100% All-Natural Composition
No Artificial Intelligence!

Thursday, June 28, 2012

United States Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

What. The. HELL?!?!?

HOW in the blue f--k is ANYTHING about Obamacare constitutional?!? What the #$%* are they smoking at the Supreme Court?!? Are they high on bath salts or something?!

Well, it's not like this would be the first time that the Supreme Court screwed it up, is it?

The individual mandate just became the biggest tax imposition in the history of mankind. We are now living in a socialist state that would have made the Kremlin hardliners envious.

This country is soooooooo screwed.


Anonymous said...

I thought conservatives were for personal responsiblity.?. It is personally responsible to have health insurance. Because if you don't and something happens, the people that do have insurance pay a higher cost to cover you at the emergency room.

It's funny how the people that babble on about Geezus don't want affordable healthcare for the poorest people in our country.

I myself have healthcare and always have had it, cause you never know what could happen.

Chris Knight said...

Where in the Constitution is it found that providing health care is a duty of the government?

That's right: it's not there.

I don't have health insurance right now. Have been paying out of pocket, including for treatment of my bipolar condition. Which happens to be the last thing that I want this government to be having a say-so in!

If there is a bigger case of government over-reaching in power, I can't think of it. To add insult to injury, we will be fined if we don't buy health insurance, and according to today's Supreme Court ruling that is a tax.

Think about that: we are now taxed for the NON-purchase of something. Call it an "un-sales tax".

Only in America...

Anonymous said...

"I don,t have health insurance right now". Then you are costing me money if you have even a moderate health emergency because you won't be able to pay the bill. The only developed countries without universal health care are Mexico, Turkey, and us. Good company, huh? Are all the rest socialist? Naive and predictable comment.

Chris Knight said...

If and when I have a moderate health emergency, I will take care of it as best I can. WITHOUT getting the government to "help". Or help from you for that matter.

At what point do we not put our trust in the government to provide for us?

And yes, I would have to say that other countries are practicing socialism to one extent or another, to answer your question honestly.

Anonymous said...

Taking care of it "the best I can" doesn't keep your unpaid hospital bill from getting added to everyone else's overall costs. If you don't want insurance, pay the fine. It's $95 or 1% of your net annual income. You spent that much in Oregon didn't you?

I am quite sympathetic to your medical condition but less so to your willingness to leave the rest of us at financial risk for your political position.

Chris Knight said...

"If you don't want insurance, pay the fine."

There is so much wrong with that statement. I am genuinely frightened of the mindset behind it.

My God. Have we seriously regressed that far into a collectivist state of being?

Mysterious man from the Shadows said...

The way I see it, the Court pretty much *had* to rule the mandate/tax Constitutional, simply because of the precedent that so much New Deal and subsequent legislation that functions on similar principles. Saying Obamacare was unconstitutional would have meant overturning massive amounts of other decades-old legislation, something that no part of the government is really prepared to do right now.

That's why I don't actually see the healthcare ruling itself as that monumental--it is only the logical continuation of a process begun in the 1930s. Whether that process is constitutional or not is the real issue, but previous Courts have ruled that it was.

"Perhaps", you say, "they were wrong". Perhaps so. But right or wrong, there is simply too much legal precedent for the Roberts Court to overcome.

Anonymous said...

"collectivist state of being" ... that's some real impressive jingo there. Let's simplify a little. Do you not have health insurance because:

a) you can't afford it
b) your preexisting condition keeps you from getting it
c) don't think it's worth the cost
d) just don't want it
e) don't have a job that provides health benefits
f) any combination of the above

Maybe I could understand your train of thought better if I knew. Also, if you end up in the hospital, do you advocate they just kick you to the curb if you show up unable to pay?

Anonymous said...

There are also many thousands of people in this country who do not have health insurance because of religious beliefs. They believe in Assurance, not Insurance. They choose to NOT have health care. They also usually are members of churches that will come together to aid them in the event of a medical catastrophe. Otherwise, these folks, like some friends of mine, have taken responsibility to have a savings account dedicated to doctor care. That is THEIR choice.

How DARE the federal government force them to do something that they see as a religious freedom. It is their choice. It is not one that I would ever do, but I do respect them for the choice they made, and allegedly this country had the FREEDOM to do so.

For those of you who support this further government encroachment upon our freedoms, I ask you this- if other countries are so great with their health care, then why do (or did, I guess now) so many people travel HERE to avail themselves of OUR medical system?

Sorry to throw logic at ya. My bad.

Anonymous said...

This seems about right

Anonymous said...

Almost the only foreigners that travel to the US for health care are fabulously wealthy by their country's standards. Meanwhile, thousands of US citizens travel to Mexico and Thailand to get procedures they can't afford here. However, I will agree that if you are rich, you will get fabulous health care right here in the good 'ol USA. The US has the highest per capita health expenditures in the world ($8000) but is only 27th in life expectancy. Sorry to throw logic at ya. My bad.

Mysterious man from the Shadows said...

Right. People who have a lot of money come here because in terms of technology, the USA can still offer some of the best care available. But it's not cheap.

The question, then, is how to preserve that technological advantage while expanding care? After all, government regulation has the potential to stifle innovation. However, once you have a technological advantage, it is very hard to lose it, so that's some comfort. Still, there is something of a trade-off between how many you cover and the quality of care provided.

Anonymous said...

A thoughtfull and informed comment. Kudos Mystery Man. Not the norm around here, but kudos nether the less.

Anonymous said...

Chris, let me ask you: Do you have to practice talking like a complete dork, or does it just come naturally?

Chris Knight said...

"Chris, let me ask you: Do you have to practice talking like a complete dork, or does it just come naturally?"

To be honest, I think you're doing pretty good on your own. Keep it up!