Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional- Yes!

Yeah but that Nazi Nut job, Barry Obama is still on the rampage in Palestine. He has 7 million white Semites in death camps and gulags in Gaza and the West Bank. He's stealing more land from whites in East Jerusalem. The dude is a Nazi Nut job.

We don't leave injured people on the street because they have no money where I come from.

If you want the services then you must pay the taxes.

Simple...not rocket science but a concept that most Americans can not understand.

No taxes = no services. Simple.

A fair,just system. wrote:

We don't leave injured people on the street because they have no money where I come from.

If you want the services then you must pay the taxes.

Simple...not rocket science but a concept that most Americans can not understand.

No taxes = no services. Simple.

Like what we are getting now constitutes services. Please.

I agree.Your services are pathetic and that is what Obama is trying to change.

This is how we fund it.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/00250854.htm

In the state I live in ambulance services are funded thru a surcharge on utilities(what we call the rates).

Add to this a 10% goods and services tax and a tiered payroll tax.

Difference is :If you come here for a holiday and have a serious accident you will not lose your home.

In fact chances are it will cost you zero(even if you have no medical insurance).

Feel free to thank me for helping fund this fabulous

system.

Better yet help develop one for yourself and your family.

An Historian wrote:

My prediction: ruled unconstitutional, 5-4, driving the left INSANE. 10-20 years from now, the next time the left is in office they pass universal healthcare (i.e. Medicare for everyone) under the tax and spend clause.

5-4 would be unfortunate, but you're probably right. I think Souter might have been willing to cross lines on this one if he were still on the bench. Alas.

So if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, and a citizen does not buy health insurance....would a hospital be required to treat the uninsured?

How would the Supreme Court rule on that?

Great!!! Now we can either pay for some more insurance executive mansions, yachts, and huge opulant insurance companies buildings or we can not afford to buy insurance and be denied care experiencing a slow, agonizing death peering through the emergency room window.

Oh Barry wrote:

This is like going through a dirty, bitter, ugly divorce that never should have gotten to that point to begin with.

I can’t believe we’ve gotten ourselves into a situation where we even have to have the courts rule on the Constitutionality of a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something simply for existing. Everyone with an iota of rationality knows/knew it is/was a twisted, manipulative attempt at over-reach.

This kind of nightmare scenario is what Rod Serling, tried to warn us about back in the day.

Are you Sirius?

silly old fossil wrote:

So if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, and a citizen does not buy health insurance....would a hospital be required to treat the uninsured?

How would the Supreme Court rule on that?

They're already obligated to give care, no matter the patient's ability to pay or legal status in the country. It's been that way since it was signed into law in 1986.

Aren't people forced to carry liability insurance as a condition to driving a car? Is that in the constitution?

What about the creation of private "for-profit" health care (HMO's) in the 1970's. Was that in the constitution?

Did privatizing health care bring the promised improvement in health care, coupled with lower prices? 40 years later, it seems that the "private, for-profit" experiment has failed.

If it's a constitutional issue, maybe we should repeal all related federal legislation (including handouts to HMO's and pharmaceutical companies), and leave it to the individual states.

Does anyone really want to fight for their right to be uninsured? Do they promise not to be a burden to society if they can no longer pay there way?

Do people really prefer that private companies with rich executives buying their second yachts, deny them payments for necessary health coverage, like an MRI for a brain tumor? Is that preferable than a minimum guarantee of basic, undeniable health coverage, guaranteed by the government, of the people, for the people.

Who paid for Cheney's heart? Did he pay out of pocket (one of the few who probably could), or did he accept welfare from the people? Hasn't he stolen enough from the people?

[quote]I don't get it wrote:

Aren't people forced to carry liability insurance as a condition to driving a car? Is that in the constitution?

States, rather than the Federal government, force people to have liability insurance to drive a car. There are two differences. 1) One does not have to drive a car. 2) States have broad powers to pass any law that they like, as long as there is not restriction against it (e.g. it doesn't violate the First Amendment), whereas the Federal government is one of enumerated powers, and is limited to passing laws "necessary and proper" to the powers set out in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.

What about the creation of private "for-profit" health care (HMO's) in the 1970's. Was that in the constitution?

The Constitution only regulates the government. Non-state actors can do anything that is not illegal, e.g. set up a health-maintenance organization.

Second Try wrote:

I think "it," will be different, but we will always have "it."

Repeal, even if achieved, will just be a different version.

Look at the tax bill that Obama endorsed. It's opposed by the left and the right. Everyone who voted in November for less government is just finding that the most they are getting is different government, no net reduction.

The opposition to government run healthcare is in for a disappointment. It's a quick rewrite.

I am opposed to "it," but I am realistic about the political climate. Tens of millions of people are dependent on the government for their lifestyle and the elected officials who pander to them will keep those votes.

Until we run out of money, at which point bye bye Obamacare! Bye bye Social Security! Bye bye Medicare! Bye bye USSA!

I don't get it wrote:

Aren't people forced to carry liability insurance as a condition to driving a car? Is that in the constitution?

What about the creation of private "for-profit" health care (HMO's) in the 1970's. Was that in the constitution?

Did privatizing health care bring the promised improvement in health care, coupled with lower prices?

1) State issue, not related to USC.

2) State issue.

3) Health care has gotten VASTLY less "privitized" over the past 4-50 years and VASTLTY more socialized.

The results are an obvious failure.

The two segments of the US economy most heavily regulated and subsidized are education and health care. They are also the two where costs consistently exceed the rate of inflation and the quality is comparatively shitty.

Unlike, say, computers.

the S.CT is not completely partisan, though it may seem like it at times.

based on this thread I feel like we're knee deep in morons but I have faith that this can be rationally decided.

So now we have one federal judge who has ruled against the current health care reform law. And how many have upheld it? 14? So it's something like 14-1 right now.

That KKK judge should not legislate from the bench. He'll be overruled for certain. We can't have KKK judges disrupting civilization and democracy.

asdfsad wrote:

Remember, Brother Barry is illegally sitting as President. All of this is coming full circle. He'll be out BEFORE 2012.

wrong and wrong again

If the score mattered, it would be 2-1 at this point. It will shortly be 2-2.