What if ,what if,same old GOP BS.What this does is show the GOP and the morons that drink their coolaid that the American public won't fall for all your S&%t
Supreme Court decides: Health care mandate stands
- Thread starter Tilted
- Start date
PsyOps
Pixelated
I am comfortable saying nearly everyone supports preventing insurance companies from dropping people when they get sick. I think most people support the preexisting conditions clause. If insurance was really about preventing disease, everyone would be for that too. Insurance doesn’t do that.Rocky pay attention,this will help ...now try an understand this.....cost of health care for people like myself who pay around 900$ amonth...DOWN!!!
Peope will now be coverd for well patient visits...catch things earlier and helping people "prevent from " getting sick.It will cover the young and stop the Isurance companied from dropping(older) people once their sick,so weather morons as yourself who don't like it I don't care ....this is a good day to be an American.
You know what? That’s not what this is about. This is about people that may want to pay their own healthcare out of pocket rather than be a slave to a failing insurance mentality. They wont be able to. They are forced to buy health insurance. This is about companies that may not be able to afford to continue to run their business if they are forced to provide health insurance for their employees. They will go out of business or lay people off or both. We all know that this is just so good for unemployment and our economy. It’s about the government having the ability to tell every American what they must buy as a consequence of being born a human.
It’s always a good day for America when our liberties deteriorate.
BTW:
Weather: the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness.
Whether: Which one of the two.
Perhaps you should be more careful about what form of rebuttal you want to use before calling everyone you disagree with a moron.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Obviously grammar is not your strong point. So I'm comfortable being called a moron by your standards.What if ,what if,same old GOP BS.What this does is show the GOP and the morons that drink their coolaid that the American public won't fall for all your S&%t
You obviously don't remember why the 2010 election results handed the GOP power in the house.
Last edited:
LOL...here it comes,yup I wrote too fast and messd up, act like any other good GOP moron and shoot me.Can't win so attack the messenger.
bcp
In My Opinion
so what you are telling me sparky is that, since you cant provide for yourself, you think it should be ok to dig in other peoples wallets to get what you want?Rocky pay attention,this will help ...now try an understand this.....cost of health care for people like myself who pay around 900$ amonth...DOWN!!!
Peope will now be coverd for well patient visits...catch things earlier and helping people "prevent from " getting sick.It will cover the young and stop the Isurance companied from dropping(older) people once their sick,so weather morons as yourself who don't like it I don't care ....this is a good day to be an American.
And as of today, it is not good to be an American, today will be marked as the beginning of the end of this country as we know it.
Peace Comrade
Tilted
..
My general impression of Mr. Krauthammer is positive. At times I've thought the things he said were spot on, but I recall at other times thinking they weren't correct or particularly helpful to the general understanding or something like that. It's been a while since I've heard him though, so I suppose I don't have much in the way of an opinion of him.
As for those specific comments: At first blush I don't agree with the last paragraph, but there certainly could be some truth in those sentiments. And some of my initial thoughts were similar to some of the thoughts Mr. Krauthammer expressed in the first paragraph.
Here's the thing about the Chief Justice (at least, one of the things I see having read some of his opinions and listened to him during oral arguments). He's not as much of a technician as many lawyers seem to be. He doesn't seem obsessed with formalism. He seems to care about substance, even if it isn't rigorously packaged as it might supposedly need to be. Following on our discussion from earlier, I might say that he presents as a bit simpler than other Justices do - simpler, more straightforward thoughts, simpler expression of those thoughts. I'm not suggesting he's not as intelligent, far from that. I guess I'd say that, particularly during oral arguments, he cuts to the chase better than others do.
He once concluded a single paragraph opinion with the quote: "The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows." That quote had been taken from Justice Fields who, writing in 1867, used it to eschew the notion that form was more important than substance. In essence, he was asserting that if two things were functionally the same, if they had the same practical import, if they necessarily lead to the same consequence, they might ought to be treated the same - the reality that they'd been given different names or described with different words notwithstanding. Basically, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck no matter what you call it.
I suppose the point I'm getting at is that, in hindsight, this (taxing power) reasoning from Chief Justice Roberts isn't all that surprising - it isn't particularly out of character. There's little dispute that, under existing precedents, if the mandate is a tax it's constitutional. James Madison wouldn't necessarily agree that it is, but the Court's past rulings would seem to make it so. It's also fair to argue that the mandate - i.e. the penalty for failing to meet it, which is the only consequence to it - is a tax in all but name. There's a reason it wasn't generally touted as a tax by its supporters and I'd bet you already get that reason. It was political - taxes aren't generally popular or well received. In a righteous world, maybe we should make the supporters of the law (and the mandate in particular) sleep in the bed they made - they chose not to market it as a tax, so they don't get the benefit of it being considered as one. But I suppose the Chief Justice didn't feel he had the authority to impose that sleep-in-the-bed-you-made reality. He had to take the law as it was, however it came to be that way - and that meant considering a duck a duck even if it went by a different name. The Constitution deals with substance, after all, not shadows - not symbolism - not inconsequential form. Once he was to the point that he felt he had to give the mandate the benefit of the doubt as being a tax, he either had to uphold it or overturn many decades of precedent (and with them, major established government programs like Social Security that were dependent on those precedents).
So, here we are. That's generous speculation regarding how the Chief Justice got where he got. How true to reality is it? I don't know. Lots of speculation could be offered in this regard. Who knows how accurate any of it is? We can do little more than believe what we want to believe, or simply accept that we don't (and may never) know.
That stuff said, I've read some of the opinions now and I have about 6 million strands of thought - maybe more, I got tired of counting. For now, I'd just say that there's something hanky about these opinions. I can't put my finger on it but something doesn't feel right. I'm not talking about how complicated they are - and they are rather complicated. It's a bit of a chore to sort out what the real import of all of the different votes, and the different Justices' respective reasonings for those votes, is. This decision is unusual in a lot of ways, but ways that are at least articulable. I'm referring to something else though. Like I said, something that just doesn't feel right - something about the tone and construction of the opinions. They feel more cobbled together than they should. The propriety of the judgments and wisdom of the reasoning(s) aside, the work product - the actual writing of the opinions - just feels sub par to me. Boy I wish I could have been in the room when they were discussing this case.
So , move to Canada.
bcp
In My Opinion
hard to do, unlike what has happened to the U.S under the socialist liberal rule, Canada has borders and some pretty strict rules about entering.
bcp
In My Opinion
actually, you need us Americans here. without us, whose pocket will you socialists pick?If ignorance is bliss you must be in heaven.It's a great day to be an Amarican the Court came through for the average American citizen,and if you don't like it leave we need less of your anti American sewage anyway.
You cant even spell American, how can we ever believe you are one?
Tilted
..
Oh, I don't have much doubt that Chief Justice Roberts would, to the extent he had personal policy preferences at all, like to have thrown the mandate out. For whatever reason, he felt it had to be upheld. Is that a sign of great integrity or commitment to stare decisis? Is it a sign of a lack of fealty to the original intent and understanding of the constitution? Is it a sign that something extra-legal went on under the surface? I don't know what it was, but whatever it was, he would seem to be the only Justice that voted contrary to what I'd suspect they wanted personally.
Some of the Justices no doubt wanted to throw the law out, and they found the reasoning to do so. Some of the Justices no doubt wanted to uphold it, and they found the reasoning to do so. Reading the opinions, it seems that the Chief Justice was out in a boat by himself on this one - no real friends or compatriots to be found anywhere, just half-hearted partners that would, in the end, shake his hand for expediency's sake, to get their own ends met. I'm not sure what to make of that. Maybe he was just trying to be the great compromiser or to prove that the Court has integrity - that it isn't full up with purely political actors. I don't think I want to believe that, but neither am I sure that I can dismiss the notion out of hand.
Last edited:
Maybe ,just maybe the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court knows more about law then you............think it over.
Tilted
..
I don't think I think what you think I think. Either that or your comments just don't make any sense.Maybe ,just maybe the Chief Justice of the Surprem Court knows more about law then you............think it over.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Here’s what’s bothering me about this though… The mandate is not a tax until you violate it. So, if you abide by the mandate how can it fall under some tax clause? My understanding of taxes is they are supposed to be applied fairly to everyone.
Another thing that comes to mind is how this will be managed. How will the IRS monitor every single person for their insurance status? The fed will have to immensely increase the size and power of the IRS.
Here’s the rub… Obama then and now is claiming this is not a tax, while claiming victory for the decision. Obama wanted it to be constitutional under the commerce clause. It is not, according to the majority. I’m failing to see how any of us resolve this as any honest decision.
PsyOps
Pixelated
And what point would that be?.....Thanks , you have proven my point.
Oh wait..... nevermind. We're morons.
...now you get it.
