Everything Just Went Over The Side

The election is now a simple referendum on ObamaCare.

Do you favor it or oppose it?

Nothing else matters.

 

It's not for me. It's a non-issue. I have always had insurance, have it now, and will continue to have it. My life will not change one bit.

That having been said I will not vote for either of them. I hardly ever vote for Democrats or Republicans.

 

I dont see the difference here... HR 3200 ( A republican brainchild) is a badly engineered stop-gap gift to profiteers on sickness and injury. If we stay on course with the same healthcare system we have had for the past 30 years.. it will greatly speed up the collapse the economy if it continiues to financially metastisize.

Republicans offer no solutions except.. HR3200. Simply promising to repeal HR3200 is not a solution...

 

[SUP][/SUP]

The American Middle Class has just been betrayed by the "Conservatives" on the supreme court.

The Republicans have shown that they are only a little less distructive to the common man than the Democrats, and neither is a ally or protector.

The whole American political system, both major parties, all three branches, and the checks of the Press are all corrupt beyond redemption, only Collapse, Civil War and rebuilding from the ashes remains.

America is a Dead Country that just isn't afire yet. Give it time...

 

Not today. But this opens the door to all kinds of heinous forms of taxation. The failure to purchase birth control could one, or maybe a tax on those who cannot prove they gave to a charitable organization chosen by the Government. Really, who knows what kinds of taxation scenarios a Government desperate for cash will inflict upon the citizenry with such power and another thing is guaranteed. Such taxes will probably be regressive.

 

what a joke the scotus is...

So now u will hve to either be FORCE to buy and insurance or PAY A TRIBUTE TO THE IRS/GOV.. wake the hell up americans! how much can u guys take????

This is NOT ''FREE'' medical coverage...

 

It was never intended to be free. It was meant to force the healthy to subsidize the care of the sick who cannot afford care for themselves by taxing you.

 

Ever notice how the SCOTUS is the ultimate authority -- until they hand down a decision that partisans disagree with?

If the Republicans still want to try to make Obamacare a major campaign issue, be my guest. The problem is they've now lost the advantage of crying "It's unconstitutional!". That charge both sounds good and puts Obama on the defensive saying "no, it's not".

Now they have to criticize it on other grounds, freeing Obama to say things like, "Republicans want to drive up health-care costs. Republicans want to take away your coverage."

I think that's a weak position for the GOP. Especially as more and more provisions start to kick in. The exchanges are going up, pre-existing conditions are going away, kids are on their parents' insurance.... Republicans are going to have to explain why they want to remove those.

Good luck with that.

 

We're gonna man up alright and kick this tyranny out in November.

Nothing else matters.

 

And this is different from the official conservative position since November 2008 how?

 

Well if you like that insurance you have and plan on keeping it.......its an issue.

When the subpime government healthcare option is the only option.......your going to realize it.
.
.

 

Why the GOP Will Wish It Could Lead with Ron Paul After This ObamaCare Ruling

Brian Doherty | June 28, 2012

As readers of Reason have been reminded far and near, Mitt Romney, no matter how tough he's talking now, has some credibility issues when it comes to attacking ObamaCare as a potential president.

Not that everyone shouldn't know this by now, but Peter Suderman summed it up back in May 2011:

ObamaCare, which includes a health insurance mandate, is a near carbon copy of RomneyCare: a hefty Medicaid expansion coupled to equally large middle-class insurance subsidies, new regulations that all but turn health insurance into a public utility, and an individual mandate to buy a private insurance plan. Indeed, the same Obama administration that Romney accused of being fundamentally anti-American has on multiple occasions explicitly cited the plan that Romney signed into law as the direct model for their plan.

Romney’s only real contrast between his plan and the president’s plan boiled down to a single, simple distinction: Obama’s overhaul was a federal overhaul; Romney’s was state-based. Romney would have us believe that the same system of mandates and regulations that constitutes an unconscionable imposition on individual liberty at the federal level is somehow a natural and great part of the American way of life at the state level.

Suderman again, from earlier this month:

The GOP candidate's promises to do away with the president’s health law have never been terribly convincing: His plan to offer states waivers to avoid the law probably won’t work. His promises to push for repeal have always come across as hollow when paired with his defense of his own law.

That’s even more true now. Not only did Romney accept the mandate in Massachusetts, he forcefully defended it while his staff insisted on its inclusion. And despite widespread distrust of Romney’s commitment to unwinding the federal health care overhaul, Romney decided to appoint as a senior adviser someone who profits from ObamaCare and professionally urges conservative legislators to fall in line with one its key directives despite contrary advice from every major policy shop that opposes the health law.

Does this sound like someone whose commitment to opposing ObamaCare and its mandate is in any way reliable? It’s almost as if Romney doesn’t really find ObamaCare or its underlying structure particularly objectionable, and is merely pretending to vehemently oppose the law because he believes that’s what the voters his campaign is targeting want to hear.

Indeed, though even the Tea Party, supposedly so energized by ObamaCare hate, seems willing to sigh and take Romney.

But even if we believed Romney will for political expedience barrel through with anti-ObamaCare Tea Party talking points for political gain whether or not he is credible or really believes it, he can't really "repeal it in day one" without Congress's going along, nor would his "state waiver" plan likely do what he claims it will.

A House repeal vote is scheduled for July 9. Good luck, congressional Republicans. Timothy Carney argues, interestingly, that given the "tax" nature of the decision, reducing that "tax" to zero counts as budget reconciliation and thus can't be filibustered, thus requiring only 51 Senate votes to essentially repeal that part in the Senate. And good luck with that, Senate Republicans.

The fate of ObamaCare, as some bemoan and some cheer, a matter for the politicians now. While some darkly suspect Roberts was pressured by Obama forces to give in, others suspect he was in fact knowingly helping Romney forces to allegedly help ensure enough angry energized Republican voters to smash Obama in November. Perhaps Obama the health care martyr would be a better energizer of his base, while the GOP can count on its forces rising to beat Obama the health care dictator.

Romney certainly can presume most anti-ObamaCare potential voters (there are still lots of them) probably thinking they have nowhere else to go. But who would have been a more effective anti-ObamaCare standardbearer? Ron Paul, of course.

Paul's comments on the decision:

"I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

"Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a 'mandate.' The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

"Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens....

And Paul talking up the problems with ObamaCare earlier this week:

supporters of Obamacare are willfully ignorant of basic economics. The fundamental problem with health care costs in America is that the doctor-patient relationship has been profoundly altered by third party interference. Third parties, either government agencies themselves or nominally private insurance companies virtually forced upon us by government policies, have not only destroyed doctor-patient confidentiality. They also inescapably drive up costs because basic market disciplines — supply and demand, price sensitivity, and profit signals — are destroyed … Obamacare, via its insurance mandate, is more of the same misdiagnosis.”

Ron Paul, as above, has demonstrated understanding of why health care costs are so (*)(*)(*)(*) high (hint: RomneyCare has not actually contained costs), and it's because of the absurd and complicated system of third party payments and supply reductions imposed by government mandate.

Paul also knew that the Court would validate the mandate, back in March, and wrote in the sort of rhetorical move that should appeal to leftists a bit worried about government forcing us to buy a product from huge powerful corporations, in his book Liberty Defined, "A better description of...the past forty to fifty years is the takeover of medical care by the corporations. We now have a form of corporatism veering toward fascism....Regardless of party, corporate special interests are protected....Corporations, unions, and government stand between patients and their doctors regardless of motivation. The quality and cost of medical care can never be improved by forcing on the American people greater debt-financed involvement in medical care."

Paul argues against not only the expansion of government involvement in medicine inherent in ObamaCare but also the past government incursions on the market for making both insurance and health care costs rise, thus making him the only consistent voice for the principles of government involvement in health care reined in not only by a more consistent interpretation of proper congressional power, but economic sense as well.

Thus, while Paul is himself more federalist than many libertarians like, he doesn't accept Romney's excuse that mandating insurance purchase in Massachusetts was the right thing to do whereas doing it federally is not. Such mandates would never be the right thing to do, and fall under no proper understanding of what government is even for.

Romney may be able to get away with the two party game of blaming the latest extension of crappy governing principles on the other guy, but neither he nor any other prominent Republican seem to actually understand why our health care system was such a mess that ObamaCare could even pass--or are prepared to explain the moral, legal, constitutional, and economic reasons why nearly all government interference in health care is a bad idea. Only Ron Paul could do that.

With the Court granting Congress potentially limitless power to do anything under the taxing power, this decision reminds us that we need a sea change not just in the Nine Supremes. (It is worth noting that there is a reasonable libertarian-friendly interpretation of today's decision, which some cheer and some jeer, that in rejecting the Commerce Clause arguments Roberts has indeed stabbed post-New Deal pro-state jurisprudence in the heart even if the blood didn't stain the mandate)

The change, as Ron Paul always recognized, needs to be in the political philosophy and action of the people as a whole. And Paul was the only GOP candidate who consistently and fully understands and can be relied to act on the principled reasons why ObamaCare was and is wrong.

Alas, the Tea Party sold out that One True Voice against ObamaCare and the reasons we got ObamaCare, and without some version of his ideas animating national politics, ObamaCare may eventually be killed, but the forces that have led to massive and growing health care expenses will remain. That will merely trigger the next feckless state-run solution to a problem that would be far better served by less government involvement, not more.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/why-the-gop-will-wish-it-could-lead-with

 

There are two significant constitutional issues deeply embedded in the Obama Care bill which were never even touched by today's ruling.

While having the supreme court set a president that the government can use the sophistry of calling it a "Tax", and there by decide how much you spend of your paycheck on what is bad enough, the other two issues are perhaps worse for the long term legal / civil right future of our country.

1] It is not just that the health care bill has unconstitutional provisions, the way in which the bill was crafted, voted on, and passed was un-constitutional. Who can forget the Ding-A-Ling speaker Pelosi stating; ”We have to pass it to find out what’s in it!....”

How can any sane person say that Congress has voted on a Bill, when bill in back rooms are still WRITING some 15% of the 2700 pages of the bill when it is being voted on? You can’t vote yeah or neah on anything that isn’t yet completed, much less having a reasonable amount of time having passed to allow the voters to READ the BILL!

It is like sending a blank check to a car company to pay for a car, letting the dealer fill in the price to anything he wishes two weeks after the new “Owner” drives off with the vehicle, and then claiming that the buyer and seller have “Agreed” of the price. You can’t agree or disagree with a price if the number was never given or read!

The Constitution clearly defines a procedure for drafting, reading, debating and voting for or against BILLs of new Legislation. It is not possible for ObamaCare to be a Constitutional Bill, because it isn’t possible to say that it was ever legally voted on by Congress. Something may have been voted on, but NOT the thing we are calling the ObamaCare Bill today, because it didn’t yet exist!

2] ObamaCare legislation is 2700 pages long, in that mess, over 25 separate provisions for RACIAL PREFERENCES exist, most having to do with how teaching hospitals and universities get federal and state-matching funding.

ObamaCare is more of a handout to particular ethnic groups in the form of extreme and poorly defined Preferences in getting slots as interns for nursing and/or physician education than anything about providing health care for individuals.

Worse, the way the legislation is written, it does not limit those controls and racial preferences to just health care education, but basically allows the federal government to completely take over ALL education financing and apply extreme Racial Preferences to that entire part of our society.

The ObamaCare Bill is nothing short of the Ethnic Selection Based Socialistic Nationalization of ALL higher education!

What about EQUAL RIGHTS for prospective white male engineering students? Or Asian Agricultural Students?

What about the 14 amendment EQUAL PROTECTION Rights?


The ObamaCare bill SHOULD have been struck down completely by the Supreme Court for the process of its passage and/or the clearly RACIST elements, even if the individual mandate was never included!

 

This is short I am late. The ruling did say that Obamacare WAS a tax...written by justice Roberts of all people! that will help the GOP IMO. The SCOUS calling OC a tax is the only way they could have ruled it constitutional IMO.

reva

 

Well, I was responding to what ACTUALLY happened, not some future hypothetical maybe.

 

I hear you. This specific thing is a non-issue in my life. But I acknowledge the larger point.

 

Any Democrat that survived the massacre of 2010 now has to face the fact he owns the biggest tax increase of all time.

Joe Donnelley - Dem candidate for Senate in Indiana and a former Blue Dog - now has to fight a proven statewide candidate carrying the baggage of having voted for a massive tax increase.

There are a lot of "Joe Donnelleys"left scattered around the US. Their political careers are going the way of OJ's acting career.

 

A majority does support the ACA or something stronger, so the issue looks like win for the Democrats. You can only make health care reform look unpopular by adding the "wanted single payer" crowd to the "hates all reform" crowd, which is totally twisting the statistics. So naturally, that's what our nutty conservative MSM does.

The issue is whether the Dems have the smarts to run with this winning issue, given the Democratic habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because they're afraid of being called "liberal."

 

oboobma was going to be soundly whipped already, but now it will be even worse. 330 electoral votes for Romney, 208 for oboobma.

 

You say that as if it were a problem. After the last biggest tax increase of all time, which the republicans said would wreck the economy and kill jobs, the economy had its best period over he past 40 years.

 

You have your head in the sand. You can ignore the direction things are moving but it will eventually be knocking on your door, and then you will be kicking yourself for not doing anything when you had the chance. If you do nothing, you are part of the problem.

 

We watched as your side kept pandering tax cuts which did nothing except make the richest 1% richer and richer at the expense of most everyone else while millions more Americans had to go without health care coverage year after year. 1 out of 6 Americans today don't have health care coverage.

And we watched while your side didn't do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing about it and couldn't care less as long as the rich got richer.

You did nothing. You were part of the problem.

We did something about it.

 

Jaysus, you're acting like we liberals were IN FAVOR of the Roberts appointment.

 

What would you like me to do?

 

First, what was "my side"? Please tell me what I believe, I'm really curious to know since you seem to know all about me.