Originally Posted by dklassen

That's why libs are such fools. I don't care who appointed him or what party he belongs to.

It was a bad decision.

Unlike Obama worshipers I don't blindly defend anything and everything just because they sit on my side of the isle.

Politicians are rats. All of them.

Don't hold back, DK. But do you accept the decision of the Supreme Court as the law of the land? Or not?

Oh, I guess I don't care much whether you do or don't accept it--it IS the law of the land. And as far as where people sit, typically the Republicans on on the right side of the aisle, and the Democrats on the left. I can't figure out who might join you on your side of the isle.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Ha ha, very funny. It's still bad law. Justice Roberts in a stupid decision said that the government has the right to do this. He didn't say it was good policy. That's not his purview.

Yeah, you are so ticked off about the decision, then Buggy reminds you about who appointed Roberts. Easy to see why you have completely lost sight of the facts.
It's not bad law, nor a stupid decision. It is an obvious interpretation of the Constitution and recognition of hundreds of established precedents. Sure, arguing the matter's constitutionality in the light of the commerce clause is not crystal clear, but as a function of Congress' power to tax it's a slam dunk. That's right - hundreds of precedents. Insulate your home; get a tax credit. Pay tuition to improve job skills: get a tax credit. Mortgage a house; get a tax credit.
Got it yet?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Don't hold back, DK. But do you accept the decision of the Supreme Court as the law of the land? Or not?

Oh, I guess I don't care much whether you do or don't accept it--it IS the law of the land. And as far as where people sit, typically the Republicans on on the right side of the aisle, and the Democrats on the left. I can't figure out who might join you on your side of the isle.

would that be the Isle of Wight? ( bidip, bidip, that's all folks!)

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Ha ha, very funny. It's still bad law. Justice Roberts in a stupid decision said that the government has the right to do this. He didn't say it was good policy. That's not his purview.

You never cease to amaze, Richie. Oh, we all know that anyone that doesn't agree with your point-of-view is dumb, lazy or crooked. But for you to assert that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made "bad law" based on a "stupid decision"--Richie, that doesn't do your reputation as a Constitutional scholar any good at all.

I know we'll never get the opportunity, but I'd pay good money to hear you debate Justice Roberts on the constitutionality of his decision.

Originally Posted by Bavarian

BHO said no one making less than $250K/yr would have taxes increased. Now that lie is blown. He said you can keep your Dr. that lie is blown.

Companies will drop medical coverage as the "tax" is cheaper. Employees have to find some bargain basement insurance that their current Dr. probably won't accept, if he has not retired. Look what happened with Medicare D, companies dropped their retirees prescription coverage.

Medicare wiped out retirees employer provided health insurance.

All this is is a way to make people more dependendent on the Government.

Sell your health insurance stock!

Originally Posted by Posh 08

What is your source? You seem to be convinced. Help me understand. Coach me to success please.

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

When a person retires and begins receiving Social Security benefits, Medicare Part A is automatic - and it is FREE. You can pay for Part B if you want it. So what? Everyone I know has to pay for Part B if they want the doctor coverage. Currently it is around $110 per month, I believe.

Medicare Part D is the prescription drug coverage. If you want coverage, you pay for it.

I do not see your complaint.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

How has the Affordable Care Act affected that? Has that not always been the case?

Originally Posted by njbchbum

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

Originally Posted by buggyone

When a person retires and begins receiving Social Security benefits, Medicare Part A is automatic - and it is FREE. You can pay for Part B if you want it. So what? Everyone I know has to pay for Part B if they want the doctor coverage. Currently it is around $110 per month, I believe.

Medicare Part D is the prescription drug coverage. If you want coverage, you pay for it.

I do not see your complaint.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

How has the Affordable Care Act affected that? Has that not always been the case?

As I said before - the vast majority of people don't understand the act or how it will affect them or others.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

posh08 - i am a source! in january i lose my retiree state health benefits and am required to go on medicare by the state if i wish to retain medical insurance AND i must pay the entire premium for medicare a and b. i can continue to pay a premium to the state in order to keep that as supplemental medicare coverage. i also lose my retiree state health prescription plan and am forced onto the medicare program offered by the state health insurer for prescription coverage and i must pay that premium.

are you convinced yet? i know what bavarian is posting about - i am about to live it! hope my explanation aids your understanding.

I suppose depending on the benefits you received and the premiums you had to pay for them, it might have been cheaper for you as an active employee than it will be now that you're retiring, turning 65 and going on Medicare. For most people that would be unusual. But as far as what happens when you have to go on Medicare, it's no different than it has been for years. All of us that are over 65 have experienced the same thing. In my case it was even worse than you're experiencing--I had to pay $1,200 a month for health insurance for several years between when I retired and when I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare. When I qualified for Medicare was a great day--my monthly premiums were cut in half, even after paying for the Medicare supplemental policy offered by my former employer.

The numbers are likely different for all of us, but the situation has been the same for years. It has nothing to do with ObamaCare. It would have happened to you the same way whether or not the bill was passed three years ago.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

And of course YOU clearly understand it. You lost any credibility on this issue with your "illegal and unconstitutional" statement.

Your post above loses any credulity as you have no clue.

You're good at insults though. I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Bad law? Stupid decision? Those are open to interpretation, you said unlawful and unconstitutional, meaning you beleive yourself to be a more credible authority than Justice Roberts. It IS law and the Supreme Court declared it IS constitutional.

No, I believe the constitutional experts I've listened to and not some insulting poster who is obsessed with everything I write.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Yeah, you are so ticked off about the decision, then Buggy reminds you about who appointed Roberts. Easy to see why you have completely lost sight of the facts.
It's not bad law, nor a stupid decision. It is an obvious interpretation of the Constitution and recognition of hundreds of established precedents. Sure, arguing the matter's constitutionality in the light of the commerce clause is not crystal clear, but as a function of Congress' power to tax it's a slam dunk. That's right - hundreds of precedents. Insulate your home; get a tax credit. Pay tuition to improve job skills: get a tax credit. Mortgage a house; get a tax credit.
Got it yet?

What the heck does it matter who appointed him. It has nothing to do with his wrong headed badly written decision. It's not the first time a Republican President has been betrayed by the person he thought was a constitutionalist and became a legislator from the bench instead. Justice Souter comes to mind very prominently.

Justice Roberts held the American individual in contempt today. He twisted the Constitution almost unrecognizable in terming Obama's mandate that an individual must buy a product as a "tax". It's absurd.

Even if the Congress eventually can repeal this monstrous legislation, he's done incredible damage to the liberties of Americans with this precedent of his decision as what can constitute a tax.

Republicans who are trying to twist this into some kind of blessing in disguise in maybe giving them the hammer to knock out Obama are short sighted.

Yes, that's important and maybe this law can be trashed, but that's not the tragedy of this decision.

How do we get our Constitution back?

Go ahead now all you who are obsessed with everything I write. You can now call be names instead of dealing with any issues here.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

You never cease to amaze, Richie. Oh, we all know that anyone that doesn't agree with your point-of-view is dumb, lazy or crooked. But for you to assert that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made "bad law" based on a "stupid decision"--Richie, that doesn't do your reputation as a Constitutional scholar any good at all.

I know we'll never get the opportunity, but I'd pay good money to hear you debate Justice Roberts on the constitutionality of his decision.

I'm through talking with you when all you do lately is bash me instead of comment on the thread at hand. You've got it into your head somewhere where thats OK.

For someone who holds himself out as intelligent, you don't show it here.

Why don't you read Justice Kennedy's dissent. Maybe you won't be so lame afterward.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ot_647952.html

Originally Posted by RichieLion

No, I believe the constitutional experts I've listened to and not some insulting poster who is obsessed with everything I write.

Ahh, it's those unnamed "experts" you've found again, Richie. Have you really found some experts who say that the decision by the five members of the SCOTUS and their opinions in voting as they did are unconstitutional or incorrect interpretations of both the Constitution and the precedents they used for their decision? Really?

From what you've said, we know that your experts disagree with the five justices who affirmed the decision in favor of the four who dissented. I'd love to read what they have to say, how they argue against the majority justices. Who are they, Richie?

Originally Posted by Bucco

Let me, for me I am speaking, I am NOT politicizing this at all. I actually like some things in it as I said, but paying for it, from what I read and it little tentacles that get into so much of our life worries me. While some on here and around are "spiking the ball" I urge them to take a few minutes and really think about this thing. HEALTH CARE costs which we were told was the impetus for the bill WILL GO UP as I understand !

If it is the law, fine...but lets be up front exactly what we are doing.

I agree Bucco. People are jumping up and down and high-fiving each other yet when you ask them what it is going to cost or ask for details, they don't have any answers. When you explain that the current cost in Florida for the mandated state pool is more than some people can afford, supporters of the law say that the POTUS has set up a plan to expand Medicaid and give money for people to subsidize their payments. They say that with their chests puffed out proudly telling you that it will put more people on Medicaid. It really confuses me.