County Fair
Print

Right Blasts Conservative Chief Justice Who Upheld Affordable Care Act

June 28, 2012 3:56 pm ET by David Lyle

Right-wing media figures are heaping harsh criticism on Chief Justice John Roberts for his opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act as constitutional.  These critics ignore Roberts' record as Chief Justice, which is very conservative. But even this conservative justice recognized that the Constitution gives Congress the power to address the nation's health care crisis with the Affordable Care Act.

Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro blasted the Chief Justice:

I knew that Roberts was a bad pick because he didn't have a proven track record of adherence to the Constitution. He was picked by President Bush because Bush knew he didn't have a track record - and he knew that Roberts would sail through the confirmation process without a hitch.

That should have been an indicator that Roberts was a rotten pick. Nobody doubted Robert Bork's originalist credentials. Nobody doubted Clarence Thomas'. Nobody doubts Judge Janice Rogers Brown's. But nobody had any reason to buy into Roberts as an originalist. Yet they did.

Dan Gainor, Media Research Center's vice president for Business and Culture called the decision to nominate Roberts "awful."

Gainor tweets call Roberts

Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes applied the "L word" to Roberts.

Starnes calls Roberts

This attempt to paint Chief Justice Roberts as a closet liberal is absurd. Experts have called the Supreme Court under Roberts the "most conservative in modern history." As the leader of a five justice conservative majority, Roberts has played a leading role in decisions like Citizens United (empowering corporations and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited money in political campaigns); Wal-Mart (preventing women alleging sex discrimination from joining together to seek justice); Concepcion (allowing corporations to manipulate fine print in contracts to keep ripped off consumers from joining together in court); and Ledbetter (preventing a woman who was paid less than men from going to court).

Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce enjoyed a perfect year with the Roberts Court this term, winning every case in which the Court ruled on the position the Chamber took, according to a study by the Constitutional Accountability Center. (The Chamber took no position on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but merely argued that if the mandate were struck down, the entire Act should be invalidated). According to the study, the Chamber has not won every case in a term since at least 1994.

Rather than calling John Roberts names or trying to make the absurd case that he is a closet liberal, the right should simply acknowledge that their crusade to kill the Affordable Care Act failed because they lost the vote of the deeply conservative, Republican-appointed Chief Justice who heads one of the most conservative and pro-corporate courts in history.




Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Jimijams (June 28, 2012 4:00 pm ET)
      11  
      I was just listening to Michael Medved's radio show and a caller named "George" said that Roberts was a traitor and should be tried for treason.
      Medved refused to call him out on his comment.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 28, 2012 4:04 pm ET)
        9  
        I see this a lot.

        Someone in Government does something a conservative doesn't like, automatically, he's a traitor and should be tried for treason.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 4:14 pm ET)
        5  
        Slightly OT, but I go a bit nuts when Ed Schultz has Medved on his show. Yeah, they know and like each other, while I have to fast-forward past everything he says to maintain composure, stopping when someone else says whatever. It's disjointed but worth the effort.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dogbreath (June 28, 2012 4:36 pm ET)
          5  
          Yeah, but he is always reliable in delivering those GOP daily talking points almost on cue. The man cannot think for himself. It is like the Borg collective.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Jimijams (June 28, 2012 4:01 pm ET)
      6  
      Gee, just last week they were praising Bush's efforts to capture and kill Bin Laden weren't they?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (June 28, 2012 4:03 pm ET)
      9  
      Isn't it entirely possible that Roberts, upon hearing the arguments presented in this case, decided based on his experience, and previous jurisprudence that this was indeed a Constitutional law?

      I know wingnuts have a hard time believing that you can hold up the law, without falling prey to ideology (at least in this case).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Jimijams (June 28, 2012 4:12 pm ET)
        9  
        You would hope that was the case. Justice is after all supposed to be blind.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 4:28 pm ET)
        17
      I'm a little surprised Democrats are claiming a victory, after all they just raised taxes on some 44 million of Americas poorest people.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Imbecile (June 28, 2012 4:34 pm ET)
        8 3
        Because it's soshulizum. Duh!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:16 pm ET)
            11
          Even if you can't spell, at least you understand the principle.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by danielsangeo (June 28, 2012 5:18 pm ET)
            7  
            Imbecile can spell. He was mocking.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 5:20 pm ET)
              5  
              I think pop was trying to be droll.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:23 pm ET)
                8
              der captain obivous
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 5:32 pm ET)
                8  
                They really are on rotation, aren't they. Too depressing for any one of them to stick it out all day.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:36 pm ET)
                    7
                  True trolling takes dedication I suppose. You are very dedicated.
                  Report Abuse
                    • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 6:19 pm ET)
                        5
                      "This one". What a terrible way to refer to another human being. Its as if you've let your ego take control of you so much you actually think you are a superior being. It makes me a little sad. I'll shed a tear for your animosity.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 6:29 pm ET)
                        4  
                        So, if "infestation" was "terrible," "this one" is just a little less terrible. The rest is extreme extrapolation.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 6:35 pm ET)
                            4
                          They are both terrible. Measuring the degree of your attempts to degrade a groups humanity is futher proof you think it can somehow be rationalized. It can't.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 6:40 pm ET)
                            2  
                            in which this one doubles down on bad language while having the sense to leave the psychoanalysis out of it.

                            Oh wait. He actually did that too.
                            Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (June 28, 2012 4:39 pm ET)
        5  
        Yep. He's figured us out. Us libs are really out to get the poor. We've just hidden it so well all these years.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:20 pm ET)
            9
          Not at all. I think you "libs" are just like 99% of people, you look out for number one first. Doesn't mean you are out to get anyone, just means you aren't as special as you think you. You do hide it well with those crocodile tears, rainbows, and flip flops though. May we all strive to be one-percenters.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 5:31 pm ET)
            7  
            Sure is a lot of projection going on today. May be because of the infestation of cons all going with the same strategy.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:45 pm ET)
                7
              Seriously. They bug the .... out of me. Problem is, despite the redundant strategy, cons have a very disjointed message. At least libs all agree on what they want. If only hatred for Obama wasn't the single unifying message in the Republican party.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 5:53 pm ET)
                3  
                in which pop continues his attempt at turning the tables strategy.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 6:24 pm ET)
                    5
                  I don't think I noticed before, but infestation? What a terrifyingly fanatical way to refer to a group of people. I know you have lots of trolling to do, but maybe you shoul take a break from the internet, get out and stop realize that people, however much you disagree with them don't deserved to be exterminated, ever. Your hatred is palpable, it is scary.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 6:28 pm ET)
                    5  
                    Yep, infestation. Nope, extermination. Not all infestations - especially metaphorical ones - are physically threatening.

                    When turning the tables doesn't work - twice - by all means try it again.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 6:47 pm ET)
                        3
                      A metaphorical infestation is no less dehumanizing. A metaphor doesn't change the intent, its just a word you wished rationalized your hatred.

                      Yup, extermination, its the only way to deal with an infestation.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 7:14 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Adhering to the con philosophy - obscene idea? just couch it in polite terms - pop sticks to the no blunt language argument because it's now failed to be effective too many times to count.

                        Wanna go another round? We can both say exactly the same things again.

                        And, oh yeah, "infestation" conclusion invalid.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by notsure5 (June 29, 2012 11:48 am ET)
                        1  
                        Yup, extermination, its the only way to deal with an infestation.
                        Strange, I read the infestation comment to be the infestation of an idea or set of ideas, not the people themselves. I do agree that unsound ideas should be exterminated.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 2:22 pm ET)
                            2
                          Can't argue if you read it wrong.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by notsure5 (June 29, 2012 2:58 pm ET)
                               
                            ..infestation of cons all going with the same strategy.
                            It was vague enough to be interpreted either way.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 3:15 pm ET)
                                1
                              Can't argue if you read it different.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by highlyunlikely (June 29, 2012 6:08 pm ET)
                                1  
                                as the author of that phrase, I suppose it doesn't matter how I intended it, only how pop interpreted it. And I'm sorry if he reads that different or wrong.
                                Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (June 28, 2012 6:59 pm ET)
                4  
                cons have a very disjointed message. At least libs all agree on what they want.

                Ha!! You really don't believe that, do you? Because REALITY is exactly the opposite.

                I suggest you read John Dean's book.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by SteevK (June 29, 2012 11:29 am ET)
                  2  
                  Exactly!

                  And it's maddening. Dems can NEVER get all of their own party's votes. On (virtually) every bill, we lose the Blue Dogs (Nelson, Baye, Lincoln, Baucus, Conrad, Landreu, Manchin...), or the far-left (remember Kucinich voting against ACA - until he was BEGGED by everyone from Ed Shultz, Maddow, and the Dem house leadership - we couldn't even get 51 out of 59, for reconciliation)

                  Pubbies - (virtually) ALWAYS in lock-step, no matter how bad the party line is on a given bill/issue. They live in constant fear of the party/campaign conmmittee/TEA Party funding a primary challenge (ask Bennett, Simpson, Lugar, Hatch...)

                  On the Dem side: no party loyalty, whatsoever. Manchin runs ads shooting the ACA, Lincoln, Landreu & Nelson demanding perks for ACA, then bragging about it - giving Fox a talking point, like Cornhusker Kickback (what did they nickname Landreu's dela?) - Lieberman, like Zell Miller before him, campaigned for the GOP prez nominee ... SURE, no hard feelings, have a chairmanship...

                  Pubbies use the talking point "Obama had SIXTY votes in the senate and a BIG majority in the house for TWO YEARS, but they didn't ..." Try about FIVE WEEKS - they held up Franken for 8 months (remember how they attacked "Sore/Loserman" in 2000?) until Ted Kennedy left for med leave, and 60 Blue Dog Dems had made a pact with Rove in Jan '06!
                  .
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 2:23 pm ET)
                      1
                    And I thought R's had it bad through this nomination cycle.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (June 28, 2012 4:41 pm ET)
        9  
        No, not really. The Mandate exempts the very poor, and the fine is only 1% of taxable income. Very Poor people have no taxable income. (You, know, the ones the Troglodytes are always whining about who "Pay no Federal Taxes")

        Nice try, though. I bet you felt really proud of yourself there for a minute, didn't you?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:04 pm ET)
            10
          I said poor, you said very poor...move many goal posts? But then you would. 1% in 2014, and increases to 2.5% in 2016.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (June 28, 2012 5:13 pm ET)
            4  
            Hopefully by then, most people would have already gotten insurance.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (June 28, 2012 5:16 pm ET)
            9  
            2.5% of taxable income. Which part of "Poor people have no taxable income" do you not understand?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:26 pm ET)
                9
              You are still trying to argue moved goal posts, no thank you. I was just clarifying the 1% is temporary, and will eventually increase 150%. It is important to note, especially if you end up paying that particular TAX.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 5:30 pm ET)
                6  
                "...trying..."? nah, nailing it.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by thaneb (June 28, 2012 5:56 pm ET)
                2  
                The tax is to offset the cost of you and your's* medical care (which will eventually be needed). The need to offset is only because you have decided, as is your right, not to purchase health insurance. Sans the tax, are you really proposing you and your family to freeload off the rest of society?
                *you & your's only used for discussion
                Report Abuse
        • Author by Adendrools (June 28, 2012 5:04 pm ET)
          6  
          he feels proud of himself in spite of his stupidity..........
          Report Abuse
          • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:09 pm ET)
              8
            three dots would suffice...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Adendrools (June 29, 2012 11:12 am ET)
              1  
              It's only one at the end of a sentence. If your going to chastise, get it right..................
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Adendrools (June 28, 2012 5:03 pm ET)
        6  
        PoopRocks wrote: after all they just raised taxes on some 44 million of Americas poorest people.


        Actually Dumb A$$, "Americas Poorest" now get the help they need to buy insurance and or it will be provided for those too poor. Not to mention most of the middle class now get a tax credit for the health insurance costs and so do their employers. You are so sadly uninformed its maddening..........
        Report Abuse
        • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:08 pm ET)
            8
          No no, you misunderstand I get it, you actually believe that by subsidizing, and providing healthcare to millions of people who couldn't and most likely still can't afford it, we'll actually save money.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Johaely (June 28, 2012 5:15 pm ET)
            5  
            Not right now. The goal is to do so in the long run. Originally we would have actually have had a public option (like Germany's) which would have been cheaper and would have forced "the market" to stop inflating costs.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:36 pm ET)
                9
              Unfortunately, there is little incentive built into the manadate to limit corporate profits. Without a public option I find it unlikely, even in the long run, that the ACA will decrease healthcare costs. As unpredictable as the future is though, I may be pleasantly surprised.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Johaely (June 28, 2012 5:42 pm ET)
                1  
                A certain percentage of premium revenue must go to care. That along with having a far more larger pool of participants is going to lower the costs by expanding the pool, as well as a larger amount of people using prevention and not loading the costs on the taxpayer in the form of ER care and bankruptcy.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by grmce (June 28, 2012 5:50 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Obviously pooprooxx77 has never heard of economies of scale.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:53 pm ET)
                    5
                  Requiring a percentage of premium revenue for patient care will not asuage shareholders and owners desire for growth and profits, likely the cost as usual gets passed down the line. Competition may keep that in check to a degree, but every company is looking for growth, and unlike the retail chain store market, there is little room for the Walmart version of healthcare. We are talking about health and life, not cereal and t-shirts. Low-cost corner cutting won't be tolerated at the same level.

                  The expanding pool with need to be subsidized. Time to buy AETNA stock.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by danielsangeo (June 28, 2012 6:38 pm ET)
                    3  
                    I'm not 100% sure that health care should be done by wanting growth and profits. I think that health care should be to make people better. But, hey, that's just me.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (June 28, 2012 7:01 pm ET)
                      5  
                      That's the difference. The nutjobs believe in the almighty profit motive, even in corporate health care, which takes 1/3 of EVERY DOLLAR and spends it on overhead such as dividends and CEO salaries.

                      Why do the nutjobs hate efficiency so much?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 2:29 pm ET)
                          1
                        I'm not sure I want healthcare to be run that way either.

                        Whether YOU believe in it or not, in our consumer driven social construct, big profits are very motivating.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Johaely (June 29, 2012 2:38 pm ET)
                             
                          But when it comes to society, public health should not be something profitable. You don't earn money when people are healthy.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 3:08 pm ET)
                              1
                            I don't mind profits either, but I think sometimes...often, its exploitative. For example, my wife went to the ER for what she thought might be a bladder infection. Well, when she saw the doctor he ordered urine samples, and while the lab worked on them, he had her get an MRI "just in case". Well, urine samples came back and they gave her an antibiotic which cleared it up quickly. The bill came a couple weeks later, and it was $16,000. $11,000 just for the MRI. For a procedur we didn't even need. After some hassle insurance covered it, but we weren't even offered a choice whether we wanted an MRI or not. Just one example of our broken system.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 3:15 pm ET)
                                1
                              I guess my point is, profits aren't bad. Profits are what make our economy so strong in most cases, but when closed systems are allowed to exploit consumers, profits suddenly become an malevolent motive. If it takes government control of the entire system to fix that problem, I'd be ok with that. I think there are probably other options though.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 3:16 pm ET)
                                1
                              I guess my point is, profits aren't bad. Profits are what make our economy so strong in most cases, but when closed systems are allowed to exploit consumers, profits suddenly become an malevolent motive. If it takes government control of the entire system to fix that problem, I'd be ok with that. I think there are probably other options though.
                              Report Abuse
                  • Author by Adendrools (June 29, 2012 11:40 am ET)
                    1  
                    Pippy wrote; but every company is looking for growth


                    This is why Medicine should NOT be a capitalist adventure. Growing a more sickly less health society is not a good idea but it's the only way to ensure growth in the health care market. Answer me this: What is in it for a health care company or the insurance company if we totally eradicate cancer. Answer: lost profits. Will that kill the market? There is no free market incentive to cure people especially not with long term cures. If health care were strictly a debt to our society we would all agree that to attempt to eradicate disease would be a necessity. You Righties always seem to think that medicine can follow the free market principles, but it just can't. Listen, If a rich man and a poor man both want a car, there is a free market answer for each. The affordable used car for the poor man and a Lamborghini for the rich man. Now lets say they both get stage four cancer. Is there a poor version of that treatment. No? Then there is no free market is there? Poor people and there kids don't choose to get sick base on the care they can afford. It's not like shopping from a wish list jacka$$. Wealth does not and should not equal health...............
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by danielsangeo (June 28, 2012 5:53 pm ET)
                5  
                The mandate might not limit corporate profits but the rest of the law will. And more people = less cost.

                Read up on "economies of scale" for more information.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 6:15 pm ET)
                    6
                  More people does not equal less cost. It all depends on the net usuage of the added economy. I'm willing to bet, that adding an economy who was either subsidized or unable to attain needed healthcare to the economy will have a net negative influence on the economy. Think about it, that population was already subsidized or going without care. Now, their subsidies will be legitimate and they'll have access to healthcare. So we didn't really chnge anything except increase the burden on insurance providers. Unless the unwilling who opt not to pay the tax, can cover the difference, I doubt the scale of the economies will have a noticiable positive return.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by danielsangeo (June 28, 2012 6:19 pm ET)
                    4  
                    If they "go without care", then they'll wait for otherwise comparatively cheap-to-fix medical issues to become an emergency.

                    So, a $300 job becomes a $30,000 job.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 6:31 pm ET)
                      3  
                      among the many, many things pop's not familiar with, investment is but another.

                      And if you think he's lousy at defending the substance of this item, get a load of his attempts at psychoanalysis in comments above.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 6:31 pm ET)
                        5
                      I agree, preventative care is preferable, but it isn't the be all end all in deciding the equation of whether the economy will add net users or contributers.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by highlyunlikely (June 28, 2012 6:34 pm ET)
                        3  
                        never thought I'd say this, but this one is actually better at attacking terminology and psychoanalyzing the motives behind it than arguing his case. So yes, this overrides my previous comment.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by danielsangeo (June 28, 2012 6:37 pm ET)
                        3  
                        I don't believe I used the term "end all be all". However, you have to remember that you can't compare health care with something like a t-shirt. If you wait to get t-shirts, the t-shirt will not vary in price much...definitely not increase in price in the same percentage as waiting on health care.

                        Emergency rooms are not meant for the common cold, but since people can't afford health care before the health care law, they either go to the emergency room for the sniffles or wait until it becomes pneumonia, then skip out on the bill.

                        That's how we save money. They don't wait until things are an emergency or go to the emergency room (something expensive) for something very minor.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by Adendrools (June 29, 2012 11:41 am ET)
                       
                    PittyPot wrote; More people does not equal less cost.


                    More demand doesn't lower cost? Really? Ever take an econ class?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 2:20 pm ET)
                        1
                      haha, you eally messed that up.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Adendrools (June 30, 2012 12:40 am ET)
                           
                        Fool!
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Adendrools (June 30, 2012 12:50 am ET)
                           
                        The law of demand states that, other things remaining same, the quantity demanded of a good increases when its price falls and vice-versa.

                        You have read at least something like this right?
                        Report Abuse
          • Author by danielsangeo (June 28, 2012 5:17 pm ET)
            2  
            Adendrools probably believes it because it's fact.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by poproxx77 (June 28, 2012 5:35 pm ET)
                6
              So we've already saved money? Predictions about the future are rarely fact, unless you're God or perhaps a prophet. Perhaps Adendrools fancies himself either of those, egos do run large on the internet.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by danielsangeo (June 28, 2012 5:42 pm ET)
                4  
                We are saving money, yes. And we'll continue to save money. Getting rid of this law will cost us money.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by motorcity (June 28, 2012 6:22 pm ET)
                4  
                Predictions about the future are rarely fact,


                Good point pops. For example, I've noticed every gloom and doom prediction you and your teabaggy ilk have made in the past three and a half years have all turned out wrong. Every. Single. One.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 2:54 pm ET)
                    1
                  "you and your teabaggy ilk..." Statements like that continually dishearten my hope for an honest discussion. Lumping me together with a perceived phantom menace so you can hate me too, is an unfortunate consequence of fools learning to use the internet.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highlyunlikely (June 29, 2012 3:18 pm ET)
                    1  
                    ilk
                    this one
                    infestation

                    the list of unacceptable labels grows more meaningless with every addition.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Adendrools (June 29, 2012 12:05 pm ET)
                   
                Pi$$yPants wrote: Predictions about the future are rarely fact, unless you're God or perhaps a prophet. Perhaps Adendrools fancies himself either of those, egos do run large on the internet.


                Yeah that's just like us Marines, all head and no heart.

                How about we just go with the experts on this one. Something you and your Faux Noose refuse to do.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (June 29, 2012 3:01 pm ET)
                    1
                  my faux noose??? Stop please. Its as if you can't seperate reality from fiction. You can't make an arguemen without connecting me to something you absolutely hate so you can justify hating me. Just stop.

                  I don't mind the experts postulating on the future, but their record is less than stellar. Hopefully, the experts you reference are right, and Obamacare is a stellar success.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highlyunlikely (June 29, 2012 3:17 pm ET)
                    1  
                    the champion of polite language neglects to include maturity as an ingredient.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Adendrools (June 29, 2012 5:07 pm ET)
                       
                    PopRocks wrote: I don't mind the experts postulating on the future, but their record is less than stellar


                    Cite one time that the CBO under estimated health care costs. One time. Can't? Cause they haven't. In the past they have grossly overestimated, but not underestimated. So one again, please explain their "less than stellar" record. Or do you just say things before thinking?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by Adendrools (June 29, 2012 5:10 pm ET)
                       
                    Porcupine wrote: Obamacare is a stellar success.


                    Finally, something we can agree on. I knew you were just playing dumb..........
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (June 28, 2012 5:18 pm ET)
            3  
            Wait... didn't you just accuse me of "moving the goal post?" You just switched from "raising taxes on the poor" to "not saving money".

            So, which is it? Are we raising taxes on the poor, or spending too much money by not raising taxes on the poor?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by magnolialover (June 28, 2012 6:27 pm ET)
              2  
              Yep, he did the same thing he accused you of doing.

              The poor won't see increased taxes. And it's funny how NOW the republicans are all of a sudden concerned about the poor...

              Report Abuse
          • Author by grmce (June 28, 2012 5:45 pm ET)
               
            he feels proud of himself in spite of his stupidity..........
            He, she or it is so stupid that when he, she or it lies to him/her/itself he, she or it's completely taken in.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Adendrools (June 29, 2012 11:20 am ET)
            2  
            PoopyPants wrote; you actually believe that by subsidizing, and providing healthcare to millions of people who couldn't and most likely still can't afford it, we'll actually save money.


            No I do not. I believe that in the long run we will spend less money, but "save money"? No. The government is not and was not intended to be profitable. It shouldn't have a savings account. We as a country and our government must spend tax dollars on a great many things in order to remain a great nation of and for the people. I just believe that money is better spent on health care than oil subsidies. That's all.

            Hey Poopy, you believe in God? Jesus? What did he say about taking care of the poor and the sick? I truly feel for your internal conflict of interest. Oh wait, your a liar. No conflict their I guess..............
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Adendrools (June 28, 2012 5:05 pm ET)
        3  
        PoopRocks wrote: after all they just raised taxes on some 44 million of Americas poorest people.


        Actually Dumb A$$, "Americas Poorest" now get the help they need to buy insurance and or it will be provided for those too poor. Not to mention most of the middle class now get a tax credit for the health insurance costs and so do their employers. You are so sadly uninformed its maddening..........
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Disputed Zone (June 28, 2012 5:18 pm ET)
        2  
        It's not 44 million. It's 3.9 million. And most aren't poor at all.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 28, 2012 6:24 pm ET)
        3  
        I'm a little surprised Democrats are claiming a victory, after all they just raised taxes on some 44 million of Americas poorest people.

        Congratulations, you've received your talking points memo from someone. Guess what?

        The law, as passed, that's not how it works. If you can't afford to purchase health care, then, you have supplemental money given to you so that you CAN purchase health insurance on open exchanges within each State. Which means, lower prices, because there will be competition in those said same exchanges. The amount of supplementary money you get, depends on what level of the poverty level you are earning money at.

        So, to summarize for you. If you're poor, chances are you're going to pay nothing or very little for quality health care.

        Other people are only "taxed" if they opt out. And hence are given a penalty.

        You really have no idea what is in this law do you? YOu just repeat verbatim what republicans tell you to say, as in, raising taxes on people, even when that is mostly patently false.

        Please, go learn something, and come back when you have some actual information to provide. Because right now, you've got absolutely nothing.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (June 28, 2012 5:34 pm ET)
      1  
      Ooooo they're soo fickle!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (June 28, 2012 6:21 pm ET)
      2  
      I am still waiting for a conservative to tell me HOW this law is impinging on your individual freedoms. Please, explain, and be specific as to how your individual rights are being taken away by this law.

      Short answer; they're not. Not at all.

      Why didn't these morons get angry when, you know, republicans were warrantless wiretapping American citizens, holding Americans without charge or trial indefinitely because they were tagged as "combatants", or when SCOTUS ruled without setting precedent on a Presidential election?

      And those were just a few things that happened that they weren't mad about. But oh dear, require everyone to have health insurance, they're talking about armed insurrection against the country.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Disputed Zone (June 28, 2012 6:42 pm ET)
        1  
        As far as I can tell, there are two "freedoms" the law affects:

        The freedom to be a free rider and not carry health insurance, meaning that everybody else has to pay for your healthcare when, inevitably, you do need it.

        The freedom to buy and sell junk health insurance policies that don't cover all of the things you're likely to need health insurance for, meaning that everybody else has to pay for your healthcare.

        Of course the law's opponents would like to do away with a far more valuable freedom; the freedom of citizens to come together through their elected representatives to address big societal problems.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Clouseau (July 01, 2012 12:41 am ET)
            1
          You forgot the freedom to never go in a hospital or be treated by one of those ama and big pharma approved charlatans.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highlyunlikely (July 01, 2012 1:06 am ET)
               
            The physician on Hayes' program who explained the issue in human terms was particularly impressive, I thought. It is about the law serving humans, of course.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Clouseau (July 01, 2012 12:55 am ET)
            1
          everybody else has to pay for your healthcare when, inevitably, you do need it.

          Your entire argument rests on the premise that all people "need" to go to an ama, big pharma, big government approved institution for "health" care.

          Of course, if they do not wish to go then they are ipso facto insane, and need compulsory mind destroying court mandated drugs.

          A comically circular farce.

          Should we expect sound reason and logic from the dialectical materialism? Perhaps its my mistake. After all, there is the clear thinking logic of the proletariat, and the false logic of the bourgeois. And how can you tell the difference? It depends on the conclusion of course. Ex post facto logic evaluation. If you agree with the state, then ipso facto your logic is sound.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Clouseau (July 01, 2012 12:39 am ET)
        1
      So how is that compulsory payment (under threat of violence) for something you have never purchased nor wish to purchase is somehow under some serious glue sniffing logic deemed a "tax"?

      5 out of 9 supreme court jesters have outed themselves.
      Report Abuse