Court rRuling on Obamacare

[prontosenioro]

i really hope Obamacare won't be applied

[buttslinger]

My area got hit with violent thunderstorms last friday, my brother had no electricity for two days, and I have to tell ya, Daniel Boone I am not.

[NYBURBS]

As your post indicates they are all excuses. The support of states' rights is to prevent the Federal government from helping people who are suffering, to support unconscionable state laws that ratify the most parochial, superstitious and often transparently hateful of views. They don't want to pay any sort of tax that might potentially go to someone undeserving and so they want a referendum on every policy measure that takes a penny out of their pockets.

I heard a story the other day about a Republican woman complaining that she couldn't get fully compensated for a major injury she sustained in a car accident because the Republicans have passed tort reform in her state. Tort reforms limit recovery for injuries and are passed by Republican legislatures to protect the insurance industry against large judgments. To pass the laws, Republicans try to conjure up mental images of career con artists faking paraplegia or something and making everyone's insurance premiums go up. Nearly the same images they've used to stimulate outrage in the heartland by making folks afraid of the "black welfare mom" to achieve welfare reforms. The woman, who supported tort reform kept saying, "but I'm one of the people who really deserves the settlement." For some reason I feel like this pretty much sums up the Republican mentality. Pure toxic hatred until they find they're not immune to it and then self-pity.

That's pretty way off the mark imo. Decentralized government isn't necessarily about pushing off the downtrodden or passing repressive laws. For many, it's about avoiding oligarchy, which is what we seem to have more and more these days. A citizen in NY is taxed and then a small cabal of legislators and bureaucrats make back room deals to decide how to spend that money in Idaho or Nebraska (and vice versa). Also, by design you have very little voice in a national government, which is why it was originally thought best that it handle only a very small number of issues, but that was more of less done away with during the New Deal. Big centralized government is actually the least responsive and hardest to change. It doesn't mean that local rule is some guaranteed utopia, but somewhere along the line we lost the balance between local and national.

On a side note, I think the ruling in this case is going to spur a fight to amend the constitution to restrict the taxing power of the federal government. I was a bit shocked when they ruled that this isn't a direct tax, and now I'm starting to see editorials and opinion pieces that are talking about it. And tbh, a measure that would restrict the ability to tax and spend would be quite popular with many people. I think Roberts popped open the Genie bottle with this opinion.

[broncofan]

NYBURBS, good post, well stated and a good defense of state's rights (in theory imo).

Yes, a Constitutional amendment. I hope three-fourths of the states aren't drinking that kool-aid. Again, I have no powers of prediction at all so I'm not saying an amendment restricting the taxing power won't pass, but that's a lot of support that's required.

I understand why some people want local rule and I've heard the traditional reasons. I've also been treated to the Southern Hospitality in certain parts of this country and am pretty sure I know why they don't want the national government interfering in their local politics. It's not because they have a social conscience or don't think the national government is responsive enough to the needs of their citizenry. There are valid reasons to have decentralized government (as you say), and the Constitution does provide for limits to the power of the national government.

But I personally think the reasons most people (not you) give are pretext. The only reason I say this is because I've seen a number of the cases where people bring up the state's rights argument and it's usually for the reasons you eloquently stated, to avoid civic responsibilities or to abuse the fk out of some segment of people in a way that only some places will tolerate.

[NYBURBS]

NYBURBS, good post, well stated and a good defense of state's rights (in theory imo).

Yes, a Constitutional amendment. I hope three-fourths of the states aren't drinking that kool-aid. Again, I have no powers of prediction at all so I'm not saying an amendment restricting the taxing power won't pass, but that's a lot of support that's required.

I understand why some people want local rule and I've heard the traditional reasons. I've also been treated to the Southern Hospitality in certain parts of this country and am pretty sure I know why they don't want the national government interfering in their local politics. It's not because they have a social conscience or don't think the national government is responsive enough to the needs of their citizenry. There are valid reasons to have decentralized government (as you say), and the Constitution does provide for limits to the power of the national government.

But I personally think the reasons most people (not you) give are pretext. The only reason I say this is because I've seen a number of the cases where people bring up the state's rights argument and it's usually for the reasons you eloquently stated, to avoid civic responsibilities or to abuse the fk out of some segment of people in a way that only some places will tolerate.

I understand where you're coming from, and there is plenty of hate out there from all sides (from radical leftists to hard core right wingers), I just think that we need some better balance. As to the amendment process, you're correct that it's quite difficult to pull off, but you can also force a convention if you get 2/3 of the states to call for one. Tbh, I don't think I'd want to see a convention at this point in history (an amendment proposed by Congress would be a bit safer than a general convention), but I really do think there is going to be a big push-back as soon as enough people realize what just happened with that ruling.

[flabbybody]

forget repeal. aint gonna happen guys.
look at Prohibition. at the time everyone agreed that was a universally stupid idea (a vastly larger consensus of the population than currently opposes Obamacare). Yet it took 14 years to get the politicians of that era to get it off the books. And even then, it was only because we were in a world wide depression and the 18th Amendment made 90% of Americans functional criminals.. including the mayor and police commissioner of New York City.

so let Romney say he'll repeal Obamacare on day one of his presidency. He needs to check the history books.

[hippifried]

I was kind of hoping the Supremes would have shot down the Republican mandate. It wouldn't have affected the rest of the act. Just the funding. I can't think of a single good reason for the insurance industry to have ever been part of this. The hedge betters are dictating too much of our governance as it is. It's out of hand.

[flabbybody]

i really hope Obamacare won't be applied

u may get your wish. White House just announced employer mandate delayed for one year. Looks like implementing Obamacare will be a disaster
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/0...ed-until-2015/

[robertlouis]

u may get your wish. White House just announced employer mandate delayed for one year. Looks like implementing Obamacare will be a disaster
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/0...ed-until-2015/

You guys do know that the rest of the developed and civilised world thinks that you're utterly crazy about Obamacare, right?

[Prospero]

And do they care?