I applaud them for taking a stand. And if the RINO traitors in the senate had stood up like real men they may have made difference.
You applaud the Tea Party knowingly and intentionally damaging our country to "take a stand". Do you applaud terrorists for taking a stand too?
Typical progessive leftist Obama voter loser false narrative. To be taken seriously leftists should avoid regurgitateing Obama lies, kinda transparent.
Nice dodge. Tearrorists right wing morons support RW nutjob losers who knowingly and intentionally harm their own country to extort political demands they cannot achieve by legitimate means. Just like terrorists.
yours by at least a million fold? Hell, you can take that to the bank, loser. Please, I've already done that several times here since Justice Iscariot saw fit to sell this country down the river. Well wupty damn doo. The question, I'm afraid, is why I should find interesting a defense of the holding in NFIB v Sebelius by someone who has yet to manifest even the merest wisp of constitutional literacy AFAIK, and who has clearly telegraphed a predilection for argument from authority. Interesting how many people who say that are actually so hostile to enlightenment that they seek the endarkenment of others. Again, I've already done so at PF, and the search engine is only a click or two away. Who gives a damn?
The simple truth is that, as written, as voted on by Congress, and as signed into law by Comrade Obama, the "Affordable Care Act" was obviously, blatantly, and criminally unconstitutional on its face! Then, for reasons I cannot fathom, when this bag of wormy **** landed on the Supreme Court, Chief "Justice" Roberts decided to re-write the thing so that it was a TAX, and not the MANDATE that Obamacare had been when it was passed and signed into law. By doing this, Roberts sanitized Obamacare so that it was barely legal, sort of.... I know, I know.... The "individual mandate" obviously remains in force (as a TAX), and to everyone except hyperliberal Democrats it is still obviously unconstitutional. But, today, a very half-assed variety of Socialized Medicine is now the Law of the Land, and it will remain so -- a half-assed law that everybody except the welfare parasites and leeches (who never pay for anything) will come to loathe and despise....
considering you are the one that is attempting to claim authority where so far none has been demonstrated is interesting. that I do not choose to beleive that you possess the expertise you so pompously declare seems to irritate you. And yet, I still await faintest glimmer of enlightenment from you. Snarky unmerited condescension notwithstanding. Interesting debate tactic. "I already said something that I think demonstrates my expertise and is of merit in another thread - its up to you to look it up". Its as if your expertise is so deep and your opinions of such import that expressing them more than once is simply more than you can bear........ I certainly don't, which is why I have a discard pile full of pompous blowhards and phony experts. ciao
Blah, blah, blah- "Socialism! Liberals! Socialism!" Can you please actually address an issue with some form of substance rather than right wing BS talking points? You don't even know what socialism is. Might I remind you that Mitt Romney instituted the very same program in Massachusetts? Yes, the very same Mitt Romney who ran for president under the GOP platform. Are you saying Mitt Romney is a socialist? - - - Updated - - - Really? The mostly conservative Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Nobody should be surprised at this point that you fail to understand the meaning of the term. Dream on, little dreamer. I don't know who the hell you think you're kidding. You are certainlly entitled to your worthless opinion. Damn straight. Hey, I'll do it ten times in ten differen ways for somebody who's actually interested...but of course that's just not you. Good riddance.
A most amusing example of how shallow a puffed up opinion of one's self can be. People with intelligence and knowledge don't generally have to work as hard as you do to demonstrate their intelligence and knowledge They grasp that normal discourse and behaviour suffices to establish their bone fides to the hoi polloi.
A desperate need for reform had arisen. Significant healthcare reform was long overdo, with 48 million Americans uninsured, and their medical costs being assessed to the taxpayer. Subsidized by that same taxpayer to the tune of $250 billion annually,11.5 million fewer Americans were receiving their health coverage through their job, or a family member’s job, than did in 2000, when approximately 170.5 million Americans were enrolled in taxpayer-subsidized employer-sponsored insurance. That number had declined to 159 million by 2011, when the ACA was about to be implemented. US cost for healthcare was approximately twice that of advanced nations who were providing superior care to all their citizens. Willard Mitt Romney's successful 2006 Massachusetts 'individual mandate' reform became the model, Touted by Newt Gingrich, praised by the Heritage Foundation, and recommended for national adoption by card-carrying TP Jim DeMint, it was the practicable alternative to the inherently superior single-payer approach, and more acceptable to conservatives. (The single-payer approach was an option that the President had rejected as necessitating a transition that would be too disruptive to America's economy.) The Affordable Care Act was passed by majority votes of both houses of Congress and signed by the President in 2010. Subsequently, the US Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality. Thus, it is the law of the land unless and until its repeal is achieved by the same lawful, democratic procedure. If that should ever happen, a viable alternative will be needed, but no one who is a tizzy over the current law seems capable of offering anything realistic. They merely wring their hands and bemoan Willard's successful Massachusetts paradigm being shared with the nation. Many of the law's critics continue to be sustained by their group coverage federal subsidy with nary a peep about what they regard as a personal entitlement. .
1. They would have had more Republican votes if more people had voted for Republicans. they chose not to. 2. What do you do if you get in a car accident and are paralyzed from the neck down, and require personal and medical care 24/7, after your HMO drops you like a hot potato ? How would you feel about THAT ?
Yes, the SC also thought Dred Scott was good. Do you agree with that??? Just because it is law does not make it good.
You call this work? is impossible with those with bad intent, as they appeal to a superficial sense of decorm even as they employ derision and dissimulation in the hope that their opponents will become irritated and thus unable to think clearly. Fortunately your efforts along these lines have been, as applied to yours truly, a miserable failure.
Non sequitur, see the supremacy clause. Actually, while the procedure by which this monstrosity was imposed on the American people may have been "democratic", it sure as Hell wasn't lawful.
Your aberrant notions are clearly passionate, but woefully wrong. Please try to accept that the nation defers to the Supreme Court rather than to you.
nah, just trying hard. I see projection is a talent of yours. Now how about we drop the pointless peeing contest and either get back to the topic at hand. The OP suggests that the passage of the bill was unconstitutional due to the origination clause. historically the court has taken a narrow view of what constitutes "raising revenue". Since the revenues to be collected are specifically earmarked to fund the ACA, its extremely doubtful a new precedent will be established. One can argue that the USSC ruling that the mandate is a form of "tax" might undermine that position, but it does not alter the fact that the "tax" is "earmarked" for the specific program to offset its costs.
SC also thought lots of other laws were Constitutional too, such as Dred Scott. Do you think that was a right decision? Just because the SC says so, doesn't make it right or just. They are only men and women just like you and me. They make mistakes.
No more so than a recitation of the Pythagorean Theorem. No doubt it appears so to constitutional illiterates and enemies of this Republic. Which are you? Congratulations. You have just pronounced the Constitution null and void, and declared this nation a judicial oligarchy. Not interested. Doesn't matter, since the issue is consonance with the Constitution, not with stare decisis. That is of no moment to anyone who understand the difference between a tax and a penalty as they relate to A1S8C1 and the N&P clause.
I certainly do accept that the "nation" defers to the Supreme Court. I am part of the "nation" and so are more than half of the people that are not wanting ObamaCare. Its a crap law and needs to go.
No, but it was the law because they said so, and my saying it wasn't would not have changed that. - - - Updated - - - The Supreme Court? What an addled notion!
