Obamacare Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court

• Bigdogg

  The SCOTUS has ruled. Now what?:thumbup:
• LJ

  

  Now maybe you should add some links and some quotes instead of having a vague one line post.
• sleeper

  

  Pretty much the end of America as we know it. Day 1, its already going to add 2.1 trillion to the debt and that's a conservative CBO estimate.
• SnotBubbles

  

  Per Yahoo and CNN....
  
  Thoughts?
  
  I think this actually means a new president in November.
• fan_from_texas

  I believe the prediction I posted months back was that SCOTUS would uphold the individual mandate.
• queencitybuckeye

  Frankly, its meaning is more important for discussion purposes than any practical ramifications. The productive will always end up paying for the unproductive, it's only a matter of where we send the money.
• LJ

  

  Threads merged due to better title and duplicate topics
• BoatShoes

  Thought the government should've argued it was a tax. Originally thought 6-3 for mandate. Thought it was goin down this morning.
• Bigdogg

  fan_from_texas;1213820 wrote:I believe the prediction I posted months back was that SCOTUS would uphold the individual mandate.

  Congratulations, I think the actual lawyers are not surprised.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  queencitybuckeye;1213822 wrote:Frankly, its meaning is more important for discussion purposes than any practical ramifications. The productive will always end up paying for the unproductive, it's only a matter of where we send the money.

  Possibly, I'll reserve judgment until reading the opinions.
• SnotBubbles

  

  LJ;1213824 wrote:Threads merged due to better title and duplicate topics

  I had a better title? SCORE BITCHES!!!!
• fan_from_texas

  Oral argument cast some doubt on things, as the justices appeared hostile to the individual mandate. But I think the case against the individual mandate was at best a 50-50 proposition (and likely longer odds than that).
• isadore

  lol, this is great. congratulations to Obama, and congratulations to justice roberts for an enlightened opinion.
• BGFalcons82

  

  fan_from_texas;1213832 wrote:Oral argument cast some doubt on things, as the justices appeared hostile to the individual mandate. But I think the case against the individual mandate was at best a 50-50 proposition (and likely longer odds than that).

  I thought they specifically stated that the government cannot mandate the people purchase a product. The "individual mandate" was indeed taken down. What Roberts said was that the government has the authority to tax and he defined the mandate as a tax.
  
  The fact that Obama stated thousands of times that he would not raise taxes one dime was and is an out and out fucking lie. This is the first tax enacted on mankind that is levied upon every citizen merely because they breathe. Goodbye, America.
• FatHobbit

  

  BGFalcons82;1213848 wrote:The fact that Obama stated thousands of times that he would not raise taxes one dime was and is an out and out fucking lie.

  Yup. It's not the first time a president has lied about raising taxes.
• gut

  Not entirely sure, but they seem to be saying that states can "opt out" and still participate in medicare. But if, say OH, doesn't join Obamakare then what? Again, it's beyond me but by saying they don't have authority under the commerce clause means they can't force states to participate or something like that.
• QuakerOats

  Now, more than ever, a vote for Romney and a republican dominated congress, is a must.
  
  November '12 --- we either regain freedom, or the free republic is dead forever.
• O-Trap

  

  BGFalcons82;1213848 wrote:This is the first tax enacted on mankind that is levied upon every citizen merely because they breathe.

  
  I actually believe the Roman Empire did this. How successful they have become today as a result, right? /sarcasm
  

  FatHobbit;1213855 wrote:Yup. It's not the first time a president has lied about raising taxes.

  Yeah, I instantly thought of "... read my lips ..." when he said that.
  
  The only upside to this is that it can be overturned if deemed unconstitutional (and it is, since this is outside the bounds of what can be done at the federal level by the Constitution).
  
  IF Romney wins, who wants to take bets on whether or not he repeals it? I'll start a vBookie thread if enough people are interested.
• stlouiedipalma

  Interesting that Roberts was the swing vote. My guess is that many Republicans are privately upset with W for giving the Chief Justice his seat on the Court.
  
  
  As for the end of the republic, the "chicken littles" on this site will be heralding gloom and doom once more, with nothing more than emotion driving their comments.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1213870 wrote:Now, more than ever, a vote for Romney and a republican dominated congress, is a must.
  
  November '12 --- we either regain freedom, or the free republic is dead forever.

  Eh ... it's not like Republicans haven't helped set the table here. But that's a subject for another topic.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  stlouiedipalma;1213880 wrote:Interesting that Roberts was the swing vote. My guess is that many Republicans are privately upset with W for giving the Chief Justice his seat on the Court.
  
  
  As for the end of the republic, the "chicken littles" on this site will be heralding gloom and doom once more, with nothing more than emotion driving their comments.

  Well, unless he's smarter than a fox. This might kill Obama's election chances. For the first time in American history, we could be facing a tax for simply being an American.
  
  How do you think that it is going to be welcomed?
• ts1227

  

  stlouiedipalma;1213880 wrote:As for the end of the republic, the "chicken littles" on this site will be heralding gloom and doom once more, with nothing more than emotion driving their comments.

  
  It's easier than providing substance, which has been flushed out of the arguments from both sides for a long time now. Why provide useful information when you can just incorrectly appeal to raw emotion?
• O-Trap

  

  ts1227;1213887 wrote:It's easier than providing substance, which has been flushed out of the arguments from both sides for a long time now. Why provide useful information when you can just incorrectly appeal to raw emotion?

  Very aptly put. It is no longer a disagreement over ideas. It's all ad hominem. "Get Obama out of there," is the battle cry of Republicans. It's not, "Restore fiscal sanity," or anything positional. It's vilifying people or groups of people, and both sides are equally guilty of it.
• Sykotyk

  

  Buying a house? You pay less in tax than someone who isn't. Have insurance? You pay less in tax than someone who doesn't.
  
  Mortgage deductions have been legal for years to induce people into wanting to buy a house than to just pay rent.
• QuakerOats

  What is emotional about being cognizant of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT want obamacare, even though it has now been force fed to us for over 3 years? It is a simple fact. Most Americans see it as major theft of more of their liberty, and substantially more growth of a federal government that is completely out of control.
  
  To be chastised for being passionate about preserving freedom and liberty, and preventing government from devouring another 20% of the economy, is somewhat astounding in my opinion.