (paycheck), then these people will not be subjected to payments into the system, nor penalty by the system. It encourages cheating more than anything that exists today or in the past.

It invites people to (a) work under the table, or (b) sit on their ass and abuse the system. Plenty of both types. Too many, really

The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and
levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the
penalty—for example, those with income below a certain
threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).



http://soundbible.com/2023-Helicopter-Against-Missile.html

[elysiantraveller]

For someone like you who is an industry insider, it must be embarrassing to have an outsider show you text where your scenario is wrong.

Below is text from today's Decision (i posted the link earlier). The system relies on people to pay in. If they don't pay in, the IRS comes calling....but if there's nothing for the IRS to take (paycheck), then these people will not be subjected to payments into the system, nor penalty by the system. It encourages cheating more than anything that exists today or in the past.

It invites people to (a) work under the table, or (b) sit on their ass and abuse the system. Plenty of both types. Too many, really

The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and
levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the
penalty—for example, those with income below a certain
threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).



http://soundbible.com/2023-Helicopter-Against-Missile.html

I hate this legislation for the exact reason you posted... it lacks enforcement everywhere... that stuff can be changed within the current framework.

Mad props on the sound effect though... I laughed my ass off.

[ElKabong]

:)

[jognlope]

Ok Isbets I guess that means when you access Medicare and social security, you're not "having govt. take care of you?" But for me to use HEAP the govt. is taking care of me. I don't follow that argument.

The only question to ask is if the recipient is being honest when applying, because you have to assume that a govt. program would not be set up unless the legislators who develop the program feel it is valid. Here's another little nugget, I am the only woman I know who completely supports herself without fake disability, without a sugar daddy and have been doing it for 35 years. And proud of it! God Bless!

However, there are plenty of guys and gals around my neighborhood that know how to trick the disability system, walking around, smoking dope, etc etc that I would be glad to refer you to.

[jognlope]

Newtothegame:

"Can't blame Jog, it's the system we've created." Again, do you plan to use Medicare or social security? What is this problem with HEAP? Please explain and use your brain. (hey that rhymes)

[jognlope]

Does "a Robert Fischer" plan to use Medicare and social security?

I notice no one is answering this question....:)

[lsbets]

Here's another little nugget, I am the only woman I know who completely supports herself without fake disability, without a sugar daddy and have been doing it for 35 years. And proud of it! God Bless!


You don't completely support yourself. Others pay for your necessities so you can purchase luxuries. ElKabong is your Sugar Daddy. And he doesn't even get sex out of the deal.

The fact that you justify taking other people's money and not thinking twice about it because the program is there, speaks volumes about what is wrong with our system. You should be declared a ward of the state and not be allowed to vote until you show an adult desire to take responsibility for your life.

[lsbets]

Newtothegame:

"Can't blame Jog, it's the system we've created." Again, do you plan to use Medicare or social security? What is this problem with HEAP? Please explain and use your brain. (hey that rhymes)

I have stated that I want to abolish both programs. I can't speak for NTG, but he has paid into the programs, not just for himself, but for folk like you who get way more out than they ever put in. He's another one of your sugar daddys.

[jognlope]

I don't agree. I have been paying taxes for 35 years, so I have more than put in my share. Anyway, I believe it's the honesty of the recipient to receive a valid, legislated program that is the key. No program is as good as its auditing system. We all use government programs. HEAP is necessary because of National Grid's rates, which are about 3 times the national average and have grown by 2000% in last 20 years. Really. Shouldn't you guys be focused on disability cheats?

[Ocala Mike]

So after Obama himself stated this was NOT a tax, why would the SC turn around and change it to a Tax?



Only Chief Justice Roberts used the "tax" rather than "commerce" theory to uphold it. Conspiracy theories posited by Michael Savage on his radio program tonight (and mentioned on Drudge Report):

1. Obama's Chicago gangsters have something to blackmail Roberts with a la that Nevada politician in "The Godfather."

2. Roberts is suffering from impaired judgment due to epilepsy medication he is taking.

3. He never trusted Roberts, a Bush appointee, anyway, and correctly predicted he would be the weak link in this case a few nights back.

[jognlope]

Isbets, I support myself. And I'm your sugar daddy by your argument, as soon as you or anyone else starts receiving Medicare and social security. I'm surprised you care that much about a lousy HEAP grant. Surprising.

[jognlope]

Isbets, while you get Medicare, will have you have any luxuries? None?

[lsbets]

Isbets, I support myself. And I'm your sugar daddy by your argument, as soon as you or anyone else starts receiving Medicare and social security. I'm surprised you care that much about a lousy HEAP grant. Surprising.

How can you say you support yourself when others pay your bills? The only reason you can afford the internet access to post on here is because other people pay your heating bill for you.

Aside from the fact that I want to do away with social security and medicare, you obviously have no idea how the programs work. I'll get back less than what I put in, while moochers like you get back more than they put in. We'll be supporting you on those programs also because you have no desire to better your lot in life. You are content allowing others to take care of you. You think you are entitled to other people's money. That is disgusting.

What other assistance programs do you use? Electric? Rent? Snap? I don't believe for a second that you have not found other ways to mooch.

[lsbets]

Shouldn't you guys be focused on disability cheats?

No. Give up the damned luxuries and pay for your own necessities. My children should not pay for your heating bill. When you get rid of the internet, get rid of the cell phone, and do everything you can to earn more money, I will gladly personally give you money to help with your heating bill. Until then, your sense of entitlement, your feeling that it is perfectly okay to take from others while giving nothing up yourself, places you on the bottom rung of the worst members of our society. The only ones worse are the ones who encouraged you to get there in the first place.

[newtothegame]

Newtothegame:

"Can't blame Jog, it's the system we've created." Again, do you plan to use Medicare or social security? What is this problem with HEAP? Please explain and use your brain. (hey that rhymes)
Ok jog, since you wish to question ones intellect with your brain comment...here's one for you.
Do I plan to use Medicare, Social Security, AND HEAP? NO!!!!
I plan on using none of the above. I have a plan in place and at the age of 43, am proud to say I have a nice nest egg to date. Sure, things can and do go wrong.
you somehow took my post as a stab at you. It wasn't. Let me say it again. you need and deserve that program. I have no problem with that.
But, I am sure there are non necessities you have that one might not see as a "necessity". For example, how does it feel knowing others are paying to help with your heating cost and you're sitting here on the internet arguing about the need for someone to pay for your heating?
If you don't see the issue with that, then I can't answer anything that will be to your satisfaction.
You mention all those 'around" you who are using the system, how many have you reported? If you haven't, then you too are part of the problem by creating the system which allows for that type of lifestyle.
Like it or not, everytime someone steals from a store, the next time you shop there, you pay for it.
you complained the other day about your rent going up due to a "water bill". But you mentioned that your rent had not gone up in almost five years (if I recall correctly). Do you think your landlords bills have not increased in five years? How about maintenance on the building...are they they same cost for contractors etc etc as they were five years ago?
See, you see things from one side of the prism...and that's fine. You are on that side of it. Just remember, a prism has more then one side!

[Robert Fischer]

. When you get rid of the internet, get rid of the cell phone, and do everything you can to earn more money..

I thought she said she filled out the information accurately.

It seems like you should address your complaints to the gov't, not an individual who plays by the rules.

[lsbets]

I thought she said she filled out the information accurately.

It seems like you should address your complaints to the gov't, not an individual who plays by the rules.

It is up to the individual to take responsibility for their own lives. The government doesn't want to help her get off the programs. As long as she is allowed to vote, the politicians will get reelected and the bureaucrats will have job security.

Do you see nothing wrong with someone choosing to stay on government assistance for years while paying for nice to haves instead of need to haves with the money they earn? If you have no problem with that, then we will never be close in any discussion on this issue. We are not talking about someone getting help one winter because times are tough. We are talking about someone with an established pattern of dependency who expects to have the need to haves taken care of so they can go and buy the nice to haves. This has gone on for years, with no sense of shame or guilt or personal responsibility to better her lot in life. Nothing but a "how dare you question me" attitude, a sense of entitlement. I don't want to help someone who feels entitled to my money. I want her to make a choice. Heat or internet. And if she chooses internet I don't want to be forced to help her. Let her freeze, its her choice.

[bigmack]

It seems like you should address your complaints to the gov't, not an individual who plays by the rules.
For anyone lost in space on how things like these work - 'Those rules' spread like wildfire once any changes take effect.

Tons of people throughout the country are hardwired to know, to the last detail, to the latest update, what programs are available and how to 'work em.'

Heard over coughee: Betty, if you qualify for X program you're a cinch to get accepted to Y, Z & R.

Commercials encouraging people to get food stamps. PUBLICLY FUNDED COMMERCIALS!

Go get them dollars. Whoopsie, meant "assistance."

Gotta work those programs. Work 'em real good. Just playin' by the rules, they say.

[Tom]

Look at goofs like this Horses4Courses. Like a little kid he is.

The likelihood of the main portion of this heap coming into play is 100-1.

See what happens to it come Sunday, January 20, 2013. Monday at the latest.

January 1 is the drop dead day - tax sunami hits home.
You wake up New Year's day and your take home pay is now about half what it was New Year's Eve. You think after the SC told the "community organizers"
they can do anything they feel like if they call it a tax that ANY of the enormous tax increases will be stopped?

You better get drunk this NYE......it will be your last chance to rub two nickels together.

[jognlope]

Okay I see what you mean. But I don't know how that would apply to me because I have to have high speed Internet to do my job as med. transcriptionist.

I hate the welfare state. But if offered a way out, I do think most of them would take it. That's why I tell whoever I can about pell grants for tech. schools and stuff like that. What is needed is some guidance to transition them to education and apprentice programs.

[Tom]

No it's not my fault that I make the income I do. I can't put a gun to my boss' head and make her give me a raise. I make just about the top line rate right now. Other than a union being organized nationally or statewide, not much I can do about that. Look just give it up, okay?

But WE all have unlimited money from our jobs, so hey, you are entitled to a fist full of our bucks, right? Thanks a HEAP.

[Robert Fischer]

It is up to the individual to take responsibility for their own lives. The government doesn't want to help her get off the programs. As long as she is allowed to vote, the politicians will get reelected and the bureaucrats will have job security.

Do you see nothing wrong with someone choosing to stay on government assistance for years while paying for nice to haves instead of need to haves with the money they earn? If you have no problem with that, then we will never be close in any discussion on this issue. We are not talking about someone getting help one winter because times are tough. We are talking about someone with an established pattern of dependency who expects to have the need to haves taken care of so they can go and buy the nice to haves. This has gone on for years, with no sense of shame or guilt or personal responsibility to better her lot in life. Nothing but a "how dare you question me" attitude, a sense of entitlement. I don't want to help someone who feels entitled to my money. I want her to make a choice. Heat or internet. And if she chooses internet I don't want to be forced to help her. Let her freeze, its her choice.

Personally? Some of the wages are pretty low. I'm not interested in that poster's personal details, but thought I read that the person worked a job, makes a low enough income to qualify for the program, and even has a little bit of cash left over.

I don't have a problem with that. I happen to think our time is worth more than the bare necessities. I don't see something as internet access (even at the artificial price of ~$200 or so $US ) to be a luxury.

My personal opinion is meaningless.

Someone that spends their tiny bit of disposable income on something like the Internet/CableTv is exactly what both parties want.
She is online and watches commercials.

this an ideal example of a good citizen.
Apparently she works labor-hours for a company, and then her entertainment involves commercialized media.
should get an award , not a hard time!

[jognlope]

New: Who are you kidding? You will use social security and unless you're superman, you will use Medicare.

[Tom]

New: Who are you kidding? You will use social security and unless you're superman, you will use Medicare.

I paid into SS.
And medicare.
And the internet.

[jognlope]

Yes I am entitled to HEAP and I hope if and when you need it, you will apply. And yes, you too, Tom, will use government programs. Ok I'm done with this exercise in locker room mentality, have to get back to work.

If you hate HEAP that much, write your Congressman. And be sure to deposit coins as you drive along the highway and bring that lab testing equipmen to the grocery to test for E. coli. Nighty night!!

[lsbets]

Personally? Some of the wages are pretty low. I'm not interested in that poster's personal details, but thought I read that the person worked a job, makes a low enough income to qualify for the program, and even has a little bit of cash left over.

I don't have a problem with that. I happen to think our time is worth more than the bare necessities. I don't see something as internet access (even at the artificial price of ~$200 or so $US ) to be a luxury.

My personal opinion is meaningless.

Someone that spends their tiny bit of disposable income on something like the Internet/CableTv is exactly what both parties want.
She is online and watches commercials.

this an ideal example of a good citizen.
Apparently she works labor-hours for a company, and then her entertainment involves commercialized media.

I've never cared about being considered a dick for my opinions, and I'm not about to start caring now. (not that you've called me one, but I'm not going to sugarcoat).

Assume someone works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, with one hour for lunch. That leaves 15 hours in a day. Times are tough and they want more money. Here's what they can do:

Get a part time job. I know plenty of people who decide to take control of their lives, and in order to do it take on a second job, whether it be for a few months, or a few years. I know people who every year get a seasonal job at a department store to pull in some extra cash around the holidays. That would go a long way towards paying a heating bill. So would working 12 hours a week as a cashier at a supermarket, or a coupe of shifts as a server.

People can choose to have others provide for them and never strive to get more out of life, or they can choose to take charge of their lives and get more. It is up to the individual to advance themselves.

Look above. She says she is entitled to HEAP. She feels she is entitled to the fruits of your labor, which the government has confiscated from you and chosen to give to her. Instead of saying thank you, she says she is entitled to it. For years. Not temporary assistance. She has been getting it for years and sees nothing wrong with it, because in her mind she is entitled to the fruits of your labor. That is sick.

[bigmack]

I question the new found drift in this thread and encourage further Gov Progam discussion to spin over to JoognLoop's T-red.

Howevah -

Bing: I'm El Presidente manana. (that's tomorrow for our Canadian speaking audience)

I hire 2 million folk to weed out fraud in G Assist Prog's. You get ___salary OR 50% of the fraud you discover. (Can you imagine, incentivized government employees??) ANYONE who gets public assistance has to go before this entity. You better bring a pile of documentation about your need or you be cut off.

That's not cold-hearted. That's playing by the rules.

If you REALLY need it, you got it. Not a problem. More than happy to help.

But if you're a cheater. WE COMIN'.

http://media.salon.com/2012/04/romney_france_rectangle-460x307.jpg

[Tom]

Personally? Some of the wages are pretty low. I'm not interested in that poster's personal details, but thought I read that the person worked a job, makes a low enough income to qualify for the program, and even has a little bit of cash left over.

So a career, which is what it is, of stealing the fruits of someone else's labors is fine?

What about the little left over for those who have earned it? How much would I have left over if I didn't have to pay for other people?

[newtothegame]

Yes I am entitled to HEAP and I hope if and when you need it, you will apply. And yes, you too, Tom, will use government programs. Ok I'm done with this exercise in locker room mentality, have to get back to work.

If you hate HEAP that much, write your Congressman. And be sure to deposit coins as you drive along the highway and bring that lab testing equipmen to the grocery to test for E. coli. Nighty night!!
See Jog, I was with you all the way up unitl this post..... You are NOT entitled. you are given an opportunity in America. What you do with that opportunity is YOUR choice.
I chose a path that led me to be able to have a nice job and a nest egg. As to your comment about me having to use government programs, I dont believe I have ever to this date, used any. And as I said in my post, things happen. So no one knows whats in our future. But, I can tell you what I have done....
1. I took the oppportunity given to me in America and turned it into a nice management position for thirteen years (twenty with the same company).
That position paid me nicely for my efforts with a base and performance incentives. It also pays me in the form of stock grants and options yearly. For thirteen plus years, I have saved those grants and options, knowing that one day I might need them.
I have started a small business on my own over the last ten years. Which, I lost in Hurricane Katrina and have recently restarted. Nothing big, just a small extra income business (Landscaping and Lawn Care) if you must know.I am currently back in college (half way to my business degrees). And, with NO grants! I have to pay back every damned penny, with interest!
So, do I take offense when I see someone beating the system? YOU DAMNED RIGHT I DO.
But, as I said before, I do not believe this to be you. In that same breath though, I have a hard time listening to someone telling me they are ENTITLED.
Please, explain this entitlement thing to me. Does it mean I should not have worked my way up into management? Does it mean I should not have started my own little business? Does it mean I should not have done the prudent thing and saved my money?
Does it mean I should just depend on others to pay my way, while I go buy things that I really can't afford?
Should I have just taken and laid down, and got someone else to pay for my college? My place of residence? My food? Any gambling expenses I should acquire?
You see, the reason you don't see a problem with what you are receiving is it has become a WAY OF LIFE. That is not the way of life that was promised to us as Americans. It is what has evolved through the need for votes. That is why you are hearing what you are hearing from some on this board.
But, I understand, you will never get that point.

[depalma113]

I love the law of unintended consequences.

I currently have insurance provided by my employer. I pay nearly $1500 a year for that insurance. Premiums are expected to rise to nearly $2000 a year by 2014. The Supreme Court just gave me a huge out.

I will cancel my insurance. I will pay the very tiny fee for not having insurance. I will keep my $2000 per year. Since I can't be denied for a preexisting condition, if or when I need insurance, I will buy it.

The result is a huge yearly raise for me.

Since my company considers the amount of money they pay for my insurance premium, part of my overall compensation, maybe I can convince them to drop coverage for all of us. I'll even split the difference of what's left over above the amount of the fine they will have to pay. It's a win win for both of us.

[newtothegame]

I love the law of unintended consequences.

I currently have insurance provided by my employer. I pay nearly $1500 a year for that insurance. Premiums are expected to rise to nearly $2000 a year by 2014. The Supreme Court just gave me a huge out.

I will cancel my insurance. I will pay the very tiny fee for not having insurance. I will keep my $2000 per year. Since I can't be denied for a preexisting condition, if or when I need insurance, I will buy it.

The result is a huge yearly raise for me.

Since my company considers the amount of money they pay for my insurance premium, part of my overall compensation, maybe I can convince them to drop coverage for all of us. I'll even split the difference of what's left over above the amount of the fine they will have to pay. It's a win win for both of us.
Not sure if this was tongue in cheek but, a lot of companies have said previously that they will drop coverages and pay the fine as its cheaper.....
Then, we can have mosty, nj and the crew come running telling us how evil those companies are when the government, THEY elected, gave them this unintended consequence. Guess pelosi and groupies should of read BEFORE passing :bang:

[depalma113]

The second half concerning splitting the money with my company was tongue and cheek. They will keep it all and just pay the fine.

The first part though is absolutely what I am going to do. I will game this for all it's worth.

[ElKabong]

Yes I am entitled !

Enough said.

I couldn't live in your skin, don't know how or why you do it. People like you steal from people like me. It won't continue.

[ElKabong]

The second half concerning splitting the money with my company was tongue and cheek. They will keep it all and just pay the fine.

The first part though is absolutely what I am going to do. I will game this for all it's worth.

Tens of millions will go in with the same mindset. The Obama admin left the cookies on the plate...did they not expect people to grab and run?

Pisses me off.

Obama will field tough questions on The View soon enough to explain how this is just wonderful. Pussy that he is.

[boxcar]

Not sure if this was tongue in cheek but, a lot of companies have said previously that they will drop coverages and pay the fine as its cheaper.....
Then, we can have mosty, nj and the crew come running telling us how evil those companies are when the government, THEY elected, gave them this unintended consequence. Guess pelosi and groupies should of read BEFORE passing :bang:

This is one of the major ways the government intends to slip out of the uncomfortable garb of insurance companies and slip into something more comfy like single payer. The government will demonize the insurance companies as evil, greedy corporations who don't care if their workers live or die, so at that point the government will come riding in on its white charger to save the day as the workers' savior by offering singe payer. Therefore, this is not an "unintended consequence". This has been well thought out. The consequences are very much intended.

Boxcar

[sammy the sage]

I haven't read this whole thread...nor will I...

It's ALL Bush's fault...he appointed Roberts...thar...just in case it hasn't been written...and if it has...oh well... :lol:

[so.cal.fan]

all these programs become UNSUSTAINABLE?
When the people paying the taxes for all of these programs, run out of money or as deplalma says, drop out of the system to collect the entitlements? DePlama brings up an interesting point, and it's true, it's going to happen.
Then what?

We live in California. Anyone here know what just happened to Stockton, Ca?

California is not like La. or Tex. we are not business friendly. People are out of jobs here, they have lost homes due to over development buying homes they couldn't afford. California used to be many people's "American Dream", now it is their nightmare.
We are over taxed here and then some.
We have more people on entitlement programs than those who are paying the tab. Again, it's unsustainable. Just like Greece and the EU, California is on an unsustainable path.
Just like Germany not willing to bail out Greece and other entitlement societies, why should the people in Texas, La. N.C. North Dakota and other states that are doing better be required to pay for our foolishness.
We have a state full of clueless voters....we are all going to pay for this.


For the first time in my long life, I am very anxious about what is happening.
People I know are very anxious. Some older people are very fearful.
There is uncertainty.

[ArlJim78]

This isn't socialism. It's corporatism at its finest. It's a lobby group who has been offering a bad product getting a government sanctioned mandate that not just some people but EVERYONE buy their product.

Socialists absolutely hate the ACA.

Most people that understand the ACA don't like it because it hurts employers and does nothing to curb insurance costs.

Most of the claims on here are much ado about nothing.
that is the tip of the iceberg, hurting employers and doing nothing to curtail insurance costs. if expecting the supreme court to interpret a bill as it is written is much a ado about nothing then we are once again in disagreement.

you excel in making pointless distinctions. it's okay to dislike the bill because it's corporatism at it's finest, but not because it's socialism.

call it whatever the hell you want. the bill is a disaster.
semantics aside, do you agree or disagree with that?

[burnsy]

that is the tip of the iceberg, hurting employers and doing nothing to curtail insurance costs. if expecting the supreme court to interpret a bill as it is written is much a ado about nothing then we are once again in disagreement.

you excel in making pointless distinctions. it's okay to dislike the bill because it's corporatism at it's finest, but not because it's socialism.

call it whatever the hell you want. the bill is a disaster.
semantics aside, do you agree or disagree with that?
people that cry "socialism" in this country don't have a clue about what they are talking about. try reading das capital , no one does but thats what socialism is....there is NO profit allowed in socialism or interest rates....this is the most profit and interest driven country in the history of the world. so anyone that cries about socialism...has not a clue. the presidents right hand man was one of the biggest bankers on wall st. socialist are NOT bankers. i don't like republicans or democrats so i research these things on my own. i'm currently writing a thesis on this very issue. the facts are that we spend more per person on health care than any one else. all the while, 30 to 50 million people walk around without insurance. you have to force all of these people into the insurance pool or everyone else basically pays thier bill. thats how it works now...so if you think your getting over because you have insurance and others don't...you are actually paying their way when they get sick and can't pay their bill. an average broken leg costs about 20 grand to fix...so when some joker walks in and gets treated without insurance......the people with insurance pay fot that! i don't know if this bill will work out...most countries go single payer and they are outperforming us, cost and HEALTH wise. its pretty sad that we are so fat and unhealthy that we are now dying earlier than many other countries. in other words something has to change. as for the constitution, its not constitutional to make others pay for you when you get sick. if you don't like the mandate....don't buy insurance...but if you get sick don't show up at the ER for treatment either. thats what people want.....not to pay for crap then when they get sick they want help that they can never pay for by themselves...you can have that right...but if it happens you can have the right to die too...because you were not responsible enough to buy the insurance...if it worked like that...people would change their tune....real quick like. doing something is better than doing nothing. because if we do nothing this will blow up our economy and everyones health and well being. like i said if you don't like it...go it alone...but if you can't pay CASH for your 300, 000 dollar hospital bill. take your chances at home in bed with a bottle of aspirin.......LIVE OR DIE....LOL. its not better? thats funny 98% of the people in Mass. have insurance. people like the system...the loudest bafoon against it is running for president....but he signed this bill!! so keep listening to the politicians that will get you far....lol

[PaceAdvantage]

Don't take this the wrong way, but how are you gong to write a thesis with a keyboard that's missing the ENTER key?

[Tom]

btw, this clearly is Judicial Rewrite instead of Judicial Review.
This is taxation without representation...and we have a history of going to WAR over this.

It is certainly.
King Roberts is not fit to live in this country, and as citizens, we have a duty to run him and his family out......just Obama and the Unions attacked the banks, we need to start showing up at King Roberts home and badgering him and his family until they leave.

History is on our side.....Roberts is a an enemy of the people and deserves no respect nor quarter.

[so.cal.fan]

I wonder if Obama's "Thugoctacy" got to him, Tom?

[Tom]

Clearly that is possible.
Either way, Roberts is a scumbag.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Don't take this the wrong way, but how are you gong to write a thesis with a keyboard that's missing the ENTER key?

He's no e.e. cummings, that's for sure.

[Saratoga_Mike]

btw, this clearly is Judicial Rewrite instead of Judicial Review.
This is taxation without representation...and we have a history of going to WAR over this.

It is certainly.
King Roberts is not fit to live in this country, and as citizens, we have a duty to run him and his family out......just Obama and the Unions attacked the banks, we need to start showing up at King Roberts home and badgering him and his family until they leave.

History is on our side.....Roberts is a an enemy of the people and deserves no respect nor quarter.

Wow. I kind of like when you get fired up. I must stop by and say hello to you at Saratoga this yr.

[so.cal.fan]

I call him "judas" Roberts. He no longer deserves the title "judge".

[FantasticDan]

Tom must be waiting 'til after lunch before heading over to Judge Roberts' crib for some gold ol' fashioned harassment :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

I call him "judas" Roberts. He no longer deserves the title "judge".

Yes, because he has a long history of judicial activism. :rolleyes:

[FantasticDan]

I call him "judas" Roberts. He no longer deserves the title "judge".What about Judge Judas? Got a catchy ring to it. Maybe after Tom and his minions drive him out, he can have his own Mexican TV court show.. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[so.cal.fan]

I don't know that much about him Saratoga Mike.
He just gives me the impression of a very weak man.
He has now lost the respect of many, many people.

[boxcar]

Yes, because he has a long history of judicial activism. :rolleyes:

Since when does one need a paper trail of betrayal? Judas betrayed Christ just once and that's all it took to bring his murder to pass. Roberts betrayed the trust of this country and the oath he took to uphold the Constitution, and this could well have profound effects upon the country for as long as we exist as a nation.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Since when does one need a paper trail of betrayal? Judas betrayed Christ just once and that's all it took to bring his murder to pass. Roberts betrayed the trust of this country and the oath he took to uphold the Constitution, and this could well have profound effects upon the country for as long as we exist as a nation.

Boxcar

Box - that's an over the top analogy.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't know that much about him Saratoga Mike.
He just gives me the impression of a very weak man.
He has now lost the respect of many, many people.

Sorry, but that's absurd and baseless. Please feel free to disagree with him, but it doesn't make him a "very weak man."

[OntheRail]

Really think this whole thing sucks.... I pay my way always have. I believe they should of reined in the cost of healthcare placed tort reform on a fast track. Done these things first before stuffing this added tax down our collective throats. This is like trying to put out a burning leaf with a gallon of gas. I'm really thinking about selling off all my assets and jumps on the welfare bandwagon. Hell let someone else pay for my heat... lights... food... cell phone and whatever Uncle Sam wants to "Help Me" with. Well guess I'll really wait till after Nov. if the BO keeps his job... I'll not survive another 4 yrs of ruin from Washington... I'll cash in on all the handout after I travel and have fun on my hard earned money then when I'm broke I live the high life free from worry. Is there a learn the Welfare System for Dummies book? I have to learn the ends and out in months. I don't have the generational legacy to fall back on. Why keep... :bang:

[acorn54]

in college i had a conversation with a political scientist and he said something interesting about the supreme court nominees. he said oftentimes the president thinks he is getting a nominee with similiar leanings towards law as himself, but in time that now- justice of the supreme court becomes just the opposite.
perhaps someone with more knowledge than me can chime in with some examples.
anyway, yesterday i read that dick cheney after a conversation with roberts felt he was a good nominee because his interpretation of law was close adherance to the constitution.

[ArlJim78]

our classy president took to twitter today to gloat "Health Care is still a BFD" he says.

[Tom]

Wow. I kind of like when you get fired up. I must stop by and say hello to you at Saratoga this yr.

Yes, looking forward to it.
But, never mix racing and politics. ;)

[fast4522]

Clearly that is possible.
Either way, Roberts is a scumbag.

I hate to say it, maybe I should say it to a tape recorder, you were right Tom.

[Tom]

What about Judge Judas? Got a catchy ring to it. Maybe after Tom and his minions drive him out, he can have his own Mexican TV court show.. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

This POS could not shine Judge Judy's shoes.

[FantasticDan]

our classy president took to twitter today to gloat "Health Care is still a BFD" he says.Actually it was sent by his campaign, not the Prez.

The President’s campaign sent an unsigned tweet late Thursday night that simply read: “Still a BFD.”

The cheeky abbreviation refers to Vice President Joe Biden’s hot-mic moment in 2010 when Obama signed health reform into law. As Biden gave Obama a congratulatory hug at the podium, he was overheard telling him: “This is a big f---ing deal.”

The tweet apparently prompted the National Republican Congressional Committee to fire back in a press release Friday morning that said the health law was, in fact, a "big f---ing tax."

[Steve R]

btw, this clearly is Judicial Rewrite instead of Judicial Review.
This is taxation without representation...and we have a history of going to WAR over this.

It is certainly.
King Roberts is not fit to live in this country, and as citizens, we have a duty to run him and his family out......just Obama and the Unions attacked the banks, we need to start showing up at King Roberts home and badgering him and his family until they leave.

History is on our side.....Roberts is a an enemy of the people and deserves no respect nor quarter.
Or Roberts first priority was ensuring increased profits for the insurance companies so he took the hit for the conservative side that didn't want to look like it was backing Obama. And/or he wanted it to succeed in order to motivate the conservative base (and now tax-victimized young people as well) against an Obama reelection. Roberts was the wildcard here. The vote had nothing to do with constitutionality. It was strictly partisan---the Democrats/Liberals for Obama and the Republicans/Conservatives against Obama. But in the end, this legislation which was conceived by the Heritage Foundation and written by the insurance lobby had to survive because that's what the corporations wanted. Unless you think Unitedhealth Group, Wellpoint, Kaiser, Aetna, Humana and the other health care parasites wanted the program to be tossed out. Not likely. I think you're missing the point here. The guys who wrote the plan and buy the legislative votes will keep it under control. There's not a chance in hell this is a prelude to pervasive "socialized" medicine. The inmates are now in control of the asylum and they will keep it that way. This is what corporate America wanted and they got their man, Obama, to convince many of the great unwashed that it was in their interest. As I suggested in an earlier post. The ACA as written is a corporatist's wet dream. You're underestimating how clever Roberts really is.

[boxcar]

Box - that's an over the top analogy.

It's a perfect analogy, as my analogies always are. There is no way on this little green planet any honest human being could have come away with ObamaCare being a tax. Nowhere in the bill does it say it's a tax. The Dems and the President have consistently denied it was a tax (until the bill was challenged in court, then some of them sung a different tune).

Roberts, while being very shrewd, was simultaneously the consummate coward. He knew the mandate was unconstitutional, so he got around that little inconvenient hurdle by just dubbing it a tax. On what grounds? Where in the bill does it say it's a tax? It's consistently been referred to as an individual mandate. Consistently! Therefore, Roberts betrayed his oath to the Constitution by declaring a law to be constitutional when he knew it wasn't. And he betrayed his trust to his office and to the People. The guy is quite the Judas, and it has nothing to do with his smarts. But it has everything to do with his character.

Furthermore, his ruling has unbelievably deep and profound implications for future government mandates. His decision goes well beyond ObamaCare. Now the government is perfectly free to mandate anything of the People under the guise of taxation! I stated earlier (perhaps in this thread or the other one) that there's nothing now to stop the government from mandating strict birth control limits on the order of a China, and if a mother or a family violates that mandate and exceeds the birth limit, there is nothing to prevent the government to penalizing (in other words "taxing") the couple for that child annually until the child reaches maturity (and maybe by that time the U.S. government will be so broke that a person will be considered by the state to be child until the age of 50!).

If the U.S. government determines that it wants to drastically cut the consumption of the populaces' salt intake, it can impose a heavy tax on salt -- as a penalty for disobedience to the mandate, etc., etc.

In other words, Roberts' ruling gives the government the incredible power to levy taxes (penalties) on things that it doesn't want us to buy or on things that we refuse to buy at its direction. The Roberts' ruling gives unlimited power to the U.S. government to control human behavior through the process of taxation. This is the bottom line.

As Tom rightly said, this is taxation without representation.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

It's a perfect analogy, as my analogies always are.

As Tom rightly said, this is taxation without representation.

Boxcar

Actually funny.

On the tax issue, Obama and the Dems were voted into office (representation). They never made a secret of their desire to expand govt-sponsored hc.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Steve R]Or 1) Roberts first priority was ensuring increased profits for the insurance companies so he took the hit for the conservative side that didn't want to look like it was backing Obama. 2) And/or he wanted it to succeed in order to motivate the conservative base (and now tax-victimized young people as well) against an Obama reelection. 3) Roberts was the wildcard here. QUOTE]

1) He's a man who could be making millions/yr, but he isn't. He's a public servant living in a modest home (by DC elite standards), albeit in a tony suburb. Why would he care about insurance company profits? Are you saying he will personally benefit from this somehow?

2) Seems like nonsense

3) No, Kennedy was the wildcard.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes, looking forward to it.
But, never mix racing and politics. ;)

...only if you stop ripping JR.

[Steve R]

[QUOTE=Steve R]Or 1) Roberts first priority was ensuring increased profits for the insurance companies so he took the hit for the conservative side that didn't want to look like it was backing Obama. 2) And/or he wanted it to succeed in order to motivate the conservative base (and now tax-victimized young people as well) against an Obama reelection. 3) Roberts was the wildcard here. QUOTE]

1) He's a man who could be making millions/yr, but he isn't. He's a public servant living in a modest home (by DC elite standards), albeit in a tony suburb. Why would he care about insurance company profits? Are you saying he will personally benefit from this somehow?

2) Seems like nonsense

3) No, Kennedy was the wildcard.
It has nothing to do with personal gain. It has to do with partisan ideology - political, economic, social, whatever. The Supreme Court has almost never been about constitutionality. Just count the number of cases in Court history split directly down partisan lines. If constitutionality was the real driver in most Court decisions you'd see a hell of a lot more 9-0s or 8-1s than 5-4s. Sorry for the cynicism, but W ironically had it right when he famously said "Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice...Won't get fooled again".

[acorn54]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]
It has nothing to do with personal gain. It has to do with partisan ideology - political, economic, social, whatever. The Supreme Court has almost never been about constitutionality. Just count the number of cases in Court history split directly down partisan lines. If constitutionality was the real driver in most Court decisions you'd see a hell of a lot more 9-0s or 8-1s than 5-4s. Sorry for the cynicism, but W ironically had it right when he famously said "Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice...Won't get fooled again".


roberts, was george bush's appointee. like i said, oftentimes when a sitting president selects a supreme court nominee for the supreme court, the appointee, now turned surpreme court justice evovles his judgement contrary to what the president that nominated him had in mind.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]
It has nothing to do with personal gain. It has to do with partisan ideology - political, economic, social, whatever. The Supreme Court has almost never been about constitutionality. Just count the number of cases in Court history split directly down partisan lines. If constitutionality was the real driver in most Court decisions you'd see a hell of a lot more 9-0s or 8-1s than 5-4s. Sorry for the cynicism, but W ironically had it right when he famously said "Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice...Won't get fooled again".

Your logic just doesn't make sense to me. If JR wanted to rule in a partisan fashion, he wouldn't have voted to uphold.

And I'm not sure the bolded part is factually correct. Would like to see some stats on rulings.

[Tom]

One cannot try to find reason in the mind of a madman or a traitor, both of which apply to this low life.

Obviously a mental defective, Roberts is unarguably a traitor.

[bigmack]

Here's a far out stab.

Because Roberts is an epileptic some are saying medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems.

[Steve R]

[QUOTE=Steve R]

Your logic just doesn't make sense to me. If JR wanted to rule in a partisan fashion, he wouldn't have voted to uphold.

And I'm not sure the bolded part is factually correct. Would like to see some stats on rulings.
This is a quote from a left-wing blogger: "Roberts' rationale for the Supreme Court majority has cleverly forced the Dems to concede that they have imposed a massive tax on the middle class by passing Obamacare." If this explanation is correct, it certainly reeks of partisan motivation. Of course, if he made his decision on the basis of actual constitutional principles, then he should be lauded, right?

As for SCOTUS decisions, if you think so many narrow decisions reflect honest differences in constitutionality, I have some investments I'd like to sell you.

Landmark Supreme Court Decisions, 1989 to Present (Source: University of Missouri, Kansas City, Law School):
2010 Affordable Care Act (2012), 5-4
Right to Bear Arms: District of Columbia v Heller (2008), 5-4
Right to Abortion: Casey v Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania (1992), 5-4
"Partial-Birth" Abortion: Gonzales v Carhart (2007), 5-4
Right to Die: Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990), 5-4
Right to Intimate Relations: Lawrence v Texas (2003), 5-4
Gender Discrimination: United States v Virginia (VMI)(1996), 7-1
Affirmative Action: Grutter v Bollinger (2003), 5-4
Vote Counting: Bush v Gore (2000), 5-4
School Prayer: Lee v Weisman (1992), 5-4
10 Commandments on Public Ground: Van Order v Perry (2005), 5-4
Free Exercise of Religion (Peyote Case): Employment Division v Smith (1990), 5-4
Taking Homes for a Private Developer: Kelo v City of New London (2005), 5-4
Executing Minors: Roper v Simmons (2005), 5-4
Beatings by Prison Guards: Hudson v McMillian (1992), 7-2
Drug Testing of Students: Board of Education v Earls (2002), 5-4
Using Heat Sensing Detectors on Private Homes: Kyllo v United States (2001), 5-4
Flag Burning: Texas v Johnson (1989), 5-4
State Ban on Discrimination Against Gays & Freedom Not to Associate: Boy Scouts of America v Dale (2000), 5-4
Federal Regulation of Violence Against Women: United States v Morrison (2000), 5-4
Federal Regulation of Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v Raich (2005), 6-3
Right of "Enemy Combatants" to Challenge Detention: Hamdi v Rumsfield (2004), 8-1
Military Commissions: Hamdan v Rumsfield (2006), 5-3

[boxcar]

Actually funny.

On the tax issue, Obama and the Dems were voted into office (representation). They never made a secret of their desire to expand govt-sponsored hc.

But they did make it a secret that that expansion would come in the form of taxation, didn't they? Everyone lied through their teeth when selling this bill of goods to the public. This is typical modus operandi of a corrupt and wicked government. (Recall how the Personal Income Tax Bill of 1913 was sold to the public?)

And don't forget that Obama size=6]PROMISED[/size] before and after the last election that no one making under 250K would see a raise in their taxes. Do you recall that "little" promise? Or is everyone who makes under 250K exempt from participating in ObamaCare? You tell me.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

the ruling makes no sense whatsoever. I've read numerous spins on it and the ones that are trying to make it sound so wonderful are not convincing. on one hand they found it way out of bounds, then proceeded to find a way to "save the bill" even if it meant using tortured logic to do so. a mandate is a mandate until you need it to be a tax then its a tax. Roberts loses all my respect I understand that some of them are up there simply to vote in a partisan matter no matter what, but I expected more from Roberts. you don't need a court if when the big cases come along you simply try to save the bill. whether government overreach is achieved via taxes or regulation makes little difference. epic fail. they made a bad law even worse.

[acorn54]

i read today a comment to the effect that the message being sent in this decision was; that you voted these people into office.
interesting

[pandy]

I love the law of unintended consequences.

I currently have insurance provided by my employer. I pay nearly $1500 a year for that insurance. Premiums are expected to rise to nearly $2000 a year by 2014. The Supreme Court just gave me a huge out.

I will cancel my insurance. I will pay the very tiny fee for not having insurance. I will keep my $2000 per year. Since I can't be denied for a preexisting condition, if or when I need insurance, I will buy it.

The result is a huge yearly raise for me.

Since my company considers the amount of money they pay for my insurance premium, part of my overall compensation, maybe I can convince them to drop coverage for all of us. I'll even split the difference of what's left over above the amount of the fine they will have to pay. It's a win win for both of us.


The tax starts out at 1% but quickly jumps to 2 1/2% two years later. So your savings would be short lived and you know that this tax will continue to increase just like our property taxes have.

I remember when my parents bought their house, the property tax was around 1%, just a few hundred bucks a year. Now in the same middle class area the tax is $12,000 a year for the same type of house. I feel bad for future generations. Between the health care tax, property taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, tolls, licensing, car, house and life insurance fees, plus the rising cost of health care that this bill doesn't even address, twenty years from now the middle-class will be living in huts.

[dartman51]

But they did make it a secret that that expansion would come in the form of taxation, didn't they? Everyone lied through their teeth when selling this bill of goods to the public. This is typical modus operandi of a corrupt and wicked government. (Recall how the Personal Income Tax Bill of 1913 was sold to the public?)

And don't forget that Obama size=6]PROMISED[/size] before and after the last election that no one making under 250K would see a raise in their taxes. Do you recall that "little" promise? Or is everyone who makes under 250K exempt from participating in ObamaCare? You tell me.

Boxcar
B.O. is a LIAR, as usual.
There are 20 separate taxes in the bill. SEVEN of them hit people making UNDER $250,000 pr year. So for all you A-holes clamoring for more taxes, congratulations, you got it. :ThmbUp:

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]
This is a quote from a left-wing blogger: "Roberts' rationale for the Supreme Court majority has cleverly forced the Dems to concede that they have imposed a massive tax on the middle class by passing Obamacare." If this explanation is correct, it certainly reeks of partisan motivation. Of course, if he made his decision on the basis of actual constitutional principles, then he should be lauded, right?



If he voted it down the same left-wing blog would be calling him a partisan hack.

As for the cases you listed, I didn't say there weren't close decisions. I just suspect overall (including all cases in the past 50 yrs) there are plenty of 7-2, 8-1, 9-0 decisions to be found. Key word: suspect - love to see some actual numbers. Glad to admit if I'm wrong.

[Pace Cap'n]

Anybody had to know that this was a tax right from the git-go. Why else would they select the IRS to enforce and administer the new law? The IRS is currently petitioning for an additional 4000 agents, and that's just for openers.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Anybody had to know that this was a tax right from the git-go. Why else would they select the IRS to enforce and administer the new law? The IRS is currently petitioning for an additional 4000 agents, and that's just for openers.

Great point.

[acorn54]

Anybody had to know that this was a tax right from the git-go. Why else would they select the IRS to enforce and administer the new law? The IRS is currently petitioning for an additional 4000 agents, and that's just for openers.

well, that might be good news for me, as i am a unemployed accountant, working nights at a grocery store, while brushing up on my skill set and looking for work in my field during the days.

[boxcar]

Anybody had to know that this was a tax right from the git-go. Why else would they select the IRS to enforce and administer the new law? The IRS is currently petitioning for an additional 4000 agents, and that's just for openers.

Who else was going to collect the penalties? The Health and Human Resources Secretary? Of course, the IRS is eminently qualified in this areas of assessment and collection of penalties.

Just remember, everyone: We did not get to this point in time overnight. We have the inscrutable but unquestionable wisdom :rolleyes: of the 1913 politicians who passed the Marxist-friendly Personal Income Tax System that gave the U.S. government control over our private property. That one law opened up the flood gates for so many other things that have happened subsequent to that date, such as all the entitlement programs, etc.

All you guys and gals who are so fond of taxes, just belly up to the bar because this latest SC ruling opened and even larger floodgate that will now allow the government to control or modify our behavior through taxation. Several years from now, they'll be hiring at least another 4,000 agents.

I just can't wait for the day when they tax my automobile mileage because I went over the government-mandated annual limit.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Burnsy, I don't know ya but I'm glad I met ya! Your comments in Post #185 are spot on. :ThmbUp:

As for this HEAP abuse Jognlope had to listen to, who cares if you guys don't like it? I sure don't.

Here are the general qualifications for NY's HEAP program:

Regular HEAP eligibility and benefits are based on income, the primary heating source and the presence of a household member who is under age 6, age 60 or older or permanently disabled. An eligible household may receive one regular HEAP benefit per program year. Regular benefits for households that pay directly for heat based on actual usage are paid directly to the vendor that supplies the household's primary source of heat.

How much of a hardass do you have to be to say you begrudge anyone who qualifies for this program? Even worse, how can you express genuine disgust with anyone who applies for this benefit because they actually qualify to receive it?

I don't get it. At all.

Link: http://otda.ny.gov/programs/heap/program.asp (http://otda.ny.gov/programs/heap/program.asp)

[ceejay]

Obviously there are other considerations that may have motivated the ruling from Chief Justice Roberts, like not wanting his court to be tarred with another very controversial, politicized decision, but we should not overlook the role his health might have played.

Chief Justice Roberts has a pre-existing condition but is just 57, and thus not eligible for Medicare. Remember his unexplained seizure soon after he became chief justice? If he did not have employer-provided insurance and had to get his own coverage on the individual market, he would be denied health insurance coverage at almost any price. Maybe the appreciation for his precarious insurance status made Chief Justice Roberts more sensitive to the need for the Affordable Care Act and its requirement that insurance be available to all of those with pre-existing conditions. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/the-two-big-questions-on-health-care/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120629

[boxcar]

We could have some "fun" by connecting some dots here as to the deeper and more profound implications to this latest ruling. We all know liberals hate the Second Amendment. They never liked the idea that citizens have this constitutional right to bear arms. Never did. Never will.

Fast and Furious was all about pulling the wool over Americans' eyes to fool us into believing that our gun laws were too lax and that our gun dealers are out of control will sell guns to just about anyone. Therefore, it's time to tighten our gun control laws. But as we all know, that scheme failed.

From very early on,this administration had his sights on our guns when Obama and his like-minded comrades hatched a scheme that would have required gun registration through the IRS, and the plan was to bypass any legislation by congress. (Remember that?) The only problem was that the scheme flopped also because someone leaked it, and so the plan was scrapped.

But now with yesterday's ruling, a much bigger Pandora's Box was opened that allows the feds to control, modify and manipulate human behavior through the taxation process. What is to stop Congress, at some point, from writing a law that would require gun owners to not only register their guns with the IRS but mandated that owners every year had to renew a license and the "fee" (tax) for the license would be paid to the IRS -- let's say in the name of "public safety" that would further require annual participation in some gun training program, which is how the "fee" (tax) would be justified. And maybe this tax would be on a sliding scale according to gun size. The bigger and more powerful the weapon, the higher the tax. And what if the cheapest "fee" started out in the $300. range per firearm? That would certainly alter more than a few household budgets, wouldn't it?

And then, of course, if anyone got caught with an unregistered firearm, the penalty (fine) could be quite large -- maybe in the thousands of dollars even. In other words, the government could manipulate gun owners to give up their weapons, over time, because they could no longer afford to pay the annual taxes on them. This would be especially true if the economy continues to go bust. Guns would become more of a luxury and would be given up to pay for the essentials of life, such as food. (This way a a person could at least delay in putting up any of his or her organs for sale. :rolleyes: ) Of course, if the weapons were sold, the owners would have to notify the IRS and prove that a transfer of ownership took place, etc. (Just think: 4,000 more agents could be hired just to enforce gun registration and training laws. :rolleyes: )

Also, I'm sure the government would frown on any given household owning more than one gun. In their mind, there wouldn't be any good reason for a private citizen to maintain an "arsenal", which the IRS would define as having more than one weapon. Ownership of multiple weapons would pay a surcharge on each additional weapon. Again, the idea would be to make gun ownership unaffordable as possible -- all nice and legal like through taxation.

So, does the Second Amendment stay in tact? Sure. Why not? After all, we're actually living in a post-Constitutional era, whether you care to believe that or not. Once the Constitution becomes virtually irrelevant to the Elite Ruling Class, then we peons are subject to play by their new rules. Welcome to the Age of Lawlessness. Kiss the Rule of Law goodbye.

We're living in exciting times, folks....

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

[QUOTE=Saratoga_Mike]
Sorry for the cynicism, but W ironically had it right when he famously said "Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice...Won't get fooled again".

That old The Who song (we won't be fooled again) needs to be the theme song for the Rom campaign.

[ElKabong]

How much of a hardass do you have to be to say you begrudge anyone who qualifies for this program?

A middle class hard ass, one that's sick and tired of paying the freight for people that are terminally on the dole and in my pocket.

I work with people with severe disabilities. They offer no excuses, they put themselves thru college or training, don't rely on politicians redistributing money from the middle class in order to have what they have.

If you think conservatives are saying "no help", you're wrong. I'm in favor a lightweight HCA. But what was passed is the worst of ALL worlds. It opens the door for abuse like never before.

Your preznit ran on the basis of class warfare. Take from the middle class, give to the lazy and terminally insufficient. You need to understand this about wars, NJ.....They aren't won on a battle. This war will go on long after Obama is voted out & the conservative side is going to win (that's not made in a boastful fashion...simply stating truth)

See you at the polls

[NJ Stinks]

See you at the polls

I'll be there.

[newtothegame]

here's another clue NJ......
You posed the question how much of a hardass ...
I'll reply easily........One that has to listen to that same person tell us she is ENTITLED.
IF, I ever had to use government assistance, I would imagine my ass would be humble, gracious, and thankful to those who pay for me to be able to obtain it.
Instead, which came from her own mouth, she is ENTITLED!
Give me a f&^$% break!
No one is entitled to anything more then an opportunity. But, as I mentioned in my post, we have created that sort of mentality. So, as I also said, I don't blame her for using what's available. My problem isn't so much with the people who are on it as the MENTALITY of those people.....
I will leave it at this...and if ANYONE takes offense, so be it! I DON"T OWE ANYONE A DAMNED THING. So don't pretend you are ENTITLED to my money!
Be thankful the government, WHO NEEDS YOUR VOTE, is administering the program. As tom said, I would be a lot harsher and definitely a LOT more follow up!

[Robert Fischer]

these entitlement people are the reason for your shortcomings

focus on them

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

[newtothegame]

these entitlement people are the reason for your shortcomings

focus on them

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
Almost Robert but, the PEOPLE put the man behind the curtain.......:lol:

[ElKabong]

these entitlement people are the reason for your shortcomings

focus on them

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

YOUR shortcomings. Not mine. You're the one reaching in my pocket, not the other way around

[ElKabong]

Almost Robert but, the PEOPLE put the man behind the curtain.......:lol:

NTG,

it's little stabs like that from moochers and leeches that have opened my eyes. Fischer posted he's under 60, "permanent full" disability.....now he's posting his leech-cheering section posts.

Time to do what we can to pull the plug on people like this in November. You want to take money from my wallet, don't sit behind a keyboard and post some "nah nah nah nah" bullshit.

People like that can't cut it on their own, they siphon $ from the middle class. Leeches

[newtothegame]

NTG,

it's little stabs like that from moochers and leeches that have opened my eyes. Fischer posted he's under 60, "permanent full" disability.....now he's posting his leech-cheering section posts.

Time to do what we can to pull the plug on people like this in November. You want to take money from my wallet, don't sit behind a keyboard and post some "nah nah nah nah" bullshit.

People like that can't cut it on their own, they siphon $ from the middle class. Leeches
I agree completely....that's why I said "who ever doesnt like it".
And like you, I will make sure my vote gets cast come November. Not too mention, I am using social netwroks, speaking engagements I have attended, and anyone who will listen know my feelings! Hell, last week, my wife went outside to get away from her at one of her company functions lol!

[Robert Fischer]

NTG,

it's little stabs like that from moochers and leeches that have opened my eyes. Fischer posted he's under 60, "permanent full" disability.....now he's posting his leech-cheering section posts.

Time to do what we can to pull the plug on people like this in November. You want to take money from my wallet, don't sit behind a keyboard and post some "nah nah nah nah" bullshit.

People like that can't cut it on their own, they siphon $ from the middle class. Leeches

looks like post #235 went over someone's head...

[boxcar]

Of course, Obama conveniently forgets the inconvenient truth that the Justice Dept. argued in lower courts that ObamaCare was a tax. And now that's it's been officially declared a tax by the SC, Obama is still going to insist that it isn't. It's a "penalty" according to the official WH position because after all, Obama would never have lied to the American people that the poor and middle class would never see tax increases on his watch, would he? :rolleyes:

White House claims ObamaCare fine a 'penalty,' despite court calling it a 'tax'

Note carefully the spurious argument Carney is forced to put forth to defend that the tax is really a penalty:

"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney said.

Carney should have been one of the justices on the court, for if he had been ObamaCare would have been struck down! His reasoning is good as far as it goes. It's no wonder everyone always referred to the root of the penalty as the individual mandate. It really isn't a tax. But will the Party of Stupid know how to play this word game because Obama is really in a Catch-22 situation? Will the Republicans be smart enough to capitalize on this great opportunity?

If the WH is going to stick by the "penalty" argument, then it must be asked: Penalty for what, precisely? If someone is being penalized, then it is either for doing something wrong or not doing something that is ordered, commanded or mandated. The Republicans cannot let the WH off easy on this issue. They must demand to know the reason behind the penalty! They need to force Obama to trace the penalty back to its root. If the WH says that the penalty is because someone made a choice to not engage in commerce and buy insurance, then we're back to the mandate issue, which the SC also said was unconstitutional. Thus, the Catch-22! The Republicans must make Obama look and sound like the fool many of us have long known him to be. But there is no better opportunity to expose to the entire nation Obama's very obvious duplicity than now with the ObamaCare decision. Obama cannot be allowed to simultaneously deny that it's a tax and also deny that the "penalty" is due to the unconstitutional individual mandate clause. This "penalty" doesn't just float in some vacuum. It's rooted in the law itself and the penalty will be applied for a specific reason -- for non-compliance to the purchase mandate within that law.

The Republicans need to hammer home repeatedly to all Americans that not only is Obama incompetent but that he's untrustworthy. This latter issue, I fear, might cause many Republicans more than some mere angst and cause the loss of the presidential race.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/

Boxcar

[Tom]

Here's a far out stab.

Because Roberts is an epileptic some are saying medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems.

I think that can happen with syphilis, too. That is a possibility I cannot disprove.
We can only assume anyone who screwed so many people might have it.

[bigmack]

GOP takin' a page out of the ol' Mackindropenstein's playbook with After Effects treatment. Dial down the dramatic orchestral & hip it up with dubstep. :kiss:

nXZw6pF__3E

[ElKabong]

I think that can happen with syphilis, too. That is a possibility I cannot disprove.
We can only assume anyone who screwed so many people might have it.

I think Ceejay's (the Geologist, not the paceguy) contri nailed it. Roberts' life experience swayed his decision quite possibly.

I haven't said one bad word towards Roberts here. Not one. But, if that was indeed the case, 'looking at his own situation and letting that weigh in the decision of his', I lost a bit of respect for him. Many of us come across decisions on a regular basis and try to do the smart and right thing for the greater good. We put our own experiences aside and make an intelligent decision.

I think he failed here in that regard.

[ElKabong]

GOP takin' a page out of the ol' Mackindropenstein's playbook with After Effects treatment. Dial down the dramatic orchestral & hip it up with dubstep. :kiss:

nXZw6pF__3E

like it :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[bigmack]

I think he failed here in that regard.
As usual, Chuck Kraut delivers an interesting take.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration's central argument that Obamacare's individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance -- on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the Commerce Clause, what can it not do?
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_20976596/charles-krauthammer-why-chief-justice-john-roberts-did

[Tom]

He has only one responsibility - and he failed miserably.
He is the poster boy complete incompetence.

There is no excuse for his failing to do his job on the biggest case the court has seen in 100 years. He is a screw up. His job has noting to do with his oopinoins or his beliefs - he is supposed to be unbiaesed, but obvioulsy, he is just another stinikg little poltical hack on the take. No integrity at all in that defective body.
The Death panels should take notice - any HC for him is a waste of money.

His personal history is completley irelevent. If he can't handle the job, he should quit. WE have to allow this defective individual to sit on the bench for rest of his inferin life? Hopefully, it will be a short term.

[acorn54]

[QUOTE=Tom] he is just another stinikg little poltical hack on the take. No integrity at all in that defective body.


it was a republican president that nominated him for supreme court justice

[ArlJim78]

SCOTUS ruling means bigger more intrusive IRS (http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/06/29/scotus-ruling-means-bigger-more-intrusive-irs/)

read the whole thing, you'll be sick when you see what is in store for us.
i mean it makes so much sense that to improve our healthcare system the first thing we need to do is double the size of the IRS and give them massive new authority to analyze your life and decide what your penalty should be. I mean our current tax code is such a smashing success.
__________________________________________________ ______
IRS officials on background tell FOX Business the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on health reform gives the IRS even more powers than previously understood.

The IRS now gets to know about a small business's entire payroll, the level of their insurance coverage -- and it gets to know the income of not just the primary breadwinner in your house, but your entire family’s income, in order to assess/collect the mandated tax.

Plus, it gets to share your personal info with all sorts of government agencies, insurance companies and employers.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. "We expect even more lien and levy powers," an IRS official says. Even the Taxpayer Advocate is deeply concerned.



Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/06/29/scotus-ruling-means-bigger-more-intrusive-irs/#ixzz1zHjrMsuu

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=Tom] he is just another stinikg little poltical hack on the take. No integrity at all in that defective body.


it was a republican president that nominated him for supreme court justice

But it wasn't a Republican president that handed down the decision, was it?

Boxcar