My apologies, the decision is now available. I could not find it at the time of my previous posts.
Helpful Links
Cases leading up to the Supreme Court decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx
Supreme Court Ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Cato Commentary
Of course, Wheylous. As I see it, that’s the real point of all this. I don’t think you should be surprised.
My apologies, the decision is now available. I could not find it at the time of my previous posts.
Uh. No.
The part which the court is invoking is the so-called “Taxing and Spending Clause” which states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
More bullshit from an ignoramus who has no idea what he’s talking about.
Gee. That’s funny. Because I started reading it from the government link provided to me on a major news website at least 20 minutes ago.
Will your bullshit never end?
Autolykos, get in here so I don’t have to–
Autolykos has already responded
Good job.
The “General Welfare” clause is part of the “Taxing and Spending” clause. The are calling it a tax justified under this clause which is used (and justified) because its spent on the “general welfare.”
I apologized in an above post. The news app I have mt not have updated as quickly as your sources did; I’m on my phone. But as soon as it updated and then saw it said it was posted more than a half hour earlier, I immediately posted my apologies. You would do well to simmer down a bit.
JJ is just projecting his anger at the SCOTUS onto you.
I, too, am displeased with the decision. I just feel like, generally, we are all on the same side and there is little reason to be rude. I greatly respect JJ. He is one of the most helpful, knowledgable, and well-versed posters here that I have so far observed. But I stand by my assertion that the “General Welfare” clause is invoked because it is part of the “Taxing and Spending” clause. I’m sorry if I offended anyone, and for having a slow, poor Internet connection on my phone along with a shitty news app. Time to find a new one I suppose.
I find it amazing that this ‘ruling’ by the ‘supreme’ ‘court’ would be a surprise to anyone. Why would govt lawyers in black dresses, including the ‘conservative’ roberts - - - try to rule us any differently ? What a circus.
This was never about ‘healthcare’ but about govt power/control over the American people. Its about bankrupting the middle class & making them dependent on the fascist big corp insider/big govt state. Its also about their eugenics agenda.
Yeah, I know this sounds like a whacky rant. I would have thought so too a few years ago until researching these topics for myself.
Hmmm – When will there be a law requiring all Americans to buy GM cars ? Or how long will it be till they make a law requiring all American citizens to wear electronic shock collars around their necks and that be ruled ‘constitutional’.
Of course fools willl hope Romney will save them somehow. Theyre too stupid to see that RomneyCare was the basis of ObamaCare.
A people get the govt they deserve. A nation of cowards and fools deserve to be slaves. Their innocent children don’t - but their parents have sold them into slavery.
With all due respect, I don’t think I deserve any government.
I’m with you, my friend. That genius Murray Rothbard was right. Took me many years to get that through my thick head.
This discussion tells me most everything I needed to know about the Volokh Conspiracy. Seems like most of the conservatives are just fine with the ruling, or double-legalspeak it into such twisted fashion that it ends up making such rotten sense in the most neutered, lame “I’ve given the fuck up” logic, or justify it with something I already oppose
“well, you get taxed if you are single, but that doesn’t mean Congress forces you to get married!!! THIS RULING IS A-OKAY WITH ME A DOOP A DOOP DOOP DOOP”
I can’t believe that site had a hand in making me more conservative when I read it back during the Bush years in 2002-03. If I read that link today and I still was a confused liberal, I’d still happily be assured of my confused liberalism.
I love this exchange:
A: I guess we have a tax on living!
B: Yeah cause only living people get sick! rolls eyes, rimshot, lololol so clever
C:Yeah, we get taxed for dying, and selling things too. What’s your point?
Yeah, he sure has no point, Mr. C. Everything is just fine. Everything is just going to be fine.
Well in my opinion - ‘liberal’ vs ‘conservative’, ‘right’ vs ‘left’ is just a diversion. A way to focus people’s attention on the irrelevant.
I self identified with the ‘conservative’ team for many years. (I was extremely thick headed & slow on the up take). After deciding to look at everything with fresh eyes & investigate the actua data, I saw that it didn’t matter which member of the Demo-Republicrat criminal gang was in office. Govt got bigger. More wars. And the people get robbed.
I used to worship at the idol image of Ronald Reagan, until I read Murray Rothbards articles pointing out how govt, taxes, and the deficit grew despite all the pretty rhetoric by the actor-in-chief. (I also corresponded with a man who knew Reagan personally going back for years.. Ronnie wasn’t the image projected.) - - - All this is true of the national politicians in the Dem branch of the DemoRepublicrat gang also.
here’s a conversation I’ve just had with my liberal-leaning friend on this:
Friend’s logic: This is a good decision. Imagine somebody with no insurance going to the emergency room. The insurance companies raise prices for everyone in order to take care of this guy. It’s not fair for everybody else! What Obama wants is for the insurance companies to stop screwing everybody and push everyone to have insurance so the prices drop!
“What if he’s right?” /Devil’s Advocate.
He isn’t, so why bother?
Wouldnt that mean that increasing demand didn’t reduce supply? That is, wouldn’t it refute the law of supply and demand?
That would probably be unlikely, though. Instead, the government can enact more inflation, but then these “reduced prices” would merely be temporary, like a reverse bubble. Maybe, although I am not sure.
Requiring nearly everyone to purchase health insurance by law will (ceteris paribus) raise the demand for the goods and services covered by health insurance. Assuming the supply doesn’t change, then the prices of these goods and services will rise.
Health care costs have gone up stupendously since govt got involved with health care. No surprise. Is there anything govt does that is effective and cost efficient ? In the past, as recently as the 1950s people could paid for heatlh care out-of-pocket. Doctors could afford to give care to those who couldnt afford it; and it was expected that they do so. People were able to keep enough of their own earnings - - though in dollars worth less each year - - to also contribute to charities that would help people.
I think people have to really look at their idea that ‘govt’ and ‘big connected corporate business’ are different. They are one and the same, with the same criminals playing musical chairs from one branch of the gang to the other.
The insurance companies wrote this bill. It forces people to buy their product . . ultimately with the force of a gun pointed at them.
Do a search here on mises.org on ‘health care economics’ and you’ll find much supporting evidence and argument. Your self identified ‘lib’ friends may go limp when presented with this. Many people aren’t particularly skilled or interested in facts or logic (either self identified ‘libs’ or ‘conservatives’).
The moral argument - - - is it right to force people, at the point of a gun, to buy a product ?
Source:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html
"A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe explains the reasoning further. "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax."
I don’t even know where to begin here. I am LIVID.