Supreme Court Decision

[Chef]

what are people's thoughts on the decision? specifically, is anyone worried about the decision's implications on federal power. the opinion that congress can tax a non-action basically sets the stage for limitless federal reach into the lives of private citizens. for those that like the healthcare law, consider these scenarios:

congress passes a law that says that everyone must own a gun (statistics show there is a reduction in crime in open carry states therefore police forces can be reduced which saves money for the general good) or pay a tax for not owning a gun.

housing sales stimulate the economy and provide for multiple jobs across a variety of industries, so congress passes a law that requires everyone who is financially capable (info provided from tax filings) to own at least one house or pay a tax of equal value each year to not own a house

how about this one, you must buy an american car (again, helps the economy therefore the general good) or pay a tax if you don't own one.

you get the point. basically, the stage has been set to grant the authority to congress to tax us on not doing a particular behavior.

[BlockParty]

I have a pretty strong dislike for all politicians....

‎"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson.

[SWedd523]

I just love how the conventional Right wisdom is "Vote Romney because we don't want Obama."

Like Romney is any different. Republican leadership failed it's followers this cycle simply because they want an R in the white house instead of a true Republican.... just my take.

[ziggy]

With all politics and major political decisions --> follow the money.

Unfortunately in the political environment of the last 30+ years, there isn't any major decision that's been made that doesn't trace back to which major contributor(s) will benefit from this financially.

[dnbman]

what are people's thoughts on the decision? specifically, is anyone worried about the decision's implications on federal power. the opinion that congress can tax a non-action basically sets the stage for limitless federal reach into the lives of private citizens. for those that like the healthcare law, consider these scenarios:

congress passes a law that says that everyone must own a gun (statistics show there is a reduction in crime in open carry states therefore police forces can be reduced which saves money for the general good) or pay a tax for not owning a gun.

housing sales stimulate the economy and provide for multiple jobs across a variety of industries, so congress passes a law that requires everyone who is financially capable (info provided from tax filings) to own at least one house or pay a tax of equal value each year to not own a house

how about this one, you must buy an american car (again, helps the economy therefore the general good) or pay a tax if you don't own one.

you get the point. basically, the stage has been set to grant the authority to congress to tax us on not doing a particular behavior.

I understand the desire to keep government limited and people free. However, medical care is one of the things that all people get whether they ask for it or not, whether they want it or not, whether they can pay for it or not. It's not that much different than asking people to pay for compulsory education of minors or paying for the building roads.

That being said, I have no comment on the bill or the decision. I just think that most of the slippery slope arguments don't really apply.

[TheBeagle]

I have a pretty strong dislike for all politicians....

‎"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson.

Honestly, it's gone so far that for any real change to occur, we'll have to go Project Mayhem. Yes, that is a fucking scary as hell proposition, but revolution is the only course of action at this point. My dad has been saying this since I was 10 or so (or the equivalent of it, since Fight Club didn't come out til I was 18 or 19), and through the years, the evidence kept piling up and showing he's right. It's scary as fuck (as Fight Club shows in its unique/entertaining way) but that is the answer.

[Chef]

I understand the desire to keep government limited and people free. However, medical care is one of the things that all people get whether they ask for it or not, whether they want it or not, whether they can pay for it or not. It's not that much different than asking people to pay for compulsory education of minors or paying for the building roads.

.

all because congress made that law in the mid-late 70's. prior to that it was private charities that got people the care they needed. now we need a new law to address the runaway problems with that law. smh

[dnbman]

all because congress made that law in the mid-late 70's. prior to that it was private charities that got people the care they needed. now we need a new law to address the runaway problems with that law. smh

I think it's nice to imagine that private charities took care of all the ill, but I wonder what the reality of that was.

[bing!]

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

I've been playing a lot of Civ IV lately and this one has been buzzing around my head for a while.

We have socialized health care and it's a far cry from the "derp, the reds are a-comin' for my libertuhz" nonsense peddled by the slippery-slope this, slippery-slope that, media. *gasp* "Gay marriage? What's next? Legalized paedophilia?"... you get the gist.

[dnbman]

I haven't met a real human being yet from a country with some type universal coverage that thought it was a bad thing. My Scotish relatives talk about high taxes, but that's a result of many more issues than just universal health coverage. That's probably why I don't really mind the bill. I'd also like to see how this works for a while before we declare victory or consider it an abomination.