Individual Mandate upheld 5-4 (Roberts sided with Democratic appointees)

[No Elephants]

[Contrary1]

1. What the hell is going on?

This guy (Roberts) developing a conscience or something?

[No Elephants]

3. The answer to thatr depends on what you consider indicative of a conscience and why.

I am strongly opposed to an individual mandate and I think my conscience is a alive and well. Same for many DUers who opposed the mandate.

[Contrary1]

11. What I meant to imply by my post...

was that Roberts broke away from the other Conservative judges, and voted his own conscience.

I really don't know how this whole thing will work out. The provision that insures those of us with pre-existing conditions being able to get coverage is a big deal for me.

Those that still can't afford insurance, I don't know where that one is going to lead.

It was a poor choice of words on my part, it wasn't my intention to insult anyone.

[No Elephants]

13. Thank you for clarifying. The pre-existing condition provision IS a big deal for many and so

are a number of other provisions. Obviously, I am in favor of provisions like that.

It's just that the headline was about the individual mandate, which I oppose and, I think, for good reasons.

You did not necessarily make a poor word choice. As I said, it all depends on what is considered evidence of having a conscience and why.

Whether or not we disagree about the mandate (and we may not), you did not insult me. Not even close.

:)

To insult me, you would have had to take a swipe at me and you did nothing remotely like that.

[mercymechap]

14. Well, what do you know, we agree on one thing.

I didn't like the individual mandate either, was hoping for single payer, but at least we (Democrats/Obama) got something to work on, maybe they'll change it later, when Obama gets re-elected.

[No Elephants]

15. Then, thank Obama for taking single payer off the table in 2007-08

and then taking a meaningful public option (aka "sliver") off the table for the benefit of the health insurance industry, with which he began meeting almost as soon as he took office, if not before.

Yes, he will be re-elected.

[Divine Discontent]

4. after a decade of mostly ridiculous political decisions (can Scalia please retire!) some light!

He seems very likable, but obviously, likability can be just from a personality trait and yet that same person may happily smile while doing horrible things. I turned the news on where the first part was already spoken and they were talking about his dissenting comment about why he said in the past that the govt can't force you to buy cell phones just because you should have 911 availability on you at all times, so I was like NO, they struck it down, then a minute later they showed Mittens saying he was very much in disagreement with the court, and I went, wow, so it was upheld!

This is quite interesting. I think the fact that so many millions of people are being positively effected by this legislation, that he felt it was wrong to shoot this down, plus the heart of his argument that - "The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance," he wrote in the majority opinion. "The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance,", so great news!




Get it here --->>>
www.zazzle.com/youre_not_in_the_1_why_vote_like_you_are_bumpe_bumper_sticker-128479630785214922?rf=238107662556833486

[No Elephants]

6. "I think the fact that so many millions of people are being positively effected by this legislation"

Millions being positively affected by the individual mandate? Or by other provisions of the Affordable Care Act?

[Divine Discontent]

9. yes, the other parts

[No Elephants]

12. I agree

[No Elephants]

16. I'm doing an OP about the theory Constitutional scholar Larry Tribe advanced on Roberts' decision.

Have not done it yet, so no link. But it'll be here in DU2's GD if you are interested.

[No Elephants]

2. Link (Sorry Huffpo headline refers to "Obamacare.")

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-supreme-court-decision_n_1585156.html

[Divine Discontent]

5. yes, I dislike that title, also. shame on them.

Get it here --->>>
www.zazzle.com/youre_not_in_the_1_why_vote_like_you_are_bumpe_bumper_sticker-128479630785214922?rf=238107662556833486

[No Elephants]

7. I would expect that from Fox or one of the RW blogs, not Huffpo.

ETA: Then again, I never had a probem when people called the Massachusetts Act Romneycare, so I guess I do have a double standard at times.

[Divine Discontent]

8. in an official announcement though, they should call it the accurate name

[No Elephants]

10. I agree. I am not defending Huffpo. I only confessed to having a double standard on the issue.

I've heard confession is good for the soul!

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. Elephants, I agree with you on the issue... there's a lot of cheer at DU3 though

See here for one thread that was started by a critic of the bill, I spoke my mind there (and I nearly TS'ed myself in anger even on that thread).

It makes me want to side with you on the issue of where I spend my time and not hang out on DU3 at all any more...

WHERE'S KoKo when you need her for moral support? I am uninsured myself :cry:

not that I didn't support the pre-existing conditions because that would benefit everybody... my family narrowly avoided losing their life savings when my dad went into a nursing home... because my mother was able to get long term care insurance just before he was diagnosed. but opposition to private mandated price gouging will poison the well for support for the rest... even a move to Single Payer will only happen in a "heighten the contradictions" fashion out of dissatisfaction with the consequences of mandatory private health insurance... but the whole message was the only way the private health care industry can remain PROFITABLE and still do pre-existing conditions is with these immoral (in my opinion) mandates which have seemingly destroyed the raison d'etre of the left end of the spectrum (since the people advocating them the loudest are vociferously repeating Gingrich's talking points about individual responsibility for ensuring that you do not become a burden on society, and now the corporatists will be saying how we need to get rid of the 1000 year old commitment by hospitals to serve the destitute, since even Democrats are talking about deadbeats).

Also how will this affect DainBramaged? I know he is a supporter of the bill but I also know he is having health problems... I am worried for him...

[No Elephants]

18. Hi, LG, I am No Elephants, as in No Republicans, please.

As for posting, I think people should post wherever they want to post.

I just happen to want to post here and not there.

But I am not trying to influence anyone else.




Yes, Koko is a great soother, isn't she?

She has a gift.

She knows just what to say. I wish I did.




Principles are inconvenient things, my dear. It's so much more fun to be a fan of the team. Then, you can blithely boo the Red Team for Part D of Medicare and then cheer the Blue Team for the individual mandate of ACA. (or vice versa)

Yeayyyyy, team!

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. You don't like just Elephants, for short, eh? ;-)

Try not to imagine a red Elephant. ^3^

[No Elephants]

20. There is a graphic with the Republican elephant with a line through it.

That is moi.

Calling me Elephants (though I love the real, live animal)hits my brain like calling me a Republican would.

Other posters have shortened my screen name to NE, which works out great because I have always lived in the northeast. (I've started thinking California, though, but I may be too lazy to move. We'll see.)