In simple terms: Was this a Victory for Obamacare? No! 50 million American now have to PAY for their health insurance. The rest of the population will have to choose later and shop around. What the actual vote means? Most of the 60 Million Americans are now PISSED that they have to PAY from their own pockets for the healthcare or they will be penalized ten times more! Yeah yeah their will be some assistance but not for all but a low percentage of poor and low income. What that means? It means that Justice Roberts just elected Romney as the next president of the USA! it means that most of the 60 Million American DO NOT want to pay out of their own pocket for their health insurance since they can not afford it! Also, most of the 60 Million Americans DO NOT want the Fed government to DICTATE on how to run their lives! Result: they will vote for Romney who said that he will Veto as the president and send it back to the Congress in order to defeat the measure. So buy buy Obama, justice Roberts just bought at least 40 million votes for Romney and a landslide election!
I disagree...why couldn't u say : Romney did the same thing in Mass. and now is doing" AvAm faribi" just to get elected...
Yes...U.S. Federal Government CAN force u to do something based on the public good....whether and how exactly each state is going to enforce it is another issue...
I beleive this was at the heart of this..and an American Judge ( in my view , the fairest in the world) has shown to be in the correct side of an issue at the end of the day and when its all said and done.
Yes...U.S. Federal Government CAN force u to do something based on the public good....whether and how exactly each state is going to enforce it is another issue...
I beleive this was at the heart of this..and an American Judge ( in my view , the fairest in the world) has shown to be in the correct side of an issue at the end of the day and when its all said and done.
I disagree...why couldn't u say : Romney did the same thing in Mass. and now is doing" AvAm faribi" just to get elected...
Yes...U.S. Federal Government CAN force u to do something based on the public good....whether and how exactly each state is going to enforce it is another issue...
I beleive this was at the heart of this..and an American Judge ( in my view , the fairest in the world) has shown to be in the correct side of an issue at the end of the day and when its all said and done.
Yes...U.S. Federal Government CAN force u to do something based on the public good....whether and how exactly each state is going to enforce it is another issue...
I beleive this was at the heart of this..and an American Judge ( in my view , the fairest in the world) has shown to be in the correct side of an issue at the end of the day and when its all said and done.
Just remember one thing. The whole world is in a economical mess due to Republican,its congress and the loopholes they imposed for the rich and the wallstreet. They broke every law of the land and no one went to jail! if this guy Romney gets elected, we are all doomed! The gap between rich and poor(us) will get a universe apart! Corruption at it highest level.
With all due respect, you don't have that much familiarity with the American system of government. NO, the Federal Government cannot pass and enforce laws on the basis of public good. There is no such basis anywhere. The Federal Government has enumerated powers in the Constitution. The one that has been relied upon to expand its power is based on the commerce clause in the Constitution, which basically says the Federal Government has the right to pass and enforce laws that "affect" the interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected arguments that this power could suppport Obamacare, but surprisingly relied upon the tax power of the Federal Government to uphold the law.
As for Romney being Avam Farib, his view is that education, health care, etc. are left to the States, and that Romney acted as a Governor of a State when he supported healthcare laws for his State. It is a cornerstone of conervatives' belief that this power should remain with the States and that the Federal Government is going beyond its powers s enumerated in the Constitution when passing laws in the areas of education, healthcare, etc. Therefore, Romeny is taking the same position as a conservative that the States have the right and that the Federal Government cannot decide for all the States on the subject of healthcare. So, there is a big difference when a state passes healthcare laws v. the Federal Government passing such laws.
By the way, for the record, I am not a Republican. I am conservative on fiscal and government power issues, and liberal on social issues.
As for Romney being Avam Farib, his view is that education, health care, etc. are left to the States, and that Romney acted as a Governor of a State when he supported healthcare laws for his State. It is a cornerstone of conervatives' belief that this power should remain with the States and that the Federal Government is going beyond its powers s enumerated in the Constitution when passing laws in the areas of education, healthcare, etc. Therefore, Romeny is taking the same position as a conservative that the States have the right and that the Federal Government cannot decide for all the States on the subject of healthcare. So, there is a big difference when a state passes healthcare laws v. the Federal Government passing such laws.
By the way, for the record, I am not a Republican. I am conservative on fiscal and government power issues, and liberal on social issues.
for those geniuses here. Read this. Another problem in regards to the news.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/health/doctor-shortage-affordable-care-act/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/health/doctor-shortage-affordable-care-act/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Guys -
Several months ago, when the healthcare bill was being worked on, in an ABC interview Obama went out of his way to state the proposed healthcare program would involve no new taxes......... Yesterday, Justice Roberts declared the bill a "government imposed tax", therefore not against US constitution!!! Do ytou now see where many people are coming from in saying goodby to Obama.
Unlike PBW thouigh.....I do not see the upcoming election as a choice between the lesser of two evils.....I see one candidate (Romney) as one who would work for his and his American friends interests....vs. Obama, who will work for his interests and the interests of his non-Ameriucan handlers in Europe!!
so it's a choice between a not so true friend vs. a very real enemy!!! and that is an American prespective - if you are Iranian, then you definitly want to keep away from Obama Et al.
Several months ago, when the healthcare bill was being worked on, in an ABC interview Obama went out of his way to state the proposed healthcare program would involve no new taxes......... Yesterday, Justice Roberts declared the bill a "government imposed tax", therefore not against US constitution!!! Do ytou now see where many people are coming from in saying goodby to Obama.
Unlike PBW thouigh.....I do not see the upcoming election as a choice between the lesser of two evils.....I see one candidate (Romney) as one who would work for his and his American friends interests....vs. Obama, who will work for his interests and the interests of his non-Ameriucan handlers in Europe!!
so it's a choice between a not so true friend vs. a very real enemy!!! and that is an American prespective - if you are Iranian, then you definitly want to keep away from Obama Et al.
It doesn't make sense to me, if people were ill before the act wouldn't they need care? Who would treat them if they were ill then?So why should it make a difference how many ill people we have before or after the law. If the system is saying because of the law more people would come forward for treatment and that strains the system then so be it! If the law was not there those ill people would have suffered. Having a caring law should in long run lower the average of ill people in the country. What I am saying is that, if there is a shortage of doctors it is not because of the act but because there are ill people who need care. In a rich and human society all those who need care needed to be treated . If there is shortage it should be addressed in clear way not by eliminating those who are in need and sacrifice them because of the rich who can afford!
I think I read in Obamacare that, those who can not afford will be helped by the government to obtain health insurance Anyway. if it is not so that is how it is supposed to be. Me an you who have the money and have 6 figures salary should burden the pain of the few who can not afford and I think this is the way it should be. I hate to see a poor person suffer and i think the majority who would have voted for Obama understand this and their vote would not have changed.
I think I read in Obamacare that, those who can not afford will be helped by the government to obtain health insurance Anyway. if it is not so that is how it is supposed to be. Me an you who have the money and have 6 figures salary should burden the pain of the few who can not afford and I think this is the way it should be. I hate to see a poor person suffer and i think the majority who would have voted for Obama understand this and their vote would not have changed.
