Upload
Login or register
Online User List [+] Online: (4): marinepenguin, pebar, thumbfortrump, youregaylol, anonymous(6).
asd
#2519 - dwiteschrute
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
Obamacare was ruled constitutional by the supreme court today. As a democrat and a supporter of Obama I couldn't be happier. What does FJ think?
#2771 to #2519 - goproud
Reply 0
(06/30/2012) [-]
No it was not. The mandate as it stood was unconstitutional. The only way it passed is as a tax. So congrats. Obama raised taxes. Only a dumb liberal would be all for that.
#2628 to #2519 - Ruspanic ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/29/2012) [-]
I'm disappointed. Roberts, despite being in the majority, was right in saying the government can't regulate economic inactivity. (Thank God they didn't base the majority opinion on the Commerce Clause like Obama did).
The solution to some people not having health insurance is NOT to force everyone to buy health insurance, and the government has no right to force citizens to buy any product in the first place.

Requiring businesses to provide health insurance is also an unnecessary restriction on the individual property rights of the business owner. It may be advantageous for employers to provide benefits like health insurance (it will help attract and keep employees), but not all businesses can afford to do that and it should be up the business owners. When a business can't afford to provide health insurance or pay the fine, it might try to decrease its expenses by a) lowering wages, b) hiring fewer full-time employees, and/or c) outsourcing its jobs in order to remain profitable. Obviously none of that is good for the country.

Similarly with private insurance companies: they shouldn't be required to cover any treatment for any condition (preexisting or otherwise), because they are a private business. People do not have a right to any of the companies' services and the companies should not be legally obligated to provide those services.

So. Yup. Those are my issues with the law. I won't comment about its constitutionality, that's a different issue entirely. Gotta respect John Roberts, though, for being principled enough to put aside his personal opinions of Obamacare in order to do his job, which was to determine whether the law was constitutional.
#2546 to #2519 - anon
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
It's bullshit. I'm assuming you like the fact that America is turning to a socialist country? We're becoming more and more like Europe, where everyone will be equally poor. The only reason they can even classify this is "constitutional" is because they made it serve as a tax, so if you don't buy, they'll fine the hell out of you and/or send you to prison.

How could you support something like this? It's against everything our country was found upon. You do realize that he is just taking away American's freedom one law at a time. I'm not saying health care is a bad thing, but not everyone in America is making an 100k salary a year like the pathetic congress we have. I honestly believe this is just a gateway for Obama to win the upcoming election and continue to pass laws to slowly take away our freedom. And the sad part is that so many people are blinded by it. Anyone can quote me on this, and favorite my comment for later: Next thing Obama is going to go for is taking away our guns. Why? His excuse will be that since 2 years ago when Australia banned guns, their rape/murder/burglary crime rates have fell 85%.

This is just the beginning of an upcoming revolution. So many people in my town are so pissed off that the fact that we've pretty much have a dictator in office now. Being able to force you to buy something is ridiculous. What about the ones who can't afford it? Obama has to realize that this is just going to cost the government more money, because now people have to rely on welfare to pay for their healthcare. Just keep putting the country in trillions of dollars in debt like you've done the past 4 years, Obama.

American officially lost its freedom today.
#2601 to #2546 - anon
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
Even I'm not dramatic enough to say that Obamacare = dictatorship. First of all, there's a considerable chance that Obama won't even be in office a year from now (in which case there's an even greater chance that Obamacare will be toast as well). Secondly, unless there's some massive working class uprising (there won't be) in the next four years, Obama will be gone after that for certain.

We're just fluctuating a bit towards the left. It happens. In time, we'll be going more right.
#2573 to #2546 - Patheos
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
While I can see the problem with Obamacare, I don't see how having some stricter gun control is such an awful thing.
#2600 to #2573 - anon
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
There's no reason to enforce more gun regulation. All that's going to do is question our Second Amendment rights. Let's face it, criminals who want guns can get guns, and enforcing more gun control isn't going to change that (short of almost entirely banning gun sales, which is absurd and incredibly unconstitutional). So restrictions on gun control would only punish law-abiding citizens who want guns to protect themselves and their families from possible assailants. Very few accredited concealed carry gun holders go out and commit firearm crimes - at least in relation to people who have those guns illegally.

tl;dr Stricter gun control =/= fewer crimes, if anything it'll mean more
#2580 to #2573 - Mortspear
Reply +1
(06/28/2012) [-]
It takes away from the people's rights that we were promised in the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment.
#2547 to #2546 - Mortspear
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
Didn't mean to post as Anonymous. I'm not afraid to share my opinion on my account.
#2557 to #2547 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
In my country health care is paid with tax money and guns are severely restricted. Are France and the U.K dictatorships?
#2558 to #2557 - Mortspear
Reply -1
(06/28/2012) [-]
Someone forcing you to buy something could very well be referred to as a dictator. The difference between US and the two countries mentioned, is that they weren't founded on the same Constitution. The right to bear arms is in the American Bill of Rights, which mean it's important. We were also founded on freedom, being able to buy what you want and make your own choices, not be forced to do something that even a lot of middle-classed Americans cant afford. For example, if my parents were to buy healthcare, with no benefits from their jobs, it would cost them $1,500 a month. That's the same money it would take to pay on a nice 3 to 4 bedroom house.
#2559 to #2558 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
so you're saying they're dictatorships?
#2561 to #2559 - Mortspear
Reply -1
(06/28/2012) [-]
Not at all. I'm using the term "dictator" loosely here. Obviously the US isn't a dictatorship and hopefully never will be, I'm just saying with what he is getting away with is basically putting him in power as one. He's more of a socialist than anything. And I'm not familiar with the governments of other countries, just the different types of government.
#2563 to #2561 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +1
(06/28/2012) [-]
so you're agreeing that implementing health care in taxes and restricting lethal weapon access isn't a sign of dictatorship?
#2564 to #2563 - Mortspear
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
No. But we're going in the wrong direction to remain a true democracy.
#2565 to #2564 - herecomesjohnny
Reply +1
(06/28/2012) [-]
so France is not a true democracy? Ouch, watch a bit what you're saying..
#2568 to #2565 - Mortspear
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
I'm talking about the United States here. I don't know what goes on in France, but if it doesn't follow the guidelines of a democracy, then it isn't a democracy. Of course no country is going to have a "pure" type of government, but it saddens me to see America leaving its roots.
#2531 to #2519 - airguitar
Reply +2
(06/28/2012) [-]
I think it's a problem. Not because of the healthcare, put that to the side. The problem is it requires citizens to purchase healthcare even if they don't want to. See this video basically, the main problem is this ruling could have very bad repercussions in the future:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WISvX-SKI&feature=plcp

That's not even taking health care into account, I wont touch upon that.
#2627 to #2531 - mericafuckyeah
Reply +1
(06/29/2012) [-]
The reason the individual mandate as put in was to ensure that insurance companies would still be able to operate. Every other part of the bill improves the healthcare system for consumers (which is good) but also makes it much more expensive for insurance companies to operate. By making people buy insurance they are keeping the insurance industry alive, which benefits the public.
Im not saying I support it, but the rest of the bill would fuck up the country without the mandate.
#2543 to #2531 - anon
Reply 0
(06/28/2012) [-]
What's bullshit is how Obama changed the terminologies to serve as a loophole to make it more likely to be ruled Constitutional.

First it was a fine that you'd get for not buying health insurance. Now it's a "tax."
#2544 to #2543 - airguitar
Reply +4
(06/28/2012) [-]
Wonderful. There are very bad implications. I'll have to read over the Supreme Court ruling but it just allows the government to coerce us into buying other stuff they deem appropriate.
#2630 to #2544 - Ruspanic ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/29/2012) [-]
Though I admittedly haven't read the actual ruling, from what I understand it was based on Congress's power to tax rather than on the Commerce Clause, which was the basis of Obama's own argument (as well as the four liberal justices). This means that the Court did NOT uphold the idea that the government can regulate "economic inactivity" and coerce people into commerce.
Instead, the fine imposed on people who don't buy insurance is seen as a tax, which is Constitutional.

There is a silver lining, for the conservatives. The reason Obama didn't want to use the tax argument initially is because imposing a new tax on the middle-class would not sit well with many Americans. Now that he has to call his fine a tax (in order for the law to be constitutional), Republicans have ammunition to use against him. Even better, Roberts may have overturned or counteracted the precedent that allowed Congress to use the Commerce Clause to justify almost any law.
#2634 to #2630 - airguitar
Reply +1
(06/29/2012) [-]
I don't consider myself a conservative (I'm libertarian) because I disagree with a lot of their efforts, but yes the 2nd part you wrote about sound like a relief.. Sadly, taxes are still limits on our freedoms.