All Comments on 'The Supreme Court Phony Farce Predicted Rulings'

I take it you like the health care bill. You know, there are a whole lot of other things that government could do for us. They could require us to eat healthy.

They could require us all to buy 3 servings of fish each week and make us prove it.

They could require each family to buy bicycles for each member of the family. It's good exercise and healthy.

You know, on reflection, just requiring us to buy fish is not enough. They should make a list of all the healthy food we need to buy. Then they could issue us cards that have our id on them. We could swipe them at supermarkets instantaneously proving to government computers that we've bought our weekly dose of healthy foods. And we'd eat them too. After all, it would be too expensive not too. It's for our own good.

Wait, I'm just getting started. Think about the environment! The government could require us to buy all electric vehicles, say once every 8 years per person. Since a lot of people can't afford to own vehicles they don't drive, the number of gas vehicles on the road would decline dramatically. We wouldn't need to import near as much oil.

You know, requiring us to buy health insurance is a good idea. I think, really, that it's just as good an idea as those I've presented. I'm not seeing a downside here. We would be living healthier more fulfilling lives. It's obviously true that government experts do know better than us how to spend our money.

Up till now, it's just been our tax money. Just think. Expanding it to include our disposable income as well would lead to incredible benefits. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that a panel of Ph.D's hired by our highest elected officials couldn't do a better job of making consumer choices than our poor uneducated selves would. After all, requiring us to buy "good things" would mean we'd have less money to spend on destructive things.

I think I'm on to something here. And it wouldn't be unconstitutional at all. The commerce clause covers everything. Really, stopping at requiring us to buy health insurance is just plain silly. There is so much more our government could require us to buy. Good things. Healthy things. Things that would elevate our lives, instead of leaving us mired in the muck like those evil Republicans want.

BEFORE IT CAN GET BETTER. TK U MLJ LV NV

Johnny1M - 40 million without healthcare and struggling every day. Education in the gutters and getting worse because of republican shortsidness.

Good healthcare and education only for the rich! That's your mantra.

One glaring one is the suggestion that Congress has some kind of oversight of the Supreme Court. They do not. Of course they can write a law to try and circumvent, that might work. The Supreme Court just might then overturn any new law.

The other is the suggestion that people are without health care. They are not. What they are without is health care INSURANCE which is an entirely different thing.

Any person needing care can go to any hospital and get it, this is the LAW. Insured or not. Yes, this causes problems, primarily financial, and of course incidents such as dumping poor patients, poor standard of care, and attempts by Medical facilities to break that law. A private Doctor may not take such a patient, but the emergency room must.

Still, it IS the law. This increases costs, plugs up the system, thus the current effort to spread the costs. Is that "constitutional" as written?

Beats me, I don't think so but I don't get to decide.

Then we see comments regarding "evil" with whichever political party one dislikes attached. The truth there is very close to 100% of all elected officials have just one actual goal.

Reelection. Plus making sure they get theirs first. The "political party" they are associated with is just a team they hope will "win."

Winning means POWER.

Thus the fight goes on, some will win and some will lose, but nothing ever really changes.

Just MHO.

MGM

This political diatribe is neither literature nor erotic.

Post it somewhere else.

how I feel about universal covereage by my comments but how we get there matters.

1) The constitution gives the government "enumerated powers" and if they are not listed it isn't allowed to have that power. These include the power to tax and the power regulate borders. Nothing about healthcare or being able to force you to buy things from that guy ovrr there.

2) The US govt does not force you to buy a driver's license, a license plate, or car insurance. First of all, states govern those areas. (A state can also force you to buy healthcare, as Massachusetts does.) Second, millions of people in the US never purchase a car, license, or insurance. Most of the opt-outs live in large cities with excellent public transport. Third, if I own a farm and use a truck to work on that farm i don't need a license, plates or insurance if it never leaves my property.

3) The US govt doesn't force me to get inoculated. First of all, it's again a state concern. Second, you can opt out (including for religious reasons) and thousands do every year.

IN general it's important to note state vs. fed powers. The assumtion is that it is easier to interact with local officials andbyou can always move if your state govt becomes wacky (looking at you, California).

4) You do not pay fees for national public parks if you do not use them. Paying into the general fund is very different, and may or may not be used for parks.

5) The EPA doesn't collectvfees of any kind. They recommend and enforce regulations and charge fines when you act illegally. They cannot and do not force you to act legally. Big difference.

BTW, at least 50% of US citizens don't pay taxes, so argument becomes a rabbit hole.

6) IMO the corruption was in the Wickard decsion which held that growing, harvesting, and consuming wheat in your own backyard is somehow interstate commerce. INTERSTATE commerce! Even so, the USvgovt was trying to regulate activity.

7) The healthcare law wants to force activity in order to then regulate you. The apellate court asked the US counsel if there was any activity the government couldn't compel and was met with silence. So could they ban birth control because they need more people paying taxes and social security? Can they force you to buy a new car every year tohelp the economy? According to this, there is no legal reason they can't. Doesn't that disturb you?

8) The govt never makes anything cheaper, they simply refuse to pay full price. And govt programs like medicaid are already at the break even point. Doctors lose money every time they see a medicaid patient. Your doctor visit costs more than $40 (that didn't even cover the cost of the nurse and receptionist in the office.) Just because you aren't paying it doesn't mean no one is. and in at least one western state the US govt threatened to jail doctors if they refused to take new medicaid patients because of the cost. Forced unpaid labor is ok as long as it's someone else, right?

The tragedy is that there are legal and constitutional ways to do this but it requires work and convincing people. Our politicians are too corrupt and lazy to do this the right way. You don't need to declare me a slave of the government to get this done. Forget swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, this is hitting a fly with a molotov cocktail and assuring me the damage to the house is ok as long as the fly is dead.

So wrong, on so many points. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Similarly, with park services. The Constitution does not, anywhere, authorize the government to require the citizen to be forced to purchase ANYTHING. Paying taxes, although in a overly convulted system, is a logical necessity. The issue there is that getting waste and corruption out of THAT system is what is needed. And the obvious solution is called "smaller government".

If you really like the idea of "ObamaCare", just look at the health care system in Massachusetts (average fifty days to get in to see a primary care physician), or the overall results of medical care in Canada or in Britain.

This posting looks more like "talking points" from some Liberal source, than it looks like carefully considered logic.

Oh, and by the way: The Supreme Court is pretty much evenly divided. Far too many 5-4 decisions to paint it as being severely right-wing.

There are two kinds of idiots in this world -- Savant and Village. You are not a savant.

You imply -- or at least I infer -- that the US should adopt certain governmental practices that exist in many other countries. Why? If those services are available in other countries, let those who want them emigrate to those countries. Many people around the world emigrate to the US because we offer freedom and opportunity. If that is not what you are looking for, there are many other fine countries around the world that provide alternatives. Select one and emigrate. In fact, your use of English, in sentence construction and word choice, indicates that you are likely not American by birth. If my assumption is correct, if you're in America, why? If you're not, why do you care? If you are an American immigrant, you've emigrated once, why not emigrate again to a country more in line with your values and expectations.

Your arguments and examples are sophomoric, and your apparent study of the laws of the US and of its 50 states does not quite rise to the level of cursory. One of the greatest immigrants to the US -- Albert Einstein -- once said that "the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Thank you for reinforcing his observation.

In closing, this site is about people who want to jerk off, not jerk-offs masquerading as people. Write porn, improve your written American-English language skills if you want to appeal to an American audience or just go away.

For one who claims to be a PhD, you certainly didn't bother doing the necessary research to scribble this ignorant polemic.

Most of the acts that you claim 'the U.S.' forces one to do, i.e. insurance for driving, inoculations for children — are not and have never been the responsibility of the Federal government. These are done by the various states.

The ability to levy an income tax required an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

One could go on and on, but the underlying issue is: you don't seem to have a clue about how our government works.

The result is an essay that can only be described as blather, and which would get a Freshman in college an "F".

The author is a communist. The next to the last sentence is from the manifesto. Yes, they know whats good for us...total control of our lives.

The massive ignorance and demagoguery in this fallacious post of lies is classic of liberalism/Progressivism.

Most of the things the federal government engage in today are outside the authorities delineated by the Constitution.

Teddy Roosevelt was on of the early Progressives in the USA and a successor of his Woodrow Wilson, made even more disastrous inroads toward instituting communism in America. The income tax via Amendment XVI was perhaps his greatest step in that direction and the most disastrous.

As with everything Progressives advocate, this catastrophe was sold with lies.

FDR following in Wilson's footsteps and created even more disastrous unconstitutional institutions like Social Security.

To prove the lie of social security and the lying thieves who advocate for it, had the money I 'paid' into Social Security [at gunpoint] been invested in a NYSE index fund, by 2001 I would have had an accumulated wealth of between $1M & $2M dollars.

Instead, fortunate soul that I am, instead of having a perhaps $2M nest egg, I have the politician's promise that he will continue to steal from the current generation to fulfill a broken promise to me.

Also, should I die before I begin collecting Social Security, that money is pissed away down the rat hole of government socialism/communism senseless spending.

Medicare was Lyndon Johnson's next big step toward Communism in America as part of the welfare state.

The Founding Fathers understood that charity is no function of government, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, so stated explicitly. Like other honest men, he understood that charity is voluntary and personal.

Being a man of principle, like the rest of the Founding Fathers, he understood that government 'charity' was nothing more the legalized theft which is what the anti-American thug who posted this piece of trash represents.

I'd be wiling to bet he is a voter for Chairman MaObama who is following pretty closely the plan of FDR only a bit more corrupt and a bit more arrogantly open about the corruption and dishonesty in practice.

Remember, Chairman MaObama said on he campaign trail, to understand who he is, look at the people with whom he surrounds himself and then once in office proceeds to recruit the most virulently anti-American thugs he can find. A couple of sterling examples were Van Jones, a self-proclaimmed communist and Anita Dunn whose favorite political idols were Chairman Mao [Mao Tse Tung, communist China's first bloody dictator] and Mother Teresa.

My question for the day is: what is the common thread between Mao and Mother Teresa?

The question of Communist or Fool is probably not truly a fair question since to be the former necessitates being the latter.

And lies are the foundation of everything for which they stand.

It's the mindless, lying assholes like this who are the problem with America today.

Virtually every problem we suffer in America today is the result of implementing communism to a greater and greater degree.

At what point would the founding fathers give the call to arms again? As Unclebill says it may have been in the thirties and forties. The states are becoming divided again. Half of the counties in California wanted to succeed from the state a couple of months ago. It is bullshit, but they made a statement. Over half of the states are involved in lawsuits over obamacare. A few are involved in lawsuits over immigration. At what point do the states say fuck it again and go for themselves? I am not advocating the overthrow of the government. I am just asking the question. Notice the disclaimer?

When the people are afraid of the government there is tyranny. When the government is afraid of the people there is freedom. Thomas Jefferson

I owned a business. A small business. I paid a fixed amount per worker for health insurance. They were free to find a provider and they did. When I hired a young guy( he was 22) he told me that he didn't want the insurance. It would have ended up costing him about a thousand dollars a year(90 a month).

He had no assets to speak of and was saving for a house. He was young, healthy and had an accident policy. He figured his savings could bail him out if he was unlucky and he could pay the rest to the doctor in monthly payments. If he was really unlucky(like some strange leukemia or something), he figured he wouldn't live through it. He preferred to save an extra thousand a year. You may not agree with his choice, but it was his choice.

Under Obamacare he would not have this choice. It would cost a lot more and I would have had to lower his salary to offset his insurance. Like I said, it was a small business with a half dozen employees. If the insurance costs were too high, I'd just make do with one less employee. I sold my business, but it's not like I was making millions a year. A lot of people(like the Ph.D who wrote this) think only in terms of businesses with hundreds of employees. A lot of small businesses are sub chapter S and make 60 to 80 thousand a year. When healthcare starts taking money out of that, the owners really hurt.

"A lot of people(like the PhD.D who wrote this) think only in terms of businesses with hundreds of employees."

People like the purported PhD who wrote the original drivel don't think. If they did or if they even had a passable knowledge of history would KNOW that collectivism is destructive.

Yet, despite the clear and unequivocal lessons of history from Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union to Communist China to the debacle of today's European economies exemplified in Greece, Italy, Portugal, et al, fools like this continue to advocate for the destruction of their fellow man through tyrannical totalitarian government.

That's why they cheer for Chairman MaObama in his quest to destroy America economically and in every other way. These are people who despise freedom except for themselves.

To paraphrase an old adage, "You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think."

Our esteemed PhD epitomizes this concept.

Fundamentally, he ascribes to the liberal or Progressive mentality which is dishonest and utterly unprincipled. It is an ideology that advocates theft, tyranny and slavery: it is nihilistic. It is an ideology that relies on mob violence to advance its agenda [look at the Occupy anything and everything thugs over running American cities today].

Read Ann Coulter's Demonic for an excellent analysis of the Democrat/liberal mob's history.

Some time back, I posted on the General board that liberalism is a mental disorder. As expected, liberals did not react well to that but they typically are not receptive of truth. Since then I have learned more about liberalism/Progressivism.

I was rather surprised at the audacity of the liberal community when during the Clinton administration they made such a public point of openly declaring liberalism's utter and contemptible dishonesty.

In the wake of the immense publicity surrounding Bill Clinton's abominable behavior, liberals launched into a protracted and public debate over the importance of character in a leader.

After much posturing and pomposity, the liberal verdict was that in a leader [at least of the liberal variety], character was not important.

The tacit implication in that declaration literally astounded me. My immediate thought was, what is a man's character if not the manifestation in words and actions reflecting his most closely and deeply held principles. And to declare that character is unimportant, i.e., irrelevant, is tantamount to declaring that principles are irrelevant.

Yet, if you observe liberal behavior over any period of time, this becomes an unmistakable and undeniable fact of reality. It is precisely because they eschew principles that they can make statements that are in direct conflict with reality and in many cases with statements they have previously made or will make in the future.

To a liberal/Progressive/collectivist, truth is whatever advances their agenda at the moment.

Unk Bill seems to have forgotten who made the mess in the USA. Bush was the one who helped mess up the USA with unfettered corporate bosses going gangbusters to make money for themselves to everybodies cost..

Australia where I live has private and goverment health care. if you can afford it you must take out private or be taxed extra. If you are unable to pay then GP cost is met by the government, also if you are retired. Hospital treatment is availabe at private hospitals or state run. The state run hospitals often have a medical school attached so they are state of the art and not charity places. We also have specialist hospitals for returned and retired service personel, free.

Sweden has a magnifcent social service, health, education and retirement and they seem to be doing very well. The problems with the southern Euopean countries is that they followed the USA in borrowing and loans for housing that fell in value leaving then with massive state and private debt. Also in some of these countries tax avoidance is an art form practiced by many, most of whom should pay some tax.

You are so worried about some of your precious money being used to treat someone else' s sickness that you haven't looked beyond the end of your nose. You already pay for the poor peoples medical problems. The joke is on you look at what you pay for hospitalization. Why do you think it is so high? The hospitals don't eat the cost of poor peoples care they just raise their rates to those of us who have insurance. The insurance company s just love it because they average out the costs of doing business and tack on their 20% to what they charge us and cry all the way to the bank. If everybody had insurance your cost for health care would drop. I just hate people who think they are smarter than the rest of us and can't do the math!

it has no basis in reality. <p>

these Cons and Tea Partyers are people, remember, who argue the 1700s (the real Tea Party era) were better than the 21st century in terms of politics, morality, ethics, civil rights, penal reforms, governance, education, scientific pursuit and knowledge, etc. if taught how to read and think decently, most kids by middle school know that such nonsense is not true. <p>

so, in reality, these Cons and Tea Partyers who are always screaming about small, fiscally responsible government?, they are just mindless, knuckle dragging idiots with average IQs around 85 or so. NEVER existed and never will. <p>

people like "I Left the Plantation Long Ago" Cain and associated supreme court justice Thomas are just retarded Black men who think they are free and are having all kinds of rights and responsibilities, when, in reality, they are merely allowed to be "foreman" by their plantation owners.

well researched points in the comments.

Nothing I didn't expect from the OP, obviously a not-so-well-read Marxist. I wonder how faded his Che' shirt is. I would offer one correction: PhD should be PhDuh.

Oh, and...

RACIST11!!!eleventy!!

and it's all BusHitler McChimpy's fault since Dear Leader can't be held responsible for anything. I keep waiting for the sky to open and the oceans to recede and my gas tank to magically fill with unicorn farts and skittle flavored rainbows and my mortgage to be paid every month by a little fairy wearing a tiara that blinks "hope n change" in wind powered LEDs.

2012 can't come fast enough, and Kagan needs to recuse herself but we all know she won't.

What in, basket weaving? Here it is 2015 already and the Right Wing STILL has not succeeded in repealing ADA (or, as you said, what many people call "Obama-care").

I have on several occasions taken injured family members to emergency rooms all around Austin, TX, and have not ever tripped over, or indeed ever seen, throngs of indigents clogging the halls.

The Democrats want everyone dependent on Government handouts, the Republicans want everyone under the thumbs of the big corporations, but cannot even agree among themselves, all they ever do is argue about who is more "conservative" or further to the right of center, with the "TEA party" by far the most radical right wing. Consider this: a bird with two right wings can't fly...

The election next year is shaping up to be a veritable circus, complete with clowns. I'm especially interested in seeing "Governor Goodhair" (P. Rick) square off against Ted Cruz in the primary, their debate promises to be very entertaining.