Hello Jack,

Scalia should be embarassed by the broccoli comment....but my opinion is that with all this posturing by SCOTUS, they are hitting back at the president for the way he addressed them at his STOU address in the only way they can: they will take potshots at him.

But after all is said and done, in the end, they will uphold HCA not because they want to, but because they HAVE to.

I hope so, Jack.

Obama has previously made comments that the SC gets in his way. Today, he showed more disdain for them when he referred to them as "unelected" officials. Hey, bud, you nominated one of those "unelected" officials. So sorry the SC gets in the way of letting you operate like a king.

Now that's good for a chuckle, Obama trying to influence the court with his rhetoric. Those justices on the SC must laugh their a**es off listening to this goofball try to bully them. Most of the justices can tell Obama that they were there long before he showed up, and they'll be there long after he's gone.

[The ObamaCare vote has already been taken Barry, the justices did so last Friday.]

Smiffy, now you're just making @!$%# up as you go along...how can you bear to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? That is simply not true, and you know it.

[Do you think the justices recalled Obama's little public dress down of the Supreme Court during a SOTU speech? Think the justices thought that it might be time for a little payback when they voted?]

Snuffy, It makes no difference. This is EXACTLY what they aren't supposed to be doing. And if they are, and judging by the 2000 elections, the Terry Schaivo case, and Citizens United, everyone, including YOU Smiffy, should be very concerned.

Pat Boston MA.

winemaker, you belong in the GOP, where lying is required.

Yes Pat, I am a conservative with a mind that can determine reason from Progressive lies. Lying Pat emulates more from your side than mine. Anything wrong with opposing views?

@ Feisty,

And expected - these clowns couldn't tell the truth if someone notarized their tongues! ;o)

Clown? Red, your nose is growing again. No one but you can attempt to make an argument with one or two simple sentences. Why are you always in error? I can't wait to hear your responses when BarryCare is voted down. And who will you blame when he loses his bid for a second term?

Jack,

I think he had a pretty good week. And he's going to have an even better 9 months remaining in the year.

The next several months should be a hoot! Having the Barry justify his failed administration.

Joe...

That sentence really caught my eye...."unelected group"....I'd like to know who "elected" HHS Secretary Sebelius, who obviously is being entrusted to make rules on the fly, as she showed us in dealing with the recent health care flap with the Catholic Church. The president also employs a large team of what he terms "csars" who play a large role in anything that comes out of his office. Who "elected" the csars ???

And the president "warns" the Supreme Court ??? What's he going to do if they find his reform plan unconstitutional...insult them once again at the next State of the Union Address ???

This president is an insufferable boob.

[The ObamaCare vote has already been taken Barry, the justices did so last Friday.]

Mickey:. . . now you're just making @!$%# up as you go along...how can you bear to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? That is simply not true, and you know it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/supreme-court-and-obamacare-what-happens-next/2012/03/29/gIQAQkskiS_blog.html

Lonely, scared & stupid is no way to go through life... honey...

Award winning line of the month...and it's only April 2nd...the president "had a pretty good week" !!!

What's a "pretty bad week" supposed to look like ???

The president was only pointing out the truth at the State of the Union. Thomas and Scalia both attended a big republican bash down in Palm Springs and after giving speeches in favor of passing the Citizens United Case, they both failed to recuse themselves from the decision. There are laws barring federal judges from attending political events, but not Supreme Court Justices. The Koch brothers paid for their vacations. Unbelievable.

I wonder what would happen if some law preventing posers like Scalia and Thomas from accepting paid vacations that include political rallies made it to the Supreme Court. The Koch brothers would throw a party in Hawaii and see that their buddies did not recuse themselve.

Feisty, it shouldn't be upheld because it's what such and such many presidents have wanted. Nor should it be upheld because it may or may not be good policy. It should only be upheld if the Court feels it is constitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance.

If the Court says that is not constitutional, my question will be what is the legal difference between health insurance and retirement insurance?

Confidence is sometimes misplaced. Only time will tell

You want a good replacement? Replace it with a catastrophic coverage plan. Use tax money to pay for it instead of making each individual pay for it. Then everyone is covered for the things that will bankrupt them. This may allow the insurers to offer plans that don't cost an arm and a leg because the huge potential losses are off the table.

North...

Who cares about anyone considering Scott Walker a hero...I wonder who are the actual heroes of the President of the United State ??? I'd bet that's a pretty funky list.

You can also list all those "regressive laws' that have been "pushed through" by Republicans ??? And please...having to show an ID at the polls or a governor trying to get some type of control over exploding government union pension costs do not qualify.

Mickey: . . . . the Terry Schaivo case, . . . .

The US Supreme Court never took up that case. But hey, just keep ranting, it's fun to watch.

Lonely, scared & stupid is no way to go through life... honey...

Feisty...

Polls have continuously shown since 2008 that 80-85% of Americans are satisfied with their health care and their health insurance and wanted their plans left alone.

So for those who are satisfied, why should they spend ten seconds of their time trying to satisfy your demand to write down their own plan to replace the 3000 page White House monstrosity currently waiting a Supreme Court ruling ???

The only person "huffing and puffing" here is you.

Newdawg -

Don't you all just love how Scalia quoted the fringe right wing talking points on the mandate by asking if the government could also make you buy broccoli?

What is even funnier is that the lefty liberal was completely unprepared to answer the "fringe right wing talking point" with the fringe left wing counter talking point...unless you call coughing, mumbling and his thumb up is behind the lefty talking point for obamacare.

Obama/Biden - the continueing decline of the United States.

Paul M...

Retirement insurance (social security) is taxed and paid by the federal government. The government does not force you to buy an IRA or annuity from a private company which Obama care does and that is the first problem.

Feisty: Lonely, scared & stupid is no way to go through life... honey...

How many decades later ..... and Feisty's worth is tantamount to still trying to flick boogers at the smart girls.

JAS1: Most of the justices can tell Obama that they were there long before he showed up, and they'll be there long after he's gone.

Reminds me of the Feisty taunt about her being here at FR before everybody else and vowing to be here long after everyone is gone.

Sad that she thinks that is noteworthy.

Does she not realize that most people have lives ... that they are not apparently restricted to their houses/homes by a court ordered ankle bracelet?

Wow, Mickey, how does it feel to be dead wrong, and then insult someone who has it dead right? There are countless news sources (Forbes, for one) you can google that will confirm that the Supreme Court did, in fact, take a secret vote on Obamacare last Friday, but will not reveal the result of until June. Try doing a little source research for a change.

No matter what happens, Obamacare will NOT bring down healthcare costs because health INSURANCE is a flawed concept. It doesn't work anywhere without regulating how many get operations and when because some sort of budget must be implemented otherwise costs keep soaring.

This notion that those without health insurance are the ones filling up the ER is wrong. Many without insurance stay away, or they made deal with docs to pay in cash. I know many like this that do not want to be burden to others. Those filling up the ER are those that need that care at that time. Our clinics in my town are only opened til about 7 during the week and not during the weekend. So if something goes wrong, I would need to go to the ER, which recently I had to do. More and more trauma centers across the US are closing due to financial burdens they cannot meet. An example would be that Medicaid and Medicare pay SLOWLY. The trauma centers are left waiting long periods of time and often not getting reimbursed enough to pay to stay open. Many charity hospital are closing as well. Do a goggle search on both these issues which is rising quickly.

One insurance plan is not like another. So many get go bust with the plan they have. I recently had surgery that went poorly and thus my part of the bill will exceed 8,000. How many people can pay that amount? Many small business owners I know have seen their premiums skyrocket because frankly the insurance companies don't want their business. So if they want insurance they will be forced to pay a lot because the risk is too high.

Again, we will NOT be able to keep our current plan because many will no longer be available. The cost of premiums will continue to go up because many using the system are not paying into the system for that care. Obamacare, like Romneycare have failed to realize that many will qualify for subsidies and thus cost taxpayers since they will not themselves pay into the system. So this idea that a mandate will force everybody to join and thus contribute is utter nonsense. Those without the means of support will now have insurance and use it as do all of us, and still not pay their fair share.

The BLS said this past week that the US will create 15 m jobs over the next decade. 90 percent will be in the service sector. They expect those jobs to pay 30,000 or less. Those are pretty much the jobs being created today. Do you think those jobs will be able to pay premiums into the system as Obama has suggested, or do you think they will be subsidized?

That sentence really caught my eye...."unelected group".

That caught my eye too, since "unelected" and "activist" are words the GOP uses, and I thought maybe the President was going to start using the same tired tropes and canards. But it turned out that President Obama was throwing those words back into the faces of the GOP, rather than using them himself. From the article:

“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

What the President is saying is that the GOP can't go on and on about "unelected officials" and "activist judges", and then suddenly support the exact same activism. He's being pretty clever.

[Lonely, scared & stupid is no way to go through life... honey...]

I agree, so why haven't you done anything to improve your lot in life? You know Smiffs, John Wayne said it so eloquently, and he had ignorants like you in mind when he wrote it: "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid!"

CSMonitor: Dead link..no surprise there... [Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist]

WP: You linked...a blog...Ezra's blog...even YOU know that is a stupid move, right Snuffy? I mean, especially if you're trying to "educate" someone, you use someone's opinion of the situation?

And since when are you agreeing with a "lefty librul" like EK?

Try another lie, JoAnne...that one isn't floating.

Wow, Spider, how does it feel to be dead wrong, and then insult someone who has it dead right?

It was secret, yes. But it was a preliminary vote. Now one or more justices will write opinions (there will always be the opinion for the majority; sometimes there will be an opinion for the minority; and sometimes there are concurring opinions with one or the other). The opinions will be circulated. Sometimes a justice will change his/her mind.

So, what Mickey is implying is correct--it ain't over til it's over. And what Smiff is implying is wrong (who woulda thunk it!)--justices change their minds pretty frequently.

You would have known all this if you had done a little "source research for a change".

Unfortunately, the President may be correct that ACA will be upheld by the SCOTUS. ACA was a disappointment simply because it does nothing to change the 'for profit' model of medical delivery.

SCOTUS ruling that the ACA - and especially the insurance mandate - is unconstitutional would destroy the 'market based' reforms touted by Republicans. The conservative 'activists' on the bench would more likely uphold the mandate than not - since that is the only way Republicans can continue their 'market based' government nonsense. 'Market based' government only allows the private sector to siphon more public funds to create an artificial success.

National expenditures for health care (private and government) are at 17 pct of GDP. By comparison, the national expenditure for oil is at 8 pct of GDP. Health care is becoming unsustainable - health costs are rising far faster than the economy can generate new money. The entire output of Wall Street will not cover our nation's medical bills. The collapse of the health care industry would devastate our economy just as badly as the housing market collapse. On our current path that collapse is inevitable.

Wayne--given that the Supreme Court is not reviewing whether health care is constitutional just the concept that the federal government can force individuals to purchase a service from private companies under the guise that it is regulating interstate commerce. Sort of strange comment coming from a constitutional law professor telling the court not to engage in judicial activism when upholding the constitution in order to avoid creating a right that isnt present is the complete opposite of judicial activism. Judicial activism is when the court takes the law into its own hands instead of leaving it to Congress such as creating a right of privacy (not an editorial as to whether it should have or not) but thats an example of judicial activism. I wonder what his grades were in school--just kidding you lack of sense of humor progressives.

Fiesty--serious question--or any other progressive. Since you all ask repeatedly what the GOP would do if repealed and you dislike Ryan's plan and create all kinds of incorrect and embellished extravagant statements like he is getting rid of social security and medicare and people will be dying in the streets. Can any of you provide an actual critically thought out analysis of why Ryan's plan wont work? Can you provide some (not think progress silliness) historical data that shows why economically it would be bad or not work? Instead of just making partisan comments explain to me what aspect and why the Ryan plan is bad.

[The US Supreme Court never took up that case.]

Snuffy, I never said SCOTUS took up the case...but they were presented with it...therefore they were involved in it. SCOTUS should have NEVER been involved in Schiavo's case. It should have never gone that far. That is the point, which obviously flew right over your head.

From Wiki:

U.S. Supreme Court

The Schindlers appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court late on the night of March 23. They argued that Congress intended for the feeding tube to be reinserted when they passed the "Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo Act" (S 686 ES). The case first went to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is responsible for all emergency appeals from the 11th Circuit. Although he could have acted alone, Kennedy chose to refer the case to the entire Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case

JoAnna, remember what John Wayne said...

I hear the Republican plan if repealed will focus on cost, and not numbers enrolled.

In short, if the law goes down 20 million Americans will become uninsured.

[...you can google that will confirm that the Supreme Court did, in fact, take a secret vote on Obamacare last Friday...]

Pssst...spider...no one is debating that fact. Arguments are being presented, ON BOTH SIDES, and final word is in June. Until then, nothing is set in stone. My opinion? SCOTUS upholds HCA, not because they want to, but because, by law, they HAVE to. As much as the Conservative judges don't like it, they will hold their nose and uphold it.

Again, just my opinion.

Oh, and a word of advice, if I may: In the future, please follow your own line of thinking...following JoAnna's will only result in embarrassment.

John in Tucson,

Your post made me laugh at loud. I'm sure you'll blame the fact that you misspelled "continuing" on the decline of our education system under President Obama.

Maybe President Obama should have thought about activist Judges before he stacked the SCOTUS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

The HCA is not requiring anybody to buy health insurance. It's requiring people to have health insurance. They don't care how you get it. You can get it through work, or purchase it, or pay a penalty at tax time. If you don't want to buy it, then pay the penalty. That's why it will be found to be Constitutional. The government has the right to levy taxes and penalties to fund activities for the public good, and it has the right to govern interstate commerce. Paying penalties when one doesn't follow the law is also nothing new.

Being uninsured shifts the cost of your care to other people's and company's premiums, hospitals, and local, State and the Federal government. The tax penalty is one way to partially reimburse the Federal government that is paying for those services in funding back to the States from our tax dollars.

Eric, you heard? I heard that ACA was going to save money and look how that turned out. Do you mean and can you provide some source for that conclusion or is the real answer that 20 million people (just like today) decide not to enroll or have medical insurance coverage?

Mike, I dont think anyone disagrees with the premise that the individual mandate is a better method of cost sharing for health care but you skip over the big issue in that in essence you are forced to purchase insurance either through your employer or through an exchange because the penalty will be greater than the insurance cost (presumably) so you are economically motivated. Its not about the tax or penalty but economically compelling individuals to buy private insurance. I think it will be voted down at a number greater than 5-4. Lets say we have a crime wave and our next president if a NRA loving GOP president who says in the interest of public safety I mandate everyone to purchase a gun or pay a penalty. Its a bad precedent that we would start by making the personal mandate constitutional. Congress can fix it quickly by calling it a tax.

Him and Soros need to leave,

My, aren't we well-educated. . . .

Amen!

Further proof that President Obama is delusional

No matter how you look at it, YOU CANNOT FORCE SOMEONE INTO COMMERCE, you cant force someone to buy a product and penalize them if they dont, its UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I just now had someone tell me that they plan on taking advantage of "Obamacare" and get two knees replaced with affordable insurance they can get under this plan. I said, "are you going to vote for him then?" and she said no. Talk about the height of hypocrisy! I'd like to see the court uphold it, if for no other reason than the pre-existing conditions clause. I was a victim of that nasty piece of work once and it cost me a huge fortune and some really crappy medical care. Go Obama/Biden 2012.

Marty...

When making a criticism of someone else's spelling, it is wise to check one's own writing so others won't "laugh at loud" over what they've just read.

I like the way Feisty keeps challenging people to give her a plan to replace Obamacare when the complete Congress was unaware of what that 2,000+ page plan contained. I believe new things are being found all the time. Even queen Pelosi said "we have to pass it to find out what's in it." The more I find out "what's in it" the more I dislike it. A plan to overhaul the nation's health care system shouldn't be "shot from the hip", like Obamacare. So, Feisty, since you support Obamacare you've read and understand all of it, right?

I am also confident ObamaCare will be upheld contrary to the chattering class...

Still waiting for what the right wingers plan to replace it with...

It doesn't need replacing my friend it needs fine tuning.. Regulating from thieves both kinds..!

If the SC voted based on The Constitution then it would be 9-0 to vote down this late night back room junk that the Dems had to bribe their cronies to get the vote through.

Gabriel,

Jack, demos must like you. Mindless with blinders...

Yep, but a whole helluva lot smarter than you.

Kirk, but the penalty will NOT be higher than the cost for insurance, so I would expect many to take that option. But most people will still buy insurance for the same reason they do now -- because it is stupid not to.

HEJUST, the Democrats did not have to bribe anybody to get a majority. The horse-trading (that has been a part of politics for centuries) was to overcome a filibuster.

As a proponent of the ACA, I can't say im confident that it will be withheld. On that note, neither am I confident the legislation will be struck down. Im more concerned over the precedent the Court will set about deciding cases where not a single judge took the time to read the law in question.

jock,

I have to give you a lot of credit. I read what HEJUST wrote several times and didn't understand it. It was one of those sentences that begins at the end and snakes around on itself and comes back to the middle before going to the beginning. I'm still not sure I understand what he/she said.

JoAnna, you should read your own cites in full.

Friday's vote in the Supreme Court was a preliminary straw vote. Your own cite says that the vote changes back and forth during deliberations.

Careful how you call other people stupid...

For some reason I picture Feisty as being Kathy Griffin. If you do that then it is easy to feel sorry for her.

One thing I am confident about is that President Obama will have one more failed program added to his resume he's polishing up on.

I knew he smoked pot, because only a pot head would feel that the federal government has the right to force the younger generation to pick up the tab for the generation retiring. Maybe if both parties had not stole the money from medicare and Social Security we would not have such a problem. I think any politician that voted to take money from these accounts should be impeached and have charges brought against them for stealing from the american citizens, and yes this does include Obama because he voted for it also. Only in Washington D.C. does it pay to be a thief.

DO NOT STEAL, THE GOVERNMENT HATES COMPETITION!

Every Republican opposed to ObamaCare, should be forced to learn about President Reagan's 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

The reason Republicans supported the mandate in the 90's was because they knew President Reagan's legislation created a big problem. President Obama's legislation simply uses a market based solution (championed by Republicans prior to Bush) to solve a problem created by President Reagan.

Dear Mr. President Obama,

There is an old saying that goes like this, "There is a fool born every minute."

I'm just writing to congratulate you on your new membership in the old fool's club and encourage you to take full advantage of all of the benefits membership gives you.

HEJUSTDOESNTGETIT

If the SC voted based on The Constitution then it would be 9-0 to vote down this late night back room junk that the Dems had to bribe their cronies to get the vote through.

It tool almost 2 years to get the health care law passed and now you are saying that it was a late night back room deal?? Seriously!!?

…all this talk about “ending entitlements…”, I remember when Americans were proud to be entitled to what was the best health care for ALL Americans… entitled to decent job for a decent wage… entitled to decide for ourselves… entitled to Catholic, Jew, straight, gay, BI, a bum, a business person, Pro Life or Pro Choice… Now it just seems like you have to funky-ass rich with other funky-ass rich people that think like you do so that you can buy up all that we Americans claim that make us different from the rest of the world. I think it’s funny that the very people who whine the most about loosing THEIR Liberty, THEIR Second Amendment Rights and THEIR “God Given” Freedom have no problem trying to take MINE away from me, whatever happened to US?. I hope, that SCOTUS will do the right thing by America and normal everyday Americans… I think they will, because I don't think they want to be held responsible for the outcome.

I hate to say this but Obama is a box of rocks.

Word to Obama: The Supreme Court is an equal branch of Government. It's called checks and balances.

Can't believe Obama is actually threatening the Supreme Court by warning the court. Unbelievable.

Fiesty and all of these comments and not one critically thought out response to Ryan's plan that isnt partisan BS. Give us the rationale and economic analysis as to why it wont work. Just the facts no opinionated editorial ok?

LMAO....... Wow the right people are being hard on the lefts "special ed" posters here today. Poor Jack, its a good thing he is near the ocean, a good deep breathe of that Shipyard air should act like a healthy dose of ex-lax.

Obama called the court an "unelected group" and warned the court against engaging in "judicial activism" by finding the law unconstitutional.

Interesting hehe. Does he not recognize that the votes tend to follow ideological lines on both sides? Yes, yes I think he does hehe. Politics as usual.../yawn

Debbie,

For you and the rest of the people upholding this silly law, maybe you should look at the strikes in Europe going on right now because they did the same thing and now they are broke. Without a vast sum of money to help out insurance companies they will go broke, corporations of the smaller size can not afford Obama Care (and yes Obama did give his approval to call it this), if this is allowed to go into effect then why is it that all of Obama's large supporters were given a free pass from participating in this. This is only set up to destroy the insurance companies and nationalize healthcare. For you that have forgotten, we live in a free market society not a communist society. Also look at the polls, the Democrats got thrown out for voting this in, in spite of 70% of Americans against this. This is nothing but a travesty trying to turn our health care into a socialistic health care. And for you that doubt the death panels, what about all the wonderful liberal talk show host and reporters that have openly stated they would have rather let Cheney die then let him have a new heart. You might want to point fingers at republicans but look at the local news and see how crime goes up anytime there is a take back wall street rally and then look at the same facts for tea party events. The crime difference is so vast it is ridiculousness, but of course this darling of the press will never be reported on. And to fight against ones employer is stupid, talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Come November, please vote again, we still have people in Washington that we did not throw out last time, let's get rid of Reid and Pelosi for good this time, and they can take Obama with them as they tuck tail and run. And if you don't like it, then move to Cuba they have a wonderful socialist government waiting for you with welcome arms, but not hear we are Americans!

I love how some of you try to justify the mandate by pointing out things that republicans have said in the past. Just because someone in the other party might agree with you doesn't make it consitutional. A lot of democrats thought the Arizona law was fine. Doesn't mean that it was. The Patriot act created by Bush that many of you whine about, was extended by Obama and has almost complete support of each branch. Again, so F-in what. I know deep down most of you who like this law know that it isn't consitutional and that the mandate is probably as good as dead. It doesn't matter if something makes you feel better about yourself or not, you don't get to dictate what others have to buy. You want to force people to buy a product then change the constiution to allow that. All you have to do present the change and then vote on it. It isn't a hard concept and has been done many times in the past.

85 comments & counting - still not ONE coherant answer for what ObamaCare should be replaced with...

Maybe it's because your abrasive self is being ignored, but I'll bite. (PS it is spelled coherent not coherant)

How about real industry-wide insurance provider reform? With laws, rules, and regulations which penalize the insurance companies when they violate them and not the average American barely holding their head above water. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever the insurance industry cannot be regulated by the federal government in a way similar to the how they regulated the airline industry several decades ago.

Jolly Old Soul (who is anything but jolly),

Poor Jack, its a good thing he is near the ocean, a good deep breathe of that Shipyard air should act like a healthy dose of ex-lax.

That's the first time you've written something I've understood. Good boy. Keep taking your meds.

If Obama wants to call the Supreme Court unelected officials, which is untrue because they have to be elected through the house and senate, then what are his Czars, when did we elect them, and where in the constitution does it tell us that we are going to have Czars watching over different branches within the government. Mr. President, before you start pointing the finger you might want to look at what you did, you put a whole class of people in charge of us and called them Czars without so much as one vote!

I can appreciate that the lot of you are die hard liberals...but I still find it hard to believe that you guys are supporting the president's argument that his law should be judged, not on the legality of the law, but on how nice it is. Really?

The issue with broccooli is actually a very sound one. It is a commodity just as insurance is. What is before the court is not whether or not the law is nice, but whether or not forcing people to buy into it is legal. The constitution prohibits the federal government from mandating the purchase of any commodity, especially a commodity that benefits the federal government.

Obama is fanning the flames of public frustration to pass a law he says the rich will pay for. The fact is, the rich are already paying for insurance...it's the small business and private industry that is going to pay for this, which ultimately is going to drive small businesses out of the economy.

At some point, even people like Feisty have to recognize that ultimately it doesn't come down to doing what is nice, but doing what we can afford...and we can't afford what we're doing now.

Don't get me wrong...I think we could afford universal healthcare...if we stop foreign aid. But as soon as you cut funding somewhere, some liberal is going to jump up and down about how it's not fair.

First read should look into hiring a brunette, and change things up a bit. I smell something dieing...

Re-pubs want the freedom to be freeloaders. The Re-pub party consists of fat cats and those who idolize and will do anything, yes anything for fat cats.

The gop has fully laid out their alternative to the ACHA - it's called the ryan plan and it has been overwhelmingly approved by every republican in the house. It decimates medicare and medicaid for everyone but especially senior citizens and the poor. The money that they save will be given to the wealthy and their corporate puppet masters as tax(entitlements)breaks. And the gop has the nerve to even talk about class welfare?? Those hypocrites are masters at it! I have already seen the AARP ads attacking the hell out of the ryan plan stating that this is the exact same thing he tried to pass a year or two ago which basically everybody hated and would push poor granny off the cliff. So ryan and the gop are just doubling down on the total failure that they tried already....good luck with that.

Ahhh, you got to love the gop. Their new election motto just brought out by Karl Rove and Grover Norquist - "Vote For Us America And You'll Be On Your Own, Literally".

On a much crazier note, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the republicans frantically defending the poisoning of Americans with the pink slime debacle. All the repubulicans(including that loser from texas perry) were crying that the meat scraps swept up off the plant floors that were covered with salmonella was perfectly fine to eat after it was ground up and treated with large doses of ammonia. I think that is the perfect description of what they have between their ears! The new gop(guardians of pink slime). All I can say is WOW.........

Wireman,

Before you call Republicans freeloaders, you might want to use the government database and you will see that 72% (+/- 5/%) of the people on any type of public subsidies are democrats. So who is freeloading. I pay for what I get and worked my butt off. I just do not feel the need to support someone who should not be here, nor do I feel that I should have to pay to support someone elses insurance. Does this make me a freeloader or a person that likes to live within my means. Maybe you and the government should learn this lesson.

[Your own cite says that the vote changes back and forth during deliberations]

Hello felden,

Smuffy doesn't read her own garbage she posts...that's her problem...that and qauntifying John Wayne's quote...

Gosh, guess he forgot ol' 'I helped craft the law' Kagan and Sotomayor. Those were his little puppet appointees and they are being good little puppets indeed. The only thing bothering Obama right now is that he can't stack the court like FDR wanted to do to get his 'Raw Deal' passed. FDR wanted nine new justices, hand-picked to follow his agenda, added to the already sitting judges.

If ever there was a perfect picture of a man calling out and excoriating others for doing EXACTLY what he, himself is doing, that man would be Obama. His cult followers will parrot anything he says and do whatever he tells them to do. If Obama says black is white, they believe him and not the proof of their own eyes. But then, any group so insecure as to support Obama regardless of his gaffes, deliberate lies, flip-flops and treachery; needs to be told what to do, how to act and what to think.

I hope that the President will explain his recent comments in more detail when he goes over the health care bill, "line by line", with my congressman on CSPAN as he promised that he would. I hope that they will also bring in experts to determine not only the constitutionality of the law on a line by line basis but whether all of the promises of that the President made concerning the law are being and will be kept. For example, the President promised that with this new health care law, my health insurance premiums would drop but the exact opposite has happened. I wan this fully explained by the President on CSPAN. The President said that the health care law would be budget neutral and not add to the deficit yet I have heard that that is not going to happen. I want the President to explain the situation in detail as he goes over the health care law, "line by line" with my congressman on CSPAN as promised. The President promised that taxes for 90% of Americans would not be raised in any way. I want the President to prove it as he goes over the health care bill line by line. Speaking of the deficit, I want the President to explain how, with the health care law in place, he is going to keep his promise that the 2012 federal deficit will not exceed 229.27 billion dollars. Does anyone know when the broadcasts on CSPAN that the President promised are scheduled to begin?

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Ideologically BANKRUPT is no way to govern...

I agree completely. Sadly, Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to understand that.

@Fiesty #1.87,

Here's a clue for you ..... Obamacare as passed by Congress is simply $hitty legislation, pa$$ed on bribes, kickbacks and special deals. It does nothing to lower the costs of health care here in the U.S.. Quite the contrary, it raises costs and will promote inefficiency because now you put a massive, inefficient federal bureaucracy in charge to administer a 2,700+ page law that most of the idiots voting for it had not read !!! Add to that about 5,500 pages of new regulations being churned out by ??????

The law is a big, expensive, smelly TURD ! You do not "REPLACE" turds, you flush them !!!!!!!!!!!!

Will Haas,

Didn't you listen to Pelosi when she promised it was a secret surprise. The president will never go on any channel because he did nothing but give bold face lies to get this passed. There were so much pork thrown in with this bill because this was the only way to get the people to vote for it. If I remember right, he also promised if a bill came before him with pork he would veto it and send it back. Sadly during his first two years of office, pork on the end of bills exceeded his predecessor's full eight years. He will put us more in debt during his 4 years then the proceeding 11 presidents before him, and over the last year and 8 months he has yet to produce one budget plan. So far for his promises he promised to support the people that backed his bill, he did a wonderful job of throwing them under the bus last election, and do not for one minute think one democrat is safe, he would throw the rest under the bus if that was what is needed to get re-elected. Looks like Chicago style politics has come to Washington in a big way, thanks Mr. President for the worst 4 years of a presidency in the history of this wonderful country.

Tbenton, You should use follow your own advice and use the government data base to see if blue or red states get more federal money per ca-pita. I'll give you a hint,. It is the color that is closest to pink slime.

So when you take a chubby, rich radio announcer's word as gospel. You live in ignorance.

Only one comment from the left here has had any substance and truth. For the rest of the masses just following along, I can't help but picture the folk legend of the Pied Piper and the likeness of our President; speaking melodically and dancing whimsically around truth, while captivating and brainwashing the simple-minded into aggressively defending their conductor without every truly understanding what they are doing.

Time to wake up, stop mindlessly following this soothsayer. Formulate your own opinion based on facts, not beautifully crafted nonsense. This is not about how this is going to affect you personally, on an individual basis, but how this will change and impact our entire society. If this is deemed constitutional, what is to stop anyone from mandating every individual to buy other services, or even commodities? What good is a constitution if politics supersede our rights?

I pray that our leaders (both sides equally) remember their responsibilities and duties as representatives of their constituents and truly live out ethical and spectacular appointments.

Someone please tell the resident angry liberal known as "Feisty" that some of us have jobs and don't breathe on these blogs all day calling our political foes names. Obamacare should not be "replaced." It should be stricken from the record and a new idea put forth that does not unconstitutionally mandate something on Americans. That's the issue here. Only 16% of Americans don't have a health insurance plan, and many of those are self-employed or young workers who choose to bypass employer-provided health care plans (I and several of my friends did that in our first jobs out of college to spend that extra $100-$150/month on luxuries and partying...we felt invincible...and young people still do that today). Of course millions in this nation do need a plan of their own, but dismantling entirely what works for the vast majority of Americans and has for decades is not the way to go about "change." We need precautionary baby steps to better our system, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What is more incredulous than anything is Obama attempting to intimidate SCOTUS into voting his way. No president has ever reached that far before. What absolute narcissistic arrogance. But we get it. In Obamaland and libland, "judicial activism" is SCOTUS voting in a way that goes against Obama's wishes. He is 1/3 of our 3 branches of federal government yet he's trying to govern like he's 100% of the federal government. If ever there were any doubts Obama and his Democrat liberal supporters despise the Constitution, Obamacare is it. Remember, this is the same bill that Nancy Pelosi said had to be passed before Americans can find out what's in it, and did so in the middle of the night with not one Republican supporter (and then they are claiming it's the GOP's fault that SCOTUS is questioning the constitutional validity of it - hilarious!). They arrogantly attempted to push it on Americans under the guise of the Commerce Clause, but SCOTUS shot that argument down in flames, thank God.

It's toast, and rightfully so. Time to go back to the drawing board and come up with a more reasonable approach to bettering our health care industry. After all, many of our health insurance premiums are already going up in anticipation of this horrid idea (when it was promised by Obama they would not), and the CBO has nearly doubled the cost estimate from the original $900 billion Obama promised to now $1.7 trillion. This monstrocity of fascism has been an epic failure from the beginning

Guess fiesty's work day was over and she clocked out and went home.

This guy is a joke! But I have a question for FR and your kind...what would this country be like if you had your way? What would the great Obama do for the citizens of this country? If there were no Republicans to stand in your way, what would it be like?

After you describe your utopia, tell me how we get there...

United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Nations." (Bold added by me.)

Unless everyone never leaves their home, and never utilizes the health care system in this country, then it is a matter of interstate commerce. Anyone that leaves their home state and is a victim of ill health or catastrophic injury and is not insured but is taken to a local hospital for treatment make such actions interstate commerce by definition, and this makes the mandate constitutional.

This was the argument used by Republicans in 1993.

"Obama called the court an "unelected group" and warned the court against engaging in "judicial activism" by finding the law unconstitutional."

I had a good laugh over that one. Did it occur to Obama that perhaps giving the the Federal Government the authority to require Americans to purchase whatever the government decides is 'good for us' might just be a bit too much when it comes to 'judicial activism'?

The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to prevent a central government from holding complete control over the lives of its citizens - The precedent set by Obamacare would effectively strip States of any power and allow the Federal Government to dictate whatever they wish upon everyone.

For a supposed 'constitutional scholar', Obama shows a complete lack of understanding about what the American Revolution was all about.

I'm guessing that Fiesty is re-reading the health care plan again...and waiting for a repug to type in a similar size plan of this 'Newsvine' site.

Kornfed: It's spelled dying.

Realist-502574 "Guess fiesty's work day was over and she clocked out and went home."

Considering that Feisty is on the computer night and day, I suspect she doesn't have to leave and go to work like most people - and judging from her comments and language, she likely allows the government to support her 'lifestyle'.

It's easy to see why she likes Obama.

Roy,

Where did Obama get his schooling from, Rev. Wrights church of racial hatred and wanting the destruction of the U.S. as we know it. Sadly my 6 year old knows more about the constitution then Obama does. If our founding fathers were alive today I am afraid they would call for another revolution against this Federal Government that has slowly gotten it's fingers into everyone's lives. This was never the founders intentions, it started with Teddy, got much worse under Wilson, and now we have a government that finds the constitution not as a law but as a hindrance.

Obama called the court an "unelected group" and warned the court against engaging in "judicial activism" by finding the law unconstitutional.

WOW! How about he lets them make their OWN decision!

Hey Feisty, how about we tax all Democrats at a rate of 95%, since they all love taxes, to pay for everyone's health care? Oh, but wait, most of the people voting Democrat are on welfare and/or are illegal immigrants. You know the rich Democrats like it that way so they can stay in power and keep you subservient. Also, I still haven't gotten an answer from you about reading and understanding the Obamacare law.

This guy Obama doesn't get along with anyone. He takes his shots at the Supreme Court, at Congress, at corporations, at business people, at the church, at oil companies. That's right Barry, it's everyone elses fault.

Oh, Joanna. Making absurd arguments again???

Obama actually gets on relatively well with people. His approval rating is 46% to 45% disapprove. And several presidents have taken pot shots at the Supreme Court, like FDR against the conservative-minded justices of his time.

As for Congress, Obama has tried playing nice with them before. He's compromised numerous times on major bills in order to get things done and win bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the GOP did not want to negotiate and pretty much pulled the rug out from under him every time. Now he's finished; and he'll attack those who are obstructing progress, much like any other president.

Tell me the last time Obama attacked corporations or entrepreneurs. And by attacked, I mean use insults. All Obama has called for is for companies and businessmen to pay their fair share in taxes. After all, if they get political power they must pay more.

Also tell me the last time Obama attacked the church. If you mean the Catholic Church, I don't find his comments inflammatory, and I'm Catholic. In fact, I supported his original contraception plan to have the church pay for contraception for their employees; after all, that's what they do in the private sector. Everyone must obey the law, and religious institutions shouldn't get a free pass.

And asking oil companies, who by the way admit that they don't even need subsidies, to pay higher taxes and to take away their subsidies is anti-oil??? All he's doing is saving money from waste, and subsidies for an already-powerful and successful industry are absurd and wasteful to say the least. What say you???

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

And the President was confident that Gitmo would be closed within a year of his taking office but that did not happen. And the President was confident that the stimulus bill would turn the economy around but that did not happen. And the President was confident that he could bring the Olympics to Chicago but that did not happen. And the President was confident that he could cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term that is not happening. And the President was confident that the White House dog would be a purebred from a shelter but that did not happen either. If the President cannot prevail on something as trivial as the White House dog then I do not think that he can prevail on anything. I hence believe that the President's statements regarding the Supreme court are meaningless.

Health care is a need, not a right..

Obamacare is straight up tyranny with a smiley face wrapped in good intentions.

winemaker-4308406

So, in one week, B.O. got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.

Don’t forget the 1 million tax payer dollars squandered at the GSA conference in Vegas!

As reported by Brian Williams tonight……$44 per person for breakfast/$95pp/dinner $2750 per person for a 4 day event?…and a mind reader? Too bad he can’t read MY mind right now!!!

Jock

but the penalty will NOT be higher than the cost for insurance, so I would expect many to take that option. But most people will still buy insurance for the same reason they do now

For the first 2 years only. After that it goes up to more than the cost of health insurance. You have to read the WHOLE BILL not just read it until you hear what you want.

Let see Pelosi says lets not read the 2700 pages, lets vote on it now, we can read it later. It was bad law then and it is still bad law now. As far as what to replace it with. Nothing!! If you can't afford insurance get a job that has it. I will not pay for someone that does not have insurance. That's your problem not mine.

GuyLittle

Health care is a need, not a right..

Obamacare is straight up tyranny with a smiley face wrapped in good intentions

Actually, healthcare is both. I find that it is a right, maybe not specified by the Constitution, but a right regardless of ANY document. I do not think its fair for any American to be denied care or coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Nor do I think it is fair for some Americans to be free-riders on the system. Healthcare is a necessity AND a right. Everyone uses healthcare in one way or another. Some may need it more or less than others, but it is still necessary. The right to healthcare is part of the right to life, because healthcare can save lives. And Obamacare is not tyranny; it is a realistic choice and a step to true healthcare reform. While I favor a more single-payer universal system, Obamacare is a step in the right direction. And Obamacare does not technically force you to buy health insurance. You can choose to pay the penalty and keep your preferences on health insurance. But you don't get off scot-free. And that is the truth.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

It should be noted that the same "let people without insurance die" party is the one that also booed a U.S. soldier serving his country in a warzone. I think that's important to keep in mind when they insist on claiming the moral high ground.

Nobody else should ever pay for my needs involuntarily, but Obamacare does just that.

A quick look at Europe should be all you need to understand what happens when governments can no longer afford to pay for all the "free" stuff using other people's money.

Toasty, don't lump us all together...that's part of the problem of why each side seems so far apart. If people really stopped and looked at what needs to be done, i think we would find many areas of agreement.

The collapse commando's are out in force today. I would actually like to read the comments posted here.

I am not too sure of my dates , but didn't the Southern states ,for a time try to put into law what they called illiteracy laws ,to prevent blacks and other minorities from voting? I should that the I.D. thing would,or should ,go the same way. These persons are increasingly obvious in their attempts to turn this country back to it's darkest times.What are they trying to do? Re-fight the Civil War and hope that this time they can win.

Freshieeeee, food, housing, clothing, and water, are easily more important for survival for most people than health care. If you win the debate over health care being a right so that people can be given it on someone elses dime will you then proceed to the other needs as well? And, if not, why not? What constitutional encumberences would impede your, or your allies', ability to impose on us each of those ideas too?

I have read most of the comments and I can't understand those who are anti Obama. I can only assume that they must be really mentally challenged. Those of you who are working class, seniors, disabled, women, needy and are enjoying your health benefits and support the corporate GOP must not be truly listening to their party and how they want to give more tax cuts to their corporate puppets and cronies like the Koch brothers etc. Guess who is going to pay for those further tax cuts for corporate America, the American working class and the poor. Don't forget the Ryan budget plan which will cut taxes for those who earn over $250,000, while increasing taxes for those who earn $50,000 or less. I would advise all the working class corporate GOP supporters to at least fact check what they are being told by their party. This is not the time Americans to be ignorant, we have the technology to search for the truth and how it will truly affect the working class and as individuals so please keep an open mind and do what is right for all Americans and make sure that we rebuild our great country so it is not just beneficial for the top 1%. Equality for all means exactly that with no exemptions. We are all apart of " one nation under God " no matter what God we believe in.

Believe it or not, most poor people(including those on public assistance) do not vote or even register to vote. They are far too busy scrambling with very limited means to house, feed and clothe their families on a daily basis each and every day.They don't have the luxury of keeping up with current events. They don't have the time and likely the transportation to get to the polls.

That rosy picture of welfare queens living the life of ease and comfort on the taxpayer's dime is lie. A lie that has been perpetuated since the 60's when I was an impoverished welfare child. The other lie is that welfare breeds generations of welfare abusers. There are 6 of us now in our 50's and 60's that hated living day to day while waiting until the first of the month for one or two decent meals. A decent meal consisting of a bowl of chili or macaroni and cheese (maybe even a pack of cookies)in place of the potatoes and beans in store for the rest of the month. Any one of us would rather die than accept assistance that takes us back to those days.

I would love nothing more than any of those snubbing their noses at public assistance to survive only on public assistance for just 30 days. Particularly those at the top of the heap that promote such lies. Better yet, trade places with any struggling family on welfare for a month. That poor mother will get more work done in Congress in 30 days than Ryan has done in years. The devoted uncle that served as my father figure was fond of teaching me to "put-up or shut-up". I'm passing it on.

What does the word "DHIMMITUDE" mean..??

Why is this word on page 107 in Obamacare.??

GuyLittle

Nobody else should ever pay for my needs involuntarily, but Obamacare does just that.

The LACK of Obamacare does that. Assuming you pay taxes or have health insurance or pay a hospital bill, YOU unwillingly and unwittingly pay for the uninsured's health care. By requiring those people to carry insurance and by helping those that cannot afford it, Obamacare removes that unfair burden brought on by the irresponsible and the poor.

And by including these newly insured in the insurance pool, the insurance industry has agreed to insure those with pre-existing conditions and those still living at home through 26 years of age.

Obamacare has many other attributes like forming panels that are aimed at eliminating waste and fraud, which are major contributors to our health care costs. The Republicans have fought this effort directly because it takes control away from the politicians.

Obamacare, unlike the European models cited by the right, allows doctors, nurses, pharmacists, hospitals, insurance companies... virtually EVERYONE involved in health care... to operate in a free market. It is as far from "socialized medicine" as it can get. The only "social" controls are in Medicare and Medicaid... a long standing tradition.

And we can go on and on with the attributes of Obamacare...

It addresses people.

It addresses cost.

It addresses process.

It addresses fraud.

Now tell me... exactly WHAT does the Republican alternative address? What? Our "liberties"? Our right to be too f*cking stupid to see a complete and workable solution hitting us in the face? It preserves "states' rights"?

States rights... there has NEVER been such inept bodies of government as the current state governments. They are embedded with corruption. They are ten times more political and lobbyist friendly than Washington ever dreamed to be. So, yes, let's push states' rights! They can't take a dollar without putting .99 to "consultation" or "administration" (a.k.a. lobbyist or brother-in-law).

So, again, YOU tell me the alternative plan that you must have. You don't have one. You only have talking points. You have nothing.

The left loves to stamp their feet and demand a policy to replace the abomination that is Obamacare. Unfortunately that makes this post long. There are many ideas out there--see Paul Ryan's plans just for one, but for one that has already received many positive votes. But there are other ideas too. Just define the goals. In my case they are, in no particular order, liberty, cost, accessibility, portability, quality.

To retain liberty any "plan" should have as its focus a patient-centric, rather than a government-centric, system. Obamacare is government-centric and takes your liberty by empowering DC bureaucrats to act in your stead. I trust that you care about your health, and the health of those you love, far more than any non-relative bureaucrat could ever possibly hope to. So eliminate tax prefernces for employer paid plans in order to level the playing field for individuals to buy their own coverage.

To slow the share of GDP that health care requires costs must be contained. As we have seen with every government controlled program (like Medicare) costs always spiral far above estimates. When people quit using insurance for routine visits the costs of those visits will decline since the money will come out of your pocket rather than out of some company's, or agency's, budget. Who cares about saving costs in these cases? You would. So restrict the refundable tax credit (see below) to only apply to insurance plans which have large deductibles and/or co-pays, until one is aged. People will ration themselves far better than any DC bureaucrat could ever hope to. In this same vein, eliminate Medicare and Medicaid.

Accessibilty must be better for people with pre-existing conditions. But insurers should not be compelled to provide charity either. Use the savings from eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, which will be in the hundreds of billions per year, to send to states time-sunsetted block grants to help states subsidize personally owned health insurance plans. This way anyone who is a high risk or has a pre-existing condition will still be able to buy and hold their own policy.

Presently, but Obamacare somewhat fixes this, you cannot buy insurance from a company not domestic to your state unless your state purposefully wants to admit them to compete there. Call insurers in otehr states to see how many will write a policy for you in your state from their foreign firm. It isn't going to happen. So eliminate the federal rule which permits states to prevent competition. You will own your own policy and you can move to any other state and it will remain in force.

You will in every case care about quality of your own health care more than a bureaucrat will. Simply by owning your own policy and being able to ration your own care as you see fit you will make decisions about quality that no one else is capable of making as well.

There are other aspects too, like why we spend half a person's lifetime health care costs, on average, in the final two years of life. Or about how to incentivize through converting part of any unused refundable tax credit into a cash payment for those people who are more economical than expected. But the point, really, is that there are lots of ways to get more people protected, with better cost controls, with more freedom and quality, than Obamacare would ever hope to provide.

But don't believe me. Think about it yourself. What major government program has ever come in at or below cost estimates while still providing the benefits promised and maintaining your liberty? The answer is obvious--there isn't one. Obamacare will be the same. Less will be delivered than promised and at higher cost than predicted, all the while you will have granted the government an amazing amount of control over your life.

I apologize for the length of this post, but there is no way to be more concise.

Some insurance companies refuse to pay some doctors the amount those doctors believe they are entitled to be paid. When that happens, the doctor will stop accepting that form of insurance as reimbursement.Then, of course, once the doctor no longer accepts that insurance company's reimbursement schedule, then doctors no longer accepts patients who use that payer's insurance.Insurance companies jack-up the Premium till nobody can afford.

Each year, doctors and healthcare facilities like testing labs, hospitals, pharmacies and others, negotiate pricing with health insurers and payers. In its simplest form, it goes like this:

Doctor:

When a patient with diabetes visits my office, I charge $100 for the visit, and $75 for the blood work.

Payer: That's too much money. We'll pay you $55 for the visit and $35 for the blood work.

Doctor: I can't pay my staff or keep my lights turned on for that paltry amount! How about $65 for the visit and $45 for the blood work?

Payer:

That's still too much.

Doctor: Sorry I can't help you.

Payer : I'll join Obama care then

Doctor :

Its all Your call.

President Obama : Doctor, how many patients that you got and treated each month ?

Doctor :

Roughly about 30 patients a month,Mr President.

President Obama : So Mathematically 30p x $105 =$3150

Doctor :

Yes ,I think so.

President Obama: Ok then ,let me offers You.You must leave everything else the same volume of procedures as what you're attending now no less. Obama care give you 300 patients a month,as before they all can't afford your bill, But with conditions, your price must be standardized. How about $25 for the visit and $15 for the blood work? That will be 300 x 40 $12,000.

Doctor :

Doctor :

That great Mr President,Its a DEAL,but how about the increase of patients,I'm afraid I'll be sue for negligent,since I'll be attending extra patients and how can I manages ?

President : I believes,with that kind of money you got there,its about time you start to think and expand you business ,and you can start hiring few more unemployed Americans to assists you.Don't worry about the patients suing you,they're now well protected by me,they don't need anymore BS attorney,they got the Director of Consumers protection, that complaints and to watch your back,as what they're watching closely with the greedy banking procedures and practices .

Doctor :

Thanks You,Mr President,You are the smartest President we ever have!

President Obama : You most Welcome.

Hey winker,

Without getting into a fight over all of your ad hominem lunacy I'd like to talk with you about corporate taxes. You say I want to give tax breaks to companies, that somehow this is a bad idea because it would hurt, I suppose, "the people". So let's make it simple and set up a world where you get your way of higher corporate taxes, and I get my way of elimianting all federal corporate taxes. Which is most friendly to "the people".

Company XYZ wants to make a profit. Its stock value is based on its book value plus all future expected income in current dollars. So you raise their taxes. This will lower their profits and their value will decline. So, what to do? They could decrease wages or benefits, or lower the rate of increase. They could raise prices. They could reduce quality. They could move off-shore. They could lower shareholder value. I don't know about you, but each of these would appear to harm "the people". Is that really your goal?

Now, what if we simply eliminated entirely the federal tax on corporations? Everything above would be reversed. They could raise wages or benefits, or increase the rate of increase. they could lower prices. They could improve quality. They could expand here or even return to the USA. They could raise shareholder value.

Why do what I want and not what you want? Mostly because I want voters to pay for the programs they think helps them and quit pretending that someone else is giving them something for nothing, which must be the way in your own mind that you make sense of your ideas. The reality of it is that with every tax increase on firms that liberals love to enact we are made worse for it. I seriously doubt that since I've explained it this way to you that you will change your mind about anything, but I can hold out hope.

GuyLittle

What does the word "DHIMMITUDE" mean..??

Why is this word on page 107 in Obamacare.??

Read the bill and stop the blatant lies. Do you people realize the damage you cause with your "games"? You may get a big "LOL" out of this, but a huge number of lives are involved here. Do you even care?

Winker, you should take your own advice and do some of your own research instead of listening to the main stream media and feisty redhead!! My biggest problem with Obamacare is it will cause my taxes and insurance premiums to go up. When will it be enough...why can't the federal government get their crap together and pass a balanced budget?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp

I've had it with the right wing lies! Here is the truth about those waivers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/17/truth-about-waivers-protecting-coverage-millions-americans

Insurance companies have already given rebates/refunds of overpayments to policy holders due to provisions in the Affordable Health Care Act. The cost of healthcare insurance policies has always increased-always...

How many times do we have to go over all the lies about this? "rammed through 2,000 pages, etc-is total bs!

The Affordable Health Care Act is actually about 200 pages not the 2700 pages that the misinformed tend to claim. It wasn't shoved down anyone's throat as many claim, either.It was debated for over 18 months and was eventually watered down by the GOP and Blue Dogs.(Yeah, those big Health Insurance and Pharma lobbiests sure came through, didn't they?) It also gradually closes that expensive and unpaid for Medicare Part D (donut hole)the House of Bush foisted on us. You do realize the mandate was a proposal first put out by the Heritage Foundation? If you would really like to read about it , here is the timeline of implementation for individuals and employers. http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx

And here is the truth about those waivers,too:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/17/truth-about-waivers-protecting-coverage-millions-americans

The Affordable Care Act you are so scared of is estimated to create 250,000-400,000 jobs annually over the next 10 years Not just in the medical exchanges but also in Health IT jobs which are already increasing.And they are already hiring and have been. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/healthreformjobs.html

How many times do we have to go over all the lies about this?

Congress, the President and Federal employees will all be able to get their insurance from the exchanges beginning in 2014. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

I know the GOP loves to keep perpetuating a lie by taking it out of context but here is what Nancy Pelosi really said:

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

Changes the whole perspective now, doesn't it?

Looks like she was right, beginning with the 1 million new insured young people, and another few million insured with pre-existing conditions. The controversy has faded, and we can see what's in it.

"I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them. " ~Adlai Stevenson

I disagree with the inclination that the law will be cleared through the Supreme Court. I beleive, President Obama has made it personal during one of his prior State of the Union address. It was during one of those address where he specifically pointed toward the leadership and the specific member of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I don't believe neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Scolia nor Thomas are the types don't carry personal vendetta...

It will come down to Justice Kennedy again. Funny how it was the Republicans and the TeaPartiers claiming Judicial Activism during the previous appointment. Now, the American people can see what true Judicail Activism is really about...

Hi thturd,

I don't know what "during the previous appointment" means, but I'm guessing you mean that conservatives have blasted judicial activism in the past. I think we, and by "we" I mean conservatives and liberals, speak a different language when we talk about these things. For me I think the default position of the judiciary should always be jurisprudentially conservative, and when they aren't, like with Griswold, that we have judicial activism. Or when, recently in California, a federal District Court Judge wrote in his opinion that it was unconstitutional to prohibit homosexual marriage in California because our state constitution, written way back in 1849, had been written to allow homosexual marriage. Uh huh.

It is not judicial activism to me for a judge to strike down a law, in and of itself. I don't know any conservative who argues it is. That idea is a populist notion, at best. So, to me, any law which expands the power of the federal government where that action is not authorized in the constitution should be struck down, whether passed into law with liberal or conservative, or both, votes. In the case of the ACA, when Verrilli was asked what organic constitutional limit would remain constraining the Congress if this law is upheld, he had no answer. The best he could reply was that, pathetically, it just didn't allow more Congressional power. No reason why, just a conclusion. This is a bad way to run a nation. If the USSC strikes down this law, and I hope they do AND I hope it continues a very slight trend towards walking back federal power, it won't be judicial activism. It will be because no one who supports it can identify a single constitutional authority for it which leaves in place any limits on federal power, and federalism itself.

So, could you please describe what you think "true judicial activism" means? Is it simply to strike a law passed into law by Congress and signed by the president? If so, using your view (you might want to take notice) Brown v Board of Education was judicial activism as it reversed "lawfully constituted acts" which happened to deny blacks their 14th Amendment rights. You aren't a hater, are you? I think what we should all fear more is a president who thinks that merely by his assent does a congressional action become constitutional. So said the constitutional law professor now in the White House. Today.

gotta love the liberal mind. Not one mention of the liberal progressive jurists, the one's not too anxious to follow the constitution.

As to good ol' Nancy, her comment in no way changes the perspective. Rather than telling people what is truly in the bill, she obfuscates and rather adroitly shifts the topic away from the controversy surrounding the bill by telling everyone she has to pass it because of the controversy. That is sophistry at it's finest.

In essence what you have is her lame excuse that because other's aren't real happy with the bill, she has to have it passed, rather quickly, in the darkness of night, behind closed doors because, if you REALLY knew what was in it, all the taxes, hidden fees, penalties and the fact that it is now estimated to cost almost 17 TRILLION DOLLARS beyond what the pretense of what it would cost...well, she and the bill purveyors would be run out of town on a rail. At least people with half a brain would go after her, the other brain dead folks will take whatever they are told at face value and when they finally wake up, it will be way too late...

Un-elected officials? It's called checks and balances fool. You appoint them (two of them in this case), Congress approves it and they keep you from running rough-shod over the American People. You don't like it? Talk to the Continental Congress you as* hat.

As to those new jobs the bill will create, seems approximately 4,000 new IRS agents will be hired to enforce payments. Don't pay your shiny new insurance mandate, why the IRS will be there to make sure you do. Remember how it was originally pay the insurance or go to jail? Guess that was a smidgeon too draconian, so now it's not a mandate, no, its a tax, no its a mandate...and you won't go to jail, you'll just get the IRS into every aspect of your life. Won't that be grand?

So, what is the going rate for confidence?

REPOST FOR THE COLLAPSE COWARDS:

[...trying to influence the SC with threats...]

Where did you pull that crap from? Wait...I don't wanna know...

Joe, the president is correct in his statement. Ignorants like yourself like to think of SCOTUS as their personal court...that they can decide a case based upon "a warm and fuzzy feeling". Look at the 2000 elections, or the Terry Schaivo case...or Citizens United...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

...lmao....

For those of you who are on
Medicare, read the following. It's short, but important and you probably
haven't heard about it in the Marxist liberal media."The per person
Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present Monthly Fee of

$96.40, rising to:

$104.20 in 2012

$120.20 in 2013

And

$247.00 in 2014."

These are Provisions incorporated in the Obamacare Legislation, purposely delayed so as not to
confuse the 2012 Re-Election Campaigns. Send this to all Seniors that you know,
so they will know who's throwing them under the bus.

He also made an emotional appeal about the law, saying that 2.5 million young people have been able to get health insurance through their parents’ plans since the law took effect, and that people with preexisting conditions would be able to be insured regardless of their illnesses.

That is just not true.

1. I can barely afford to insure myself, let alone my ADULT children and lost my insurance when I changed jobs.
2. Three insurance companies turned me down for pre-existing condition that I am no longer treated for, so I am stuck with a “discount card” option that is pricey too.

Gee thanks for screwing up MY healthcare Obama!

The comments above tend to prove that most of you believe that "ignorance of the law" is an excuse for writing the inane. I suggest you read the Constitution, learn something about "separation of powers", read some Conditional history and learn what the upholding the "mandate" would mean to our society and our individual rights. How many of you geniuses actually listened to the arguments? It's pretty obvious that only a few of you did. Please don't comment until you know what you're talking about. It causes a lot of unnecessary reading. And Feisty: You are a trip. You want someone to post a 2,500 page alternative to Obamacare among these comments or to stop supporting its unconstitutionality. Brilliant argument -- not to mention that having an alternative has nothing to do with Constitutionality. No wonder virtually everything you post is collapsed.

Linda: You can read the collapsed comments. Just click on the little box with the + sign which appears before the word "collapsed".

I hope this fails because Obama is lying piece of @!$%# and doesn't deserve anything good to happen to him and his policies.

I remember back in 2008 him telling everyone he will not go after people who follow state law when it comes to medical pot.

I see him attacking the clinics since Oct and just plain being an @!$%#

F U

Not a chance in Hell would I vote for this lying worthless politician playing politics.

We continue to see ads. saying pay now or pay more later. Most of us believe that that is true, so why do many people believe that if they don't pay into the proposed Medical Coverage now that they will just join in when they are old, retired and really need it. Every country where it is in effect ,insists that everyone must join their medical health scheme . Do those people who ,when they are young and healthy,say that they don't need it ,believe that medical problems will not be in their future ? Get real! Nothing is free. If you expect to live a healthy life until your death, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you cheap.

The issue is whether it is a tax or not. Congress has the right to tax not the right to force people to buy something from a commercial company. It opens a door our big corporate guys and gals who control congress can drive a truck through. The Obama admin and dems did not want to be accused of creating the largest tax in the history of the US. They didn't have the courage like FDR had with Social Security. It was a government mandate that everyone had to do but it was a tax. Even a heavily repub nominated supreme court had to agree with it. And this court would have done approved it without reservation. Obama is a smuck and showed no class for attacking the Supreme Court and turning this into a political issue. It was a bad mistake. I'm a dem who was going to vote for him...but I'm not sure I will now...hmmm...on second thought the person the Repubs nominate will probably put me back into the fold. :)

If Obama is going to audaciously chastise the justices of the Supreme Court for potentially influencing the mandatory health insurance law while being unelected, then conservatives should demand that none of the regulations and blanks in the law be filled in by Katherine Sebelius or any other unelected official. Based on the bar Obama is setting himself, conservatives should rightly demand that each blank and regulation be filled in by Congress.

I just hope the many conservatives who are heaping praise and support on the SCOTUS justices for what they feel is a no-brainer to rule in their favor will still praise and support them when they uphold the mandate.

Feisty Redhead,

Than you shouldn't be commenting on anything. It is the Lib way to viciously attack those that don't share your way of thinking.

Best to stay quite on things your obviously know NOTHING about sweetie! ;o)

This president is a joke. What is sad though is we get to pay for his failure as president. The Rep do have a health care plan as I am sure you are aware of. It does not add $1.9 trillion to our debt either.

Rich: To me judicial activism is when a judge use personal opionion/view regarding public policies and guidelines to determine their case decisions. Of course the term is overly used in the recently, due to the highly publicized appointments. Unfortunately, like all yellow newpapers Fox and other medias dilute and grey the definition in their commentating. Hence confusing many people who simply pick up the talking points recently.

To further narrow down the definiton, because now people will stretch the truth by arguing that all decisions are based upon personal experiences to explain away decision that they don't like or agree with. So I generally narrow it down by (a) is the overturning of existing law through unconstitutional ruling, (b) overturning judicial precedence (c) ruling against a highly preferred Constituional interpretation. However it is important to note that it is unclear if judicial activism is good for the society or not.

For an example: to me, the recent 2010, Citizen United vs Federal Election Comittee decision where the Supreme Court deemed that the corporations have the rights to make unlimited political expenditures under the First Amendment is an act of Judicial Activism because of the following;

• The Supreme court was not asked ruling nor opinion on that particular subject. Yet Justice Robert chose to set precedence.
• It is clearly against the preferrence of people
• It has been argued on several occassions and denied petitions that corporations requested 5th Amendment protection (self incrimination) so that they do not turn over paperwork. An indication that the Constitution does wholly apply definition of person to that of corporation, but just the simlified definition to help enforce tax and other administrative measures. Yet the current Supreme Court Justices chose to rule against common sense (intent) and over ruling previous precedences of similar decisions (such as self incremination based upon 5th Amendment).
• Justice Robert has yet to rule against any corporation when it is People vs Corporation. Really, have the People been wrong every time?
• Justice Thomas is simply disgusting. His wife, Virginia, received large amount of money from the multiple right wing foundations and organizations. She is also an active lobbying member against the current healthcare law, corporations and tea party... It is also now known that the amount she received were not reported as well. Justice Thomas like Justice Robert has yet to vote against the interests of the corporations. He has recused himself ZERO TIMES....

So that is why I consider the decisions made by the Supreme Court Justices that of judicial activism. Hope that helps other who are interested in determining what is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

Leave it to MSNBC to decide that the uproar over the ignorance and dictatorial tone of Obama's rhetoric are not worthy to be reported on their site.

Here is the real news, rather than the days-old rhetoric itself.

Federal Judge Demands Obama Explain 'Obamacare' Statements

"a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law."

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-demands-obama-explain-obamacare-statements-000508798--abc-news-politics.html

Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

"Obama said the court would take an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" if it overturns the law, because it was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Setting aside the point that the ACA did not pass with an overwhelming majority, but by a party-line vote in the Senate and seven votes in the House, and without the support of a single member of the Republican Party, the most astonishing thing about Obama's diatribe was the fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional tradition it revealed.

Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

...and finally Obama's handlers must have held a study session:

Obama eases rhetoric about Supreme Court on health care

"On Tuesday, Obama appeared to choose his words more carefully.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it," he said."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/politics/obama-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

thturd,

So that is why I consider the decisions made by the Supreme Court Justices that of judicial activism. Hope that helps other who are interested in determining what is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

You mean like when you Libs had god taken out of the pledge of allegiance. God was part of the founding of this country. The supreme court over stepped on that issue, but you all found that to be ok, sine it was what you Libs wanted. It is nice that you all try and pick/chose where they have a right to correct the constitution and where not. the supreme court has a right to review the constitutionality to a law, period. It nice you Libs try and use that processes to your advantage, but when it might not go your way; you say they have no right. Well Obama side stepped the constitution on all kids of issues like the czars that he has giving rights to that are not confirmed by congress, that is against our constitution but you don't seem to mind that. Nor do you mind that Obama had to give congressman of certain states bribes to get the personal mandate passed. Also, in his bid for election in 2008 he said he was against a personal mandate when Hilary Clinton brought it up. Than after he was elected he filp flopped on the issue. You all give Romney a bad time about it but the president is the biggest flip flopper of all.

Dude, the words "under God" weren't placed in the pledge until 1954 when Red baiting Republicans made the change with the deliberate intent to make the pledge a "public prayer." It wasn't Liberals who tried to game the system, it was Conservatives who tried to force an expansion of Christianity as national religion.

At least know your history.

"I’m confident that this will be upheld, because it should be upheld,"

Everybody 'in the know' already knows that Obamacare will be struck down. Here's how it works;

After the oral arguments, the Supreme Court Justices take a 'straw poll', which tells each of them where the others stand. After that, it's more a matter of each side working on their 'Majority/Minority' opinions, and then they get together for additional 'tweaking' of the opinions. In the meantime, Chief Justice Roberts is trying to convince some of the Liberal justices to go along with the majority so it won't appear to be a close 5-4 decision - time will tell if he succeeds.

Does anyone realistically think that one of Obama's recent appointees didn't tip off Obama on the 'straw poll'? That's what prompted Obama's angry, silly comment that it would be "unprecedented for the Supreme Court to strike down a duly constituted law passed by a majority of Congress", when he knows that it has happened throughout our history.

Sorry for the reality check for those who still like Obamacare.

So the legitimacy of the SCOTUS depends on the ability of the corrupt, Conservative majority to browbeat the other side into voting their way?

Doesn't say much favorable about that institution now, does it?

including recent precedent from both Scalia and Roberts

Republicants--specifically, which precedents has Scalia supported that apply to this case? I haven't followed the Court's decisions closely over the years since he and Thomas were appointed (I lost heart with those two) so I don't know which ones you're referring to.

Scalia ruled that Congress has the right to enact a regulation, it was in their power to enact, something due to the commerce clause. Case was about medical marijuana grown in California, it seems Scalia said that the dope could possibly be sold across state lines, affecting interstate commerce. Scalia was against this possibility so it appears he voted to allow interstate commerce to uphold his ruling that a Congressional (federal) Drug law could be used to strike down what was a California state law. Again not a lawyer and not good enought to play one on first read.

_________

Originally from Forbes.com

Justice Scalia and the case of Gonzales v. Raich.

Here’s what Scalia wrote in his concurring opinion in Gonzales -

The court [has] recognized that [non-economic activity can] be regulated as ‘an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated,’” Scalia wrote. Then, he endorsed a rather broad interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause: “As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, ‘it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.

Via National Review

Scalia's precedent ruling on Interstate Commerce was highlighted by a Yale Professor of Law on "Up with Chris Hayes" last Sunday morning

With Obama's success at picking Final Four brackets I suggest you believe the opposite.

It doesn't matter whether its upheld because 70% of Americans believe the law should be repealed and the majority hate it.

No matter what happens this is a Lose/Lose for Obama. If it wasnt he would be running on it as one of the "Great Accomplishments" of his Administration after it took the Progressives almost a Century of trying.

My oh My, here's another fine mess you got yourself into!

Our president is running scared with his health-care law. No one knew what was in it when it passed the democrat house and senate. Now why is HE be scared to have to come out and say 'He's confident' it will pass the SCOTUS review?

I'm sorry you aren't the LEADER you thought you were. But YOU are a darn good talker. Try reading the next bill/law before you sign-off on it. Constitutional scholars do and aren't you one of them?

The Republicans would face a tough fight in the 2012 elections all over the country - state, Congressional and Presidential - if Obamacare were struck down - or even just the mandate.

1 - A major campaign issue of "repealing and replacing" Obamacare would disappear.

2 - The Republicans would have to come up with a plan of their own - and without any clear party leader to set the points for that plan.

3 - The liberal base will be out for blood.

4 - The heaviest concern for family health is in the hands of women, and they will not take kindly to having the few gains already accomplished pulled away.

I dont see how those precedents involve the federal government requiring an individual to purchase something from a private profit making company. Its obvious that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce and what that means is subject to legal review but this is much more original in that the feds are requiring individuals to purchase private insurance. I am a supporter not of ACA but of some radical change to how we access health care but the personal mandate is certainly a constitutional problem if its not executed via a tax.

Typical MSNBC stuff, to try to conceal the existence of the moderate swing justices. The only way the health care law can be overturned is if the moderates vote against it too. MSNBC doesn't want you knowing that, so the way they tell it there are only conservative and liberal justices on the court. This is why few people watch MSNBC.

Funny neither one of them sounded like they thought it would be constitutional. There are no precedents that supported the constitutionality of the Federal government forcing us to buy something. State governments can. And the constitution supports that.

You don't seem to be following this very closely, Repulicant. Both Kennedy and the administration's own lawyers have been pretty clear in saying that this is without precedent. The administration's claim is not that this has been done before, but that health care is somehow "different" from other services. That argument more or less went down in flames when various justices showed that it wasn't unique at all.

Necessary and Proper is the correct Constitutional justification.

But it scares me that President Obama is expressing an opinion on how the Court will vote. Alito might still be mad about the Citizens United commentary.

Actually its difficult to discern with polls, as 18% of Americans are undecided about health care.

The Republican fear mongering has done its trick, but the truth about health care is just coming out.

Americans like the no pre-existing clause, and having youth on parent's policies till 26.

If the law is overturned 20 million Americans will become uninsured.

Really funny, obumbo is so worried about the SC not going along with him. Laughable to say the least. It would be just terrible if the SC sided with 80% of the people and threw the stupid bill out. Let's finish the job in Nov and throw this fool out too so we can get back on track. We need real reform, not this idiotic caper that obumbo and the usual suspects came up with. Oh yeh, let's have one we don't have to pass to see what's in it................pelosi...............liberals.............................

Who does President Obama think he is insulting the Judicial branch of the Government?

Obama called the court an "unelected group" and warned the court against engaging in "judicial activism" by finding the law unconstitutional.

Does he not believe in the Constitution and the founding Principles of America?

America has three branches of Government, with clearly set limits, Judicial, Executive and Legislative Branches. Without these three branches our government is no better than the dictatorships of history. I hope that the Supreme Court does what is right and find this law unconstitutional.

It really does not matter in the long run, because this law will be overturned

ABO' 12

Was that an ear bug Obama was listening to? His speech pattern was really weird until what appeared to be his handlers fed him some lines... The pauses were like he was listening to something and then repeating it. Maybe not...

commonsense, by the necessary and proper justification, the Government has the power to do anything it wants.

Remember if you don't want the other team to have the same powers don't give them to yourself, because the other team will use them against you.

Go ahead strike down the health care law, then what Republicans will you replace it with and what will you tell the 20 million that will become uninsured when you overturn it?

There we go all you dumb butts think it should be OK/pass what the hell are you thinking??? If it does pass we as Americans are doomed!!!!!!! Our liberties are gone pure and simple...... Damn we have some really dumb people in the US!!!!!

I will confess that I am not certain if this is the right thing to do.

However, there is one thing that I am confident of and that is that the government has proven time and again that they are very poor managers of anything!!

Obama called the court an "unelected group" and warned the court against engaging in "judicial activism" by finding the law unconstitutional.

“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

So, Mr. Obama is saying that ANY legislation signed by HIM is CONSTITUTIONAL ? And now he has a "laser beam" on the SCOTUS AGAIN ?

How about some of the Executive Orders he has signed or the "new procedures" he directed his Czars or Cabinet members to impose upon the American People ?

Yeah right, Mr. Obama is living in his own DREAM WORLD of FANTASY.

Maybe he should buy Michael Jackson's estate and move there after he is booted from the White House in the next election. California will welcome him with open arms.

David Noah

With Obama's success at picking Final Four brackets I suggest you believe the opposite.

It doesn't matter whether its upheld because 70% of Americans believe the law should be repealed and the majority hate it.

No matter what happens this is a Lose/Lose for Obama. If it wasnt he would be running on it as one of the "Great Accomplishments" of his Administration after it took the Progressives almost a Century of trying.

1) "70%" is inaccurate. Even with all of the absolute alarm-ism waged on this issue, the actual "against" number is about 50% - which frankly is amazing considering how often it is denigrated.

2) "after it took the Progressives almost a Century of trying" and the associated lambasting of this bill is amusing in light of the fact that this program (turd) is in essence the proposal from the conservative block in the 1990s AND is far and again less than what was proposed by both Eisenhower and Nixon (Republicans).

I love the sky is falling rhetoric around something that was previously proposed, supported, and actively campaigned for by conservatives. The shifting priorities for political gain (on both sides of the aisle) is disgusting.

I have faith that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution which they swore to do. Obama thinks that he is the law of the land and god of the universe. He could NOT be more WRONG. He does let the American people see how ANTI-American he truly is with his preposterous statements. The truth does not dwell within him, and the Clown doesn't recognize that he is his own worst enemy.

Amen beramz2! I've never seen or heard of such political arrogance and disrespect from a president before. It's time for people to start getting outraged over his "I can say what I want" socialistic behavior. This goofball is selling us out.. or maybe just flushing us all down the toilet.

Eric-913730....."If the law is overturned 20 million Americans will become uninsured."

Don't know which Liberal site you got the "20 million Americans" from, however, if it is correct then 15 million of the Uninsured are Illegal Immigrants. Or did you just pull these number out of thin air like you did the 3,000,000 jobs saved or created by Mr. Obama's Stimulus #1 failure ?

Wait a minute. Mr. Obama just directed his DHS to implement NEW PROCEDURES for his AMNESTY program without Congressional action:

• http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-residency-20120331,0,1148661.storyl

Yep, after the dust settles, Mr. Obama's Aunt and Uncle will be covered under ObamaCare IF it is deemed constitutional (LOL).

Incidentally the 50% against the healthcare bill number isn't even really accurate because that doesn't actually distinguish between liberal and conservatives against the bill. In fact when the Pew Research Center asked Americans what “Congress should do with the health care law, expand it, leave it as is [or] repeal it?” They found 38 percent choosing repeal, 20 who want to leave it alone and 33 percent favoring an expansion of the law. So that means that less than 40% of Americans actually say repeal it - contrary to all the rhetoric... Amazing how this wouldn't be clear in the typical "liberal" media reporting. Even MSNBC doesn't get that right. How liberal is that?

I keep hearing that the majority of Americans are against the ACA, but when you look a little deeper and ask WHY they are against it, all I hear are right wing taking points, many of which are not even part of the bill. When people are asked if they are against individual provisions of the bill they are for those, so how can you keep saying the majority are against it? Am I the only person on the planet who is noticing that more and more of what people are saying makes absolutely no sense at all, yet seems to be acceptable with no questions asked?

Which, Renee, is why the mandate is in place. Without it, people will continue to flood emergency rooms for health care, and not pay for it. This way, they have insurance. Or to put it in your little words, they will no longer expect YOU to pay for THEM.

Turn off Fox "news" and read something edifying.

I am still a skeptic on this topic. I do not see how the individual mandate holds up to the Constitution without allowing cell phone or burial insurance to be allowed as well.

I hope if it is upheld by Supreme Court that the Supreme Court severely curtails decision to only be applicable to health insurance.

If it is not upheld I recommend one of the following:

• A tax to everyone to cover emergency care at designated hospitals.
• Allow insurance companies to charge the same penalty as being dictated by the law as a start up fee on a policy if the customer can not show prior proof of insurance. Let it be cumulative. Insurance company can not charge a different fee for illness so if a cancer patient is covered under one plan they are allowed to switch without penalty. If someone waits to get insurance until they get cancer then they have to pay the cumulative fee.

I am not sure either would be acceptable to either the right or the left, but I think it would be Constitutional.

I defer to the wisdom shown above by 'TXHorseman' and 'Renee Har'.

Thank you both...and you are both absolutely correct in what you've written.

'Fiesty' will tell you both that one shouldn't go thru life "scared, lonely, and stupid" and she would be the true voice of experience on that matter !

ido that 20 million is from young adults between the ages of 18 and 20 most of which are going to college and are now able to keep their parents health care while doing it. like my niece and nephew, this helps to relieve alot of the burden on them for their tuition. since in many states it is mandatory that you have health care, while in school and if not ,you have to pay for the colleges health care. which like anything else in school is inflated IE look at book costs.

Several issues strike me as humorous. First that it had to be passed so everyone could find out what was in it. The whole process was about as tainted as it could be. From being written behind closed doors in secret locations, to the endless vote buying, and the strictly partisan passage. It was anything but a democratic process.

Second, that because as Obama claims it was passed by a duly elected congress that overturning it would be judicial activism. Apparently the supreme court is not supposed to rule on the merits of the bill as it relates to constitution, just uphold it because the congress passed it. If it gets struck down, it will be for no other reason then it treads on the constitution, was poorly written, and never should have passed in the first place.

by the necessary and proper justification, the Government has the power to do anything it wants.

Only if it is a) necessary, b) proper, c) passed by both houses of Congress, and d) signed into law by the President of the United States.

Federal income tax was declared Constitutional by that very means.

Renee Har

[New Day---------- hey dweeb, why not just repeal the ER law, then stupid, instead of spending 1.8 trillion to give insurance to the parasites. Keep on parasite, every day a little less patience with you scumbags.]

Tick Tock Renee the re-reggie...

Now say bye bye...

Renee, you aren't terribly bright, are you?

Hmmmm, smaller words for little teeny, tiny minds.

If someone is REQUIRED to get health insurance, you aren't paying for it, are you? They are. See right now, every time someone walks away from an Emergency Room, YOU are paying for THEM. Probably a local 5th grader can explain this to you.

As to removing the requirement to provide Emergency Health Care to people. Sure, that can be done. And just like the Middle Ages, we can have bodies piling up in the street.

Now, go find a grown up and tell them not to let you play with their computer any more. You are making a spectacle out of yourself.

I have to agree with noah-4078447 way up above. I used to support the plan but it has gone horribly wrong. Its leading to more unemployment in all sectors. There is plenty to of blame to go around, democrats, republicans, lobbyists. The entire system has to be non profit. Medical providers: physicians, hospitals, medical supply, drugs, insurance carriers, nursing services, etc: Take out the profit and make everyone honest.

What I want to know is if you don't buy healthcare insurance and you don't pay the 'penalty', will the IRS confiscate your assets? Why else would the IRS be involved in this anyway. If they confiscate your assets then it's a TAX. Our corrupt legislatures aren't supposed to be passing laws for the rest of us to abide by while they don't. Are they going to give up their cadillac plans that they voted in for themselves and participate in Obamacare? That in itself should make it unconstitutional. They should have to wait in line for 8 months like they do in Canada and England to have a life saving medical test like the rest of us will have to do.

Obama called the court an "unelected group" and warned the court against engaging in "judicial activism" by finding the law unconstitutional.

“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Not a statement that will make him any friends on the Supreme Court, and I would like to remind Mr. Obama that it IS their job to decide if a law is constitutional or not.

I know Renee doesn't care about this, Feisty and Mickey. But, there may be others who need the truth.

Renee Har

Hey Feisty parasite, republicans take the position that grown people will take care of themselves, and don't expect the taxpayers to take care of them.

So why were the Republicans FOR individual mandate going back to the 90s. Bush1 would have tried to push for the same reform had he not lost to Clinton.

Daddy Bush, Romney, and Gingrich and many other Republicans were all for the individual mandate BEFORE THEY WERE AGAINST IT.

the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations liked tthat idea. They thought, you know, there shouldn't be freeloaders like the ones that use ER as a regular doctor visit and then stick everyone else with the bill just because they felt they did not need health insurance.

So before you make this an Obama or a Democrat or a Liberal thing, look at the history and ask yourself why then but not now? I will give you hint: they don't like the President who signed this bill.

Eric, you should research before you write this stuff. 18-20 year olds will continue to be covered by their parents as the old age was 23 and ACA extended it to 26. My guess is that this provision congress will agree to keep anyway even if the private mandate is ruled unconstitutional as its already being paid for by current employers and employees.

I do not see how the individual mandate holds up to the Constitution without allowing cell phone or burial insurance to be allowed as well.

Then you're either not trying very hard, or you're trying very hard to NOT see.

Burial really doesn't cost that much, coparatively, and there are alternatives to burial. There is absolutely no need for anyone to purchase burial insurance, much less a need to require that all of us buy it. Nor are indigent burial services placing an unbearable financial burden on the rest of us.

As for cell phones, you don't even NEED a cell phone. You can argue that a person doesn't need health care either, but the Affordable Care Act allows those people to register and drop out of the requirement to act financially responsible altogether. And certainly there is n way for you to obtain cell phone services long term and transfer the costs to the average taxpayer.

[Not a statement that will make him any friends on the Supreme Court, and I would like to remind Mr. Obama that it IS their job to decide if a law is constitutional or not.]

Jim, the SCTUS isn't about friendships...to the contrary. They aren't supposed to be anyone's "friends".

And you don't have to remind the president of anything...he surely knows the role of SCOTUS.

So Justices Scalia and Thomas were both just seen at a rt wing fundraiser with the rt wing Lawyer who is presenting the case against Obama. Scalia sitiing at the side of him at the same table, and Thomas at the other side of him. Both met with the clown and yet they don't exclude themselves from the case.

The United States of America has been bought by the rich.

I suppose Obama and his Narwhal room data tells him if he says it enough and enough of his uninformed supporters say it then the Supreme Court will feel compelled to agree, huh? BAHAHAHA. Sorry fellas but the solicitor general tried to bring into the arguement some previous decisions but failed miserably to apply them to this case. One has to know both what the case was about, what questions in the case the Supreme Court was addressing and therefore why they ruled as they did. The government can't just stretch it to make a power grab, bending things that are unrelated to fit what they want. Obama just is building up to blaming the Supreme Court for his "signature" legislation being tossed out. I for one would gladly accept that blame since it would mean they are doing thier job and upholding our Constitution and our individual rights under that Constitution.

Obama has said in the past that he can't do what he promised because of "the constraints placed on him by our forefathers". Yes, that is true, the constraints being the Constitution and thank God for that and the Supreme Court, the only things standing between us and a dictatorship.

starsailing

Gee you forgot about Kegan who helped draft the legislation yet did not recuse herself. I suppose that is fine with you? Such head in the sand not seeing the picture at all will go nowhere toward saving this disgraceful power grab.

Well, Thomas especially came straight out of the political Conservative Movement, and Scalia always votes their way as well, so it is only logical that they would all be great buddies.

commonsense

One of the online Universities is offering a free class on the Constitution. I think you should take it. By the way I had Professor in College who said it should not be called common sense. It should be called uncommon sense because most people don't have it. The posts on here prove that every day.

@ido,

If you call "Morning Joe" with Joe Scarborough leftie, that is where I got the 20 million uninsured figure from.

It should be called uncommon sense because most people don't have it. The posts on here prove that every day.

Beginning with you, fella.

Can somebody tell me what it's called when the 4 liberal judges vote as a block and don't even consider which side is right?? In BO's case it is only judicial activism when it effects his program.

ABO 2012

when it effects his program

"affects", Reb, "affects". Let's work on the spelling first, then we'll get to your question.

affects", Reb, "affects". Let's work on the grammar first, then we'll get to your question

Oh dear Jack - it was only last week, little Rebbie had her spelling/grammar police badge on...

She must not live in the land of perfect after all! lol

REB-1013231

Well Miss F, I guess if YOU can't spell it correctly then you couldn't get in. I believe it is without the "D".

#1.12 - Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:40 PM CDT

Yellowdog-MarkD

That case has nothing in common with this one. That is like comparing apples to oranges.

@commonsense:

Then you're either not trying very hard, or you're trying very hard to NOT see.

Actually, I just read the Supreme court Justices comments. Justice Kennedy made the cell phone argument. Justice Alito made the burial insurance argument. I assume the Supreme Court Justices do their homework and tried very hard to come up with cases.

Don't get me wrong there are both good and bad things in the law. I think people have been pushed around with the this is covered and that is not arguments for far too long. The US government facilitating a minimum coverage on insurance helps facilitate that understanding. I do however have an issue with the government dictating that an individual purchase health insurance. Insurance does not guarantee health care. People do not need insurance they need health care.

Feisty,

A bit earlier I saw you collapsed all over the place. What's up with that? You were only being your usual kind, gentle self and pointing our the errors in others' thinking. You'd think they would appreciate it.

Jack in Portsmouth now can you tell me what it's called when the 4 liberal judges vote as a block and don't even consider which side is right?? In BO's case it is only judicial activism when it affects his program.

Talk about trolling Feisty. You are a real hoot!!

Still ABO 2012

A bit earlier I saw you collapsed all over the place

Hiya Jack!

I don't hold the title as First Read's Queen of Collapse for nothing ya know! ;o)

Speaking of collapse cowards, I see where you have a bulls-eye on your back today as well...

Talk about trolling Feisty

It's okay - the truth only stings for a little bit...

You are a real hoot!!

Why thank you Captain Obvious - I like to think so... ;o)

Still no answer from Jack. Guess it was a tough question.

Reb,

Jack in Portsmouth now can you tell me what it's called when the 4 liberal judges vote as a block and don't even consider which side is right??

I don't know. Is it a trick question? A non sequitur? What do you call it when 4 or 5 conservative judges vote as a block and don't even consider which side is right? Would the same appellation apply?

A more appropriate question might be to ask why you can't think of something a bit more challenging. Why you can't come up with a more meaningful question.

P.S. I'll take your answer off the air.

Is it quite ....or quiet! Im not sure..... could be both. Can you step a little lighter on that side of the lake. Your keeping my yorkies up!

LMAO mickey of NY, seems that the above article quoted obama as saying...

Obama called the court an "unelected group" and warned the court against engaging in "judicial activism" by finding the law unconstitutional.

Yet you say...

And you don't have to remind the president of anything...he surely knows the role of SCOTUS

Seems that obama has his own opinion on what he wants the scotus to do. At least the writers of the US constitution had it right when they formulated the selection process by which members of the scotus are determined. Sounds more like obama wants to continue with his policy of "it is my way or the highway".

Well Jack just as I expected - you have nothing to say so you come back with the same question. At least Roberts and Kennedy are listening and open minded unlike your 4 who probably had already written the minority opinion and had to give Solicitor General Verrilli the answers to their questions from the bench

A more appropriate question might be to ask why you can't think of something a bit more challenging. Why you can't come up with a more meaningful question.

Why can't you come up with a more meaningful answer?

Still ABO 2012

Hey, Don't be a moron, Stop confusing the cornservatives with facts. They are already goofy enough.

wireman-1399628 - And just what fact would those be??

cornseratives.......... are those people who starred on "greenacres"

Reb, I was not talking to you. However it is funny when somebody yells, "Hey moron" and somebody like you turns to see who is calling them. Now don't get mad . I'm just screwing with you. Have a good night.

wireman-1399628

I knew you weren't talking to me. Just trying to figure out which liberal moron you were referring to.

You have a good night too.

[LMAO mickey of NY]

"american"

What do you find so funny? The fact that the president knows the role of SCOTUS? Or the fact that the law was written to reflect the commerce clause?

Of course President Obama has his own opinion on what he wants SCOTUS to do...don't you? I sure do. And I'm sure he bases his opinion on far better information that you or I have on the subject.

As far as "Sounds more like obama wants to continue with his policy of "it is my way or the highway"...", this administration gave the GOP ample time to contribute to this bill...and they dropped the ball...bigtime. The GOP could have come out of this fight smelling like a rose, yet they chose to do nothing but interfere and attempt to derail this issue from the start. This is why today's GOP doesn't smell like a rose, but a steaming pile of...well, you get the idea.

After all, it is based upon their ideas and mimicks RomneyCare, which is a huge success in MA. The individual mandate was the brainchild of a Republican and was included in the reform bill, yet when it came time for this individual to vote on the bill, he suddenly "didn't know nuthin".

Reb,

Well Jack just as I expected - you have nothing to say so you come back with the same question

If you had any brains at all you would know that your question was a non sequitur. There is no answer to it. None. Zilch. You didn't expect an answer. Hel-lo? Talking to you is a waste of time. What everyone says about you is true.

Jack in Portsmouth

Typical loser response. Nothing at all to add. It was only non sequitur to you since you had no other way to respond. Kinda like - Do you still beat your wife? What everyone says about you is true. You sir are a LOSER!!

If you are one of Feisty's minions I expect you are at the bottom of the short list!! Just disgraceful and a real waste of time.

Renee Har Well, well, well, if it isn't the multiple banned re-reg rearing his little troll head again! How's that Tea Toy Party doing down there in Tennessee? For a retired 69 year old man, you haven't learned much this past year. Time to sell that Glenn Beck gold you were suckered into and pack your bags for Costa Rico! Bon Voyage, moron! Quite a list of banned accounts you have going. What part of the User Agreement don't you understand? tic, toc, tic, toc..... ;-)

robert argent -- banned #22.1 - Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:45 PM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Nancy1074 -- banned #466.6 - Thu Mar 8, 2012 11:12 AM PST¹Ϻʀ

Nancy1074 -- suspended for a day #7.12 - Thu Mar 1, 2012 10:36 AM PST²Ϻ

Janus 00234 -- banned #466.6 - Thu Mar 8, 2012 11:12 AM PST¹Ϻʀ

Janus 00234 -- suspended for a day #1.88 - Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:56 AM PST²

wallacehall -- banned #70.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:52 PM PST¹Ϻʀ

benito 044 -- banned #13.4 - Thu Feb 2, 2012 2:59 PM PST¹Ϻʀ

Bennie123 -- banned #1.46 - Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:58 AM PST¹Ϻʀ

Bennie123 -- suspended for a day #4.10 - Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:43 AM PST²Ϻ

Rennie Carljure -- banned #1.6 - Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:00 PM PST¹Ϻʀ

berden -- banned #146.5 - Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:08 PM PST¹Ϻʀ

ron carson -- banned #135.47 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:36 AM PST¹Ϻʀ

anoble -- banned #8.8 - Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:15 AM PST¹Ϻ

wison Pick -- banned #238.4 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:22 AM PST²Ϻ

Reyregal -- banned #1022.3 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:23 PM PST²Ϻ

roger we -- banned #86.2 - Fri Dec 9, 2011 11:05 AM PST²Ϻ

Jeff dus -- banned #100.31 - Mon Dec 5, 2011 12:31 PM PST²Ϻʀ

Jeff dus -- suspended for a day #1.28 - Mon Dec 5, 2011 10:14 AM PST²Ϻ

rebuttal53 -- banned #1.49 - Thu Dec 1, 2011 9:31 AM PST²Ϻʀ

Robert Rorer banned, re-reg of recently suspended rebuttal53, also banned. #1.49 - Thu Dec 1, 2011 12:31 PM EST

Ken McCoy -- banned #1.81 - Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:45 AM PST²Ϻ

dennis fortescu -- banned #73.6 - Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:40 AM PST²Ϻ

Phil Cicero -- banned #10.17 - Wed Nov 9, 2011 12:21 PM PST¹Ϻʀ

Phil Cicero -- banned #2.35 - Wed Nov 9, 2011 12:17 PM PST²Ϻ

Reggie Harbor -- banned #545.12 - Mon Nov 7, 2011 5:24 PM PST¹Ϻʀ

Ron Prince -- banned #148.3 - Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:55 PM PDT²Ϻʀ

Robert Artes -- banned #6.6 - Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:09 PM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Bill Trenton -- banned #1.44 - Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:04 AM PDT²Ϻʀ

RoddyWerner -- banned #2.33 - Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:28 PM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Arthur Hale -- banned #2.33 - Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:28 PM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Reynaldo Aguirre -- banned #8.5 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:15 AM PDT¹Ϻʀ

williw warren -- banned #8.11 - Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:28 PM PDT²Ϻ

Ralph Wilson -- banned #863.3 - Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:23 AM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Rocky Hart -- banned #4.3 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:30 AM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Robert Guynes -- banned #1.42 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:30 PM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Melvin Wilson -- banned #8.15 - Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:18 AM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Nancy Cato -- banned #2.3 - Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:42 PM PDT¹Ϻʀ

Rory Regan-4151146 -- banned #1.27 - Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:33 AM PDT²Ϻʀ

Moral Weighs -- banned #1.26 - Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:52 AM PDT¹Ϻ

jimmy earl -- banned #234.5 - Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:47 AM PDT¹Ϻʀ

ron-4066829 -- banned #14.12 - Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:39 AM PDT¹Ϻ

henry zygote -- banned #28.11 - Thu Sep 8, 2011 3:10 PM PDT¹Ϻʀ

leander moore -- banned #25.1 - Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:20 PM PDT¹Ϻ

bellcalvin34 -- banned #262.2 - Mon Aug 1, 2011 12:02 PM PDT²Ϻ

bellcalvin34 banned. Re-reg of Rory3566
calvin bell -- banned #217.13 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:10 AM PDT²

cujo hondo -- banned #2.14 - Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:41 AM PDT²

riata hemp -- banned #985.5 - Tue Jul 5, 2011 2:33 PM PDT¹

willie pete -- banned #12.5 - Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:42 AM PDT¹

dennissyllabaugh -- banned #3.13 - Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:48 AM PDT¹

AKA : johnbirch42,etc. dennissyllabaugh banned, rereg of multiple accounter Rory3566.

Rory3566 -- banned #12.15 - Fri May 6, 2011 12:25 PM PDT¹

Sitella Hallinto -- banned #1.89 - Wed May 4, 2011 1:38 PM PDT¹

valspully -- banned #1.89 - Wed May 4, 2011 1:38 PM PDT¹

Rory3566 -- suspended for a week #12.12 - Tue May 3, 2011 10:22 AM

johnbirch42 -- suspended for a week #30.5 - Mon Apr 4, 2011 10:00 AM PDT²

Cyn, you get another Gold Star ;)

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL........

How is it that you are always the first to post in these political forums?

It's because you are a monumental S H I L L for barry! Go away and play your games somewhere else.

Reb,

Typical loser response. Nothing at all to add. It was only non sequitur to you since you had no other way to respond

I hope you check back this morning. I really do. Because I want you to enlighten me by answering your own question. Here it is, in case you forgot:

what it's called when the 4 liberal judges vote as a block and don't even consider which side is right??

Once you have responded to that, please answer my question back to you (#2.64)

What do you call it when 4 or 5 conservative judges vote as a block and don't even consider which side is right? Would the same appellation apply?

Please answer, Reb. You say you can't? The reason is, you've created a logical fallacy. You set a trap for yourself, Reb. And no matter how much you twist and squirm, you can't get out of it.

Jack in Portsmouth

I responded to you in my #2.67 - Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:43 PM EDT shown below. I might think that the situation would be the same if the positions were reversed but at least the conservatives are thinking and not in lock step like the liberal judges who have already made up their minds. Everybody agrees with those facts Jack.

Jack you couldn't put anybody in a trap with your limited capability to argue the facts of the case. The conservatives are thinking and the liberals have shut minds. End of story.

You have anything else to say???

Well Jack just as I expected - you have nothing to say so you come back with the same question. At least Roberts and Kennedy are listening and open minded unlike your 4 who probably had already written the minority opinion and had to give Solicitor General Verrilli the answers to their questions from the bench

A more appropriate question might be to ask why you can't think of something a bit more challenging. Why you can't come up with a more meaningful question.

Why can't you come up with a more meaningful answer?

Still ABO 2012

#2.67 - Mon Apr 2, 2012 6:43 PM EDT

wow since when does the POTUS tell the U.S. Supreme Court how to rule? thank God Our Founding Fathers saw fit have checks and balances in our government .

Still got no response Jack??? Typical of you I am now guessing.

Micky of NY...

Interesting, seems that there are subtle differences between what the MA healthcare provides for and its limited intent vs what obamacare proposes with unlimited intent.

As for the "commerce clause" why do you think that it provides justification for an individual mandate and application of penalties?

I agree that neither you, I or obama are ill informed to tell the scotus what to do. However unlike you and obama I will trust in the justices making the appropriate decissions based on the points argued over the three days. Obama is totally wrong in trying to influence the court after he presented his arguments last week. It is time for everyone to stfu until the scotus renders its decision.

BTW, the individual mandate of obamacare will have far more unintended consequences for the populace if it is not struck down.

Reb,

Still got no response Jack??? Typical of you I am now guessing

Unlike you, I work for a living.

at least the conservatives are thinking and not in lock step like the liberal judges who have already made up their minds. Everybody agrees with those facts Jack. . . . The conservatives are thinking and the liberals have shut minds. End of story.

If you truly believe Thomas and Alito and Scalia are "thinking" and are "not in lock step", then either you are extremely naive.

"Everybody agrees with those facts Jack". (A little grammatical hint for you: there should be a comma between "facts" and "Jack".) Who is "everybody"? When you set up straw men like this, you make yourself sound stupid. (And that's what you did with your very first question on this thread, and it's why I challenged you. You still don't know what a non sequitur is, and you probably don't know what I mean by "straw men".)

Just so you don't accuse me of "running away", my work is going to take me away from my desk and computer for most of the rest of the day, so I won't be replying. I will check back this evening to see if you have responded, but either way this is not a conversation worth pursuing. When you want to quit with the straw men/non sequiturs, then maybe we can have a meaningful dialogue. Until then. . . .

Jack

Sorry to disappoint you but I work from home and have access to my computer all day. I was however disappointed that you immediately assumed I didn't have a job and assumed that I lived off the dole like many of your other FR liberal friends.

You know I could have just been (but wasn't) laid off and on unemployment, I could have been (but aren't) a disabled vet or I could have just been (but aren't) a retired person filling my days etc. Just because I can access my computer doesn't mean I don't have a job. You as a liberal should know that and not admonish somebody who is in the same position as your other FR buddies like Miss F (who works for FR) or Bev (who is from outer space) et al.

Nice to see you have a job though.

As for not knowing what non-sequitur is, I beg to differ. I do know what it is, but what I wrote was not a fallacy or absurd argument, it was on the other hand a rhetorical question - which as you know is a figure of speech phrased in the form of a question, without the expectation of a reply.

You, trying to defend the indefensible, chose to reply by asking the reverse question which is really the straw man response i.e. - to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet nonequivalent proposition i.e. the "straw man", and refuting it, without ever having actually answered the original position or question.

I'm not an English teacher Jack, but I know when I see somebody throwing around all of those types of terms, it is to deflect from the fact that they have no idea what to say and have gotten themselves in to deep for their own good.

BTW as long as you are discussing English I suggest you read yours below - when you say either, you have to provide a second choice. Knowing you for what you are, it would probably have been some insult but c'est la vie - when you have nothing else, go for the insult.

If you truly believe Thomas and Alito and Scalia are "thinking" and are "not in lock step", then either you are extremely naive.

You are finally correct on something, Jack - this is not a conversation worth pursuing. I hate debating with somebody who has no defense or offense for that matter and tries to defend himself with BS statements and false arguments.

When you are ready to answer the question I originally asked which was - what it's called when the 4 liberal judges vote as a block and don't even consider which side is right?? - maybe then we can continue but for now you waste my time.

As for who is "Everybody" - they are all of the liberals that were previously playing up to, but now threatening Roberts and Kennedy in hopes that they won't vote against them. I would say Barack Obama is a good example, Nancy Pelosi is another as are many of the other liberal commentators. If it was so cut and dry 5-4 against why would they waste their time?? Again a rhetorical question so don't get your shorts in a twist trying to come up with the straw man answer.

FYI - this entire response to you was RHETORICAL - I don't expect a response so please don't embarrass yourself any further unless you are willing to get serious about a response to the original question. As you saw I at least answered you but apparently you don't even want to extend that common courtesy to me.

Oh and Jack, I'll check back too and see if you had the decency to respond to my original question. If not, I guess we'll all know your are just a blowhard with nothing going for himself except a bit of grammer school Latin (or did you take it from the comic strip of the same name) and the fact that you probably have a first edition of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" on your night stand. That's the liberal Bible isn't it?

PS - one more reason I could have been able to answer on my computer during the day was that I worked nights (although I don't). Did that ever cross your mind?? Guess not.

Reb,

Why would I respond to your original question when, as you freely admitted, it was rhetorical?

Besides, I already have responded. If you were brighter, you would understand that.

I could care less whether you have a job or not.

And I could care even less about continuing this conversation (if that's what it is).

So you may have the last word.

And may never our paths cross again.

Thank goodness Jack. I couldn't wait to end this. You have been schooled and obviously admitted you know "Jack Sh!t" about what this is all about.

I am sure we will meet again but I expect a better interaction from you if you can muster it otherwise please don't respond to me. I hate to have to carry the debate with people like you. You are a supreme loser.

Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Ha! The last thing you have done is schooled me. Only in your dreams, baby.

But thank you for wishing me a pleasant tomorrow. My wish is that you have one as well.

Leave it to MSNBC to decide that the uproar over the ignorance and dictatorial tone of Obama's rhetoric are not worthy to be reported on their site.

Here is the real news, rather than the days-old rhetoric itself.

Federal Judge Demands Obama Explain 'Obamacare' Statements

"a federal judge demanded that the Obama administration formally explain recent statements by President Obama that some have construed as questioning the authority of courts to review, and potentially strike down, his signature health care law."

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-demands-obama-explain-obamacare-statements-000508798--abc-news-politics.html

Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

"Obama said the court would take an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" if it overturns the law, because it was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Setting aside the point that the ACA did not pass with an overwhelming majority, but by a party-line vote in the Senate and seven votes in the House, and without the support of a single member of the Republican Party, the most astonishing thing about Obama's diatribe was the fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional tradition it revealed.

Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

...and finally Obama's handlers must have held a study session:

Obama eases rhetoric about Supreme Court on health care

"On Tuesday, Obama appeared to choose his words more carefully.

"The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws and all of us have to respect it," he said."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/politics/obama-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

Enjoyed it Jack.

Pat...

By what divine providence are you empowered to proclaim that not one living Republican simply does not "care " about any other fellow American.

I suppose the reverse is automatically true in your mind too...that every living Democrat thoughtfully and honorably cares about every single "young or old" American citizen.

Wacky.

The Democrats rammed the health care bill down America's throat. As the surveys show, most Americans don't like the law in its current form. 2700 pages of mostly crap. Sure there are some good points, with 2700 pages how could they help but include some good points?

I certainly care about the cost of health care, it cost me over $7,000.00 last year to cover my family (all three of us), and that doesn't count the portion paid by my employer. I would love to pay less, however the new law doesn't lower the cost of health care. In fact it will increase it. So Republicans aren't against affordable health care, they are against an unsustainable plan.

The people in MA wanted the universal plan when Romney was governor and he still thinks the states should make their own policies. So please get your facts straight.

Forcing people to buy health care coverage is wrong. My grandfather lived to be 78 and he visited the doctor twice in his life. Once during WW1 when he was exposed to gas, and he had eye surgery in the late 60s and paid the bill himself. Oh one other time when he died at home and my grandmother paid the ambulance bill. Now how was he a burden on the system? As a veteran he could have visited the V.A. hospital, but he had heard too many horror stories about government health care.

diamond, My grandfather served in WWI as well, and as a result needed a great deal of health care. Your grandfather lived in a different age. The bills weren't as high and medicine wasn't as advanced, and most people died at a much younger age. The docs had no answers for cancer or heart disease or a hundred others. You seem to feel that those that can't afford good health care should die quietly with a goblet of hemlock. If we continue with the system at hand, only the wealthy will be able to afford more than a bandaid. The wealthy will use us as organ donors and thank us for a long life while we go to an early grave. It is beyond me why people stick up for these goons who don't think anyone but the top 1% deserve anything.

This Communist Dictator Rant from the so-called "Constitutional Scholar"? Obviously Obama studied the Constitution, not out of reverence for it, but for a means to an end to destroy it. What Obama just spoke today is Treason - violation of the Separation of Powers as well as making veiled threats to sitting Supreme Court Justices.

If it was Bush and the republicans trying to do this health care scheme, you would be mad as hell. I do not worry about my loved ones health care or insurance. They all have great insurance for now. I do worry about those that are disabled, handicapped, and with terminal illnesses, their funding has been cut over the last 3 yrs. I have no problem helping to pay for these people, but I do object to paying for someones health insurance when they can get off their ass and buy their own. I see people with brand new cars, homes, boats, etc and they have nothing as far as health insurance.

Are the words " personal responsibility" in your vocabulary?

Kevin, I agree with you, and that is why you should be for the ACA. Those type of people would have to buy health insurance instead of a new bass boat.

"Overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example." (re judicial activism).

What am I missing here? Isn't it the Supreme Court's consititional duty to throw out law they deem "un" constitutional?

Bam's already trying to muster public support against the Supreme Court. Shameful.

Pat, where has it ever been taught or be a true fact that the world or our big and getting bigger government owes us a living or anything we want should be provided at the cost of the few. I learned that at my fathers knee and he was correct. Over the long decades i have seen the lessening of rights, the grab of power by the federal government and I do not like it. Not at all. I believe in the Constitution of my country and am appalled that a so-called Constitutional Scholar could twist that document and do what he has. Yes, I want health care reform, it is needed but not this mess that Obama and Pelosi forced thru. The Government does not and should not have the right to force me or anyone to buy or do things I do not want to do so long as I pay my taxes and follow laws constitutionally enacted. This law is not legal. The states have the power over this not Obama. I will not make the same mistake and vote for this socialist again.

You can't make the claim that Republicans care, when their version for replacement focuses on costs and not the number of people enrolled.

anything we want should be provided at the cost of the few

That is the mantra of the deadbeats who are opposed to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Why oh why should the rest of us pay for YOUR medical care if you refuse to pay health care premiums?

This is something where we all have to work together, and that means EVERYBODY has to pay in.

Those who oppose 'Obamacare' are really defending the 'rights' of freeloaders to game the system.

Time for Americans to show a little of the work ethic and personal responsibility that was our hallmark until not so long ago.

Pat... how sad it must be to be you. with everyone out to get you and all. The democrats don't care they just want their money and power. This bill won't lower costs, it will cause health care to increase dramatically if/when it actually takes effect. As to democrats caring, they sure don't seem to care about liberties like freedom of religion. If they did they wouldn't be forcing Catholic institutions to provide birth control which is a direct contradiction to an old doctrine. And come on wayne. This bills health care won't provide adequate health care to elderly. It will provide European health care, which if you've never been, is horrible. Simply put, this bill is unconstitutional. It should be repealed. Obama and his goons do not care about the constitution, if he could he would tear it up and write his own Obaminstitution.

Hey, Kevin if this was Bush pushing this though some Repubs would love it, but most would be against it, just like most were against the Patriot act.

Commonsense, "Those who oppose 'Obamacare' are really defending the 'rights' of freeloaders to game the system."

Actually that is not true, I for one is against giving away my freedom for another frickin safety net that we can't afford.

But I have said it over and over on these boards, if the Mandate goes though, I am dropping my insurance and freeloading like the rest of you.

commonsense,

Your common sense is non-sense. Again force people who do not believe as you believe to live life as you dictate...that it the epitome of selfishness and slavery. In your way of thinking one could extrapolate a reason to continue to have slaves in the country. May your tribe decrease.

Read the Constitution for yourself and try to comprehend the power grab going on then get back to us.

Ahhh yes Pat. It must be personal. Ohhh, *sob* and they must hate children if they oppose Obama. And they're just all republican sheep. Guess again ! I will say you're half right, it is personal now. This Affordable health Care Act, isn't. My share of premiums has gone up about 35% in the last two years! My coverage has gone down on Rx, and percentages covered on treatments! In the mean time, my step son suffers from a chronic back injury that keeps him from work, and in constant pain. What's OBAMACARE rendered? SQUAT!!! My wife and I negotiate cash prices to try to keep up with pain meds and treatments. WE ! US ! BY OURSELVES PAT ! OBAMA AIN'T HELPING! I'm done hearing about the poor 30 mil people without. What was this suppose to do for the 270mil who HAVE insurance ?!?!? Squat ! So, Pat while you wave your little partisan flag and try to make excuses for Obama, just remember, he hasn't done a damn thing for us AMERICAN people! With OR without insurance, Democrat, Republican, or INDEPENDENT like me.

Communist Dictator....

studied the Constitution ... to destroy it....

Treason....

making ... threats to sitting Supreme Court Justices....

Those aren't opinions. They are delusions.

If the court does over turn this, Mr. Obama will use his new “law” and simply declare a “national medical security emergence” and force it in.

With his new found rights in passing the presidential edict he did, he can overturn anything he wants to simply by saying it’s a national security issue.

He has the right now to rule this nation, and you can bet he has his plans to win again in the coming election, he did not go to all the trouble of getting this set up so he can run the show without having some “insurance’ in place to win again.

Pat Boston, MA

Where do you and the so called reporters or bloggers at MSNBC come up with this crap? Every state in the union has medicaid and every child has health care available to them unless thier parents are too stupid to apply for it or could afford health coverage for the kids but would rather spend the money on themselves. There are Children's hospitals all over this country like St. Judes and Kosairs and other Children's hospitals that never turn a child away because the parents don't have insurance or money. Stop with the BS. Our hospitals and clinics even treat illegal aliens because they are not allowed to turn them away and we pay for it. So save your "cruel world" crap. This whole thing was just intended to extend the size and power of the Federal Government beyond the bounds of the Constitution and it didn't work. Get over it.

So save your "cruel world" crap.

The facts simply don't support your assertion. For one thing, there are millions of children in the U.S. who are uninsured. According to the Census Bureau, the three year average for 2008-2010 was over five million.

Secondly, although there are Children's hospitals all over this country, that does not necessarily mean they never turn a child away, and even if they did, it's irrelevant. Not all hospitals are required to treat anyone who shows up for whatever ailment they present. That's a myth. Furthermore, getting healthcare at a hospital is the most expensive option, and if the patient can't pay, the rest of us do. That's a big part of what is driving up healthcare costs.

Finally, just because you don't know or understand the facts, that does not make the whole program some kind of subversive conspiracy to take away your rights. You may think you should have the freedom to choose to have healthcare or not, but when anyone chooses not to do so, they're simply an irresponsible, deadbeat and a freeloader, expecting the rest of us to pay for the inevitable consequences of their irresponsible choice. This law simply requires everyone to act responsibly.

Because, eventually, everyone needs healthcare. It's a fact of life.

will this lower my weekly insurace payment while ive beeen working my life or my fathers who worked 40 yrs and cant afford healthcare does this mean people on welfare will be paying their share with there sweat along side me coming out of their free rent groc utililities etc making choices rent heallth food help the ones who need help not enable laziness

viper

Eliminating lifetime maximums increased the price on lower cost plans because they were limited to $1 - 2 Million for a lifetime payout.

Eliminating pre-existing conditions, made more insurance companies offer plans for people in those categories, but those plans probably best represented a pre-paid medical care rather than health insurance. As a result few people got coverage, because instead of being denied the opportuninty to buy insurance, they now could not afford the health insurance.

Eliminating pre-existing conditions on children cost parents big time. What a parents would do is by health insurance for their children, and not for themselves so they could afford health care insurance for at least the kids. The largest insurance company that wrote those policies closed their doors. Many insurers including several Union providers, dropped the same coverage and some, especially profit insureres sold that part of their business to larger insurers. For most parents, they now have to purchase a family policy at a greater cost than one for just the kids.

Coming soon, add mental health (usually and add on if offered) and several other mandates that will add to the cost of a policy that will force health insurance to go higher.

The big one will be lowering the annual deductibles. Mine will be cut at least in half. I know from buying my own private policy that my insurance bill will increase somewhere between 2 and 3 times what I pay right now. That will make health insurance unaffordable. I am uncertain that I will qualify for federal help on this, and even if I do qualify, I realy didn't need their help until they forced my costs to be much greater than what I could really afford.

Tom - Plymouth

Hey, Kevin if this was Bush pushing this though some Repubs would love it

he did - Bush1- and the Republicans did love it. Until Bush1 lost to Clinton, and the love was gone. They did not want to love it anymore while a Democrat had a chance to get it done.

Hate to break it to you Pat - but our constitution is about freedom to succeed or fail. We are trying to legislate no failure. If failure doesn't exist, there is no need to improve something, is there?

Also name one sports team that succeeded by trying not to fail?

We are trying to legislate no failure.

No we're not.

Aside from trying to put a lid on skyrocketing healthcare expenses due in large part to the least efficient and effective way of treating the poor currently employed, we're also trying to protect the less fortunate from disease and an early death, so they can remain productive members of society. We're also trying to put a stop to the deadbeats and freeloaders who, in the name of their so-called 'freedom', refuse to insure their own health and see nothing wrong with letting the rest of us pick up the tab when they get sick or injured, i.e. selfish idiots.

There's a difference, which apparently has eluded you.

Also name one sports team that succeeded by trying not to fail?

How about the Roman Gladiators? Because that's proper context for your analogy, given the stakes at risk, certainly not modern day sports teams.

If you want to compare apples to apples, name one sport in which the loser was put to death.

This is the problem with the simpletons on the right - no sense of nuance, or granularity - for them, it's an all-or-nothing game where there's no difference between losing and dying. Unless they personally must face the music, one can assume.

tim im confused can you explain what dead beat or freeloader is is it the man who works 60-80 hrs a week brething in whatever fighting through everyday aches and pains or the 20 or 30 year old that dont pay anything cause he feels we owe him something or ir its to early or not enoughmoney so why do anything the person working will take care of me when i grew up iwas told what a man was he didnt take handouts paid his debts to soceity worked through whatever was thrown his way you know even shovel its called work for what u get more taxes every year for taxes more for coverage deducts pay for visits while theirs plenty who do nothing and get for free send them to work for theirs let them make choices help the ones that need it

Then you should understand that a deadbeat is someone who expects someone else to pick up the tab when they get sick.

Simple.

Health care that ranks in quality right below the customer service at the driver's license place,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that is universal health care.

Nurses who do not give a crap, doctors who are over worked AND people dying at rates FAR higher than they need to be dying because the medical profession has no standards or integrity,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that will be universal healthcare under Obarry.

Most people are against "Obamacare" until you start asking them about things like being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions or maintaining coverage for their young adult children. And they seem to think it is fine for people to be bankrupted by health bills which then get passed on to us as a whole. I don't understand it at all.

@paidmyfee,

I lived in two countries with universal health care. I always got good care, I never waited in line, and I never paid a co-pay. When my sister in law gave birth, they sent a nurse to her house everyday for 2 weeks to check on her and the baby.

US ranks 37th in the world in health care. Countries with universal health care do it better and cheaper than we do.

Eric, I have heard you make this moronic statement before and its pure BS, I can give you 10,000 that speak against it for your every one that speaks for it, that live in social medicine countrys. Just keep your lieing mouth shut.

Eric,

what was the tax rate in those countries? I'm just curious. The problem I have is being forced to pay 40 - 45% to cover someone who is too lazy to work. I realize there are real people in real need and that for me is different.

I have two friends that have lived in Canada and the U.S. They disagree with the "quality" being the same or better in Canada.

Steeler, I think that is because you are generalizing is why you don't understand. I bet you can get an agreement from those who oppose the healthcare law that something had to be done. I am against the law but do agree that those stipulations needed modification. I however do NOT want to be FORCED to purchase health care. I do NOT want the government to have access to my bank account. I do NOT want the government to have access to my medical records. I am nervous that if this holds up what else this will open the door to. I am sincerely surprised that so many people are willing to accept that fact that their health will belong to the government and that they will have no choice but to purchase something. Again, something needs to be done but the big picture is, there should be an alternative that doesn't FORCE the citizens. BTW, my health insurance premiums have gone up while my coverage has gone down since this law has passed.

Nurse "I still don't understand why folks want to vote against their own best interests"

How can you possibly know what is in my best interest? How are you so enlightened to know what is in anybody's best interest but your own.

How can giving the government more power be in anybody's best interest?

Your a nurse I know you are smarter than that.

FYI - I think it would be in your best interest to give off the computer and do some exercise and yet you don't why is that?

bman-funny how when you talk to republicans here in the u.s. they will all tell you the same thing but when you talk to real Australians as i have, they say that they get great care, they have a 30 min. wait at the clinic, no co pays, no waits (except for things that aren't completely necessary) and all just like Eric says! They think we are just barbarians for the way our healthcare is.

I have known many people who live in countries with universal health care, and I did some traveling in the UK and Canada and talked to many people about their health care. Not one of them would be willing to trade theirs for ours, and all of those who were in the US said that if some medical emergency happened to them while they were here they would go home for treatment. I'm sure you can always find some who are dissatisfied with whatever they have, but someone should poll those who have universal care and see how many would trade it for our system.

Not that some vote against their interest (as defined by you) but that they vote for the principles on which the democracy must stand whether that be to deny themselves a benefit or not.

Ask the people who live in "universal health care" countries if they are interested in swapping their 75% tax bracket and $10 dollar a gallon gas for ours?

Ask them how they like the 20% VAT tax added to the cost of EVERYTHING, on top of the 50% income tax, massive property taxes and onerous laws that restrict every aspect of their lives.

Ask them if they could get a liver transplant, three years of chemo or elective surgery?

You will quickly find, they are as good as dead if they have cancer after the age of 65.

If they need a knee or hip replaced and they are in a wheelchair til they die.

If they need something extensive, they die at a rate 15-30 times what Americans consider normal.

Universal healthcare is great for preventive care, births and addictions, anything else is a trip to the cemetery.

Actually, Melba Voneye, I have some friends from Vancouver. They tell me it is very easy to get in and out of the emergency room if you are suffering from a cold or have a sprained ankle. Now, if you go into that same emergency room with chest pains that require a quadruple bypass...plan on waiting a very long time to get the necessary treatment and therapy. Then there is the point of government and healthcare here in the U.S. Remember folks, these are the same bureaucrats that can not deliver mail efficiently while privately run companies like FedEx and UPS seem to have no problem doing so. Trust this group with my health care? I don't think so. I have the perfect example of what will happen if the gov. gets involved in health care. I have a friend who was wounded in Vietnam by an enemy landmine. He was unfortunate enough to get treated at the VA for the last 40 years. He is now bent at nearly a 90 degree angle when he walks. Try doing that for a while and see how it feels. The reason he has to walk that way is the mine destroyed muscles in his mid section and lower back and over time the vertebrae deteriorated from the stress on them. Anyway, two years ago he tried to get a steel rod put in his back by the VA so he could at last stand up straight again. You know what our wonderful gov. told him? Since his life was not in danger, that is strictly an elective surgery. They refused to help him despite the fact it is a debilitating condition. Keep in mind, they do not dispute that his current condition was caused by being wounded in combat. I would hate to be the diabetic who needs a new kidney (afterall, dialysis will keep that person alive so it would then be an elective surgery) or the cancer paitent that will require many thousands of dollars in treatments (why waste money on that). No, folks, the gov. should not be involved in health care at all. I hope the Supreme Court does what's right and bounces this law right off the books.

Interesting how many sudden supporters of Obamacare are showing up. Narwhal says people will believe it is ok if enough stories are made up to say it is a good idea? Is that it? Sorry but only 26% of the people think Obamacare is something they want. FACT from several polls. So pretend to be whoever you want, make all the claims and bs you want. It won't change anything. People have learned that Obama will say anything and none of it will be the same tomorrow. People also know any fool can tell any lie on these posts. So all this 'bs will come to naught. The Supreme Court will do its job and uphold the Constitution and put the Federal Government back in the limited power position where it belongs. Whether Obama likes it or not. He should have gotten better grades in school on the reality things instead of concentrating on learning how to community organize.

Melba, HAve ANY idea what a Coke and a Snickers bar costs in Australia????

Around $7 U.S. Had a good friend that just got back. Housing is out of sight. We have a high level manager there that is renting.

Be careful what you use as an example. The tax rates in these countries seem to be very, very high.

Really bman? Put up or shut up. Where are these 10,000 so called people that you know? There are plenty of pros and cons for both systems but please don't make yourself look foolish by claiming that you know what other people in other countries think. Fact is that most people in those countries do, for the most part, like the systems they have....especially when you factor in that there is no risk for going bankrupt associated with it.

I know facts are sometimes hard to take but you can't simply deny or change them just because you don't like them. The truth hurts.

The company I work for has a Canadian arm and I can tell you from working their taxes are extremely higher than the US. Free healthcare is not Free, someone is paying for it.

I would disagree, phine--not that I would want them to overturn the law. But if their role in government isn't to determine whether a law is constitutional or not (as well as to determine whether a law was properly applied in a given situation), then exactly what is their job?

Which isn't to say that if they rule purely on political grounds that it won't be "a serious abuse of power", as Joel has noted below.

Remember your civics class? The co-equal branches of government have distinct and different roles.

As I stated, it does make for an interesting philosophical question. Yes, Jack, their job is to judge the constitutionality of a law, but will politics be a factor? If so, doesn't that make it that they can legislate from the bench? As Joel states, would that not be an abuse of the their power? It can make for interesting conversation.

newday,

Yes, I do remember my civics class. Please note I did say this was philosophical question of the balance of powers. Not that it has happened.

But, my answer tells you why it is not a particularly interesting philosophical question. Executive, legislation, judicial. Three different roles.

Hi phine,

Putting my opinion of the constitutionality or my beliefs on the ACA aside yours is not a philosophical question. If the SCOTUS does overturn the mandate they will not be granting themselves more power than the other branches. They will only be doing what they are supposed to do. Congress makes laws, POTUS signs laws and the Supreme Court interprets (upholds or over turns) laws.

Don't know the context of his remarks, but Obama's statement strikes me as funny and or interesting. He called the SCOTUS an unelected group; well, yes of course they are. Perhaps his judicial activism comment would be warranted if they struck down the entire law. In my mind, not a lawyer or don't play one on First Read, the court can only strike down the mandate, not the entire law. Personally, I think that the mandate is constitutional per the commerce clause, but the SCOTUS and they alone are in place to make that call.

In a perfect word, justice should be blind. Outside influences like political party and ideology should be absent from a judge's decision in this or any court. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

Phine, good question and discussion topic my friend :}

I Like it when Obama and the left say if the current Supreme Court votes down the ACA it is a "judicial activist court". Maybe a lot of the left should go back and check the rulings from the "Warren Court". Now that was the most judicial activist court in history.

If this ACA is struck down by the Supreme Court, maybe Obama will try what FDR wanted to do, expand the number of judges of the Supreme Court so he could "pack" the court with his choices. Didn't work for FDR but doesn't mean Obama won't try.

Personally I believe the ACA mandate will be overturned by a 6-3 vote. The severibility will be upheld by a 5-4 vote and the Medicaid part by the States will be overturned by a 5-4 vote. Won't leave much but maybe the good parts can be salvaged and worked into a new law.

Thanks, Yellowdog. The idea behind it was the politics of the current ACA bill and the way SCOTUS will judge it. You always see the legislative branch and executive branch jockeying over power. So, why not SCOTUS jumping into the mix?