Which explains exactly how Obama became President...

We are never going to agree because you base your opinion on what SCOTUS says and I base mine on what the Constitution says.

Not precisely..

I base my argument on what the SCOTUS says the Constitution says because that's the way it's been for over 200 years..

You base your argument on your interpretation of what the Constitution says..

Which is your right, to be sure.

But, and I say this with the utmost respect, your interpretation of what the Constitution says doesn't carry as much weight with me as the SCOTUS and their interpretation...

Doesn't mean I don't like you, doesn't mean I won't buy you a beer if we ever meet..

Just means I am going to take the SCOTUS over you when it comes to Constitutional Law.. :D

Michale.....

The Constitution doesn't even try to tell government how to exercise its authority. The idea the the Constitution doesn't permit the government to exercise its power this way is simply something SCOTUS made-up. If thee Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to act and unless the Constitution explicitly denies a particular method of action the government is free to exercise its power any way it sees fit.

Any powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States. Not methods. SOCTUS claim that government cannot mandate commerce is historically false and constitutionally without a basis. As is your is your insistence that SCOTUS rejecting a particular legal theory is rejecting the law itself.

What infuriates me is that SCOTUS and all other government officials lie with impunity. The people are too busy choosing sides and trying to score points on one another to even care about the truth.

What's destroying America isn't just corrupt politicians and bad policies, its people who vote the way they shop; as much, if not more, impressed with marketing than substance. The desire to fit in does not serve a Democratic Republic that requires voters who can think independently.

We are never going to agree because you base your opinion on what SCOTUS says and I base mine on what the Constitution says.

When you have the bluest of the bluest of the blue websites proclaiming that the mandate was ruled Unconstitutional and was upheld as a tax, then it's a pretty safe bet that THAT is exactly what occurred...

The SCOTUS Taxing-Power Argument That WSJ's Henninger Missed
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/06/30/the-scotus-taxing-power-argument-that-wsjs-henn/186657

Read 'em and weep, ladies and gents...

This equine is now truly, completely and unequivocally.... dead...

:D

Michale.....

Do you want the kind of government that sits in judgment and deems that THIS action or THAT non-action is not in the public good and therefore the government must step in..

Is THAT really the kind of government ya'all are fighting for??

Why not just get it over with and declare undying fealty to Governor Kodos of Tarsus IV??

Because, in the end, that's what it all boils down too...

Michale....

Of course, that should say

The long and the short of it is that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give the government the authority to force an American Citizen into Commerce in order to regulate it..

Michale.....

But it can all be nullified by one simple question.

Does the Constitution allow the Federal Government to force fat people to buy sensible food, enroll in a gym and weight-loss program, so the won't become a burden to society in the future???

Using your "logic", the Federal Government abso-tively and posit-loutly has that power...

But we both know that, the reality is far FAR different...

only applies just to laws passed by Black men in the Whitehouse!

What IS it about the Left that they ALWAYS have to bring race into the discussion??? :^/

The long and the short of it is that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give the government the authority to force an American Citizen into in order to regulate it...

This was a UNANIMOUS ruling by the SCOTUS, who has the final say on Constitutionality...

Let me repeat that so there can be no confusion..

The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ruled **UNAMIMOUSLY** that the Federal Government cannot force an American Citizen into commerce for the purposes of regulating that commerce...

The government CAN, however, TAX an American Citizen, if they elect not to enter into the designated commerce.

But, as has been so assiduously pointed out, it's the American People who will have the final say in the matter..

And that final say occurs on 6 Nov 2012...

I, for one, simply CANNOT wait.. :D

Michale.....

When you're right you're right! Who am I to contradict SCOTUS?

Especially since SCOTUS is more Progressive than any Democrat could have imagined in their most fantastic Opium Dreams! Who would have imagined that SCOTUS would decide that drug laws, under which tens of millions of Americans have been incarcerated, are unconstitutional!

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

The 8-12 million illegal immigrants will be thrilled that immigration laws are unconstitutional!

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Women will be relieved that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional!

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Travelers can relax now that the TSA is unconstitutional!

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Seniors can buy cheap knockoff drugs from anywhere since import and patent laws are unconstitutional!

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Students and "cloud" data-storage sites can finally copy and trade music and videos free from fear since the DMCA and copyright laws are unconstitutional!

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Though the NRA will be pleased that gun-control laws are unconstitutional!

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Still unsure about DOMA though... Is the constitutional legal authority for that the Commerce clause, the Unequal Protection For Gays clause, the Freedom of Christian Religion, Press, Expression clause, or the Unequal Rights amendment? Though I'm sure we'll know soon enough! SCOTUS will make-up decide something before too long. Just like it did when SCOTUS ruled that:

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

...I mean—That is the law isn't it?! Since the constitution doesn't authorize "Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision." (Chief Justice Roberts) all laws where government tries to do so are unconstitutional! Since no one can claim prison-time is a tax! Not after SCOTUS ruled:

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Its not like this obvious truth, (that somehow eluded everyone for 230 years! Until, our brilliant Chief Justice, bent his formidable intellect to the issue,) only applies just to laws passed by Black men in the Whitehouse! Right? That wouldn't be right-wing!—We simply have to accept that SCOTUS ruled:

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Now, when you think about it, since the framers had four whole pages and nothing to write but the laws for a new country it makes sense that all that stuff about courts, juries and trials were just thrown in for giggles! That's why no other individual "rights" are mentioned in the original Constitution! It must never have occurred to the framers that the constitution would be misused to authorize "Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision." (Chief Justice Roberts)! Fortunately that's why the framers wisely set SCOTUS above us in order to correct our merely mortal transgressions and rule:

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Now I've actually read all four pages of the Constitution! But being only a layman and not having been inducted into the mysteries of the Constitution like High-priest Chief Justice Roberts I never realized those individual "rights" the original Constitution mentions, trial by jury of peers, grand juries, double jeopardy, stuff like that? were just brain-farts! Constitutional doodles, since the framers had so much paper to play with! Now that Chief Justice Roberts has pointed it out for the uninitiated, even I can see that the framers understood that:

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures — joined with the similar failures of others — can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

But we can talk more about the Great-and-Powerful-Wizard Chief Justice Roberts some other time. I have to go home now...

Oh, and Tin-man, if you ever find that brain—let me know.

There are actually 20 new and/or higher Taxes associated with ObamaCare.

Many of them hit the middle class and seniors...

These taxes will take effect NEXT YEAR, unless ObamaCare is repealed...

Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
Guess who is actually going to pay this tax?? The people who need life-saving devices...

High Medical Bills Tax
This tax will gouge middle class Americans to the tune of 15 BILLION dollars over the next 10 years..

Flexible Spending Account Cap
ObamaCare caps spending under this account at $2500.00 per year. Right now, there is no cap... So, if little Johnny needs braces (which can cost upwards of 6K-8K, Mommy & Daddy have to pony up the money or Johnny grows up with frak'ed up teeth. Have a autistic or special needs child?? Care for them runs upwards of 15 THOUSAND a year... Sorry.. Your ability to use the FSA has just been shut down.... Thank you, President Obama...

Surtax on Investment Income
128 BILLION out of middle class American's pockets over the next ten years.. 'Warrior For The Middle Class' my arse!!!

Medicare Payroll Tax increase
Remember small business owners?? They are the people that DRIVE an economy.. That create the jobs this country so desperately needs.. They are getting soaked for 86 BILLION in new taxes, thanks to ObamaCare.. I guess we don't have to wonder anymore why business owners are holding on to their money...

And, ironically, none of those.... Let me repeat that for the cheap seats... NONE OF THOSE will help lower healthcare costs in any WAY, SHAPE or FORM..

In fact, ALL of those do just the opposite....

So, someone tell me how awesome ObamaCare is??? I seem to have forgotten...

Michale.....

Just where in the Constitution does it say that government can't "compel citizens to act as the government would have them act"? Or where does it says they can't do it when its about interstate commerce?!

If the US Constitution doesn't specifically give the government power to do something, then the government CAN'T do it..

So, the proper question is NOT "where in the US Constitution does it say the Government *CAN'T* do it??"

The proper question is, "where in the US Constitution does it say the Government *CAN* do it??"

And the answer to the PROPER questions is: Nowhere...

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that the Government can force people to buy a private/public market product.

Ergo, the Government CAN'T...

Of course, Roberts threw out the Mandate under the Commerce Claus argument. Because it was Unconstitutional...

But under the *GOVERNMENT'S* Tax Argument, the mandate IS Constitutional. Therefore, the Mandate is now a Tax...

You seem to forget that the Obama Government MADE the Mandate Is A Tax argument. The SCOTUS Majority simply accepted the government's own argument..

The court rules how the court rules.

And the court ruled that the Mandate, AS A TAX, is Constitutional...

Like I said.. You won. Enjoy it... :D

Michale.....

I don't care how many links you can find, and I don't doubt your news links are factual. I just don't accept your factual news as news about facts.

Unlike Republicans I have a brain and I'm not afraid to use it.

As I said, you are in total denial. That is simply Roberts' "logic" for not accepting the Commerce Clause arguments. And of course you'd believe that BS! Using Chief Justice Roberts' "logic" the framers did not intend government to compel people to obey the law?! Just where in the Constitution does it say that government can't "compel citizens to act as the government would have them act"? Or where does it says they can't do it when its about interstate commerce?!

The Chief Justice is not SCOTUS.
I've said all along that the five Republican Justices are partisan hacks who should be impeached. Your quote is just one more example. If SCOTUS weren't ruled by partisan ideologues the ACA would have been found Constitutional as an exercise of Commerce powers.

However nothing changes the fact that SCOTUS did not determine it was a tax. SCOTUS does not determine what's a tax. Its not their job and it isn't what their decision was about or what their decision said. Even if Roberts' nonsense were true (and its not) its the opinion of the lone Republican of the five who upheld the ACA not the opinion of SCOTUS.

I can show you a thousand links..

All from FACTUAL news reports..

ALL showing that the SCOTUS ruled the Mandate is a tax...

Spin all you want.. All you have is Obama saying it's not a tax.. Which is ironic because his OWN administration made the argument that ObamaCare IS a tax...

You have the ACTUAL SCOTUS ruling on the one hand.

And you have Obama's spin on the other hand...

Chose wisely...

Michale.....

THAT's the reality, LD....

It may be bitter, but it IS the reality...

Michale.....

That SHOULD end *ANY* argument as to what the SCOTUS ruled...

But I know it won't because, in the eyes of the subjects, the Emperor simply CANNOT be naked...

But I am hear to tell you, from a REALITY and a FACTUAL point of view...

Emperor Obama is buck assed nekkid....

Sorry to be the one to snap you back to reality..

But the SCOTUS has spoken...

The Mandate is NOW a TAX...

And the voters will decide in Nov if they like that or not..

What say we just table this discussion until 7 Nov?? :D

Michale....

"What Roberts said, in essence..."?

What the majority opinion said in fact was that the mandate was constitutional. You and Republicans keep spinning the mandate as both unconstitutional and a tax, neither of which is true, to justify your claim Obama lied.

Claiming that the mandate is constitutional, but not really constitutional is a lie, and an absurd one.

Claiming that the penalty for violating the mandate is the mandate is a lie, and just as stupid.

Claiming that something 90% of people won't have to pay is a tax on them is a lie, and typical right-wing propaganda.

Have health insurance or qualify as an exception and there is no tax. Since most of the country that doesn't have health insurance has been saying they want it but can't afford it. And the "tax" only applies to those who can afford it but don't have it, in an attempt to make it affordable. The penalty won't affect most of the country, just as President Obama said. 10% or less pay a tax. 100% are covered by the mandate.

I knew you really don't like Obama. And I knew you really expected the ACA to be trashed. But I never would have believed how deep into denial you'd go. You used to at least try to make logical arguments.

But that's the problem with conservatives. They simply will not accept anything that challenges their fantasies.

SCOTUS only accepted one legal theory supporting constitutionality instead of another.

There was NO legal conclusion OR theory that said the mandate was Constitutional. Roberts himself STATED that..

What Roberts said, in essence, was the the Mandate was not consitutional..

Remember...???

"That's not the kind of country the fathers invisioned"..

Those were Robert's own words and he was talking about the Mandate..

What Roberts did was take an obscure and not fought for argument from the Government (that the mandate was a tax) and ruled that, AS A TAX, it was Constitutional...

You see the difference??

Roberts said that if the mandate WAS a mandate, then it would be unconstitutional..

Roberts THEN said that, if the mandate was a TAX, then it would be constitutional..

Ergo, presto chango...

The Mandate became a Tax...

THAT is the whole of the SCOTUS's ruling.. Dumbed down for knuckle-draggers like me...

If you refuse to accept the SCOTUS decision, fine, man up and say so.

That's what's funny..

I seem to be the ONLY one (CB, too.) who IS accepting the SCOTUS decision as it was rendered...

It's ya'all who keep trying to make it something that the SCOTUS specifically said it wasn't...

The SCOTUS ruled that the Mandate is a Tax..

And, as a TAX, it's Constitutional...

THAT is the ruling...

You guys won... I am hard pressed to understand why you refuse to call a spade a spade..

Well, not really. I understand perfectly why you refuse to accept the SCOTUS ruling..

Because it makes Obama out to be a liar..

Maybe that was Robert's intent, I don't know..

I would like to think that our Chief Justice wouldn't debase himself and lower himself to such political machinations...

But, WHATEVER the reason, the mandate survived *"AS A TAX"*..

Now, if you want to spin it as "The Mandate Survived", feel free..

But do you think ANYONE outside of Obama supporters will look at it that way???

I have a feeling that most of the rest of America will see the "AS A TAX" part...

We'll know for sure on 6 Nov 2012... :D

Michale.....

You've one serious problem comprehending reality. 20 years to life isn't murder just because its the penalty for murder. SCOTUS never ruled the mandate unconstitutional. The government is, and always has been, free to order people to do anything it wants. Its the means the government chooses, if it chooses to, to try to coerce people into obeying that must pass constitutional muster.

SCOTUS only accepted one legal theory supporting constitutionality instead of another. It didn't change the law in any way. It didn't reject the law and then accept a substitute. And it didn't say that using taxing authority was the only way the penalty could be constitutional.

It said the penalty was a constitutional exercise of Federal taxing authority. It never said the penalty was a tax, that's an inference being made by Republicans. And it certainly never said the mandate was a tax.

It never said the mandate itself had anything to do with taxes. It never said the mandate itself wasn't a constitutional exercise of the power to control commerce. It only questioned whether making people pay a tax penalty for noncompliance could be justified as controlling commerce. And I seriously doubt that having to pay a tax penalty is a tax is a surprise to anyone.

Your insistence on conflating the penalty and the mandate in order to misrepresent the decision is dishonest. Your insistence on claiming SCOTUS said and did things it never said and never did is dishonest. Your illogical contortions trying to "prove" that when SCOTUS said the mandate was constitutional it never said the mandate was constitutional are bizarrely dishonest.

If you refuse to accept the SCOTUS decision, fine, man up and say so. But trying to claim you accept SCOTUS decisions, while insisting they ruled the way you wanted when they didn't, isn't just dishonest its psychotic.

Ok, I was taking it to be the five of clubs and so on. Now, I still don't get the significance of that particular distribution. KQJ isn't enough high cards to do much bidding, but maybe you could support with it if your partner opens. It's been a while since I learned about bridge, and I never got any good at it.

Its just that—if SCOTUS did what you said they did; rejected the ACA then reintroduced the legislation all on their own and passed it themselves—Now that would definitely be unconstitutional!

I would completely and unequivocally agree...

Yet, that is EXACTLY what the SCOTUS did. They ruled the Mandate unconstitutional but converted it from a Mandate to a Tax and then ruled that THAT *WAS* Constitutional...

But you raise a good point.

If the SCOTUS does it, does that mean it's automatically Constitutional?? :D

the court didn't change anything about it but its legal justification. if the court rules tomorrow that it's neither a mandate nor a tax but is actually a chicken pot pie, would that change anything at all about what it actually does? it would still be a chicken pot pie from the federal government that tells people to be insured or else pay a small penalty.

Yes :D

But until the SCOTUS calls it a Chicken Pot Pie (I am partial to beef, myself) it *IS* a tax...

And the Obama administration will have to accept that. With all the baggage that goes along with it...

Michale.....

And the court ruled that the Mandate is a TAX....

the court didn't change anything about it but its legal justification. if the court rules tomorrow that it's neither a mandate nor a tax but is actually a chicken pot pie, would that change anything at all about what it actually does? it would still be a chicken pot pie from the federal government that tells people to be insured or else pay a small penalty.

Methinks so Brain, verily, but dost thou think pete rose by any other name would still smell as sweaty?
~pinky

That's the most twisted excuse for spin I've seen yet! Congratulations!

Its just that—if SCOTUS did what you said they did; rejected the ACA then reintroduced the legislation all on their own and passed it themselves—Now that would definitely be unconstitutional!

It Did Not.

Yes.. It did...

In a manner of speaking...

It threw out the Mandate. It said it was Unconstitutional...

Then it brought it BACK in as a TAX.. And said that, as a TAX, it is constitutional...

Congress can't MANDATE under the Commerce Claus that Americans buy a product....

THAT is what the SCOTUS ruled...

Congress, CAN, however, TAX Americans..

Your mandate is now a TAX...

I said it before and I'll say it again..

The Court Rules How The Court Rules..

And the court ruled that the Mandate is a TAX....

Michale....

Okay...You've only just now discovered that "rights" aren't divinely manifest but you're still unclear as to what reality is...

So, if SCOTUS had found that the mandate was unconstitutional it would have thrown out the mandate. That was, after all, the entire point of the hearings in the first place.

It Did Not.

It ruled that the mandate is constitutional because its penalty could be considered a tax that falls under Federal taxing authority. The mandate itself?! Federal government ordering people to buy something? Its been happening since George Washington. It could fall under all sorts of Federal Authorities.

But since you don't seem to understand what SCOTUS does, or is for—SCOTUS rules on whether legislation is a legal exercise of Constitutional power. The definitions it uses are legal definitions. They are not the same as ordinary English. They are much more specific and much less inclusive. In some cases legal definitions are completely different from common usage.

SCOTUS did not, and never does, rule on whether Presidential or Congressional statements meets English language common usage definitions.

I know that this probably won't stop you from continuing to deliberately spin the decision. Just wanted to be sure you aren't as ignorant of Court proceedings as you were on individual rights not being natural laws.

Repeat: "The problem with the "mandate" is that the majority of Americans never wanted it."

OK, I can accept that.. Especially since it's what I have been saying for about 3 years now.. :D

but that wouldn't change the fact that it was upheld.

I simply will NOT allow anyone to rewrite recent history..

The Mandate was NOT upheld...

SCOTUS did some fancy footwork and said the Mandate is no more and a TAX is born..

And, the TAX is what was upheld...

Michale.....

it could be constitutional as chicken pot pie, but that wouldn't change the fact that it was upheld. "repeal" is a non-starter, so a much better debate would be what steps can be taken to make obamacare better.

come on now, that's just silly. i realize that obama promised a whole lot more than he delivered, that's a fact. there's a lot of hyperbole in the moment, but really, forgetting for a second the sort of expectations he engendered, obama is basically just an average politician doing a so-so job. i think what we tend to resent about him is less about his actual job performance and more about our own anger at ourselves for being taken in by the hype surrounding him in 2008.

~joshua

EXACTLY...

It's a TAX.....

The ObamaCare mandate is ONLY Constitutional as a TAX....

Michale.....

tunnel-vision on one paragraph of a sixty page opinion, which DOES authorize congress to use its taxing power to the same end.

...until and unless it is. obama has been mediocre, so there's plenty of room both above and below.

Unless Romney ignites a nuclear world war that devastates the planet...

That's about the ONLY thing that is "below" Obama...

Michale.....

The court ruled the mandate was constitutional.

And, already the rewrite of history begins...

The SCOTUS definitely did NOT rule that the mandate was Constitutional.

The SCOTUS specifically said that the mandate was UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

Which is why the SCOTUS ruled that the MANDATE is actually a "TAX" and that the TAX is Constitutional..

Michale.....

But it's a damn sure fact that it simply CAN'T be worse....

...until and unless it is. obama has been mediocre, so there's plenty of room both above and below.

I never said that. I said I've no sympathy at all for your fear.

I've said it may times before, the framers knew government could not be trusted. And they caved on their principles before even the draft constitution was produced in order to enable slavery and protect plantation owners, proving their own point. But I also appreciate that unlike the Tea Party they recognized the need to compromise. To not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That something was better than nothing.

And, unlike conservatives, I live in the real world. I know that the only "rights" anybody has are those they are able to defend. And that the Constitution only gives people a framework so they've a fighting chance to defend them. And that, thanks to conservatives, lately we've been losing that fight.

"The court rules how the court rules... " huh? That didn't last long. Did it.

The court ruled the mandate was constitutional. That means that it is justified under the constitution.—But not according to you.

Like any typical conservative you ignore any facts that contradict your prejudice and lie in an attempt to deceive people into believing your nonsensical beliefs. You keep claiming SCOTUS as the authority behind your misrepresentations when it works for you and you ignore SCOTUS when it repudiates your position.

Yes... Definitely a trend developing...

Ya'all just HAVE to feel it..

The walls closing in, the rats deserting the sinking ship....

Will a Romney administration be any better???

Who knows..

But it's a damn sure fact that it simply CAN'T be worse....

Michale.....

Welcome to our world.

So, you're OK with racism and loss of freedom in atonement for racism and loss of freedom of the past???

Well..... Ooookkkaaaayyyyy...

But remember...

You reap what you sow....

Michale.....

The only debate has been on how to obtain it.

Agreed...

AND they have been screaming just as loudly that ObamaCare/Tax just AIN'T it....

Democrats promised us a Ferrari and the delivered an Edsel...

Michale.....

Apologizing to Pakistan RIGHT before the 4th of July!!?????

What IS it with this guy???

Michale.....

What are you talking about?! The majority of people in this country have been screaming for affordable healthcare for the last twenty-five years!

The only debate has been on how to obtain it.

Think a trend is developing???

It's beginning to look like NC is lost to Obama...

Rather ironic, since THAT is where the Democratic Party Convention is being held...

Michale.....

As far as the military goes, there is that pesky and annoying part of the US CONSTITUTION that says "provide for the common defense"...

You'd be the first I've met who is such an originalist that you don't think the constitution gives the government the right to defend us against nuclear weapons or biological attacks because they only had black powder in 1776. Is that what you are saying? Because if you are not healthcare is "providing for the common defense."

Defense against plague, genetic disorders, viral and bacteriological attacks. Defense against death and disability do to sickness and injury. Healthcare is "exactly" like the police, firefighters, and military.

And the only reason we're dinking around trying to keep insurers rich instead of hiring doctors the same way we hire cops and troops is because of conservatives trying to make the 1% richer by forcing us to pay unnecessary middlemen so they can skim money off for themselves.

And as for your newfound fear of the power of government. America was a slave nation for two-thirds of its existence. This may be news to you White folk but the government has always had the ability to take away anyone's "rights" even all their "rights", and they've never been shy about doing so. Ask Black people, the indigenous native peoples or Japanese Americans.

What really terrifies is that the White Majoriry is becoming a minority and they're scared spitless that people of color, if they gain sufficient control, will treat White folk the way White folk have always treated people of color.

Welcome to our world.

And THAT says it all.....

Michale.....

Those are all things that We, the People, want, D. Problem with the "mandate" is that the majority of Americans never wanted it. That's why there's always been so much resistance to having it forced upon us. Liberals tend to forget that We, the People, are the bosses of our public servants, not the other way around. That's why so many Dems got chucked out on their heads. It's not a good thing for the servants to ignore the boss.

5+2+4+2= 13 = 1/4 deck... Sounds like a bridge hand to me...

No, I don't get it. We've got KQJ32 (suit not specified), 5C, 2H, 4D, and 2S: too few cards for bridge, too many for poker. What is it?

Actually, no he doesn't...

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision."
-Chief Justice Roberts

The Mandate is dead.. Any discussion that the Mandate is justified under the Constitution is dead..

There are several theories as to why Chief Roberts did what he did.

1. He truly believes that the Mandate (as a tax) was vital to the survival of this country.

2. He wanted to protect the integrity of the court.

3. He wanted to stick it to the Obama campaign in the form of a Pyrrhic victory..

NONE of those possibilities are palatable to me.. But the first one is so out of character as to be all but impossible...

Personally, I think it's a combination of 2 and 3...

Which would indicate that Roberts is nothing more than an opportunistic weasel and a grand master of 3D chess that Obama could only DREAM about being...

As I said, none of the options are really palatable to me...

I'm reminded of a story. You've probably heard it. The, uh, King and Queen of this country were playing golf with five clubs, when their son, Jack, remarked how strange it was they had only two hearts between them. Just then, Deucey and her little dog, Tres, started singing "Four Diamonds are a girl's best friend." Whereupon the entire family beat her to death and buried her with two spades. Did you get it?"

I don't recall the episode, but it was funny.. :D

Michale....

as i read it, trying to improve the country's medical care (and assessing a tax penalty for those who won't help) falls under "promote the general welfare." whether or not obamacare actually does this is a valid topic for debate, but apparently roberts at least thinks it "could be construed" as such.

Hay, if I get the last word, the least I can do is make it funny.. :D

well then, consider this your mulligan ;)

just in case, here's something else from mash:

I'm reminded of a story. You've probably heard it. The, uh, King and Queen of this country were playing golf with five clubs, when their son, Jack, remarked how strange it was they had only two hearts between them. Just then, Deucey and her little dog, Tres, started singing "Four Diamonds are a girl's best friend." Whereupon the entire family beat her to death and buried her with two spades. Did you get it?"

Hahahahahah ... whups, sorry ... but that was funny!

Actually, EXACTLY per the Supreme Court..

You are arguing for the Mandate. The court ruled against the Mandate.

Hence, the "TAX" was born...

This is going nowhere though and there is little of the horse left to beat. Happy 4th Michale and I'll let you get in the last word.

Hawkeye: "To show you how sincere I am, I'll let you get in the last word."
BJ: "Thank you."
Hawkeye: "You're welcome."
-M*A*S*H

Hay, if I get the last word, the least I can do is make it funny.. :D

Michale...

Andy Griffith dies at age 86
http://staugustine.com/news/2012-07-03/andy-griffith-dies-age-86?

Dunno about anyone else, but I really get bummed out when I hear of another well-known contemporary dying..

Probably because I am a couple months shy of half a century... :^/

Michale.....

I don't have to.

And ONLY then ... will you have a viable argument..

Apparently not according to the Supreme Court.

But I like your idea of setting up the court of Michale. Where only you get to determine what is and is not a viable argument.

This is going nowhere though and there is little of the horse left to beat. Happy 4th Michale and I'll let you get in the last word.

Hope there's some fireworks in your future!

-David

Which is why they regurgitated the ObamaCare Mandate into an ObamaCare Tax...

Michale.....

The mere fact that the government COULD if they wanted to is disconcerting enough...

If a GOP Administration had tried the things that Obama and the Democrats have done, ya'all would be screaming bloody murder...

The only difference is that we would all be on the same side.. :D

The government is also forcing us to pay for our police ...

And, and ... our military ... we're being forced to PAY for that too!!!!!

The only thing you mention that has relevance is the military.

We don't pay the Obama government for the other two..

As far as the military goes, there is that pesky and annoying part of the US CONSTITUTION that says "provide for the common defense"... Ain't that a bitch, eh??

Now, if you can find ANYTHING in the US Constitution that even HINTS that;

A} Health Care is a guaranteed right

and/or

B} the Government can force an American citizen to purchase a private/public market product to serve "the greater good", simply by virtue of the fact that they exist....

Then...

And ONLY then...

.... will you have a viable argument...

Michale.....

The government is also forcing us to pay for our police ...

OMG ... and our fire protection ...

And, and ... our military ... we're being forced to PAY for that too!!!!!

And, public roads ... and parks ... and education ... and all this great stuff we have in our country ... we're being FORCED to pay and we can't have it for FREE

:)

Breathe deep, Michale. It really isn't the end of the world. No one's going to force you to eat broccoli.

-David

Ummm ... no.

Ummmmm Yes.. REALLY.. :D

Go ahead. Give it a try... :D

Scary ... the left is trying to take away your "freedoms" ... they are communists ... they are bad, evil people ... it's a big conspiracy ... do what we want you to do ...

Hyperbole doesn't change the facts..

Pre-Obama, Americans had the freedom to NOT take care of themselves, to NOT purchase health insurance if they didn't want to..

We don't have that freedom anymore, now do we??

Hyperbolize all you want..

But the simple fact is, Obama and the Democrats DID take away our freedoms..

Freedoms that were a LOT more relevant and affects a LOT more Americans than ANY freedoms that Bush allegedly took away....

Let me see.. Am I more affected by not being able to take hair gel on a plane???

Or am I more affected by being forced to spend thousands of dollars a year for health insurance I may never even need???

Hmmmmmmmmmm That's a toughie....

Well, I don't much need hair gel, seeing as I have very little hair..

And in THIS economy, a few thousand dollars a year will come in REAL handy....

"I could use a good ass kicking, I'll be very honest with you.."
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

:D

Michale.....

Ummm ... no.

The scary thing is, the Left is doing it willingly.. Even ENTHUSIASTICALLY!

Scary ... the left is trying to take away your "freedoms" ... they are communists ... they are bad, evil people ... it's a big conspiracy ... do what we want you to do ...

Please ...

-David

Because EVERY reason you give for forcing people to buy health insurance can ALSO be applied to forcing people to buy a firearm and learn to use it.

Or can be applied to forcing people to eat a certain way...

Or can be applied to forcing people to talk and act a certain way...

You simply cannot comprehend the magnitude of the slippery slope that the Left is forcing this country down...

The scary thing is, the Left is doing it willingly.. Even ENTHUSIASTICALLY!!

Michale.....

What I don't understand is why you and Michale are so willing to fight for insurance companies, but not the people who are being insured

That's ironic..

What I don't understand is why you and LD are so willing to fight for government and their curtailing of the people's liberties but not for the people and their liberties?? :D

"I thought only pansies wore ties."
"Heh, that's funny. I thought only assholes used the word 'pansies'."
-Footloose

:D

Michale.....

It's a different type of commodity. It's not like hammers or stereos. I can tell you this because I've worked for an insurance company.

The incentives are different. Do you know what makes a good insurance product for the insurance company?

It's when they can charge you money and never have to pay anyone.

But like I've said, that can only happen if the system is reformed (i.e., removing the overload of regulations, enacting tort reform, opening sales across borders) so that the industry can actually compete.

These are the 'reforms' the insurance companies want. There is no reason insurance companies can't compete right now. In fact, they are.

This idea that somehow insurance companies stop competing, waiting for the day when Republicans will free them from all regulations, is ridiculous.

Regulations have nothing to do with competition.

Sure, the insurance industry wants to get rid of them. But they have nothing to do with competition. Why? Because everyone faces the same regulations equally.

What I don't understand is why you and Michale are so willing to fight for insurance companies, but not the people who are being insured?

-David

Malpractice awards are the result of malpractice ie. illegal behavior.

There's an old saying amongst submarine sonar men...

"Anyone can find an anomaly on a playback"

It's easy, in hindsight, to say that a doctor should have done this or should have done that...

Amd, for the record. 99.99% of Malpractice Awards are not for illegal behavior or ulterior motives or any other reason..

99.99% of Malpractice Awards are for honest mistakes...

I don't care if Democrats do something because they're in league with the devil. Republicans either.

I only care about what they do and whether its good policy.

And, apparently, ObamaCare/Tax is NOT good policy...

Again, don't take my word for it..

Look at what Progressives are saying about it..

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Victory-for-Obamacare-A-by-shamus-cooke-120702-694.html

David,

You seem to think insurance is a product like a hammer or a watch. Insurance is quite different. With insurance, companies make the most money when premiums are highest and companies pay out the least.

You seem to be buying into LD's argument that Health Insurance is not a commodity..

For millions of people, it IS.. They buy their Insurance like they buy their hammers or their watch. They look for the item that best fits their needs and their wants...

If you did tort reform and allowed Insurance companies to compete across state lines, then you WOULD have HealthCare reform.. Or, at the very least, a damn good start...

Until the Left tries ALL options, rather than ignoring the options that aren't beneficial to the Democratic Party, they will NEVER convince me that they are serious about HealthCare reform..

Democrats are NOT interested in the health of the American people.

Democrats are only interested in the health of the Democratic Party.

Michale.....

"...just 32 percent supported the Affordable Care Act when it was approved in March 2010, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. As of a month ago, 34 percent supported it, virtually unchanged. To be sure, about a fifth of those who oppose it say it did not go far enough, essentially frustrated liberals."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/politics/health-care-overhaul-is-still-no-hit-with-public.html?_r=2&hp

Again, you're talking about how companies operate now. I'm talking about revamping the system. What you describe is not the only way to bring in profits. Offering a wide variety of products, tailor-made for specific groups at all different price ranges can attract all sorts of target consumers. And all it takes is one company to do it successfully, and all the other companies become forced to compete for market share.

But like I've said, that can only happen if the system is reformed (i.e., removing the overload of regulations, enacting tort reform, opening sales across borders) so that the industry can actually compete.

You seem to think insurance is a product like a hammer or a watch. Insurance is quite different. With insurance, companies make the most money when premiums are highest and companies pay out the least.

In other words, companies that treat their customers the worst tend to be more successful and may drive out (or simply purchase) good insurers.

In other words, there is a strong incentive to do things like deny coverage or not insure people with pre-existing conditions.

This was the problem with the marketplace solution before. 30+ million uninsured. Payment denials. Lists of pre-conditions where you couldn't get insurance. It's also the same problem with the financial services industry.

Incentives exist to reward companies that cheat their customers. How do you change this? You have to regulate the industry. It does not regulate itself.

The good news is that all companies have to face the same regulation. This means no one company has a competitive edge. This means they can still compete equally, which is what you want, right?

-David

I get the feeling that it's time to weed the slackers and scammers out. Again.

Sure, Chris. Like the financial industry, right?

Deregulate and the "magic" will take over? In a deregulated system, all that's been proven is that the extremely wealthy will figure out a way to rig the game.

Which was ... ahem ... our health care system before ACA. Dropped coverage, lists of pre-conditions, 30+ million uninsured, the most expensive coverage on the planet.

-David

That's because we're having two separate conversations: You're speaking from the perspective of how the insurance industry exists today, and I'm speaking from the perspective of what the industry would be if it were reformed, i.e., with less federal regulations, tort reform, sales across state borders, etc. THAT'S when competition can happen; not while the industry is shackled by an overload of federal regulations, and astronomical malpractice insurance costs, and an inability to compete across state lines, etc.

I don't care if Democrats do something because they're in league with the devil. Republicans either.

I only care about what they do and whether its good policy. Whether its the right thing for the right reasons, the right thing for the wrong reasons, the wrong thing for the right reasons or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons what matters is whether its right or wrong, what's being done, not by whom or why. That's only relevant if you make your decisions based upon partisan prejudices instead of sound objective policy.

Where's your "illegal means illegal" all of a sudden? Malpractice awards are the result of malpractice ie. illegal behavior. Doctors refuse to police themselves so they pay high insurance rates as a consequence. You think they should be free to maim and kill without penalty? You think they should be able to indemnify themselves against the repercussions of maiming and killing without it being costly to them? That patients should assume all the responsibility for doctors' actions.

If you're so concerned about costs then instead of "reforming" torts let's reform doctors' exemption from anti-trust which allows them to conspire to extort patients into paying for their get-out-of-jail-free-cards instead of just paying for the services they receive.

Conservatives want Government to stay the hell out of our lives...

Really?! What conservatives would those be? The conservatives in U.S.A. want government to tell people who they can marry, when they have to have kids, what medical procedures doctors have to perform on them, and what papers they have to have to go out in public.

Why is "tort reform" needed?

Ask any Doctor, what is the biggest NON-MEDICAL expense he has in treating patients..

MALPRACTICE INSURANCE....

Ask any Doctor, why tons more tests are ordered than are actually needed...

TO AVOID BEING SUED....

Now, ask yourself...

Why is TORT REFORM needed??

Further... Ask yourself...

Why are Democrats so against Tort Reform??

Because of all the money that trial lawyers donate to Democrats...

So, please... Don't insult my intelligence by trying to claim there is a logical and altruistic motive behind the Democrats bailing on Tort Reform...

They bail on Tort Reform because of the trial lawyer lobbyists...

PERIOD....

Michale.....

You still haven't come up with a single factual counter-argument. You just keep repeating the same mindless talking-points.

Michale,

Why is "tort reform" needed? The conservative argument for tort reform is that it hurts business. Apparently, if you're a business, and convicted of wrongdoing the penalty imposed shouldn't hurt you. Now if you're a human person, as opposed to a corporate person then conservatives think the penalties for wrongdoing should hurt you a lot! Its also just soooo unfair to be judged by a jury of your peons instead of the 1%ers who are your only peers.

"Tort reform" means the legislature prejudging, on behalf of business, in an attempt to protect business from adverse rulings of the judiciary and the people acting as jurors. Because "conservatives" believe in expanding government to provide additional services to the wealthy, to ensure a lack of personal responsibility for the wealthy and to violate the constitution so that private citizens don't have equal protection under the law.

That's what's wrong with "tort reform".

When I was growing up (60s and 70s) the Liberals wanted government out of our lives and the Conservatives wanted government's nose in everything...

In the here and now, the Liberals think that the government is the ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL solution to all of our problems and the Conservatives want Government to stay the hell out of our lives...

Ya simply gotta love the irony... :D

Michale.....

Michale.....

Of course not. How can they be? The industry is among the most heavily regulated in the country. If you want prices to come down, you have to take those shackles off and the let the industry freely compete. (I believe I've already said this, a couple of posts up: ease up on the overload of federal regulations; enact tort reform; open sales across state boreders...)

Not according to the latest Gallup poll. Only 25% want the federal government's role in health care to expand.

And that's why prices are so low today? You talk about competition as if it must lower prices and there are no other factors. You offer not one factual argument only vague talking-point generalities and wishful thinking.

You are right the mandate is not what people want. It was only legislated to appease Republicans. What people want is a single-payer system because that is the cheapest and least risky.

What Republicans want is to protect insurance industry profits at the expense of the American people's health. So first they propose the mandate and now they revile it for purely partisan gain offering nothing else except a return to the status quo ante leaving the majority of Americans completely without affordable healthcare.

Every company is in business to make a profit. Competition is what keeps prices and profits in check. Company-A turning out a better product, for less money, than Company-B is what keeps prices as low as they can be without Companies A and B going out of business.

I didn't say healthcare wasn't a business commodity, I said it wasn't an ordinary business commodity. The insurance business isn't about selling an item or service. Its about people pooling resources in order to spread risks and lower costs. People pay a small regular amount into a pool in return for the pool covering occasional extraordinary expenses. The idea is that while everyone is likely to need to draw on the pool everyone won't need to draw simultaneously or for the same amounts.

Insurance companies dramatically increase profits by reducing the number of customers as its far more profitable. They try to screen out anyone who might actually have to draw on the pool, if at all possible, because they keep any money that hasn't been used within a given time. That largely defeats the purpose of insurance so most people want a pool where everyone can participate and where no one is skimming off assets for profit.

Partisan conservative nonsense aside that is what government is for. Conservatives take it as an article of faith that someone must profit off any endeavor. Fair enough. But their bias that it can't be Government that provides a service is based on the desire to inflate costs and profits. The purpose of government is to provide services so that the general population profits. Conservatives rail about "freedom" as a means of preventing the people from doing what the people determine is best for them. The Republican idea of "freedom" is a minority having the freedom to block the will of the majority in order to better exploit them.

The idea that if you remove all government restraints then the insurance industry will magically turn philanthropic and base their business model on providing everyone healthcare instead of making money is obvious nonsense. But conservatives think wishful thinking is strategic planning and "faith" trumps reality. They're always willing to keep using the same failed policies that have never worked before in the sure and certain knowledge that they will work this time simply because they want them to.

But the reason trickle-down economics doesn't work is that businesses don't hire as many employees as they can or price their products to get the most customers, they price their products as high as possible and reduce their employees to the minimum possible to get the most profit. Companies don't maintain the lowest prices they can, they maintain the highest prices that return the most profits. Only if they can attract enough customers to make lowering prices more profitable than higher prices will they lower prices. And they will lower them only as far and for as long as that is true.

Since health insurance is a scheme based on long-term averages and involving extraordinary costs that could be hundreds of thousands per person it isn't possible to have enough competing pools to dramatically reduce prices through competition as its far to expensive for that much competition to ever develop. And far less expensive, and easier, to maintain high prices and fewer customers, which is why we have the system we do today. In spite of the fact that the current insurance model doesn't serve the needs of customers there is no competition from traditional insurance because its far less profitable and conservatives block attempts to create it because it is what people want and would therefore suck the profit out of the current insurance business.

The "market solutions" so beloved of conservatives are fantasies with no basis in reality at all, promoted because they are fantasies by people whose real goal is to maintain their high profits by insuring that we get the least healthcare while paying the most money. And its certainly worked so far.

I don't know about you but I'm talking about reality.

Health insurance companies not being able to drop people once they get sick is a very big reality.

You can try to shape perception of this as "anti-freedom" if you want, but the tricks are starting to seem old.

This is because when conservatives and the Heritage Foundation introduced the idea of a mandate it was an innovative free-market solution to health care. When Obama and Democrats did it, somehow it's a socialist big government power grab.

It's the same solution folks. Same.

Gawd ... I can't wait for the debates. Or even anyone asking Money ... err, Romney ... some questions other than FoxNews. Is that why he's been so afraid to do any interviews?

-David

There is a lot of good associated with the bill, however, and people deserve to know the tradeoffs.

One "Oh Shit" will eliminate a thousand, "That ain't so bad"s...

Remember, we're talking perception, not reality...

Michale.....

What SCOTUS said was that the penalty could be considered a tax. It did not say the mandate was a tax. And even if it did the role of SCOTUS is to determine what is and is not constitutional, not what is and is not a tax. Ignoring the facts, spinning the actual decision, and suddenly making SCOTUS an unimpeachable authority out of whole cloth is just the kind of deceitful propaganda typical of conservative positions.

SCOTUS is not nonpartisan. SCOTUS is not ethical. SCOTUS is not unbiased. SCOTUS's decision does nothing to prove their position. The idea that President Obama lied because a Republican said the penalty could be considered a tax is evidence only to Republicans.

Even if the penalty is tax it only applies to those wealthy enough to afford their own coverage but who refuse to purchase it and President Obama has been quite clear about his belief and desire to raise taxes on the rich who are not paying their fair share. So taxing wealthy healthcare freeloaders is hardly a lie or a surprise.

Given that most wealthy people purchase health insurance the increased "tax" applies only to a fraction of a percent of taxpayers, and then only if they voluntarily choose to pay it instead of buying their own coverage. Of course Republicans are outraged anyway, hoping their unjustified, untrue accusations will fool enough low-information voters to do the some good.

While these same "tax and spend" Republicans have been "raising taxes" by increasing the fines for all sorts of things all over the country.

Perhaps ... perhaps not.

There is a lot of good associated with the bill, however, and people deserve to know the tradeoffs.

For instance, many people don't know that companies are required to spend 80% of the money they take in on health care ... if not, they must return this money.

As for the Personal Responsibility Clause ... I agree w/ this guy ... (oh, and Mitt Romney too ... at least 2006 Mitt Romney)

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/.a/6a00d83451b85a69e2017615e0488e970c-pi

-David

Except that 53% are still more likely to vote for the candidate who proposes repeal. That's the majority, not 48%.

I believe the reason for this is the additional publicity around what the bill actually does: a lot of good things.

This is the mistake the Left continues to make. Everyone knows what's in the bill. That's never been the point of contention. The majority of Americans are against the mandate. Always have been and still are. They don't want the federal government to hold that level of control over them. It's an infringement on their personal, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. The Left STILL does not get that point; not even after the great shellacking of 2010. Instead, you folks just keep telling yourselves that all you have to do is sell the contents of CrapCare, when the "mandate" is the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTByvLtYIYA&feature=youtu.be

Or, as he calls it, the Personal Responsibility Principle.

Obama should just use this PowerPoint ... heheheh :)

-David

From the same poll:

Among all registered voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent in the online survey conducted after Thursday's ruling, up from 43 percent before the court decision. Opposition slipped to 52 percent from 57 percent.

I believe the reason for this is the additional publicity around what the bill actually does: a lot of good things.

-David

You reap what you sow....

So true, Michale. The Left forgets that that door swings both ways.

If I might add a point, however: congress has always had this ability. And any congress who's nuts enough to abuse their taxing powers like that will invariably pay a price on election day. That's where We, the People, come in. It's up to us corral power-hungry public servants like that. We're the "checks and balances" in this type of scenario.

You are advocating that, for the good of society as a whole, the US Government can force people to purchase a certain product or face a tax if they refuse...

Now, if ya'all are fine with that, then OK.....

But don't come whining when a GOP government wants to force every American citizen to purchase a firearm and training or else face a tax..

You reap what you sow....

"Go cry in yer coffee but don't coming bitchin' to me..."
-Billy Joel, BIG SHOT

:D

Michale.....

"In the new poll, more than half of all registered voters - 53 percent - said they were more likely to vote for their member of Congress if he were running on a platform calling for repeal, up from 46 percent before the ruling...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85S14820120701

The government...

Do you want that kind of power help by President Romney???

What about people who simply don't want insurance??

Don't they have that right???

Michale.....

If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you would be charged a penalty.

Basically, the people trying to cheat the system would pay the penalty.

I'm ok with that.

-David

But the point is, the 1% that the tax WOULD apply to would be the one's who make less than $250K per year...

The people that Obama PROMISED would not pay more in taxes..

Regardless of the tax, ObamaCare will guarantee that millions of Americans will likely LOSE the insurance they have in favor of lesser bare-bones quality plans..

Another issue that Obama PROMISED would never happen..

Michale.....

Unless those 99% decide they don't want health insurance..

Which was their right... Pre-Obama

Michale.....

Call it whatever you want ... it doesn't apply to 99% of the people.

Did you know that ACA also allows the FDA to approve more generic drugs? To reduce costs?

-David

I would have to agree with ya, David..

If the SCOTUS says it's Constitutional, then that's pretty final word on the issue...

Just as when the SCOTUS says it's a tax.. Well, that makes it a tax... :D

Michale.....

Ummm, no Rand ... I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what makes it constitutional.

-David

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Victory-for-Obamacare-A-by-shamus-cooke-120702-694.html

Michale.....

Thank you Oh Great And Powerful OZ :D

Michale.....

Well, you can thank O for that, since he's the guy who sold it out to the insurance lobbyist in the seventh week of his presidency, using Baucus as the middle man to get the lobbyist's "mandate" in there, instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk

As for whomever wanted a public option back then, they don't want it now. According to the latest Gallup poll (June 29th), only 25% want the government's role in health care expanded. And only 13% even want to keep CrapCare in place. The majority (52%) want to either repeal it entirely or repeal parts of it, and I think one can safely assume the "part" they're talking about is the infamous mandate.