This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"Most Liberal Supreme Court Since 1960s" Gives Obama Huge Victory With 6-3 Vote In Favor Of Obamacare
The Supreme Court has ruled that people who bought healthcare coverage through federal exchanges as part of Obamacare can keep subsidies that effectively limit the amount low- and middle-income Americans pay for health insurance to 9.5% of their income or less.
- TAX SUBSIDIES UPHELD BY U.S. SUPREME COURT
This is, naturally, a huge win for Obama whose Affordable Care Law has just overcome its last legitimate legal challenge. The outtcome is hardly unexpected (see below on "most liberal Supreme Court since 1960"), but that the final vote was 6-3 is clearly surprising as most pundits were expecting a 5-4 Roberts-led tiebreaker.
As The Hill summarizes, the SCOTUS upheld a key provision of ObamaCare, affirming that 6.4 million people can continue to receive subsidies that allow them to purchase healthcare plans.
The 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts is a huge victory for President Obama.
The case, King v. Burwell, represented the biggest legal threat to ObamaCare since the Supreme Court ruled the law was constitutional three years ago.
The decision puts an abrupt end to the years-long challenge from conservatives, led by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that have also levied a half-dozen other lawsuits against the 5-year-old law.
The challengers argued that the Affordable Care Act only allowed subsidies to be used in marketplaces “established by the state” – which they said excluded those on the federal marketplace.
As noted previously, the reason why the final outcome of today's decision was largely anticipated is thanks to this chart by the NYT showing the "surprising" move leftward of the Justice John Roberts Supreme Court:
The court has issued liberal decisions in 54 percent of the cases in which it had announced decisions as of June 22, according to the Supreme Court Database, using a widely accepted standard developed by political scientists. If that trend holds, the final percentage could rival the highest since the era of the notably liberal court of the 1950s and 1960s led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The closest contenders are the previous term and the one that started in 2004 and ended with the announcement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement.
* * *
The court's leftward movement is modest, and it remains well to the right of where it was in the Warren court years, when the percentage of liberal decisions routinely topped 70 percent. Yet the recent numbers do seem suggestive of a shift.

The chart above shows how the court has voted in every case by term — starting in October, usually ending the following June — since 1946. Decisions considered liberal are blue, and ones considered conservative are red, with darker shades representing more unanimity.
The chart makes clear that the court moved left in the early 1950s, remained there for almost two decades and has generally leaned right for the past 40 years.
More color on today's decision from WSJ:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Obama administration can continue to subsidize health-insurance purchases by lower-income Americans across the country, a decision that preserves a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act.
The ruling marks the second time President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement has survived a near-death experience in the courts, and leaves the law on a firmer footing for the remainder of his time in office.
The court ruled contested language in the 2010 health-care law allows the administration to offer subsidies in the form of tax credits to people in all states, including those who buy health coverage on the federal insurance site HealthCare.gov.
Roughly 6.5 million Americans in around three dozen states stood to lose credits if the Supreme Court had ruled against the administration. The court was deciding whether the tax credits could only go to people in the minority of states running their own online insurance marketplaces, where people compare policies and apply for coverage.
At issue was language in the Affordable Care Act that says insurance subsidies are available for coverage purchased on an insurance-exchange “established by the state.”
The Obama administration argued the entire structure and design of the law made clear its purpose was to extend affordable coverage nationwide.
Challengers who sued the administration—four residents of Virginia—argued the wording of the law authorized insurance subsidies only when an individual buys coverage on a state-run insurance site. That legal question was crucial for the fate of the health-care law because most states didn’t create their own insurance exchanges and chose to rely on the federal marketplace instead.
As usual, the most amusing part of the SCOTUS decision is Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. Here are someof the highlights:
Worst of all for the repute of today’s decision, the Court’s reasoning is largely self-defeating. The Court predicts that making tax credits unavailable in States thatdo not set up their own Exchanges would cause disastrouseconomic consequences there. If that is so, however, wouldn’t one expect States to react by setting up their own Exchanges? And wouldn’t that outcome satisfy two of the Act’s goals rather than just one: enabling the Act’s reformsto work and promoting state involvement in the Act’s implementation? The Court protests that the very existence of a federal fallback shows that Congress expected that some States might fail to set up their own Exchanges. So it does. It does not show, however, that Congress expected the number of recalcitrant States to beparticularly large.
* * *
Faced with overwhelming confirmation that “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means, the Court comes up with argument after feeble argument to support its contrary interpretation. None of its tries comes close to establishing the implausible conclusion that Congress used “by the State” to mean “by the State or not by the State.”
* * *
Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act.That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congresspassed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to losing all Medicaid funding. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. Having transformed twomajor parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established bythe State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.
* * *
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Actwill attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State”means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takesto uphold and assist its favorites.
Full decision below (pdf link):
The market's reaction is selling Biotechs and buying Healthcare ETF...
- 45862 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Cash for votes.
Look at HUM go...up 2.5% on the news.
Hah, so what if their premiums are low, their co-pay will shoot through the roof.
“Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on.”
-Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
And it's gone!
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
Bastiat, Economic Sophisms
I have news for some; premiums are not low and deductibles are very high.
And the profits for the health insurance companies that wrote and paid for Obamacare are stellar...
SCOTUS OBEYS THEIR ZIONIST JEW FEDERAL RESERVE MASTERS......Color me shocked!
0.5% increase per year for the providers; throw the dog a bone.
I am willing to bet the CEOs of the insurance companies get a much better raise, not to mention the increase in the value of the stock options.
These are insurance companies...they are by definition
intermediaries...not medical providers. They don't diagnose or treat
anyone. They make money only by receiving premium payments, investing
these payments, and by minimizing the physician reimbursements they make to the providers that actually provide healthcare.
The insurance companies and their captured regulatory body, CMS,
set the prices paid to doctors, not the providers. The doctors have
essentially zero negotiating power. In fact, the fee schedule attached
to the physician's contracts with the insurance companies is usually
blank. No shit. Just think about the hubris of that for a while. Some
large hospitals may have a little bit of negotiating power, in smaller
markets, but not much.
Could somebody please explain to me what is wrong with providing healthcare to those who can't afford it? Corporations have billions of dollars, and many people are struggling to afford the bare necessities. Can't we just take a little bit of money from those who have it to provide for those who don't?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08NlhjpVFsU
Actually it is a win and loss for Obama and company.
1. They won in that their shenanigans were not exposed for putting the clause in there in the first place to force "red states" to open exchanges or face political back lash from their state residents not getting the tax breaks that make Obamacare "affordable"
2. They lost because now they can not force "red states" to open exchanges of their own and thus take on much of "deficit nuetral" cost burden they were suppsed to bear.
The Supreme Court always has and always will protect the system before it protects the people or the constitution
Time to string up the liberal progressive fossilized irrelevant TURDS! Fukem all
Given all the PROOF that the IRS, NSA......were used to investigate conservative groups, doesn't it stand to reason they were also used to "investigate" (and extort) conservative Supreme Court Justices (and their families/friends/business partners) ?
That would certainly explain the recent turncoats in SCOTUS.
But how many times did the Republicunts vote on full repeal of Obamacare (when the Dems were the majority? Help me out here, how many times, 174 or some such shit?
Fast Fwd. But how many times have the Republicunts voted on full repeal of Obamacare since gaining both the House and Senate majority?
I've got enough rope for 535+ of you motherfuckers.
I am personally certain that forces driving black vehicles of all kinds were brought to bear on Roberts to get him to make the outrageous ruling he has. Either that or the country is totally screwed that they are going to have that POS at the head of the Court for decades. He is not an old guy and could be there forever. In which case I would encourage him to Seppuku himself
Time to string up the liberal progressive fossilized irrelevant TURDS! Fukem all
The problem with that "negative" is that its assuming they care one iota about whether or not it is deficit neutral. Their response to that is but "what, me worry?"
actually, the real losers are the american people who thought that the supreme court was actually a check on government power. This should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that the government will limit itself. That one branch of government will actually work to make the government itself less powerful. That any branch of the government wants its serfs to be more free of it. What a joke. It may seem like it happens occasionally, but that is just window dressing to keep the illusion of seperation of powers alive for the ignorant masses
For just a few dollars a day in additional taxes, SCOTUS has compelled you to provide Bruce Broussard, President and CEO, of Humana with a few more of the neccesities of life, like his very own US Congressman, SCOTUS Justice, and even a POTUS.
How is a CEO supposed to grow revenues in a mature marketplace without a few fascist lawmakers on the take?
PS: Nice makeup dude.
This guy reminds me of The Joker, except with more money and slightly better health care.
Looks like one of those New England fags
He obviously smeared that lipstick sucking on some cylindrical object...
First off, we are issuing debt to pay for this, it does not come from taxes collected. I would also argue that this arrangement to issue debt to fund these things actually hurts the lower classes more than the upper classes. So to argue that we are taking from others to pay for this is ludicrous. If anything, the wealthy are benefitting much more than the lower classes.
Socialism kills the healthy and unhealthy equally.
"Socialism kills the healthy and unhealthy equally."
Right, which is why Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark are such noted disasters, with millions of homeless people standing near every offramp and every major intersection with signs saying "hungry, anything helps" and "God bless." They're also noted for their highly dysfunctional and corrupt political systems run by an ossified oligarchy, hopelessly biased media that blasts mind-warping propaganda 24/7, and the general mental and physical decay of their citizens. Gosh, I sure am glad I don't live in those festering hellholes!
Not an equal comparison. The euro style socialism of those countries will not work in America. Ever. Those countries don't have a permanent underclass of 40 million and counting black people that can't care for themselves and only feed off the system. They also don't have 20 million plus illegal Mexicans streaming across their borders to leech off the system.
They also deport illegal aliens. They also limit their immigration to mostly only allow people that will be a benefit to their society ie. highly skilled.
Population of Denmark - 5 million
Population Norway - 5 million
Population Sweden - 9.5 million
Population of Finland - 5.4 million
Denmark 90% Danish descent
Norway 95% Norwegian
Sweden 19% Immigrants
Finland 89% Finnish
Most of the immigrants to these countries are from other European countries
Population of US - 321 million
demographics - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Demographics_of_the_United_States#/media...
Scotus had to get this out today "Bohemian Grove meeting "due and they need to hop a private jet to get there.
what we thought was true is not ..the light of internet has opened the sewer of NWO reptiles pulling strings
mega corp fascist control..YOU have no rights except to sit down and shut up.
uh-oh
"Sweden admits to racial purification "Forced sterilisation of 'inferior' women unchecked for 40 years"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/sweden-admits-to-racial-purifica...
Sweden has the population of North Carolina Norway, Finland and Denmark have less...........hmmmmmm great comparison.....
You are correct, as Dr Paul illustrates.
We will get comfier Mao suits.
Then why are premiums and deductibles going through the roof if new debt is footing the bill?
Why? Because they can. Who, exactly, is going to stop them from raising both premiums and deductibles to infinity? Certainly not the Executive branch, and now that SCOTUS has weighed in conclusively, not them either. That leaves Congress...and expecting the Parliament of Whores to do anything is absurd on its face.
It's up to the American people, now.
Oh yeah-- "SCOTUSCare"-- that's brilliant.
Haha, just wait till the insurance compaines all offshore and healthcare becomes a matter of trade.
Can't we all just... get along?
Great thinker, Mr. Rodney King.
I'll tell you what's wrong with that, asshat! To give these bottom dwellers FREE health insurance, we screwed 20,000,000 others by cancelling their plans, making them find new doctors, doubling their premium to pay for services they don't need, tremendous co-pay, created a part-time job economy......that enough for you?
..."If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan"
- El Capitan O
Let's not forget that the average family we see their costs decrease by $2500 per year.
The money to pay for the insurance for "struggling" people comes from people who work for a living, the vast majority who are also struggling to make ends meet.
Everyone remember these lies? "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" and "the average american family will see their medical costs decline by $2,500.00 per year".
Wake up and prepare to get "Grubered" many more times in the near future!
Those that downvoted you deserve to catch a bullet. In the back of the head. No open casket funeral services for them.
Stupid lobotomized fucks that downvoted you don't deserve to draw another breath.
Sure we could .... if we were socialists
If we have to "explain" it to you, you wouldn't understand the explanation.
Do you understand human behavior, have you ever truly studied cause and effect of humans and civilizations over the span of recorded history? Our forefather understood this concept and actually spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the ups and downs or pros and cons of human behavior. The USA got have to great start because of low government interference in all things on an individual basis as it was up to the individual to take complete care of him or herself, no free passes and they knew it so they worked to keep it from happening and those that didn't fell by the wayside - the law of nature at its most basic level. Tell me that you have never just given anyone something and they didn't come back for more or complained it wasn't enough, if you try to I will call you a liar. We have more people dependent on others than ever before in our history. Before this country's integrity began to disappear, people would help other people, share what they had, be kind and supportive, although this still does happen today it is the exception instead of the rule. I grew up in Montana, very cold winters and we were raised to NEVER pass by anyone in need (car broke down, fallen in the street, etc) and I have had people from other parts of the US comment on this to me and how incredible it is.... Today, less people stop for people in need for a couple of reasons IMO, it's the government's job and secondly, poor parenting, raising kids to think they are the cat's meow and everyone should be serving them.
BTW - check out the rate of people getting out of that welfare ditch, or such entitlement programs that are funded by the US taxpayer whom reaps no benefits whatsoever from this total waste of resources.
Finally, like it or not, people need incentives and they can work both ways - for the good or for the bad of the person(s). Today we are erring on the side of incenting people to not work, not pay thier debts, and in general, take no responsibility for themselves.
P.S. I significantly support a family who have a serious medical issue which forces someone to have to stay home and care for the person. This is not a tax deduction, this is just old-fashioned help to people who are doing all they can to help themselves while taking great care of someone with a medical issue. And actually, I often wonder if it is against law to help them in such a way in this day and age of big government....
"I significantly support a family who have a serious medical issue which forces someone to have to stay home and care for the person. This is not a tax deduction, this is just old-fashioned help to people who are doing all they can to help themselves while taking great care of someone with a medical issue."
You will be remembered well for this. Most people will not be remembered. My hat is off to you.
Chief Justice John Robert's wife, Jane Roberts, stopped practicing case law in 2003 after her husband was confirmed to the US Court of Appeals. In 2007 she joined a legal search consulting firm (Major, Lindsey and Africa), to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
From HuffPo: "Jane stopped working on legal cases in 2003, when John was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. Instead of aiding clients, she shifted to assisting other lawyers at her firm with career development.
The potential conflicts only increased after her husband was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2005. "She told me she had to leave the firm when John became chief justice, because it just became untenable," said one of Jane's law school classmates, who requested anonymity because her employer has business before the Supreme Court.
In the spring of 2007, Roberts joined a legal recruiting firm, Major Lindsey & Africa, where she is now a partner. "She told me that she loves it," said her classmate."
However, according to their website, Major, Lindsey and Africa have dozens of clients in the heathcare and pharmaceutical industries and according to Jeffrey Lowe, global practice leader and fellow partner with Jane Roberts at MLA, Obamacare has been a boon to the legal recruiting field.
"With any complicated new piece of legislation comes demand for legal advice. Jeffrey Lowe, global-practice leader at recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, sees parallels with the financial-regulation law passed nearly a decade before the Affordable Care Act. “The securities lawyers joke that the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley was kind of like the Full Employment Act of 2001 for securities lawyers,” says Lowe, who sees the ACA as the Full Employment Act of 2010 for health care lawyers. Michael McDonald, a product manager at Kelly Law Registry, a legal-staffing firm, says he’s seen estimates of a 20 percent increase in health care specialists in the legal field by 2018, or 600 new experts in health care law nationally."
http://www.mlaglobal.com/community/news/obamacare-is-creating-jobsyes-re...
It would appear that our Supreme Court Justices are not immune to cronyism and are potentially as corrupt as any other branch of government.
Good jobs at good wages.
M. Dukakis.
"Potentially as corrupt"?? The Supreme Court has been corrupt since at least 1886. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Look it up.
"Potentially as corrupt"?? The Supreme Court has been corrupt since at least 1886. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Look it up.
That is one of my all-time favorite examples of what is wrong with our legal system. As it turns out, there isn't even an actual ruling in that decision that makes for corporate personhood, that particular bit of wording comes from a note written in the margin by a clerk. I knew a lawyer once who looked into the ruling, and she came back to me and said something to the effect of "I can't believe it, there's nothing in that ruling that actually establishes corporate personhood, the whole precedent is crazy!"
As of now, with the passing of fast-track for TPP, we really are on the threshold of the last major social conflict of our time; the people versus the banker-corporate interests. This is the basis of the next great turning, and with the TPP the die has been cast and the Rubicon has been crossed. If TPP is allowed to become law and enacted, then for all intents and purposes we will no longer have any representation whatsoever, we won't even have a pretense of it like we do now, we will just have infinite corporate tyranny.
So... if, according to the progressive-infested 'supreme' court, fed.gov can tax both economic activity AND economic inactivity, why doesn't fed.gov pass a tax on unemployed people? That should solve all of their revenue problems right quick, donchya tink?
Let's be fair, there are Zionist shabbos goy lackeys for those Jews also.
Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor.....44% representation in the US Supreme Court, while comprising less than 3% of the US population.
(Sotomayor discussed at 3:10)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jaUZCks7CA
http://www.badeagle.com/2009/06/07/sotomayor-and-the-crypto-jew/
Since when is the percentage of the US population a relevant metric? Why don't you start with percentage of the LAWYER population? Fucking bigots.
Your insults and hatred are very bigoted.
Good, then I will never hear one more Jew, or any other "minority", complain that the Nation, any given state, municipality, private company, neighborhood, or school is too white!
The Supreme Court is a joke! They are bought & sold just like all the politicians!
"If you can't afford your politician, Astra Zenaca may be able to help".
I call them Astra Nomical!
But if you keep voting and paying your taxes, I'm sure thiings will get better.
/s
They know who pays for the butter on their bread
As usual, Scalia is the most lucid. This decision seems to firmly establish the current Court as a political entity that rubber-stamps a certain agenda, without regard for the written law or Constitution.
SCOTUScare indeed.
Fuk those fossils
Loki, you are completely wrong. A family member is on Obozo care, she pay 169 dollars a month for a Geisinger HMO, $500 deductible, no copays. She has far better coverage than I shell out over a grand a month for a family of 4, through my company. As Hedgeless has said this is just the CEOs and Execs of big medicine, and big insurance enriching themselves.
"She pays" $169 a month. The taxpayers (us) pay the balance of her monthly premium. Redistribution of wealth.
Forced redistribution is the inevitable next step in keeping the ponzi alive just a little longer. This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
The author of Proverbs was probably unaware of icebergs, but yeah.
Proverbs 22:3 (New Icelandic Version) The prudent see danger and slow down, but the simple keep going full steam and hit the iceberg.
25% 'one-time' (wink, wink) wealth tax, up next. We might have to grab the guns first. . .
Took Allyssa Rosenbaum 1100 pages to say this.
Time to declare myself as a Transracial illegal alien and join the Free Shit Army
And TPP will do away with generic drugs, as patent protection will be indefinite.
Truly, this is the week where congress and the SCOTUS sealed the doom of America.
The doom was sealed a long long time ago, probably the final straw was with federally funded student loans in the late 60's this act was the progeniter of Rampant Globalism. This is merely accelerant.
Fuck it. Let's just replace all our courts with arbitration panels staffed with corporate lawyers and quit pretending we have a legal system.
If they try and extend patent law for medicine, I am opening up an UGL.
Fuck it.
pods
It all starte with healthcare...former holocaust survivor:
http://800whistleblower.com/holocaust-survivor-compares-obama-to-hitler-...
... and what will they do with political undesireables with this medical care. This development is quite possibly a whole lot darker than people realize. Take a good look at your medical system and your food supply. They may not have to shoot anybody. Medical staff would not have to be in the know either.
Healthy conservatives hate Affordable Healthcare, but everyone gets sick at some point. ACA saved my son's life.. I am forever grateful!
Pathetic. We deserve better government trolls.
One day the death panel will repay you!
When his son becomes too expensive for care then the Death Panel will take his son's life. I just wonder if he will be thankful for that? He does not have to pay for his son's care at that point. It is a win-win..except for his son.
They always start with heroic spending and lavish benefits and then the programs devole rapidly into deprivation as the greed of the adminstrators absorb more of the available funding. This happens until all is consumed by administrative costs and no services are delivered to those paying to foot the bill.
It has been like that throughout bureaucracies spanning the eons of civilization as man is corruptable...especially men in power.
It is best that you are one of the first to benefit in any new Ponzi Scheme, that you are near the top of the Pyramid Scheme.
Other than that you will be left out and hoding the bag filled with disappointment, fraud and corruption which you so richly deserve for your investment into the scheme and your expectations of ill gotten gain from the scheme.
No. Not everybody gets sick. Everybody DIES! What is the risk/reward proposition. How much will X more days, weeks, months, years cost?
Doctors may have. ACA didn't do shit for your son.
It just keeps getting better everyday.....
YASBYBIC
You ain't seen bad yet, but it's coming.
Support your state.
I support mine. Not my fault yours sucks. You should do something to make it better or leave.
My cage in the zoo is better than your cage....
Really?
I am not in a cage. I'm sorry to hear that you are. You should watch some of my videos. Feed yourself, free yourself. I choose where I live, I choose what I do for a living, I choose how I provide my food, I choose where my son is educated, I choose what I shoot and how much. As do you. You are also free to change all that if it does not suit you. Really. You have a choice in your life. You can choose to determine your own fate or allow others to determine it for you.
I know the popular meme is that everything is rigged, everything is a false flag, everything is a conspiracy and everything is contrived to enslave you. This is nothing more than an excuse. An excuse to give up, quit and withdraw in a shell away from your responsibilites. Try that mentality in the woods and you will soon starve.
Life isn't easy. Life and people aren't perfect. Never has been, never will be. You get to choose how you deal with life. I choose to meet life head on. I will stand and be heard. I will win some, I will lose some - but I will not shrug my shoulders and allow others to dictate everything to me.
You are free to choose your own fate.
As an Alabama native and proud resident, I concur with MeatTrapper, though not necessarily with the way he snapped back at brother Tom, who is a good ole Irish (or perhaps Scot) fellow who meant well with that comment.
My uncle gave up buying insurance for his wife and himself and just pays the penalty. He is 58. The costs was about $1,200 a month for his wife and himself and $16,000 deductable. He just saves the $1,200 in a savings account and hopes things will be OK. Ironically, he is originally from Toronto, Canada. They were using his wife's work's health insurance, but her company dropped it for all there part time workers.
Obama had a great week! He's killin' it...literally....if only I could go back in time like the Terminator and find and destroy eveyone of the mindless morons who voted for him in 2008 and 2012 I would.
The Supreme Court today killed statutory law. They LITERALLY added words where there were none. It was lawmaking by inference.
Now that statutory law is dead in America, tomorrow or Monday, they will also kill any notion of common law with giving gays legitimacy to shank each other in the ass.
So.....after this week.....Statutory law is dead, Common law is dead and the Second Constitution ( the first being the Articles of Confederation ) is dead.
And the only law that will apply will be those laws that can be upheld by use of force by those who have the most force to apply. Meaning.....the STATE.
Add to this....this week.....Congress gave the Executive Branch carte blanche to enter and negotiate the final stages and our role in the creation of the New World Order with TPP.
R.I.P. America ( Born: March 1, 1781 <Ratification of Articles of Confederation>, Died: the last week of June 2015.
Anybody doubt now it's time to start burning shit down?
When you get cooked a little at a time, it's not so bad really.
Does something smell like frog?
Like a bunch of chickens.
Like a bunch of chicken shits.
And this bothers you . . . why? The Federal government pisses money away on all kinds of stuff worse than this. And has for decades.
Principles...
OK – I get that. Let me share something with you – true story . . .
I know someone who owns a small business in the Midwest. Hires mostly young people, manual laborers - the type who probably didn’t do particularly well in school. Pays a little above minimum wage. A guy working for him breaks his foot NOT at work. The guy has no insurance and doesn’t immediately go get medical help, and because of that he doesn’t know how bad the break is. Decides to rest a day or two and then tries to keep working because he needs the money. Not too much later the pain becomes unbearable and he goes to the emergency room. By now the foot is infected (sepsis) and ends up being amputated. So a guy that was working and paying taxes, now becomes a quasi-invalid. Because he couldn’t get affordable access to non-emergency health care. That’s good public policy?
Horseshit. He could have gone to any ER and received treatment.
Since 1986 we have had EMTALA:
These politicians who so generously help the little guy are the same kind people who incarcerate Americans at a rate higher than anywhere else in the world often for victimless crimes and who bomb innocent foreigners for their freedom.
Even if I thought that the welfare state was a wonderful thing which I couldn't live without I would still chose to live without it as the price is way too high. Why do you believe that you deserve benefits that depend on a system which imprisons and murders innocent people? Doing so does not make you a compassionate person, quite the opposite.
Let me explain something to you about your little anecdote. Broken Foot Guy made a disastrous series of choices through his free will.
1) He chose to take on a low-paying job, instead of looking for a job that offered more remuneration
2) He chose to not have catastrophic insurance, instead of making sure his livelihood was protected
3) He chose not to get his foot checked out, instead of seeing what the issue was when it was fixable
4) He chose to keep working on a broken foot, instead of protecting his livelilhood by seeing what the issue was
5) He chose to go to the ER, instead of going to a place like this:
http://www.surgerycenterok.com
6) He chose to let them amputate his foot, instead of accepting responsibility for his series of poor choices and dying of sepsis
Now, kindly explain to me exactly why the FUCK I am responsible for his piss-poor choices?
I didn't hold a gun to his head at any point and make him make those choices. I don't even know Broken Foot Guy. Yet, because of Broken Foot Guy's poor choices, I am now responsible for the payment of his debt because I am forced to pay higher prices for medical services to make up for all the irresponsible assholes like Broken Foot Guy. Because I work for a living, I am forced to pay for his SSI disability, SNAP, Section-8, Obamaphone, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Now my tax burden and my payment for services rendered becomes higher, and I did nothing whatsoever to cause any of this to occur. And to you, that's good public policy?
Fuck Broken Foot Guy, and fuck you. He made his bed, let him lie in it. I ask no one to pay for my mistakes, because the only person who made my mistakes is me. Why in the holy hell should I be forced to subsidize everyone else's mistakes? My god is personal responsibility. Ah, if only there were a place on this motherfucking planet to which I could move that would recognize my god and allow me to worship him. I would be packed up within 24 hours and purchase a one-way ticket.
Also, if we didn't have all this healthcare fascism, the actual cost of care would be about 1/5th of what it is now, and broken foot guy could just pay cash for affordable treatment.
It's terrible public policy. Paying for him to see the doctor upfront, so he could stay healthy and keep working, would be good public policy. If we had paid to set the foot upfront, we would have each paid a few fractions of a cent (as would he). Now we have to pay more fractions of a cents apiece for his amputation and a few cents apiece for decades of public assistance. That public assistance will almost certainly include higher health care costs due to poverty, inactivity, depression, etc.
I understand you don't want to take responsibility for him. But you don't have the choice: you (and I) will take responsibility for him anyway. And we're getting gouged.
Thanks, CaptainObvious !
+1
Straw man. Why really wasn't he able to afford healthcare?
HINT: Good Public Policy...paving the fucking road to hell
exactly. do you know one of the main reasons why the laborer couldn't afford health insurance? because politicians started screwing with the insurance industry and over-regulating it back in the depression era by giving companies tax subsidies to issue it thru the employer, and then they layered on decades more of regulatory smothering to completely eff the free market model. THAT is a huge reason why it's so expensive. Second, i'm sure the guy didn't have a smartphone, or cable, or any of that unecessary stuff that costs hundreds per month....which could have been used for health insurance.
It's the classic socialst/statist tactic of passing dysfunctional regulations that results in screwing up industries and then the politicians argue they need even more control/regulations,...to protect the people,...from the dysfunctional situation they THEY CREATED. effin classic. Statist never admit failure, they double down until the system implodes. Gotta love 'em.
I give the amputee story a one in a million shot that he was a really diligent guy that didn't waste his money and really wanted to buy insurance but just couldn't. one in a million.
Burning shit down is unlawful. Only common rioters would do such acts.
If you're black, you get "space" to "express yourself".
The NSA has dirt on everyone...
After the OPM data breach it appears the Chinese have dirt on everyone too!
Only federal employees. I'm sure that there is no possible way that a foreign government could use the private records of federal employees against us somehow.
Also, I'm making $6000 a month spamming internet forums from home! /sarc
Aren't federal workers already working against us anyway?
What difference does it make?
OK Hillary!
You know everything is going well when Amtrak employees can submit 40 worked per day on their time sheets and get away with it.
You are screwed
I'm sure they were just crossing 16 or more time zones during their shift. I think our supersonic intercontinental trains are pretty awesome.
But think of what they have on John Roberts! Holy shit, he must torture babies for the fun of it.
Badly kept secrets about John Roberts:
1) He's gay.
2) His wife is a "beard".
3) He illegally adopted two Irish babies via South America. According to Irish law, illegally adopted Irish children are to be forcibly repatriated upon discovery of the adoption crime.
4) Obama used all of the above to blackmail Roberts.
I am all for anything that accelerates the collapse as that which cannot be sustained won't be.
Fuck it, I might even vote for Hillary, I mean "at this point, what difference does it make"...
I vote in favor of more restrictive gun laws. Anything that will hasten the fall. A better system may arise from the ashes of the old. Keep in mind that the Constitution was written by rich landholding slave owners and the currentsystem still favors rich landholding slave owners.
International, corporate slave owners who have no allegiances.
I *am* Captain Obvious, so let me do what I do best:
If we have more restrictive gun laws, you will not be around to witness a better system arising from the ashes of the old. Only the people who still have guns, a.k.a. the Elite, will be around to witness a better system. And why will they still be around? Because they disarmed the rest of us, killed us, now they have ownership of everything. For whom is this a better system?
Let's just go all the way and vote for Bernie Sanders. At least he's not a crony/insider. Seriously, with as far as this shithole country has drifted away from representing the middle class, what's the worst that could happen?
I have no incetive to work. Now where's my free shit.
I have no faith that any politician will be able to turn this ship around. It's too big and too out of control!
Worse is better. The system MUST come down.
To expedite the crash, frivolously use government services.
For example, call the police and complain about how people are parking to far from the curb on your street. It costs money to send a squad car.
Call social workers on single people. Claim you saw them move into your area with children, but now the children are gone. You are concerned.
Complain to code enforcement about signs and buildings.
Don’t mow your lawn until after the city gives you a warning to comply.
Etc., etc….
Personally, I suggest filing large numbers of fictional federal tax returns.
Wear gloves, and don't lick the envelope.
I am firmly convinced, that Hillary isnt even close to the worst this election..... Jeb, Crusty, O'Malley, would be far far worse. The only semblence of sanity is with Walker or Sanders (folks with some apparent integrity, although opposites politically).
with all due respect... Hillary is definitely the worst/close to the worst... bitch should be in jail, just as dangerous as O-shithead
Jail is not enough. A gag and strait jacket would be a wise precaution, with a shot of horse transquilizer for good measure.
Hillary or Jeb, triple-D rules! (DC's dystopic duopoly)
Freakin' loser azzhats. Figures...
Boehner will fix this. He just needs a little more time….. not to mention he’s still working on overturning RvW.
Summarizing the majority opinion:
"...reading the text clearly states subisidies are not allowed on federal exchanges. But, we like it so F@@@ you!"
Congress has the power to regulate commerce, not compell it. CJ Roberts in his opinion from the original SC hearing. Yet,if you don't buy Obamacare, you are penalized.
This country is beyond the point of no return. I hope you have some sort of cushon to help protect you from the crash.
The only alternative now for healthcare are the Christian health sharing exchanges like Medi-Share, Samaritan Health, Christian Health Ministries, Liberty Share, Altrua.
I post this not to pimp these services but to help people here who are looking for an option on healthcare.
ObamaCare jacks up prices and rations care for the middle class so they pay 3 times more to subsidize illegals, EBT card holders and the execs at United Healthcare, Aetna, et al plus CON-Gresz..
Don't you see...just like the Confederate flag, those groups are discriminatory and will be taken down. As Michelle Bachmann stated when she was a candidate, there is NO way to avoid single payer unless Obamacare is completely ripped out and killed. But sadly that did not and will not happen.
I believe federal judges are even more corrupt than politicians and they are far more arrogant.
Thank God this occurred so I can stop listening to idiot breathless tv reporters wax on about a confederate flag that murders people
Consider pulling the plug on TV and Hollywood or keep supporting it.
The Supine Court strikes again!
4th Amendment to be deemed "Unconstitutional" next.
They will get the 2nd Amendment first.... Disarming folks will become an important priorty very very soon.
Disarming us has been their priority for decades. They just haven't worked out a good way to convince us to give up yet. Maybe if they keep letting certified nutjobs hopped up on psychotropic meds wander about in the streets shooting schoolchildren they can convince us. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Long live the Reichstag
"affordable care" ... what a joke ... it only looks affordable because of huge subsidy which are paid by tax payers and no provision in place to rein in accelerating costs ... it would have been better and cheaper to put people without insurance into medicare ... obama is such a fraud.