2

[Edited on June 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM. Reason : yay]

6/27/2012 8:58:39 PM

wow!

Quote :

"all you see is 5 conservatives destroying obamas last chance at reelection or any kind of legacy tomorrow."

Quote :

"you guys are fucking idiots, and at least one of you calls me a hack. "

i call you a "hack" because you immediately bring "obama", or "democrats", or "liberals" into any "debate" you try to enter, it's like an obsession. and you won't hesitate to use insults to "win" the "debate".

Quote :

"i swear if this was 4th grade and there were governmental official trading cards you guys would be collecting and fighting them. this really is all these people mean to you."

you're right about some posters, both "liberal" and "conservative". and you're right about your tww persona.

[Edited on June 27, 2012 at 10:19 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2012 10:01:52 PM

If Obama had any credibility, he would appoint four more justices to the court.

6/27/2012 11:08:52 PM

So Roberts sided with the Left leaning judges and upheld it as a tax. Now are those evil conservative judges destroying the country and have no credibility, or is SCOTUS credible?

6/28/2012 10:16:02 AM

Hahaha suck it all you conservative mother fuckers. 30 years of court stacking didn't win you shit.

6/28/2012 10:19:37 AM

^ damn

6/28/2012 10:23:56 AM

6/28/2012 10:29:40 AM

John Roberts, you fucking legend.

6/28/2012 10:50:59 AM

It is official and legally binding: Obama is raising our taxes.

6/28/2012 10:51:09 AM

-

Never mind. I'll just sit back and watch 50% of the people lol at/troll the other 50% until the next big thing.

[Edited on June 28, 2012 at 10:56 AM. Reason : -]

6/28/2012 10:54:10 AM

^^^^The surprising thing, not only with this ruling but also with the Stolen Valor Act, the dismissal of First American, and the Arizona ruling, is how much the Court really has been hewing to the language of the Constitution; it's not nearly as out there as the "CORPORATIONS=PEOPLE" ruling in Citizens United, even though I don't exactly like the Court's restrictive interpretation of the Commerce Clause or its allowance of a "papers please" regime in any sense...

Anyway, the ruling can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Also, look at the URL, and then at the article itself, to see just how confused the reporters were as Roberts started reading the Opinion of the Court: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/13315411-418/supreme-court-strike-down-individual-mandate.html

6/28/2012 10:54:17 AM

Another interesting interpretation of a very simple, straight forward document. The Constitution is useless; the sociopaths running the country will do what they want. There is no point in pretending that the Constitution is legitimate. I didn't sign it, and no one (including these justices) can truly believe that it is valid today. It's a tool, nothing more.

At one point, I would have described myself as a "Constitutionalist". It's easy to say, "if we just followed the Constitution, we'd be better off". Maybe we would, maybe we wouldn't -it's irrelevant. When a mugger has you at gunpoint, he doesn't give a shit what the law is, he just wants your money. The mandate should have just been called a tax from the beginning. That's what it is.

In any case, those of us still seeing clearly will all get a good laugh as the "anti-corporate" left cheers on legislation that forces private citizens to purchase a service provided by insurance corporations.

[Edited on June 28, 2012 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ]

6/28/2012 10:55:54 AM

So appeal to a higher court, right?

6/28/2012 10:58:35 AM

I don't necessarily think the healthcare reform was the best piece of legislation ever, but I am quite happy right now because it was never the Supreme Court's place to get involved with this issue.

Although I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't a Republican ploy to help get Romney elected.

6/28/2012 11:08:12 AM

Quote :

"a very simple, straight forward document"

What, pray tell, is "cruel and unusual punishment"?

What exactly constitutes "equal protection"?

Also, where the hell did Congress get the power to raise the Air Force? I only see "an army and a navy" and not a single Amendment has altered that.

PROTIP: "Short" does not mean "simple" or "straight forward."

6/28/2012 11:19:05 AM

^^ So you don't think it is the SCOTUS's place to rule on a laws constitutionality? Or is there no such thing as a law that is unconstitutional to you?

[Edited on June 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ^]

6/28/2012 11:19:14 AM

Quote :

"What, pray tell, is "cruel and unusual punishment"? What exactly constitutes "equal protection"? Also, where the hell did Congress get the power to raise the Air Force? I only see "an army and a navy" and not a single Amendment has altered that. PROTIP: "Short" does not mean "simple" or "straight forward.""

Some of that is vague and subjective, although the "equal protection" clause was added later on and that's even more vague. Cruel and unusual? I happen to think all government subjugation is cruel, but certainly not unusual.

The basic structure of it, though, is quite simple. The 10th amendment makes it very clear - all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government rest with the states or the people. Unfortunately, people have found ways to interpret things like the general welfare clause as license for the government to do anything at all. That's why the Constitution is useless.

6/28/2012 11:25:27 AM

wooooo!! go insurance companies!!! freeeee money!! woooo!

6/28/2012 12:23:27 PM

Yeah, insurance companies love Obamacare so much that they spent $100 million in lobbying and advertising to try to prevent it from going into law.

6/28/2012 12:37:20 PM

the insurance companies were fighting the increased coverage requirements (which werent really in question here). What we're talking about is the individual mandate to give insurance companies more money, which they're obviously all for.

6/28/2012 12:54:54 PM

Well they sure confused Fox and CNN.

John Roberts probably isn't going to get Christmas cards from a lot of Republicans now, but hey now he can be champion for the left, who just 24 hours ago wanted to string him up.

6/28/2012 1:03:29 PM

Just look at those insurance stocks fly on the news that they now get free money:

WLP down 5.5%
AET down 3%
UNH down 1%
HUM down 2%
CI down 2.5%

6/28/2012 1:08:06 PM

i know you guys are all fucking retarded, but they could have shot down the individual mandate and still left the parts the insurance companies dont want intact (increased coverage requirements).

The entire bill not being shot down is a wash for the insurance cos, but the mandate not being shot down is a big win for them.

6/28/2012 1:14:19 PM

I dont think some of you realize what a dangerous precedent has just be set.

6/28/2012 1:24:57 PM

The precedent that congress has the power to levy taxes?

6/28/2012 1:29:47 PM

Yeah, I mean...the government can legally kill you or steal from you for any reason. Is this really going that much further?

C'mon, guys. This is the efficiency in government we were looking for. We don't have to bother with corporations funding politicians so that the politicians will vote in a way that benefits those corporations. Now, the taxes just go straight to the corporations! No middle man - just pure, unadulterated wealth extraction. It brings a tear to my eye.

6/28/2012 1:33:26 PM

Healthcare provider stocks skyrocketing. Way to stick it to them.

6/28/2012 1:45:33 PM

Quote :

"The entire bill not being shot down is a wash for the insurance cos, but the mandate not being shot down is a big win for them."

What I am pointing out is that the MARKET seems to think that the insurance companies are overall losers today...not a wash, definitely not a win

Quote :

"Healthcare provider stocks skyrocketing. Way to stick it to them."

What are you talking about, hospitals? No one was trying to stick it to them. Insurance/HMO's responded badly...they are who it was stuck to

6/28/2012 1:53:26 PM

Congress can now mandate anything they damn well please and call it a tax, because precedent has just been set. Keep in mind this bill was passed with Obama denying it was a tax.

6/28/2012 1:55:01 PM

Those poor insurance providers are gonna get stuck counting all that tax money. Poor guys.

6/28/2012 2:00:28 PM

If you are so convinced that they are winners in this than today presents as a great buying opportunity for you. I'd be very interested to see what you pull the trigger on

6/28/2012 2:05:15 PM

Not going to pull the trigger on a long term investment that will ultimately be wiped clean by the repeal.

6/28/2012 2:10:11 PM

nice hedge...doesn't help your argument though

If you are sure that today was an ultimate win for the insurance companies than the current market conditions are a great opportunity to buy

If you are sure that this will be repealed and the status quo will be regained than the current market conditions are a good opportunity to buy

6/28/2012 2:15:08 PM

Quote :

"i know you guys are all fucking retarded,"

what kind of irrational asshole thinks anyone is going to listen to their point when they start with this?

6/28/2012 2:34:18 PM

Quote :

"What are you talking about, hospitals? No one was trying to stick it to them. Insurance/HMO's responded badly...they are who it was stuck to"

this is amazing. hospitals gouge the shit out of everyone and you guys are just happy to eat it.

6/28/2012 3:41:06 PM

when did I say I was ok with hospital prices? Did you miss that the crux of this discussion is the healthcare bill, which is more focused on insurance companies than hospitals?

[Edited on June 28, 2012 at 3:49 PM. Reason : a]

6/28/2012 3:49:29 PM

I'm not sure how this hurts the health insurance industry.

6/28/2012 4:01:48 PM

It remains to be seen. If people can wait until they get sick, then get insurance with their "pre-existing condition", it's likely that the cost of paying the tax will be lower than having paid premiums the whole time, and certainly lower than the uninsured cost of whatever they need to have done.

Pure free market or pure single payer would be better than this monstrosity. Now we get the worst of both worlds.

6/28/2012 4:06:55 PM

I can't wait until I have the choice between buying cable TV or paying the cable tax.

6/28/2012 8:43:10 PM

^ when you start making realistic arguments, then you can sit at the adult table.

6/28/2012 9:06:15 PM

I always wonder why Obama care isn't compared to the mandate to get car insurance. I may have read something on it but it never really answered the question or redirected the argument... Has car insurance decreased since most states require it to drive?

6/28/2012 10:37:40 PM

what? there is nothing even slightly analogous about a federal healthcare coverage mandate and a state-regulated requirement to carry liability coverage if you are going to drive on public roads.

6/28/2012 10:50:24 PM

You're only required to get car insurance if you want to drive a car

You are not forced to drive a car

If you choose not to drive a car, you don't have to buy car insurance

6/28/2012 10:54:49 PM

If you choose not to pay lower taxes, you don't have to buy health insurance

6/28/2012 11:21:12 PM

^^ you aren't required to have coverage for your own vehicle, either. You are required not to fuck everyone else over.

6/29/2012 12:24:42 AM

For the children that only understand cartoons.

6/29/2012 12:43:47 AM

6/29/2012 9:39:39 AM

Quote :

"^ when you start making realistic arguments, then you can sit at the adult table."

Yes, there's nothing like calls for maturity and serious argument from someone with the name "IMstoned420"

The way this was interpreted is troublesome. This opens the door for a penalty tax for non-subscription or non-purchase of anything that the government deems necessary. Now that SCOTUS has said that you can do this it's only a matter of time before it moves from health insurance to something else. No, it probably won't be cable TV, but I could legitimately see something like life insurance or even phone service (we already subsidize cell phones for the poor oddly enough).

For me personally traditional health insurance doesn't make much sense, I'm a young, single male with no health issues. Why should I not just be able to pay cash for my annual checkup rather than deducting $50 per pay period for services I won't be using (just FYI, this is why I have a HSA instead of a traditional plan).

Furthermore, what logical sense does it make for me to have to pay 1-2.5% of my income to the IRS for not having something I won't use?

This is yet another bad decision from this court. An actual mandate to purchase is not OK and falls outside of the scope of the commerce clause (which they've used to allow pretty much anything so it honestly wouldn't have surprised me if they had said it was a legitimate exercise of the commerce clause), but a penalty tax for not buying something is within the scope of congresses power to tax? Really?

[Edited on June 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM. Reason : asdf]

6/29/2012 9:42:10 AM

Quote :

"what logical sense does it make for me to have to pay 1-2.5% of my income to the IRS for not having something I won't use?"

health-care?

umm you surely will use it, and now that insurance companies can't fuck you over just when you need them most, you'll need to get slowly drained instead

6/29/2012 10:18:18 AM

^^ And how much tax are you avoiding paying already with that HSA?

6/29/2012 10:45:23 AM