Grouse

I think 30% of the people are stupid.

I think it's safe to say it will work towards the Conservative's favor during the campaign and will be repealed if the electorate is smart enough to give GOP control of both houses of Congress.

LOL

For one thing, by reclassifying the individual mandate as a tax, Roberts made it much easier for a Republican Congress to repeal it without having to worry about a Senate filibuster. Tax matters can be passed via reconciliation with a simple majority of 51 votes, so Republicans no longer have to worry about finding 60 voters to end debate. That’s huge. It still requires the Republicans to keep the House, take the Senate and elect Mitt Romney president – but that’s still far more doable than finding 60 Senate votes to get rid of Obamacare. Indeed, since Obamacare lacks severability clauses, I see no reason the entire bill couldn’t be repealed via reconciliation. Elect a Republican House, Senate and president in 2012 and Obamacare is 51 and done. By Herman Cain July 2, 2011

The point of the article is that the Congress has the power to tax you for anything it deems taxable. Roberts rightfully found that is what they did and it is Constitutional. But he also voided any sense Congress can impose any control over all things via the Commerce Clause. That is a significant legal precedent by the SCOTUS and puts a stop to decades of legal abuse under that premise. I don't want Obamacare on the books, but I understand the only way to get it off is to elect government officials that actually represent the people and freedom. That is what Roberts wanted this country to understand and that is why he ruled the way he did, which is the only legal way the SCOTUS could've ruled. Roberts simply points out the government is not your friend and it has powers many in this land doesn't think it does, or feel it would never exercise. Wrong! If you don't see it as an eye opener to the fact the government can impose it's will on you by force at anytime, as long as the people we elected choose to do so, you don't understand the ruling and how it may be the best thing that ever happened to Conservatives in the history of this country. What America needs to learn from this is, our government is a big threat and you'd better be careful who you vote for.

I strongly disagree. Here's the answer to questions about why Roberts did what he did. He did the right thing. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_chief_justice_done_good.html#ixzz1zBvCEfVQ

How's that? I don't believe in NY it is illegal to teach gun safety to a child under 12.

From Roberts himself!! The chief justice, while he may take heat from his conservative peers for the ruling, said the decision on the wisdom of the law will ultimately be left to the voters. "We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies," he wrote. "That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders." Roberts went on to say the court's role is to interpret the law, not ma...ke policy judgments which is for lawmakers "who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Now lets see if this wakes up Americans or not. If the government can tell you that you have to have insurance what else can they cram up your arse!!

I don't want to see the speech. His face makes me sick. I just want him gone!

Congratulations!

Here's the best question to ask about Obamacare.....How come all the elected officials who voted this into law also exempted themselves and their families from being forced onto it?? That tells you all you need to know.

Our current system is broken, but ObamaCare is like curing a headache by putting a bullet through your head. There are plenty of alternatives to fix our healthcare problems, but none give the government as much control, which is their main objective, and none allow special interests to make as much money, which is why they donated so much to Obama and the Democrats. Ask yourself this, Why did things work fine decades ago in the 50's and 60's, but they don't work now?" Answer: Government interference, lawyers and corporate greed. Think ObamaCare will reduce the influence of any of those things?

Employers already pay way more than $3000 per year for their employees health coverage. Not knowing that makes me understand why you think they won't drop the coverage and pay the fine. The fine will also vary based on the size of the company and their annual sales. Every example I've seen shows every business would be better off paying the fine. Think about it, the government gets single payer healthcare which gives them complete control of all American healthcare and businesses are forced to pay for it. Slick huh? And remember, the SCOTUS declared it is a TAX, and we all know taxes always go up. Hold onto your hats Comrades!

This society is doomed. Wait until you see what Obamacare will cost this country and how much taxes will increase to pay for it. Employers are already starting to think about dropping their private health plans and paying the fine for not having one because it will be cheaper not to.

Best value for the price by far!

I hate corrupt politicians more than I dislike unions. But I can do something about the elected crooks. I can vote against them. All I can do about unions is show others what is corrupt about them. A so, you get what you see here in this thread. They work for their own members like the mob takes care of it's members. They protect their own to the detriment, and expense of the rest of the society. The mob is organized crime, the unions are legalized extortion.

BushWhack, I also believe the politicians are guilty. I never said they weren't. But the money and demand for these laws comes from Unions. So they are both equally responsible for stealing taxpayer funds. Why is it no one goes to jail for this? Because the law is also designed for this type of corruption to go on in a way that is legal! Politicians dance to the tune of political contributions. They want to get re-elected. The Unions want work that pays high wages. They work hand in hand with politicians to make it a symbiotic relationship. They are both equally responsible for prevailing wage laws that cost taxpayers big time.

And like the article says ADK, the government isn't going to stop spending money when the tax revenues drop, they will raise taxes on the people still here, THE MIDDLE CLASS! It's a death spiral that history has proven is a very bad idea for a free country.

If this info, which comes directly from the IRS isn't enough to show you why it's a dumb idea, you are too stubborn to ever understand why it's not going to make things better. It's going to make things much worse. If you do the math, it's obvious. http://actionamerica.org/taxecon/ticktick.shtml

Guns are a lot like women in one respect though.........If you keep one around long enough, you are surely gonna want to shoot it.

LOL! I'll try anything once, but if I don't like it, I won't try it again. Single again for nearly 24 years now. Have three grown offspring that are all on their own now. Two daughters @ 28 & 25 and a son @ 23 years old. The possiblities for me are endless again. I love the smell of different perfume in the morning. Smells like FREEDOM!

Larry, I understand your position, but public sector unions are a whole different kettle of fish from private sector unions. In your case one needs to know all the details about your compensation package to understand your position. What is the starting salary for new FF's? What benefits do you guys get? How many years till a FF can retire? What % of salary and benefits do you get for the rest of your life? Do you get Life Insurance and Death benefits? Etc., etc. These other areas can often times be increased annually in lieu of a raise. Has that been the case for you? All of these things, which are part of your compensation package, have a cost to the taxpayers. Most of those things are not part of private sector compensation and they never get a pension. Just not getting an annual raise doesn't mean public sector employees are not well compensated.

Based on your posts in this thread, I think you have stated your opinion quite clearly. I have never met a man who defended unions as much as you have in your posts on this thread, who wasn't a union member. I'b be very suprised if you weren't a member, or part of a union member family, by your vigorous defense of them. My reference to objectiveness was with respect to labor and prevailing wage, not about you personally. If you would care to give details of your opinion on the issue, I will try to sway your opinion as best I can. But without specifc points to debate, there is an awful lot of information open to discussion.

BushWhack, The answer to your original question is complicated and lenghty in explanation. I decided not to go into details to explain all of it because I felt the effort would be unappreciated. There appears to be no chance of swaying your opinion with facts anyway. One of the reasons pro union people avoid talk with non union folks is, they hold very strong opinions about unions that stem from self preservation. Non union folks are more objective about the realities of the issue because they have nothing to lose by pointing out the truth. In a lot of cases, like the one in this thread, they have actually got the public's best interest in mind.

People also might soon begin to think she has now become one of the top 1% of the income earners in America and add her to their class warfare list as one of the enemy. Obama will now want to tax the life out of her donations and say she should pay her "fair share". The more cash she receives, the lower her support from other people will go. This poor lady is caught up in a scenario she could never have seen coming. I don't think she has the skill to handle it. I just hope she gets in touch with an HONEST financial advisor, rather than a vulture, to show her how to protect herself from financial, as well as psychological, ruin.