Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional. The bland mask that is Mitt Romney's face twitches with something called "emotion"   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 3337
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14921 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 11:28:42 AM  
Hmmm.... I wonder if the freepers are going ballistic.

/takes a little peek into that sad little place/

Oh yes, oh yes they are.
 
2012-06-28 11:28:42 AM  

MasterThief: Seems like the left got the result they wanted (law and mandate upheld), while the right got the reasoning they wanted (Congress doesn't get a blank check to pass laws under the commerce/necessary and proper clauses, and can't force states to comply with a federal regulation by threatening existing federal funding.)


That's a pretty good assessment.

The problem then becomes, however, that Congress now has the ability to tax you if you don't purchase something they want you to purchase.

For example, let's say that Congress finds that having a mobile phone of some kind is something it wants to encourage, because it's useful for things like public order, access to emergency services, and all sorts of other positive things. Under the Commerce Clause, they can't require you to purchase one if you don't want to. But they could, based on this precedent, tax you for not having one, and they could in theory make that tax just as expensive, or more so, than owning a basic cellphone and cell service.

I know there is a legal distinction here, but from a practical standpoint, I think we've just opened up a major can of worms.

/Big Insurance must be celebrating like mofos right now.
 
2012-06-28 11:28:45 AM  
Just a reminder, the best deal in individual health care is to refuse to buy in to the mandate.

Marine1: Wasn't the individual mandate the conservative idea of healthcare? I actually think that would have been a nice place to start, actually.


Yeah, that's kind of the point. The Heritage Foundation is a very conservative right wing think tank. They conceived of the individual mandate as a Republican alternative to more "liberal" (i.e. like what the rest of the developed world has) policies that were being discussed in the late 80s and early 90s.
 
2012-06-28 11:28:53 AM  
It's becoming further and further more difficult for me to comprehend how anyone could be believe that "Obamacare" and mandates are some Far Left Marxist Overreach when it was introduced into the national conversation by Conservative Republicans and the GOP in the 90s and now upheld by a Chief Justice, appointed by a conservative President, who votes along conservative lines the vast majority of the time
 
2012-06-28 11:28:57 AM  

Daveism: Lernaeus: /looking forward to more "suck it" kindness and compassion from the left today

Keep hitting us with bricks and you expect hugs and kisses in return? fark you in the ass sideways with a screwdriver. How's that for kindness and compassion? Call us un-American, traitors, communists, and every other term you can think of to denigrate us? We're soldiers, nurses, police officers, emergency management officials and non-profit child welfare workers - and that's just in my damn immediate family.

WE'RE the ones expected to turn the other cheek? fark you. Your side clings to Jesus so much, where's the "turning of the cheek" that YOU'RE supposed to be so famous for? (also, didn't he have something to say about helping those less fortunate?)

Our kindness and compassion is reserved for those that actually deserve it.


lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-06-28 11:29:01 AM  

randomjsa: So all the people who thought that it being struck down would be the best thing ever for Obama are now going "holy crap now we're in trouble"?


What the f*ck are you talking about? I literally didn't see one person make that argument anywhere, ever.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:07 AM  

meat0918: Weaver95: randomjsa: So all the people who thought that it being struck down would be the best thing ever for Obama are now going "holy crap now we're in trouble"?

which universe are you posting from anyway? do they have hot dogs in that universe?

They'll hammer on the "He raised your taxes" and the 85% of Americans that have health insurance already will say, "No he didn't, he raised someone else's taxes, not mine, and that's A-OK"


85% of Americans will either lose their coverage, pay more for what they have, or be forced to get better coverage, out of their own pocket.

Really would be great if liberals, for once, understood the situation. Remember, government dictates which plans qualify. 90% of HSA plans do not right now.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:08 AM  

vernonFL: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the things that people don't like about Obamacare is that they'll be required to buy health insurance that they feel they don't need as they are in generally good health?

That is the whole issue. Say you're 25 and you say, "I'm young and healthy, I don't need insurance." So you don't buy any. Then, you get cancer and you try to get insurance, nobody will insure you because you have cancer.


One of my problems with Romneycare is that the young healthy 25 year olds can't just buy a bare-bones catastrophic coverage plan with a high deductible, which WOULD cover them for the long-shot cancer/car crash scenarios...they have to get comprehensive coverage. I guess the idea is to make the pool of insureds big enough.

Not sure if those type of policies would "count" under Obamacare.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:10 AM  

Shostie: I'm taking credit for this, because my awesomnicitude is just that great.


It's an honor to read your posts.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:14 AM  
Obama think's he's clever but this won't work. It's all still waiting for him. The Fields Of Trenzilor, the Fall Of The Eleventh, and the question. The first question. The question that must never be answered.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:24 AM  
I'm just waiting to hear what Bachmann has to say about this. You know it will be batshiat insane.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:29 AM  

Fail in Human Form: Wow, freerepublic is losing its collective shiat right now


The internet hasn't been as amusing since Fox News dropped the comments section from the site, but Freep is doing their best.

Random Freeper: "I now know how someone who has been raped feels!"
 
2012-06-28 11:29:33 AM  

palelizard: Tat'dGreaser: I apparently don't know everything about this whole deal. I hear some people talk about how health care is now guaranteed for everyone, then I hear you are now forced to purchase health care. Which one is it?

A little of both.

So, most of the law is about making it easier on people to get health insurance--making it affordable by capping profit margins, making sure the insurer can't deny you coverage because you were sick before you started paying their premiums, being able to stay on your parents insurance until 26, etc. All in all, things most individuals would consider reasonable moderation on an industry that makes its profits by denying service. Whether you agree or not, polls show most people liked the individual points.

The balancing factor in this was the individual mandate--a requirement that you either purchase healthcare of some sort (presumably with minimum standards of care) or you pay the government a fine come tax time. Not so many people liked this but the insurance companies were more in favor of it, as it makes a penalty for waiting until one is sick before purchasing insurance (which they'd be obligated to not deny you just because you're already sick). This was probably the most controversial bit of the whole thing, with a lot of conservatives saying the government can't (or shouldn't) force you to purchase something from a private company, and a lot of the liberals saying it's either covered by the interstate commerce clause and/or it's a tax on not carrying insurance.

The court has ruled that it's effectively a tax, despite some wacky wording on the part of the writers who didn't want to call it a tax.

So over the next few years, it will be significantly easier for one to get affordable health insurance, but one will also be obligated to purchase said insurance or pay a yearly fine.


Thank you for your clear and concise answer. I was looking for something like that
 
2012-06-28 11:29:33 AM  

WombatControl: bdub77: Doesn't matter. Americans got health care. This is a win for the American people, not just Obama. Obama will now go down as the first president who got Americans health care. His legacy in that regard, not to mention countless other things he's done as president, will solidify him as one of the greats.

And yes I expect him to fully whip Romney's ass in November.

WHISKY. TANGO. FOXTROT.

Really? Now Americans have health care? You mean no one in this country had health care prior to Obama? Is this what you really think?

Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance. Not only do you end up dead in that scenario, but new and innovative treatments never get developed because said bureaucrat won't pay for them. Oh, but you have "free" health insurance - just not free health care.

Nothing is free. Health care is not free, and it can't be made free by government fiat. If the liberals got their way we'd have a system in which everyone but the ultra rich who could afford private insurace (or black-market care) is stuck waiting in lines for treatments they may never get.

If the statists got their way and we magically had an NHS-style system in the United States there would be riots in the streets because Americans do not take kindly to the government dictating to them what they can and cannot have. At least those Americans who still believe in the spirit of this nation's Founding, anyway.


What in the name of holy balls are you talking about? The NHS in the UK goes as far as to fly patiets with extremely rare conditions to specialist centres abroad, and covers everything.

Good luck getting an insurance company to do that. They're more likely to say that your tumour was growing when you started your insurance, so go die under a bridge.

I know of a child personally that was sent to a paediatric Proton centre in Jacksonville (she lives in Newcastle, England). The NHS even covered room and board for her parents in Florida.


So take your wacky lies and stick them right up your chuff-pipe.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:40 AM  
I KNOW WHAT WILL SOLVE THIS! A RIOT!

thenightbirdcalls.files.wordpress.com

\its caps lock day.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:41 AM  

The_Sponge: Remember when Obama promised that he wouldn't raise your taxes if you made less than $250K per year?


If you have health insurance they won't be raised.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:43 AM  

SuperT: So what about working poor whose employers don't offer insurance, they pay the tax that they can ill afford and what do they get in return? Do they get health care in return? Can someone fill me in on how this doesn't fark over the uninsured? I don't think we had a problem with people refusing or choosing not to have insurance, just unable to afford not offered or refused by insurance co.


Sure. Let me do my best.

Said employees will be directed toward the state-run exchanges for individual insurance. Mostly private providers, but at least Vermont will have a public option. The exchange plans will be community-rated and not subject to denial due to pre-existing conditions.

For anyone 'working poor' (let's say, under $50k family income), there are *huge* subsidies written in PPACA for purchasing insurance. Now, the actual funding for those subsidies is subject to the appropriations process each year, so that could get very dicey.

But, part of PPACA is that if a 'silver' plan (minus the subsidies) in the exchange costs more than 8% of your household gross income, you're exempt. If the subsidies are slaughtered, over half the nation would be exempt from the mandate.

This latter is an important point. Because you're exempt if your income is below a threshold, Roberts found that it is an income tax, not a capitation/poll tax in violation of the Constitution.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:49 AM  

Headso: based on the comments in this thread it looks like "tax increase" is the talkingpoint people are being told to parrot.


I was thinking the same thing.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:52 AM  
Well, this doesn't fix the fact that our healthcare costs are ridiculously over priced.

Which means, that in order to pay for them, the insurance will also be ridiculously over priced.

...yayy....
 
2012-06-28 11:29:56 AM  

schattenteufel: Teabaggers go on & on about how much .... they hate "Obamacare," but they mostly agree with "Obamacare."


Fixed that for you.
 
2012-06-28 11:29:59 AM  

Joe Blowme: Enjoy more welfare asshat. Maybe this means you can fill your crack pipe using your EBT card, your welcome.


Awwwwwwwwww, here this is for you:

di1-3.shoppingshadow.com
 
2012-06-28 11:30:02 AM  

weave: What's best about this is the wingnuts planned the word Obamacare to be a derogatory term but now it will live for decades as a term giving a Democrat credit for something that they'll never be able to get rid of because people would go ape about it.


That's what my grandparents said about Roosecurity.
 
2012-06-28 11:30:07 AM  
img600.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-28 11:30:11 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: My only question about the Freepers is: if conservatives start a civil war, will their health insurance cover assault rifle wounds?


.
.
There's only one way to find out.

//Go stand over there by that wall for a moment if you don't mind.
 
2012-06-28 11:30:15 AM  

BlueJay206: He has just been declared a liar to the American people, in that the mandate "wasn't a tax", and that he "wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class".


He never called it a tax. He said a couple years ago that it wasn't a tax. How can he be called a liar for something he never said? The Supreme Court called it a tax, not Obama.
 
2012-06-28 11:30:34 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I wonder who will be the first poor soul to be thrown in jail for choosing to feed themselves instead of feeding the insurance companies?


from what I've been reading (and assuming I understand SCOTUS properly) that is essentially impossible under the terms of ACA. At worst, the IRS docks your tax refund at the end of the year. that's all that happens.
 
2012-06-28 11:30:36 AM  

Parmenius: Rofl from Scotusblog:
By the way, the opinions collectively are a monster. The Chief's opinion is 59 pages, Justice Ginsburg's opinion is 61 pages, the four dissenters are 65 pages, followed by a short two-pager from Justice Thomas. You do the math.

LOLThomas


Justice Thomas: "Yeah, whatever Alito said. That sounds good."

Most. useless. SC Judge. ever.
 
2012-06-28 11:30:38 AM  

Sid_the_sadist: I'm going to quit my job and go on welfare now. fark you guys, you pay for my shiat from now on. Including my healthcare.


Hey, give it a try. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-06-28 11:30:41 AM  
I see the talking points have been issued...

msnbcmedia.msn.com
 
2012-06-28 11:30:44 AM  
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right," - Sen. Rand Paul

Simply stunning.
 
2012-06-28 11:30:47 AM  

Thrag: That was unexpected. Equally unexpected is the one big health care stock in my portfolio is up 9% on the news.


Mandatory customers would seem to be a plus. Makes you wonder why Thomas who has been paid off by the insurance lobby would have voted against it.
 
2012-06-28 11:30:51 AM  
Frankly we should just start calling this Federal Romneycare, which thankfully was upheld.
Roberts though,wow!
 
2012-06-28 11:30:55 AM  
So when your company sees it cheaper to pay the fine and not offer you that HC package, will you still be dancing in the streets?
 
2012-06-28 11:30:57 AM  
So with the Court making its decision, then the debate is over, right? Process served, and now we can get back to issues that are important?
 
2012-06-28 11:31:11 AM  

Thrag: That was unexpected. Equally unexpected is the one big health care stock in my portfolio is up 9% on the news.


.
.
Expect it to more than double or triple in the coming years.
 
2012-06-28 11:31:11 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: My only question about the Freepers is: if conservatives start a civil war, will their health insurance cover assault rifle wounds?


I doubt a mass formation of "hover rounds" would be all the dangerous. Although all the EMTs required to keep them alive from exertion might be a slight burden to city governments' budgets.
 
2012-06-28 11:31:19 AM  

Thunderpipes: RolandGunner: Well, in the long run it's the best possible outcome if the law was going to be upheld. By changing the mandate penalty to a tax and, ruling out the commerce clause justification, the bill is upheld without issuing a blanket authorization for the federal government to force the purchase of goods and services.

But it just did. If Obama wants you to do something, you do it, or the feds tax you. That is force. Just wait until Pubs in the states start pushing something you don't like and enforce it with a tax..... Will you like it then?


The conservatives here in Canada once passed the GST. Their party was so thoroughly decimated due to that and a constitutional blunder they split and were effectively destroyed for a decade.

Raising taxes, especially in this day and age, is equivalent to launching a nuke at your voter support, even when it's the right thing to do. There is no penalty or sanction anybody can impose on a political party that is more damaging than the fallout of actually raising taxes.
 
2012-06-28 11:31:19 AM  

optimistic_cynic: The_Sponge: Remember when Obama promised that he wouldn't raise your taxes if you made less than $250K per year?

If you have health insurance they won't be raised.


Yup. This talking point is dumb for anyone who is exempted due to low income or anyone who has health insurance through their work.

My taxes aren't going up. He didn't lie to me.

And anyone who didn't know that the mandate was essentially a tax wrapped in another name was probably going to vote Romney anyway.
 
2012-06-28 11:31:26 AM  

The_Sponge: Remember when Obama promised that he wouldn't raise your taxes if you made less than $250K per year?


Let the spinning commence!
 
2012-06-28 11:31:26 AM  

keylock71: I see the talking points have been issued...

[msnbcmedia.msn.com image 474x268]


The talking point is that Obama plays football? Weird.
 
2012-06-28 11:31:52 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I wonder who will be the first poor soul to be thrown in jail for choosing to feed themselves instead of feeding the insurance companies?


You do realize that you're exempt from the mandate if a silver plan would cost more than 8% of your gross income, right?
 
2012-06-28 11:31:57 AM  

Weaver95: bongmiester: So does this mean that Rush Limbaugh is finally moving to Costa Rica?

I think he might blow out a heart valve today.



I see a flaw there...
 
2012-06-28 11:31:57 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Dimensio: Please explain how, exactly, my taxes will be increased.

If you do not buy insurance you will be taxed.


Well that means most of the rich gets taxed I guess.

Failin' to see a problem with that.
 
2012-06-28 11:32:00 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: They already use my taxes to fight wars I don't agree with, and to give bailouts to failing companies. How about taxes actually being used for something useful once?



How about Obama keeping his promise that if you're in the middle class, your taxes will not go up during his administration?
 
2012-06-28 11:32:08 AM  

PunGent: vernonFL: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the things that people don't like about Obamacare is that they'll be required to buy health insurance that they feel they don't need as they are in generally good health?

That is the whole issue. Say you're 25 and you say, "I'm young and healthy, I don't need insurance." So you don't buy any. Then, you get cancer and you try to get insurance, nobody will insure you because you have cancer.

One of my problems with Romneycare is that the young healthy 25 year olds can't just buy a bare-bones catastrophic coverage plan with a high deductible, which WOULD cover them for the long-shot cancer/car crash scenarios...they have to get comprehensive coverage. I guess the idea is to make the pool of insureds big enough.

Not sure if those type of policies would "count" under Obamacare.


They do not. High deductible plans like that are illegal under the ACA. They will need to be replaced. This will further burden companies that employ kids fresh out of college and the kids themselves. Sure, they can stay on their parent's plan till 26 (and then parents pay more) but then they are screwed. They need a very high cost, low deductible plan or they get taxed.
 
2012-06-28 11:32:10 AM  

ShadowLAnCeR: I KNOW WHAT WILL SOLVE THIS! A RIOT!

[thenightbirdcalls.files.wordpress.com image 504x323]

\its caps lock day.


Just because we have "Canadian" healthcare doesn't mean we have to act like them.
 
2012-06-28 11:32:10 AM  
I predict sales of fainting couches are currently going through the roof!

i1151.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-28 11:32:14 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Three things:

1) Can we finally put to rest the notion that the Supreme Court was rigged for Republican initiatives? It's tiresome, and in reality the butthurt that usually comes from SCOTUS decisions is because it's your particular ox that's being gored, not because they're ideologically fixed and conspiring to fark Democratic initiatives.


What is the point of point up putting up straw men if you can't knock them down?


2) The Congress could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by simply calling it what it is, a tax. It was always a tax, and calling it something else was always a big charade. We need to get over this tax-averse attitude we have in this country if we wish to maintain any semblance of the standard of living we currently have. We can't continue to live off of other peoples' largesse for much longer.

Sure we can. Deficit? what's that?

3) Congratulations to Barack Obama on his reelection. This essentially sealed the deal, the rest is just pro forma screaming.

You honestly think any republican had a shot? Seriously? Short of Obama murdering a bag full kittens...with a bag full of puppies on national TV...it was a done deal in 2008.


And, there likely won't be much of a fight in 2016.

If obamacare tanks the economy (which could happen in 2014 when all the obamacare stuff really kicks in), 2016 goes to the republicans...
If obamacare gets million of people healthcare and only marginally affects the economy (or not at all..or the economy goes up)...democrats win. (becuase the ads won't say..."we raised everyone taxes on everyone to get healthcare for 5% of the country"....they will simply be "we ushered in a new era in healthcare!!!") Vote _____ in 2016.
 
2012-06-28 11:32:20 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I wonder who will be the first poor soul to be thrown in jail for choosing to feed themselves instead of feeding the insurance companies?


Yeah, that won't happen, unless you've done a lot more nefarious things with your taxes.

The courts shot down the expansion of Medicaid for the poor. Here in MD one does not qualify for assistance if they have any equity in things like their home, car, 401(k). So now if you loose your job you will be forced to decide between either food or jail if I'm reading this decision correctly.

No, they didn't. They shot down the ability for the feds to yank all Medicaid funding if a state opts out of the Medicaid expansion.
 
2012-06-28 11:32:25 AM  

The_Sponge: Remember when Obama promised that he wouldn't raise your taxes if you made less than $250K per year?


Oh well I guess he won't have your support now. Poor guy.
 
Displayed 50 of 3337 comments

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report