Can't believe it actually survived. Not that I didn't want it to, but with the millions that the insurance companies were spending to get it overturned, it was surprising to say the least, and from one of the least expected quarters, a republican appointed chief justice, LOL... Conservative tea partying America must be having nightmares right now :laugh:
I too was surprised that the Supreme Court upheld the Obamacare and that Robert, a Republican supported it. While this reform is good, I dislike the fact that we have to get or pay a penalty mandate ... so Communist type of action to me. Better to outright pump up the tax rate than doing this shit. Not that I voted for Obama in last election, there's more to not vote for him in this election. The worst thing is that there ain't one candidate that I like ... No Rommey or Obama ... none good choices but still .. no Obama second term ... I hope.
Other than the, force you to buy or pay a penalty, is there anything else bad about obamacare? I have health insurance and I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't want health insurance so does that affect me at all?
The same goes to your neighbours from the North. We've been forced to vote on parties that are all incompetent for the past few years. Politics suck man :(
The one thing that separated us from, say... the other evil empires of the world today, is that the US had always been perceived and touted as a nation which lives under a rule of law and not one that is ruled by law. That is, the law applies equally to all, rather than as a tool or weapon of usury and control by a select class. Republican presidents, especially over the last few administrations, had attempted to rig the court by filling it with as many jurists of like or similar minds to theirs. In so doing, the court had suffered a tremendous blow to its overall credibility as an institution of legal neutrality. It is important to remember that it is on this basis of neutrality that the Judiciary's core function as one of three branches of government on which the US relies (the other two being legislative and executive). This tripartite pillar of governance has been the system which made the US the democracy that is the envy of the world and remains the pride of most Americans today. Unfortunately, there are people in this country that don't really care about all that, so long as they can win politically. They're willing to disregard the entire basis of what makes the US strong by subverting the impartiality role of the courts in order to bolster their chances of getting ahead. That is, if they cannot win legally then they'll buy the judges. While this end run around the legislative and executive branches may serve the immediate purpose of providing greater political power and positioning for its winners, over time, the entirety of the US as a nation is eroded. Americans will be the losers. We would be no better than other supposedly democratic countries, but in which their jurists are considered nothing more than a selective tool of their rulers. In essence it would destroy the US as the democracy that we know and love. Luckily, Roberts turned out not to be one of those people, even as another (Scalia) remains prominently and defiantly so. Thus, Roberts, whatever his politics, is revealed as a man of idealist character who cares more for his nation than his own interests. I may disagree with his politics, but I applaud his morality in being able to recognize that our nation is larger and more important than each of us. Smaller minds of course, have failed to see this, or perhaps don't want to see this. As for your "...no Obama second term, I hope..." Allow me to ask, would you actually want Romney? There in lies the dilemma for most Americans. Romney is an idiot, but he's an idiot saying the things that the far right wants to hear. If republicans genuinely wanted to field a candidate to talk about things that mattered, then they need to dismantle the Electoral College System and take out the small mindedness from American politics on which the far right has traditionally relied. For me, Obama isn't one without fault, but he's probably the short straw of the least evils that can occur to the US at this point. One has to consider had Romney taken over from Bush, would he had done as well or poorer than Obama. Forgetting the political stripes for a moment, one has to remember that the Affordable Care Act (what rightist deride as Obamacare) is largely based on Romneycare, or what Mitt came up with as governor of Massachusetts. Interestingly, the system then of incentives, taxes and individual mandate are nearly identical to what had been the most contentious part of Obama's ACA. But, most right wingers fail to recognize, or willfully ignore this; that Obamacare is in fact, Romneycare. I find it curious that now, for whatever political expediency, even Romney himself is turning his back to a model which he himself designed. But, then again, flip flopping had been touted as a Romney trait during the republican debates. These debates had the important role of showing not just what his enemies (the democrats) say about him but revealed what his friends (fellow republicans) think of him. Hence, given such choices Obama, for me, is the only possible choice at this point. Not because he's the best man (or woman) for the job, but he's the best out of a narrowed field of poor possible choices. If I could have a magical wish, then I would chose someone who was perhaps a blend of Huntsman, Paul and Clinton (Bill not Hillary), but with the charm of Reagan and finally the political courage of Obama. It's interesting how most people now (except for a die hard few) have already forgotten that he's even black. I would vote for Romney only if given a worse choice otherwise; eg like Palin or O'Donnell (not because they're women, but because they're crazy). And god help us if Obama dropped dead and Biden became chief. Oh, and for what it's worth, Eric Holder should be thrown in jail. I'm sure Alberto Gonzales is probably smirking about this. But I find both examples to be worrying trends where those tasked with law enforcement are themselves behaving in ways that skirt the law. Also, something for the Tea Partyers to stew on, Obama about to announce that SCOTUS upheld his ACA: [video=youtube;Il1vY2IQATs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1vY2IQATs[/video]
Totally agree with you Ralphie! My take exactly. Wish I can comment more on this but I'm traveling and this airport wifi + ATT sucks ass. People just need to stop watching Fox news! LOL
"Looks like the typical leftist libertarian argument to me. I agree on some of it, especially the Holder and Gonzales part, but of course we cannot forget the points where the "conservatives" are chided. For the millionth time already, the term "conservative" is a general term (often utilized in a derogatory manner) used to describe but a fraction of an individuals beliefs. Not every conservative is a Republican, and not every Republican is a conservative. There are dozens of Congressmen I can name off the top of my head that are Republican, yet express liberal votes and beliefs. It is like me calling every Democrat a Communist. Also, this person is not saying anything knew. He/she apparently forgot the primary when millions of conservative people were expressing concern about Romney's past governing skills. The only reason he was chosen was because he was the lesser evil of a piece of shit crop (Yeah, that includes Ron Paul). Many conservatives understand better than anyone that we are now under the rule of a one party system, as the Democrats and Republicans perform the same functions of growing government every time they take office. So this is nothing new. As for the Chief Justice, is this person kidding me with one of the quotes: Luckily, Roberts turned out not to be one of those people, even as another (Scalia) remains prominently and defiantly so. Thus, Roberts, whatever his politics, is revealed as a man of idealist character who cares more for his nation than his own interests. I may disagree with his politics, but I applaud his morality in being able to recognize that our nation is larger and more important than each of us. Smaller minds of course, have failed to see this, or perhaps don't want to see this. How do we know this decision was based on idealist grounds? There is no proof that Roberts made the opinion outside the realm of politics. Who is this person to judge other people, including many legal and Constitutional scholars and professionals, on the basis of their criticism? There are those that think the decision was correct based on the power the government already had, and there are others who believe the judgment was founded on blatant fabrication of the law (which I personally side with because all you need to do is read the decision online). Many people wanted more government in there lives, while others see this as an enormous power grab that decreases liberty and exponentially increases government intrusion in our lives (again I side with the latter). Is the Supreme Court infallible now that we cannot criticize a decision? I didn't know a Court made of fallible human beings was perfect. Thomas Jefferson constantly criticized the Court and he was a prophet of his time, despite his behavioral aspects. Was he a man of small brain? I am tired of this logic that if you don't agree with a decision made by an authority, you should just shut up and accept it. The most important aspects of "our democracy" is the freedom of speech and the will of the people. If you don't like hearing dissenting opinions, go to Russia or China, where you are arrested for such things." -Commented by a friend of mine
The term conservative here is the antithesis of the word liberal; read into that what you will. And yes, while there are plenty of branded house reps that cross party lines both in views and in votes; it's really a moot point here for argument's sake. Given the generalities of public sentiments Roberts, for all intents, has been perceived as a member of the "conservative" (ah... but there's that word again) faction within the court. One can argue as to the appropriateness of that perception, but I just simply take it at face value. As for "who is this person to judge other people on the basis of their criticism..." why, I must be the 'Leftist Libertarian' that some seem so ready to broadbrush and label me as. I do agree that man, and inherently all his constructs, are not infallible; that is a given. But despite this, even we in our failures nonetheless aim for ideals. Some seem apparently more ready to do so than others. I stand by my assessment that "smaller minds of course, have failed to see this, or perhaps don't want to see this." As for the importance of democracy being in freedom of speech and the will of the people, it seems (to me at least) that the persistent preferential favoring of certain kinds of speech and wills of certain kinds of people over that of their peers, that has taken the nation to our point of decline today. However, I do agree that the two party - same game, system of Democrats v Republicans, as exists today, have become something more than we've bargained for. But as for leaving to Russia or China if I don't like to hear dissenting opinions? That's almost as silly as one threatening to move to Canada just to avoid the ACA (they already have socialize medicine there and it's paid for by taxes). So, as long as others can tolerate my opinion enough not to have to pack their bags, then I'm staying right here no matter how obnoxious the opinions of others.
A bit off topic but still on topic, I'm enjoying all these internet memes about people claiming they'll move to Canada because of this Obamacare. Love these types of idiots. Makes life amusing.
What makes it even sadder is the responses from Canucks when they hear this; they say, stay the hell where you're at because we don't want or need your selfish attitudes. They've had socialized medicine more than a half century ago, and though imperfect, they're quite happy with it.
It wasnt perfect, but the status quo was killing the economy and families. Plus, the republicans had no alternative
One of the major problems that faced this country ever since the days of Roosevelt was the budding realization that national health is a costly double edged sword. On the one hand, new high tech methodologies became life saving money makers and every company tried their best to be in on this revenue stream. But on the other hand, nobody wanted to be on the flip side of the equation, the side that had to pay for all of these high cost medical bells and whistles. Enter the insurance companies, who straight faced promised to pay for these expensive procedures even as they too, over time, shirked at what they agreed to, eventually manipulating their businesses into selective money making only arenas, leaving any high cost life saving on the table. Thus, 'good health care' as a money maker has become an oxymoron. One cannot provide good care and make money. Over the last few decades, insurers had provided care that they deemed to be good enough heath care. In essence, they choose to deliver the bare minimum even as they applaud ever more successful financial quarters. In a last ditch effort to make insurers take care of the American people, Obama's (and Romney's too) plan was to ensure that insurers had enough customers to maintain profit, while strong arming them into taking care of those costly customers that they had previously ditched. IMHO, this is a viable approach for the short term, but one that is destined to ultimate failure. One has to remember that health care is a money losing business. Like national defense, the money spent nets an often intangible return. To have healthy productive citizens is in any nation's best interest, but the results of which are often impossible to place on a tally sheet, especially one keyed for corporate earnings. That's why I've always personally believed that health care in the US should have been nationalized years ago. Reagan, as much as I admired him, did the nation a huge disservice by scaring the public away from socialized medicine. Lest we forget, we're a pretty much socialized society anyways when it comes to many of the things we expect as "public service" from government. We don't have to hire our own armed soldiers or guards, nor do we have private tutors for our children. We don't have private ambulances or firemen to stand watch over us. So why should we have to pay for a doctor? Why? Because the American Medical Association said so. Years ago, when the idea was broached, American doctors became fearful of having government controls placed on to their money making potential. Thus, they ardently opposed any notion of government provided health care. This, IMHO, was their greatest violation of their Hippocratic principles, that being, Do No Harm. In putting their self interest ahead of that of the American public, the AMA dismissed a doctor's own reason d'etre. Now nearly a half century later, abysmal American health from the subsequent cascade of related political and economic events, is largely what we see before us today. This was the payoff from such economically driven scare tactics. IMHO what the federal government need do first, is to invoke conditional loans for any medical training to make future doctors (ones who borrow government funds for their medical education) be supportive and participate in socialized medicine. Further, doctors from overseas (as a condition of their entry and ability to practice within the US or its possessions), be also mandated to be supportive of socialized care. Additionally, doctors or facilities who participate and collect Medicaid or Medicare funds, also be subject to the same provisions. While doctors for the very rich would easily survive on their well off clients and need not worry about such constraints, a large portion of the medical landscape would undergo a sea change. Ultimately however, what drives down costs is competition. If enough government free clinics flood the landscape, then the volume of mass would be to expect low cost care. Recognizing that good care can be expensive and thus, an imperfect analogy; nonetheless, a comparison might be say, if everyone is selling flat panel TVs for $100 bucks; Sony may want to sell theirs for $600 but they would be hard pressed to do so as the market is used to the $100 price point. In other words, if they had to, people would choose economy if they knowingly could have a choice. Thus, as a first step, the US government should now open free public health clinics that focus (as a start) on basic health care needs, like hypertension, diabetes, and asthma. Previously, even something simple as free immunizations for children (which should have been a no brainer), was a hard fought political battle. The point is, there are already so many people out there who are sick, that's not being taken care of, it is the absolute responsibility of our government to ensure the health and safety of their citizens. IMHO, forget about the doctors; they've screwed Americans for long enough. It's no wonder that Canadians look at the US and laugh at what we're doing to ourselves, all for the love of money. Additionally, what the American pharmaceutical industry has done to the cost of medicine should be considered criminal (but that's a whole other thread, LOL...) Thus, while I do support 'Obamacare', I only do so with reluctance. To go back to what we had before is even worse. Oh, and also, is it a tax? Of course it is, just like Social Security, which you have to 'buy' with every paycheck to ensure that you have enough money to retire, even if there's no guarantee that you would ever live that long. Thus, the government can make you purchase this plan (through the IRS as a tax) even as there's no guarantee that you would ever need it. What's really comical about this aspect is that it is exactly what Romneycare did in Massachusetts (much to his chagrin) and he's now fervently going around on his campaign stump telling people that it is NOT a tax, what is arguably the GOP's Achilles heel. If Romney admits to it, he would likely fall on his party's own anti-taxation sword. Hence, he's doing his best to convince people that this isn't a tax, even as the Chief Justice ruled that it was, with which the GOP wholeheartedly agreed. Romney unfortunately is left twisting in this ideological wind. Of course, Romney's struggle with this is nothing new; it was already predicted by Santorum during the Republican debates months ago. ADDENDUM: After I had posted this of course, Romney, true to form, decides to agree it's a tax. Notice that he still doesn't say it's a tax but relates that the court calls it a tax so he won't disagree, LOL... LINK
