The government can't force me to buy insurance, but they will try to tax me if I don't.

Eh.

For one, the Left has tried to get away from its Tax-and-Spend label ever since Clinton, but now it will have to own it. That's sorta nice.

But more importantly, the federal government is so inept at collecting taxes from people like me, I will NEVER have to actually pay it.

Really, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can avoid all federal taxes. It's really not that hard.

El Hodor: ialdabaoth: Ok, look. This is simple.

If someone can't afford to stay competitive, why do they deserve to compete?

If someone can't afford to keep working, why do they deserve to work?

If someone can't afford to stay healthy, why do they deserve health?

If someone can't afford to stay alive, why do they deserve to live?

You get what you pay for. If you can't afford to pay, well... I suppose it's polite to pretend that it was nice knowing you, but you aren't much use anymore, are you?

And if you disagree with all of the above statements, great! Politics takes money. If someone can't afford a lobbyist or a campaign, why do they deserve to have an opinion?

Brilliant! 10/10! This, gentlemen, is how you troll!

Actually, I really *would* like an answer.

Welcome to the first world US :)

Congratulations, America, on bringing your health care into the 1960s.

Let the bulk purchase of cheap Canadian generic drugs resume.

HulkHands: Local Man: Why does CNN have "Mandate Struck Down" tattooed on their front page...?

/which news agency has reading comprehension issues?!?

Because it was, technically. It cannot be upheld as lawful to force someone to buy insurance. But it can be upheld as a tax to encourage people to buy insurance


Wow...Roberts had to bend way around his bunghole to get to his knee to equate the government forcing you to buy something with that something being a tax. Understand, I'm a little right of center but I've said all along that a single payer system (with the attendant increase in taxes) was the only way to do this thing correctly. That would have been an actual, no shiat, tax. This...isn't.

It's not a tax that is now a tax? Good God, the Pandora's Box they just opened with this shiat. Completely and totally gutted the Interstate Commerce Act when it comes to forcing people to spend money. How many times will this decision be used by the Congress in the future to force the citizen to give up more and more of their money by forcing them to purchase something so they can run for re-election claiming "I didn't vote to raise TAXES"?

We need a healthcare overhaul in the worst farking way but this...this sets a new precedent for the relationship between government and citizenry that I don't think many have fully thought through yet.

LOL. Fox News just switched to an interview with Rupert Murdoch to get to the real news of the day: News Corp. being broken up because of phone hacking...in not so many words, I'm sure.

Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. - John Boehner.

Fark you in your orange ass.

MasterThief: Silver lining based on SCOTUSBlog: The mandate was not a legit use of the commerce clause, but it was OK as a tax.

So yes, Obama and the Democrats did, in fact, raise taxes on the middle class. After repeatedly promising not to.

you'll get flamed for that, but i appreciate you pointing this out.

not sure why everyone here is orgasm-ing all over themselves for getting taxed more.

/all for a single payer system. not "you must buy this product from this company or get taxed biatch."
//would love it if the government mandated you had to buy my products.

Just because it was upheld doesnt mean it's set in stone - primacy of parliament and all that. My non-existent vote is for who repeals it.

Aphostile: Only in America will so many people get their panties in a bunch over something that will help so many in need.

My panties are not in a bunch.

I don't care much for politics but I absolutely will be ignoring my parents and their friends for at least a week until their Fox News watching derp calms down a little.

Kit Fister: valar_morghulis: To all who opposed Obamacare: how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history yet again?

Does it count if we opposed it because it was a bandaid rather than a true fix for the actual problems with our healthcare system, and a massive waste of money compared to actually fixing anything?

THIS.

But hopefully it's the start of fixing the actual problems.

chuckufarlie: Evil Mackerel: PanicMan: My coworker just said "they can't do that because the founding fathers wrote the constitution based on the old testimate". Also, this is the end of the country.

Advise him not to breed.
/Please.

testimate?

I think it's one of those things where you go to give a deposition, and end up having sex with the opposing counsel.

Aphostile: Only in America will so many people get their panties in a bunch over something that will help so many in need.

NPR did a man on the street interview this morning with this guy saying he shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance, that he just wants to pay out of pocket for services when he needs it.

That stupidity pretty much sums up all the people against having the law.

Can I get a BOOM HEADSHOT!

Sorry if there is a BOOM HEADSHOT above somewhere. I am working hard and cannot afford to read the entire thread...

NowhereMon: LOL free republic is melting down

Check out WND. They're screaming for civil war now. It's beautiful.

I've already got calls on Facebook to demand the do-nothing liberal Senate repeal Obamacare anyways.

Let the Butthurt commence!

LordJiro: Thunderpipes: 17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

90% of HSA plans will not qualify by the way. Remember when you could keep your current insurance? 14 million people use HSA plans. So over 12 million people will be forced to drop their plans or pay more just on that alone.

It is a loss for Obama, Vodka posting moron. He will lost millions of votes because of this. The Medicaid part screws his plans, and all America loses. This is bad news, for Obama.

Oh wow, I've not seen this phrase used unironically in years. That's just beautiful. Gonna go on about the statisticals next?

See how it plays out. I guarantee you he will lose a lot of votes here. Most Americans do not like being forced to do things. Most Americans are against Obamacare and the individual mandate. The Medicaid part being struck down means Obamacare will cost possibly hundreds of billions more. He is increasing taxes all over the place after saying he would not. He lied about keeping your current insurance if you like it. A big part of the finances was forcing states to expand their Medicaid to cover more people (including lower middle class folks).

Yes, this is bad news for Obama. Not as bad as it could have been, just less bad, or wrong-bad, or babad.

Thunderpipes: 26 states can tell Obama and the Feds to suck it now, and they will.

That will go over real well with the citizens in those states. When the citizens of those states that as you put it "tell Obama and the Feds to go suck it", talk to their family and friends in other states and find out how well they are doing health wise because of Obamacare, I don't think they will be too happy with their state leadership. You can't keep lying to people once they see that somebody is getting something that they are not.

Wow, I really didn't think it would work out this way.

Man, my ultra conservative extended family is going to be pissed.

TheNewJesus: Can I get a BOOM HEADSHOT!

Sorry if there is a BOOM HEADSHOT above somewhere. I am working hard and cannot afford to read the entire thread...

You can get a BOOM HEADSHOT and then a BOOM HEALTH CARE to treat the BOOM HEADSHOT.

Sir Vanderhoot: AmazinTim: NowhereMon: Suck it cons, suck it long and hard

You must mean suck it everyone, now we'll never fix health care. We'll just keep patching scabby band-aids onto the issue, just like this bill.

I was really hoping it would get struck down, then force a complete overhaul single-payer plan. Make health insurance companies obsolete completely.

Oh well. Maybe in a few decades we can join the rest of the civilized world.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if we verified that everyone who payed into the system could use the system. The only way to cover everyone in the country is with a consumption tax similar to the VAT that jolly old England uses.

Then, i would have the VAT run for a year to bank money before the mandate started and pilot the program for 5 years. I say 5 years, because you have to figure that the first year that the thing is in effect it is going to swamped by everyone who doesn't see a doctor on the regs now.

After that 5 year term, if the system was in the red it would go away. Plain and simple. If it can't be sustained it goes away.

quatchi: [www.usefulidiots.net image 400x700]

/Oblig, hot, all that.

Roberts? Seriously? Meh, all's well that ends well.

That looks salty and high in cholesterol.

SphericalTime: Awwww. I was hoping for single payer during my lifetime.

This

So much for wanting to help special need kids


14. Flexible Spending Account Cap - aka "Special Needs Kids Tax" ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

Now that the Affordable Care Act has been declared constitutional, will republicants go back and read it?

Grables'Daughter: Aphostile: Only in America will so many people get their panties in a bunch over something that will help so many in need.

My panties are not in a bunch.


are you even wearing panties?

RantCasey: And commence the Republican butthurt.....NOW.

Will butthurt merit a two-dollar salve now?

Smeggy Smurf: Aarontology: Smeggy Smurf: 3 of the 4 boxes have failed. Time to break out the 4th box. Good thing I've been teaching the boys how to do it as well.

Looks like we got ourselves a member of the Fighting Keyboards.

Go ahead and keep telling yourselves that.

EVERYONE LOOK!

SMEGGY SMURF IS ADVOCATING INSURRECTION AND TERRORISM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES!

It's probably been mentioned but calling it a tax is not a victory. Calling it a tax allows it to be challenged by individuals once it's been collected. All this does is delay a final ruling. In fact it's a bad thing that this has been called a tax.

You can't challenge a tax until it's been collected in the United States.

SphericalTime: PanicMan: Will need to read the decision and dissents before we fully understand what just happened.

Roberts decided he didn't want to be a joke for the rest of his life, apparently.

Good. I bet the dissent is a tasty and delicious read.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Thunderpipes: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Thunderpipes: 26 states can tell Obama and the Feds to suck it now, and they will.

Oh yeah, the States just love turning away Federal money.

Read the ruling, moron. Feds cannot withold money if states don't expand their Medicaid. That was the ruling. They cannot be penalized and will retain what they have. They just don't need to accept a while bunch of new people and be saddled with the burden. Big win. Obamacare was counting on this use of force to drum up money.

Again: the States just love turning money away. "Oh, you're going to give us more money for a new program?.. no, no, we're fine... we'll just sit here with our thumbs up our butts until our constituents find out we're leaving money on the table."

/It makes for great political grandstanding, but ultimately the States never refuse this kind of money even if there are strings attached.

The threat of withholding a mere 10% of highway funds caused 49 of 50 states (Montana continued to flip the proverbial war eagle at the Federales) to change their minimum drinking age from 18, 19 or 20 to 21.

State governments are weak kneed cry babies.