What a travisty

aceshigh · 2012-06-28, 10:43 AM

How could requiring someone to carry health insurance be considered constitutional? It blows my mind.

ETA: travesty too

LegioX · 2012-06-28, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by aceshigh

How could requiring someone to carry health insurance be considered constitutional? It blows my mind.

ETA: travesty too

Funny how the downfall of America will be outlined in one word. "TAX"

So what does this mean? Gov't can do anything it pleases to the population as long as its a tax? FML

Saifoda · 2012-06-28, 11:30 AM

This won't last long. Regardless of if Obama wins this upcoming election, a dem will most likely not win the following (2016) and more than likely we're going to see republican control of congress continue, so hopefully they will remove it. If not, well, we're already so far down the shitter anyways, might as well have "free" health care...

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-06-28, 11:38 AM

I really don't know what all the hubbub is about with this health care bill. I support Obama, and even I thought it was toothless and didn't do enough to actually address the problem.

But people are saying 'oh this is destroying america' and I'm just like... what? How?

CutterJohn · 2012-06-28, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by LegioX

Funny how the downfall of America will be outlined in one word. "TAX"

So what does this mean? Gov't can do anything it pleases to the population as long as its a tax? FML

For the most part, yes. Congress has virtually unlimited powers for taxation. Had it been labeled the tax it obviously is from the start it would have never even reached SCOTUS. But it also wouldn't have passed, since the T word is verboten in todays politics. Dirty pool, but legit nonetheless.

They can tax whatever the hell they please, and not tax whatever the hell they please.

Originally Posted by aceshigh

How could requiring someone to carry health insurance be considered constitutional? It blows my mind.

ETA: travesty too

You know what would blow your mind more? They could have outlawed the medical insurance industry and instituted state funded single payer UHC, and it would not have even reached SCOTUS. The constitution very explicitely gives congress the power to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare of the people.

This is how medicare operates, and is a settled argument. The more conservative compromise was the questionable one.

Tooterfish · 2012-06-28, 11:59 AM

I've lost so much faith in our "democracy". Patriotism, for me, has started to become an obligation more than emotional courage and satisfaction. I'm just so... disappointed in what we've become and where we're headed.

Geist · 2012-06-28, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Tooterfish

I've lost so much faith in our "democracy". Patriotism, for me, has started to become an obligation more than emotional courage and satisfaction. I'm just so... disappointed in what we've become and where we're headed.

I feel the same way.

WildGunsTomcat · 2012-06-28, 12:03 PM

It's absolutely not constitutional to force someone to buy healthcare.

I also love how the DNC tweeted "TAKE THAT GOP MOTHERFUCKERS"

And then it was deleted 15 minutes later.

It's all about winning and losing in Washington now. It's not about the welfare of the people.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-28, 12:06 PM

Meh.

LegioX · 2012-06-28, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

It is a Pyrrhic victory for Obama. He gets to save face, but the ruling is bad for Obama's reelection chances. Law remains unpopular and it is the reason they lost the 2010 midterms bigtime. Had it been struck down those voters would be somewhat pacified and content. Now they will be angry. I predict a very good fundraising month for Romney. With a big unpopular law there is no winning by keeping it. It, plus the economy are going to overshadow the election so his efforfs to focus on less important issues like immigration are not going to work.

Im completely baffled how they construe it as a "tax" when the lawmakers and Obama went through great lengths to say it wasnt. That too is bad for Obama because now they can pin a Tax hike on him. And what a horrible precedent this sets. The govenrment can now use this to justify us purchasing any good or service since it is a "tax increase to those who choose not to buy it". Supreme court epic fail.

Yep i can see it now. Obama gov't issues an executive order stating we must eat fruits and vegetables before our main meal at any restaurant. Federal Employees will monitor all food being sold at all restaurants and if the rule is not obeyed a TAX will be imposed on either business or person. GOD HELP US.

On another note. It's going to be funny (not in a good way) when these so called Liberals will have either the mother or father placed on death panels b/c the gov't seems them unfit/or a burden to society b/c they are to old.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-28, 12:32 PM

Meh.

aceshigh · 2012-06-28, 12:23 PM

I wish I could edit the thread title, my mispelling of travesty was also a travesty.

Exmortius · 2012-06-28, 12:51 PM

so did these guys actually read it or just come to a decision based on feelings? forcing a person to buy something is socialism pure and simple. you can't sugarcoat that or change it's meaning. it is what it is plain and simple. this will be what breaks the back of small business and the middle class if left unchecked. are there some good things in it yes. but the way this was done has just been wrong imo.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-06-28, 01:12 PM

Maybe I'm growing old and cynical but anytime I see a claim that one piece of legislature will 'destroy america' I just roll my eyes. There was a lot of that during the Bush years from the left, and now we're getting a lot of it from the right, and frankly it never happens. Both sides just crying wolf.

Meanwhile, the super-rich completely fucked the planet by being greedy idiots. To my knowledge many of them are still there and still doing the same shit that fucked the planet the first time around, and those are the people funding our politicians' campaigns. While we plebs quibble over toothless legislation that won't change much of anything but will cost money doing it, just like every fucking law that gets passed in that broken-down wretched hive of scum and villainy we call congress.

I'm too young to feel old, but this political stuff is just... ugh. Are you guys really that pissed about a piece of totally toothless, utterly impotent half-laws like this health bill? The War on Terror alone costs in a year what ObamaCare will cost in a decade and that's using the (probably inflated) estimates from GOP sources. The War on Drugs has spent maybe an estimated $20 billion this year alone doing fuck all.

It's just... ugh. Really? England has free health care and they're not exactly dying in the streets, are they? Would it kill us to admit different countries might have the right idea? But no, we yank all the teeth and bones out of the health care bill and then sit around whining about it and throwing mud at each other. What an enviable society we are.

Saifoda · 2012-06-28, 01:11 PM

The only case that really could have been properly made is that it would be unconstitutional viz a viz the 9th amendment. Honestly a good way to combat this will be at the state level -- state laws supersede (in theory) federal law within those states, in accordance with the 10th amendment. But, then again, what's the Constitution anyways