Alright...the Health Care bill ruling has come through.
Relevant Link

Do you agree with it?

Do you disagree with it?

What do you think of Roberts being the "deciding vote"

I disagree with it, I think it really is unconsituational and a way for the government to take control of healthcare. The quality of healthcare will go down and people will end dying/living shorter lives because of it(like what has happened in other countries that have univerical/government controled healthcare) if it is not repealed.

I am disappointed in Roberts, I thought he was a conservative and believed in freedom.

*sigh*

Posting your beliefs and not the facts.
Well, I asked for it.

I delineate my own reasons for being against it soon enough.

Here's another relevant link, and I trust it more than CNN which was very quick to declare the bill struck down

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... ct/c56sc5m

I'm in the middle of reading this, and so far so good, as far as Roberts goes.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_pol ... _care_law/

It could have gone both ways here.
There was precedent in the mandate, although you'd have to go back to Washington's time to read that. Roberts didn't need to invoke the commerce clause. Indeed, I think that may have set things up for other businesses in a way not seen yet.
It's not the ruling I disagree with so much as the actual law itself.

Personally, I think Roberts & Dems Delivered a Grand Slam for the Right

Obamacare and its corporate mandate were born on the Right (as in Heritage Foundation) as a way to destroy the political prospects of any single payer system that would cover all Americans with a tax-funded system of guaranteed medical care. This is the way all other industrial societies protect the right to health care, by taking it out of the hands of the giant insurance industry. The right to health care is like the right to not be enslaved – there are no half measures, and the insurance industry is the slave master.

-------------------
That sad fact that it was based on an earlier plan from the Heritage Foundation should have been the clue. That it was followed by former Governor Romney should have made it obvious that something stinks.
As it was put
The two laws are, in the words of Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both the Romney and Obama plans, “the same f-cking bill.”
---------------------------

People compare this to universal health care. But this is not universal health care. The government is not providing every American with insurance. They are trying to make it "illegal" to not have insurance.
Even worse, the anti-trust exemption is intact, meaning that health insurance companies can conspire against everyone, holding a veritable monopoly in every way but name.

Needless to say, I want a public option dammit!

Such a good point, this is not universal healthcare. I'm tired of people calling things what they aren't simply because they don't take the time to inform themselves.

I forget where I read this quote, but Roberts apparently said that it wasn't for the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a bill or law is good policy or bad policy. It's up to the court to decide if it's legal or illegal. Using his logical reasoning, the bill is legal. Is it sound policy? Ehhhhhh...... I'm still undecided. But it's up to the public to decide if this works for us or not.

I live in Canada. We've had universal healthcare in some form since the mid 40's (God bless Tommy Douglas). Is it working? Mostly. Does it have issues? Oh Yes, especially in my province, Ontario (we're worst for wait times, that's probably the biggie, along with number of beds). Would I give it up? Hell no. I really don't get the American fear of universal healthcare. MANY countries have survived adn even thrived with such systems. I agree with Dax I guess. I didn't actually realize that that's all thre law was. I was under the impression that it WAS some form of public healthcare. I guess socialist politics didn't catch on in the US like did in other countries, including Canada (Douglas's party was the socialist pre-curser to the NDP. They're still pretty leftist on the spectrum, but nowhere near what they used to be when they started).

It's not to say that there aren't some good things. Requiring insurers to offer the same premium without regard to most pre-existing conditions, and allowing children to remain under their parents insurance until their 26th birthday..are just a couple. However, there just seems to me too much bad and not enough good.

Since when have conservatives ever believed in freedom???

My thoughts:

It's a very imperfect law, but had they overturned it, people with pre-existing conditions would have been out of luck. It ensures that such people are not denied care. It allows kids to be covered by their parents' plan until they're 26. And it stops insurance providers from dropping people when they get seriously sick. I do not agree with the mandate to buy private insurance, a private product. But maybe this is a step in the direction of universal Medicaid/Medicare, hopefully.

Now, although I agree with this wholeheartedly, anyone who is fiscally conservative will say that capitalism defines freedom. I say, in this economy, capitalism should be thrown away. Its as outdated as platform shoes. But that's just me.

Point blank, our government needs some socialist compromises. And that's all there is to it. Oh, and I hope once Obamacare is instated, we can FINALLY take 'In God We Trust' slogan off of our money. After all, we're becoming more and more like those Godless communists bahahahahaha.

To quote my mom "the devil is going to be in the details" (meaning, the specifics).